content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
Malaria is considered a leading cause of mortality worldwide, and the disease is most prominent in Africa. It has been estimated that malaria in 2017 affected about 219 million people and causing around 435,000 deaths \cite{talapko2019malaria}. The Malaria Atlas Project \cite{atlasmalaria} provides a global database on malaria risk in order to solve critical questions. This project disseminates free, accurate, and up-to-date geographical on malaria and associated topics. One of their research outputs points out a relationship between malaria and Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, a genetic disorder that affects red blood cells. The G6PD is a gene that provides instructions for making the glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase enzyme. The research by the Malaria Atlas Project found that G6PD deficiency is common in populations that have a high level of malaria infection \cite{howes2012G6PD}. Studies dating back to the early 1960s, \cite{allison1960,allison1961malaria}, postulated that G6PD deficiency inhibits the occurrence of malaria. The reasoning was that G6PD deficiency leads to the accumulation of oxygen radicals inside the red blood cells ($H_{2}O_{2}$). This accumulation offers resistance against malaria infection because the \textit{Plasmodium falciparum} parasite (the parasite that causes malaria) does not have any antioxidant mechanism, which makes them more vulnerable to oxygen radicals \cite{aziz2019biochemistry,laslett2021glucose}. The hypothesis that G6PD deficiency provides some protection against \textit{Plasmodium falciparum} malaria was further supported by a review by Greene \cite{greene1993}, published in 1993, based on experimental and population studies. At the same time, it was acknowledged that there is not enough data in population studies, due to limited sample sizes, to produce concluding evidence \cite{beutler1994G6PD,greene1993}. However, there are opposing arguments, also based on limited population studies, stating that G6PD deficiency by itself is unlikely to produce a significant protection against malaria, see \cite{martin1979severe}. In 1995, Ruwende et al. \cite{Ruwende1995} suggest, from two case-control studies of more than 2,000 African children, that G6PD deficiency reduced the risk of severe malaria by around $50\%$. In 2017, a systematic review by Mbanefo et al. \cite{revg6pdmalar2017} based on a selection of 28 various studies arrived at that G6PD deficiency could potentially offer some protection against uncomplicated malaria, but less likely so for severe malaria.\\
Following the results of \cite{allison1961malaria,beutler1994G6PD}, it is of interest to perform a statistical inference of such a relationship between diseases and quantify the uncertainties involved. For this case, we propose using a quantile-based joint model, instead of the standard joint that models correlation of the means of the two diseases, since the G6PD deficiency may act as a resistance factor against malaria, while not the other way around. Thus, to identify possible directional correlation, this study looks at the joint quantiles between the two diseases by modeling the high quantile of G6PD deficiency and the low quantile of malaria. The joint quantile model can be applied to other disease mapping problems. Quantile regression was introduced by Koenker and Basset \cite{art0}. After that the quantile regression has been widely used, in particular for Bayesian spatial analysis \cite{art7}. The R package bayesQR proposed by \cite{art1} can be used to estimate the parameters in quantile regression using a Bayesian approach with the asymmetric Laplace distribution. This package supports both continuous-dependent and binary-dependent variables. In \cite{art2}, the authors proposed using a negative-binomial regression $\alpha$-quantiles approach with an ecological regression model with application to disease mapping of lip cancer.\\ \\
The main difference to our work is that we consider joint quantile regression with two diseases, instead of a single one. In joint quantile regression, one can model spatial dependence through a Gaussian or t-copula process of the quantile levels \cite{art3}, which could provide certain benefits for cases with heavy-tailed spatial data. One of the approaches to spatial quantile regression is to use the Asymmetric Laplace Process (ALP) for modeling the data \cite{art4}. However, this assumes the data is coming from the ALP, regardless of the actual generating distribution of the data. A quantile regression-based Bayesian joint modeling analysis of longitudinal-survival data has been proposed in \cite{art11} and it extends the use of the asymmetric Laplace process as in \cite{art4} to joint quantile regression. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods have been used for parameter estimation in Bayesian quantile regression models, for example in \cite{art8} for multivariate quantile regression. However, we advocate the use of INLA over MCMC for practical disease mapping due to its computational advantages. Spatial quantile regression is widely used with applications ranging from modeling of wildfire risk \cite{art3} to studying healthy life years expectancy \cite{art9} to economics \cite{art4}. In \cite{art10}, a Bayesian multiple quantile regression method is proposed for linear models, and they used the working likelihood instead of the likelihood of the generating distribution. In contrast, the quantile regression in \cite{padellini2018model} was developed such that the likelihood of the generating distribution is respected. For a comprehensive introduction to quantile regression for spatial data, see \cite{art6}, and for multivariate disease mapping modeling we refer to \cite{art5}, which includes many practical exercises and examples, often provided with R-code implementation. As far as the authors are aware, there is no available literature on joint quantile disease mapping is available, which we aim to contribute in this study.
\section{Disease Mapping}\label{sec:dis_map}
Disease mapping, also known as spatial epidemiology, analyzes the incidence of disease using geographical information. In other words, Disease mapping describe the spatial variation of disease. The two characteristics of disease mapping are the location of the events, which is called spatial or geographical distribution, and the disease.\cite{lawson2018bayesian}. The Poisson distribution is well representing the disease count for the data that have low disease count for a relatively large population \cite{lawson2018bayesian}. For the
region that consists of $n$ non-overlapping areas \cite{riebler2016intuitive}, let $y_{i}$ denote the number of cases in regions $i$. Often $y_{i}$ is assumed to be distributed as :
\begin{align}\label{eq:1}
y_{i} \sim \text{Poisson} (\mu_{i})
\end{align}
where $\mu_{i}$ is the mean of $y_{i}$. The mean function often consists of two components. The first component is usually called the relative risk, which represents the risk within a region, it is unknown and the purpose of this work to estimate these values. The second component is usually called standardization, which represents the expected local count. The expected local count is the value that represents our expectation if the population locally behaved the way the standard population behaves. The expectation of the cases in region $i$ can be written as follows:
\begin{align}\label{eq:2}
E(y_{i}) = \mu_{i} = E_{i} \lambda_{i}
\end{align}
where $E_{i}$ is the expected number for the $i$th area, which is usually assumed to be a fixed quantity \cite{lawson2018bayesian}. The expected number can be obtained by using indirect standardization as follows:
\begin{align}\label{eq:3}
E_{i} = \sum_{j = 1 }^{m} r_{j}^{(s)} n_{j}^{(i)}
\end{align}
here, $r_{j}^{(s)}$ denotes the disease rate of the standard population in stratum j, the rate is the number of cases divided by the population, $n_{j}^{(i)}$ is the size in stratum j of area $i$ \cite{moraga2018small},
and $\lambda_{i}$ is the relative risk for $i$th area. Here $\lambda_{i} = 1$ means there is no augmented risk in comparison with the whole study area; $\lambda_{i} > 1$ , $\lambda_{i} < 1$ indicates higher risk and lower risk than the average respectively \cite{blangiardo2013spatial}. The maximum likelihood estimator of $\lambda_{i}$ is $\hat{\lambda_{i}} = y_{i} /E_{i}$ which is correspond to the standardised mortality ratio (SMR). However, mapping SMRs directly are misleading and insufficient for counties with small populations. Therefore the covariates need to be incorporated in order to smooth extreme values because of the small sample sizes by borrowing information from neighboring counties. The model considered in this work for disease mapping is formulated as follow:
\begin{align} \label{eq:4}
y_{i} \sim \text{Poisson}(E_{i} \lambda_{i}) , i = 1,...,n
\end{align}
\begin{align} \label{eq:5}
\log(\lambda_{i}) = \log(\eta_{i}) = m_{0}+ \sum_{f = 1}^{F} \beta_f X_{i f} + \sum_{r=1}^{R} \rho^r(u_{i r}) + b_{i}
\end{align}
where $\lambda_{i}$ is the mean of unit $i$, $m_{0}$ is the intercept that follow a weakly informative Gaussian prior with mean zero and large variance, $\sum_{f = 1}^{F} \beta_f$ is the fixed effect of the covariates $X_{i f}$. Random effects such us splines for non linear effect of covariates $\boldsymbol{u_{i}}$ is included through the functions $\{\rho^r\}_{r=1}^{R}$, $\boldsymbol{b}$ is the spatial effects. \\
For the spatial effects, $\boldsymbol{b}$, different spatial models for areal data can be assumed such as the Besag model \cite{besag1991bayesian}, or the extended Besag-York-Mollie model \cite{besag1991bayesian}, the Leroux model \cite{leroux2000estimation}, or the Dean's model \cite{dean2001detecting}. \\ \\
$ \pmb x = \{\eta_{ 1}, ...,\eta_{n},m_0, \beta_1, ..., \beta_{F}, \pmb\rho, \pmb b\}$ is called a latent field.
with hyperparameters $\pmb\theta=\{\pmb\theta_{\pmb\rho}, \pmb\theta_{\pmb{b}}\}$, then the data $\pmb y$ is conditionally independent given the latent field and the hyperparameters such that the likelihood function is
\begin{equation}
\pi(\pmb x, \pmb\theta|\pmb y) = \prod_{i=1}^n f(y_i|x_i,\pmb\theta)\label{eq:lik0}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Prior specification and posterior propriety}
We assume prior independence amongst the parameters and as such we assign Gaussian priors to the latent field elements and various other prior to the hyperparameters as set out next.\\
For the latent field elements assume the following:
\begin{eqnarray}
&m_0 &\sim N(0,\tau_m^{-1}),\quad
\pmb\beta|\tau_\beta \sim N(\pmb 0, \tau_\beta^{-1}\pmb I)\notag, \quad \\
& \pmb\rho|\pmb\theta_\rho & \sim N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1}_\rho),\quad \pmb b|\pmb\theta_{b} \sim N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1}_{b})\quad
\label{eq:priors0}
\end{eqnarray}
so that the joint prior for this part of the latent field is
\begin{equation*}
\pmb x \sim N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1})
\end{equation*}
where $\pmb Q^{-1}$ has a block diagonal structure as formed from \eqref{eq:priors0}.\\
The vector of hyperparameters, $\pmb\theta$ is assigned a joint prior $\pi(\pmb\theta)$ which is composed of independent marginal proper priors of any shape (not necessarily Gaussian).\\ \\
The joint posterior of the unknown parameters, $\pmb x$ and $\pmb\theta$ from \eqref{eq:lik0} and \eqref{eq:priors0} is
\begin{equation*}
\pi(\pmb x,\pmb\theta|\pmb y) \propto \pi(\pmb y|\pmb x, \pmb\theta)\pi(\pmb x|\pmb\theta)\pi(\pmb\theta),
\end{equation*}
and based on the prior structures the posterior propriety holds.
\section{Quantile Regression}
Quantile regression describes the conditional quantile of the response variable given the explanatory variables, instead of the conditional mean. Let $Y$ be a real valued random variable. The $\alpha^{\text{th}}$ quantile of $Y$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
Q(\alpha)=F^{-1}(\alpha)=\inf \{y: F(y) \geq \alpha\} \quad \text { for } \quad 0 \leq \alpha \leq 1,
\end{equation*}
where $F(y) = P(Y \leq y)$ is the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of the random variable $Y$. Like the mean regression, a loss function is used in order to infer the parameters. The loss function of the quantile regression is the check loss function. Given that $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}$ the quantile loss function is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{\alpha}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
x \alpha & x \geq 0 \\
x(\alpha-1) & x<0
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
An estimate of the $\alpha^{\text{th}}$ quantile of the random variable $Y$ can be obtained by minimizing the following risk function:
\begin{equation}\label{mini}
\underset{q_{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}}{\operatorname{minimize}} \, \mathbb{E}\left[\rho_{\alpha}\left(Y-q_{\alpha}\right)\right]
\end{equation}
When $q_{\alpha}$ depends on the explanatory variables $\textbf{X}$, then it is called a conditional quantile. The estimate of the conditional quantile is called quantile regression. The quantile regression summarizes the relationship between $\textbf{X}$ and the quantile of Y. The estimate of the quantile regression can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{opt}
\hat{q}_{\alpha} =\underset{q_{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}}{\operatorname{argmin}} \, \mathbb{E}\left[\rho_{\alpha}\left(Y-q_{\alpha}\right)\right]
\end{equation}
Then $F(\hat{q}_{\alpha}) = \alpha$, where $F(y)$ is the CDF of the random variable $Y$.
\subsection{Model-based Quantile Regression}
The goal of the statistical analysis based on the
Bayesian methods is to make inference from the posterior distribution for unknown parameters. Model-based quantile regression is an approach for quantile regression that considers the quantiles of the generating distribution proposed by \cite{padellini2018model}. This approach extends the Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) framework from modelling means to modelling quantiles. Two steps can do this extension. The first step is modeling the quantile; in this step, the quantile of the distribution is linked to the linear predictor through an invertible function $g$. The second step is mapping the quantile; in this step, the quantile is mapped to the parameter of the distribution through a map function $h$.
This approach can be applied to both frequentist and Bayesian frameworks. The resulting parameters of the Bayesian framework are all identifiable, making model-based quantile regression appealing in the Bayesian inference. To see these steps, let $F(y_{i} ; \lambda_{i})$ be the distribution of $Y_{i} | X_{i}$, where $\lambda_{i}$ is the parameter of the distribution. Given $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, the $\alpha^{th}$ quantile of $Y_{i} | X_{i}$ is $q_{i,\alpha} = {Q}_{\alpha} (Y_{i} | X_{i})$.
The two steps can be written as follows:\\ \\
$\textbf{Step 1 - Modelling}.$ \\
The quantile $q_{i,\alpha}$ of the distribution $F(y_{i}, \lambda_{i})$ is modeled as follows:
\begin{equation*}
q_{i,\alpha}=g\left(\eta_{i,\alpha}\right),
\end{equation*}
where $g$ is an invertible function, and $\eta_{i}^{\alpha}$ is the linear predictor for the level $\alpha$ quantile for $i=1, \ldots, n$. The linear predictor can include fixed effects, random effects, or both. Moreover, parametric or semi-parametric models can be included in this approach in order to study the impact of the covariates at different levels of the distribution and non-parametric models can be used for prediction.\\ \\
$\textbf{Step 2 - Mapping}$.\\
The quantile $q_{i,\alpha}$ is mapped to the parameter $\lambda_{i}$ of the distribution $F(y_{i} ; \lambda_{i})$ as
\begin{equation} \label{tt}
\lambda_{i}=h\left(q_{i,\alpha}\right),
\end{equation}
where $h$ is an invertible map function. The map $h$ can be obtained by two steps. First, taking the inverse of the CDF ($F(y_{i} ; \lambda_{i})$) which give you the quantile function $Q(\alpha,\lambda_{i})$. Then, we write the parameter $\lambda_{i}$ as a function of the quantile, and that function is the map $h$. In this approach, the parameter $\lambda_{i}$ is modeled indirectly by the link between the quantiles of the generating distribution and $\lambda_{i}$.
Unlike mean regression, when the parameter of the generating distribution links to the linear predictor through a function $\lambda_{i}=g(\eta_{i})$, in model-based quantile regression the parameter of the generating distribution is linked to the linear predictor through a composition function $\lambda_{i}=h(g(\eta_{i}))$. In other words, in the mean regression, the (GLMM) have a link function $\lambda_{i} = g(\eta_{i})$ to link the parameter of the generating distribution to the linear predictor.
\subsection{Model-based quantile regression for count data}\label{sec:qr_count}
The extension of model-based quantile regression for discrete random variables is not straight-forward since the objective function in \eqref{opt} is non-differentiable for discrete random variables. The positive mass of the points for the discrete variable prevent the sample quantile from having an asymptotic distribution. Additionally, it is not easy to apply the modeling and mapping steps of model-based quantile regression to discrete data. First, in the modeling step, the common models for $g$ are the log for count data and the logit for binary data, and they are continuous functions. Therefore, the model $q_{i,\alpha}=g\left(\eta_{i,\alpha}\right)$ is not appropriate, since the quantile which is on the left hand side is discrete whereas the function $g$ is continuous. The second reason, in the mapping step, it is hard to get the map $h$ because the CDF of the discrete is non-invertible, which implies that there is no unique $\lambda_{i}$ to generate
each quantile, as one can be seen in Figure \ref{tu1}.\\ \\
To address these issues, \cite{padellini2018model} approximated discrete distributions by continuous counterparts, and then model the quantile for the continuous version instead of the discrete. The continuous counterpart is obtained by interpolating the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the discrete random variable. The model-based quantile method can be applied to discrete variables if their CDF can be expressed as
\begin{equation*}
F_{X}(x ; \lambda)=\mathbb{P}(X \leq x)=k(\lfloor x\rfloor, \lambda)
\end{equation*}
where $k$ is a continuous function, and $X$ is a discrete random variable. The interpolation can be obtained by removing the floor operator, so that $k(x,\lambda)$ is the CDF of the continuous version of $X$, assigned $X^{\prime}$. By definition of the floor, for all integers $x$
\begin{equation*}
F_{X}(x)=k(\lfloor x\rfloor, \lambda)=k(x, \lambda)=F_{X^{\prime}}(x).
\end{equation*}
The continuous distribution of $X'$ is considered as a continuous generalization of the original variable because the two CDFs are equal for all integer values $x$.
The advantage of working with the continuous version of a discrete distribution in the Bayesian framework is that a likelihood function can be obtained by using the model-based quantile method, since the sample quantiles for a discrete random variable are generally not asymptotically normal \cite{padellini2018model}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{tu.png}
\caption{(Top) The CDF of the discrete Poisson
(dashed line), and the CDF of the continuous Poisson (solid line). (Bottom) Quantile function of the discrete (dashed line) and continuous (continuous line) Poisson distributions}
\label{tu1}
\cite{padellini2018model}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Continuous Poisson}
Here we present the details on the approximation of the discrete Poisson distribution with a continuous Poisson counterpart.\\ \\
The CDF of a Poisson distribution can be expressed as the ratio of an incomplete and regular Gamma function as follows:
\begin{equation}
X \sim \operatorname{Poisson}(\lambda) \quad F_{X}(x)=\mathbb{P}(X \leq x)=\frac{\Gamma(\lfloor x\rfloor+1, \lambda)}{\Gamma(\lfloor x\rfloor+1)} \quad x \geq 0
\label{eq:discrete_poi}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma(x, \lambda)=\int_{\lambda}^{\infty} e^{-s} s^{x-1} \mathrm{~d} s$ is the upper incomplete Gamma function. Following Section \ref{sec:qr_count}, the Continuous Poisson is then defined from \eqref{eq:discrete_poi} as
\begin{equation*}
X^{\prime} \sim \text { Continuous Poisson }(\lambda) \quad F_{X^{\prime}}(x)=\mathbb{P}\left(X^{\prime} \leq x\right)=\frac{\Gamma(x+1, \lambda)}{\Gamma(x+1)} \quad x>-1
\end{equation*}
The reason for changing the support from $x\geq 0$ to $x>-1$ is to avoid mass at $0$, so there will be no jump on the CDF of the Continuous Poisson (CP)as illustrated in Figure \ref{tu1}. If the support remains the same, then the value of the CP will be $0$ if $ x<0$ and about $0.4$ at $x=0$, which introduces a jump at zero. However, if the support is $x >-1$, then there will be no jump at zero because the CDF of the CP will be $0$ at $x=-1$, then an interpolation
will be applied from $x=-1$ to $x=0$. The
Continuous and discrete Poisson random variables can be related as $X=\left\lceil X^{\prime}\right\rceil$. \\ \\
The model-based quantile regression model for Poisson data is then defined for $Y_{i} \mid \eta_{i}$ a continuous Poisson random variable with parameter $\lambda_i$ as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{paula}
q_{i,\alpha}&=&g\left(\eta_{i,\alpha}\right)=\exp \left\{\eta_{i,\alpha}\right\} \notag\\
\lambda_{i}&=&h\left(q_{i,\alpha}\right)=\frac{\Gamma^{-1}\left(q_{i,\alpha}+1,1-\alpha\right)}{\Gamma\left(q_{i,\alpha}+1\right)}.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Model-based quantile regression for disease mapping}\label{sec:qr_count}
From Sections \ref{sec:dis_map} and \ref{sec:qr_count} we can define a model-based quantile regression model for disease mapping. One issue that remains is how to decompose the expected number of cases into the local expectation, $E_i$ and the relative risk $\lambda_i$. In the case of modeling the quantile instead of the mean there are two options as discussed by \cite{padellini2018model}:
\begin{itemize}
\item Include $E_{i}$ in the linear model as an offset
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{i,\alpha}&=&\exp \left\{\eta_{i,\alpha}+\log \left(E_{i}\right)\right\}=E_{i} \exp \left\{\eta_{i,\alpha}\right\} \notag\\
\lambda_{i}&=&\frac{\Gamma^{-1}\left(q_{i,\alpha}+1,1-\alpha\right)}{\Gamma\left(q_{i,\alpha}+1\right)}
\label{eq:qs_model}
\end{eqnarray}
\item Consider it as a scaling of the parameter of the distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{i,\alpha} &=&\exp \left\{\eta_{i,\alpha}\right\} \notag \\
\lambda_{i} &=&E_{i} \frac{\Gamma^{-1}\left(q_{i,\alpha}+1,1-\alpha\right)}{\Gamma\left(q_{i,\alpha}+1\right)}
\label{eq:global_model}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}
These
two approaches are equivalent in the Poisson mean regression, but not equal in the Poisson quantile regression and the choice of approach depends on the purpose of the analysis. If the focus of the study is to infer a quantile-specific model then \eqref{eq:qs_model} is more appropriate whereas \eqref{eq:global_model} can be considered as a model for the parameter $\lambda_i$.
\section{Bayesian Joint Quantile Disease Mapping} \label{jointq}
The main goal of disease mapping is to estimate the relative risk of diseases across regions. Sometimes specific diseases have similar spatial patterns due to sharing the same etiologies. In this case, these diseases have some dependence, and it would be more appropriate to model them jointly rather than separately. Moreover, sometimes the dependence might be in different quantiles between the diseases or some diseases could inhibit the occurence of another disease. The proposed joint quantile disease mapping model links different quantiles of multiple diseases by a more general framework by considering dependence not in the mean, but in the quantiles.
\subsection{Model specification}
The joint quantile model for two diseases can be formulated as:
\begin{eqnarray}
y_{i 1} &\sim& \text { Poisson }\left(\lambda_{i 1}\right) \notag\\
y_{i 2} &\sim& \text { Poisson }\left(\lambda_{i 2}\right) \notag\\
\log (q_{i 1, \alpha_{1}}) &=& \log(\eta_{i 1,\alpha_{1}}) = m_{1} + \sum_{f = 1}^{F_1} \beta_f X_{i f} + \sum_{r=1}^{R_1} \rho^r(u_{i r}) + b_{i 1} + S_{i} \label{qa} \\
\log (q_{i 2,\alpha_{2}}) &=& \log(\eta_{i 2,\alpha_{2}}) = m_{2} + \sum_{f = 1}^{F_2} \gamma_f Z_{i f} + \sum_{r=1}^{R_2} \xi^r(v_{i r})+ b_{i 2} + c \, S_{i}\label{qa2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_{i k}$ is the mean of unit $i$ for disease $k$ and it is mapped to the $\alpha_{k}$ level quantile $q_{i k, \alpha_{k}}$ as in \eqref{paula}. In the modeling part, $m_{k}$ is a disease-specific intercept that follows a weakly informative Gaussian prior with zero mean and large variance, $b_{i k}$ is a spatial random effect and $S_{i}$ is the shared spatial component. The model also incorporates fixed effects of covariates $\pmb X_i$ and $\pmb Z_i$ by $\sum_{f = 1}^{F_1} \beta_f X_{i f}$ in \eqref{qa} and $\sum_{f = 1}^{F_2} \gamma_f Z_{i f}$ in \eqref{qa2}, respectively. Various random effects such as splines for non-linear effects of covariates $\pmb u_i$ and $\pmb v_i$ is included through functions $\{\rho^r\}_{r=1}^{R_1}$ in \eqref{qa} and $\{\xi^r\}_{r=1}^{R_2}$ in \eqref{qa2}, respectively. \\ \\
For the disease-specific spatial effects, $\pmb b_{k}$, various spatial models for areal data can be assumed such as the Besag model \cite{besag1991bayesian}, or the extended Besag-York-Mollie model \cite{besag1991bayesian}, the Leroux model \cite{leroux2000estimation}, or the Dean's model \cite{dean2001detecting}.\\
The shared spatial component, $\pmb S$, that links the two diseases through their quantiles is assumed to be a Besag effects with precision matrix
$Q=\left(Q_{i j}\right)$, where for $j \neq i$, $Q_{i i}=\tau\left(n_{i}+d\right)$, $Q_{i j}=-\tau$, and $n_{i}$ is the number of neighbours of node $i$.
The parameter $c \in \Re$ is used to scale the shared component and correlate the two diseases in space. \\ \\
Now we can collect $m_1, m_2, \pmb\beta, \pmb\rho, \pmb b_1, \pmb S, \pmb\gamma, \pmb\xi, \pmb b_2$ together with the linear predictors $\eta_{1 1, \alpha_1}, ...,\eta_{n 1, \alpha_1},\eta_{1 2, \alpha_2}, ...,\eta_{n 2, \alpha_2}$ and form the latent field
\begin{equation*}
\pmb x = \{\eta_{1 1, \alpha_1}, ...,\eta_{n 1, \alpha_1},\eta_{1 2, \alpha_2}, ...,\eta_{n 2, \alpha_2},m_1, m_2, \beta_1, ..., \beta_{F_1}, \pmb\rho, \pmb b_1, \pmb S, \pmb\gamma, \pmb\xi, \pmb b_2\}
\end{equation*}
with hyperparameters $\pmb\theta=\{c, \tau, d, \pmb\theta_{\pmb\rho}, \pmb\theta_{\pmb\xi}, \pmb\theta_{\pmb{b}_1}, \pmb\theta_{\pmb{b}_2}\}$, then we have that the data $\pmb y = \{\pmb y_1, \pmb y_2, \}$ is conditionally independent given the latent field and the hyperparameters such that the likelihood function is
\begin{equation}
\pi(\pmb x, \pmb\theta|\pmb y) = \prod_{i=1}^n f(y_i|x_i,\pmb\theta)\label{eq:lik}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Prior specification and posterior propriety}
We assume prior independence amongst the parameters and as such we assign Gaussian priors to the latent field elements and various other prior to the hyperparameters as set out next.\\
For the latent field elements assume the following:\\
\begin{eqnarray}
m_k &\sim& N(0,\tau_m^{-1}),\quad
\pmb\beta|\tau_\beta \sim N(\pmb 0, \tau_\beta^{-1}\pmb I),\quad \pmb\gamma|\tau_\gamma \sim N(\pmb 0, \tau_\gamma^{-1}\pmb I)\notag\\
\pmb\rho|\pmb\theta_\rho &\sim& N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1}_\rho),\quad
\pmb\xi|\pmb\theta_\xi \sim N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1}_\xi),\quad \pmb S|\tau, d \sim N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1}_S)\notag\\
\pmb b_1|\pmb\theta_{b_1} &\sim& N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1}_{b_1}),\quad
\pmb b_2|\pmb\theta_{b_2} \sim N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1}_{b_2})
\label{eq:priors}
\end{eqnarray}
so that the joint prior for these elements of the latent field is
\begin{equation*}
\pmb x \sim N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1})
\end{equation*}
where $\pmb Q^{-1}$ has a block diagonal structure as formed from \eqref{eq:priors}.\\
The vector of hyperparameters, $\pmb\theta$ is assigned a joint prior $\pi(\pmb\theta)$ which is composed of independent marginal proper priors of any shape (not necessarily Gaussian).\\ \\
The shared spatial field is assumed to follow Besag model but with an additional parameter $d$, to ensure a proper prior of $\pmb S$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pmb S|\tau, d &\sim& N(\pmb 0, \pmb Q^{-1}_S)
\end{eqnarray*}with the entries of $ \pmb Q_S$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
Q_{S,ii} = \tau(n_i+d)\quad \text{and}\quad Q_{S,ij} = -\tau, \label{eq:besagproper}
\end{equation}
for $i\neq j$, and $j$ is in the neighbourhood of $i$.\\ \\
The disease-specific spatial fields $\pmb b_1$ and $\pmb b_2$ are assumed to follow uncorrelated BYM/CAR models where we reparameterize the precision matrix similar to \cite{banerjee2014} to have more orthogonal parameters resulting in useful practical interpretation of the weight parameter, $\phi$. One issue with the proper CAR parameterization proposed by \cite{banerjee2014} is that the weight parameter is still not practically a weight since the unstructered effect and the Besag field might have different generalized variances. To alleviate this issue, we scale both the unstructured and Besag components to have the same geometric mean and define the proper scaled BYM field as
\begin{equation}
\pmb b_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_{b_k}}}\left(\sqrt{1-\phi_{b_k}}\pmb b_k^1 + \sqrt{\phi_{b_k}}\pmb b_k^2\right)
\end{equation}
with $\pmb b_k^1$ a scaled IID effect and $\pmb b_k^2$ a scaled Besag effect as in \eqref{eq:besagproper}. With this formulation, $\phi_{b_k}$ can be interpreted as the proportion of the marginal variance explained by the spatial effect, and $1-\phi_{b_k}$ is the proportion of the marginal variance explained by the unstructured effect.\\ \\
The joint posterior of the unknown parameters, $\pmb x$ and $\pmb\theta$ from \eqref{eq:lik} and \eqref{eq:priors} is
\begin{equation*}
\pi(\pmb x,\pmb\theta|\pmb y) \propto \pi(\pmb y|\pmb x, \pmb\theta)\pi(\pmb x|\pmb\theta)\pi(\pmb\theta),
\end{equation*}
and based on the prior structures the posterior propriety holds.
\subsection{Approximate inference using INLA}
Computational Bayesian inference can be achieved largely in one of two ways, either through sampling-based methods like Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and deviants or approximately using approximate methods like Variational methods or Laplace approximations like Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA). INLA, as introduced by \cite{rue2009approximate}, has been shown to be widely applicable to various statistical models; in particular, to the latent Gaussian models class of which disease mapping models are included \cite{martinez2015climatic,moraga2019geospatial,moraga2021bayesian,ugarte2014fitting}\\ \\
INLA employs a series of Laplace approximations and numerical integration to perform approximate Bayesian inference through numerically approximating the posterior densities of the latent field and hyperparameters. For data $\pmb y$, latent field $\pmb x$ and hyperparameters $\pmb \theta$, INLA can be summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Find the $m$-variate Gaussian approximation of $\pi(\pmb x|\pmb\theta, \pmb y)$ at the mode $\pmb\mu(\pmb\theta)$ with matching curvature using the Hessian of $\pi(\pmb x|\pmb\theta, \pmb y)$ at the mode $\pmb\mu(\pmb\theta)$.
\item Let
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\pi}(\pmb\theta|\pmb y) \propto \frac{\pi(\pmb x^*,\pmb\theta| \pmb y)}{\pi_G(\pmb x^*|\pmb\theta, \pmb y)} |_{\pmb x^* = \pmb\mu(\pmb\theta)}
\end{equation}
and locate the mode of $\tilde{\pi}(\pmb\theta|\pmb y)$ and find a set of integration points $\pmb\theta_k, k = 1,2,...,T$ in the area of the highest probability mass.
\item Calculate
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\pi}(\theta_j|\pmb y) = \int_{\pmb\theta_{-j}}\tilde{\pi}(\pmb\theta|\pmb y)d\pmb\theta_{-j}
\end{equation}
where we note that this is a low-dimensional integral since $p$ is generally small.
\item Now define
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\pi}(x_i|\pmb\theta_k, \pmb y) \approx \frac{\pi(\pmb x^*,\pmb\theta_k| \pmb y)}{\pi_G(\pmb x^*_{-i}|x_i, \pmb\theta_k, \pmb y)} |_{\pmb x^*_{-i} = \pmb\mu_{-i}(\pmb\theta_k)}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\pi_G(\pmb x^*_{-i}|x_i, \pmb\theta, \pmb y)$ the $(m-1)$-variate Gaussian approximation at the mode $\pmb\mu_{-i}(\pmb\theta)$ for the $T$ configuration points $\pmb\theta_k, k = 1,2,...,T$, and calculate
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\pi}(x_i|\pmb y) \approx \sum_{k=1}^T\tilde{\pi}(x_i|\pmb\theta_k, \pmb y)\tilde{\pi}(\theta_k|\pmb y)\Delta_k
\end{equation} where $\tilde{\pi}(\theta_k|\pmb y)$ is from step 3, with $\Delta_k$ the step size.
\end{enumerate}
Various simplifications to the approximations have been proposed as well in order to achieve increased computational efficiency such as an empirical Bayes approach where the integration points $\pmb\theta_k$ are all set to the mode of $\tilde{\pi}(\pmb\theta|\pmb y)$, which is named a \textit{Simplified Laplace approximation strategy}.
\subsection{Simulation Study}
The code for this simulation study is available at \url{https://github.com/JanetVN1201/Code_for_papers/tree/main/Joint\%20quantile\%20disease\%20mapping\%20}.\\ \\
In this part, simulated independent and correlated data was added to the Pennsylvania map, which is considered as a connected graph of size $67$. Figure \ref{simulated cases} shows one realization of the correlated data that was added to the Pennsylvania map.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\hspace*
{-.2cm}\includegraphics[width = 6cm]{cases1.png}
\includegraphics[width = 6cm]{cases2.png}
\caption{
One realization of cases of disease 1 (left) and disease 2 (right).}
\label{simulated cases}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The correlated data was generated as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
y_{i 1} &\sim& \text { Poisson }\left(\lambda_{i 1}\right)\quad \text{with} \quad \log (q_{i 1, 0.2}) = 1 + S_{i}\\
y_{i 2} &\sim& \text { Poisson }\left( \lambda_{i 2}\right)\quad \text{with} \quad \log (q_{i 2,0.8}) = 1 + 0.7\, S_{i}
\end{eqnarray*}
where $S_{i}$ is the shared component that follow a Besag proper model \eqref{eq:besagproper} with precision matrix $Q$, where
$Q_{i i}=\left(n_{i}+1\right)$ and $Q_{i j}=-1$ for $j \neq i$. In other words, the extra term added on the diagonal is $d= 1$, and the precision parameter $\tau = 1$. \\
There are two hyperparameters for this model: a parameter $d$ for controlling the properness, and a parameter $\tau > 0$ that is a scaling parameter. The hyperpriors defined on the $\log$ scale of these hyperparameters are as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log(d) &\sim& \text{loggamma} (1,1)\\
\log(\tau) &\sim& \text{loggamma} (1,5e-04)
\end{eqnarray*}
The estimated values of the parameters obtained by R-INLA are similar to the true values as seen in Tables \ref{jointq1} and \ref{jointq3}, and Figures \ref{jointq2} and \ref{hyperqusim}.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\quad & \text{mean} & \text{sd} & \text{0.025quant} & \text{0.975quant} \\
\hline
$m_1$ & 1.137 & 0.042 & 1.053 & 1.218 \\
$m_2$ & 1.003 & 0.039 & 0.923 & 1.079 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The estimated intercepts and the 95\% credible intervals.}
\label{jointq1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.55]{k2.png}
\caption{The posterior distribution for the intercepts}
\label{jointq2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\quad & \text{mean} & \text{0.025quant} & \text{0.975quant} & \text{mode} \\
\hline
$\tau$ & 1.337 & 0.77 & 2.074 & 1.257 \\
$d$ & 1.409 & 0.472 & 3.612 & 0.887 \\
$c$ & 0.838 & 0.636 & 1.034 & 0.845 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The estimated hyperparameters and the 95\% credible intervals.}
\label{jointq3}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = 5.2cm]{paper001.png}
\includegraphics[width = 5.2cm]{paper002.png}
\includegraphics[width = 5.2cm]{paper003.png}
\caption{The posterior distribution for the hyperparameters}
\label{hyperqusim}
\end{figure}
Model selection criteria are presented in Tables \ref{jointq4} and \ref{jointq5} and it shows a preference for the joint quantile model when the data are correlated and a preference for the separate models, which are \eqref{qa} and \eqref{qa2} without the shared components, when the data are independent. This indicates stable estimation and the model's ability to distinctly estimate an associated joint model if needed.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
\quad & \text{DIC} & \text{WAIC} \\
\hline
\textbf{Separate 1} & 3311 & 3350 \\
\textbf{Separate 2} & 2439 & 2452 \\
\textbf{Sum of Separates} & 5750 & 5802 \\
\textbf{Joint quantile} & 5642 & 5660 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The DIC and WAIC for correlated data.}
\label{jointq4}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
\quad & \text{DIC} & \text{WAIC} \\
\hline
\textbf{Separate 1} & 2951 & 2967 \\
\textbf{Separate 2} & 2925 & 2953 \\
\textbf{Sum of Separates} & 5876 & 5919 \\
\textbf{Joint quantile} & 6002 & 6100 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The DIC and WAIC for independent data.}
\label{jointq5}
\end{table}
\section{Joint quantile disease mapping model for Malaria and G6PD}
In this section, we fit the Bayesian model by using R-INLA to estimate the risks of malaria and G6PD deficiency in some African countries by using separate and joint quantile models. The code for this analysis is available at \url{https://github.com/JanetVN1201/Code_for_papers/tree/main/Joint\%20quantile\%20disease\%20mapping\%20}.
\subsection{Exploratory data analysis} \label{data}
The malaria cases and G6PD cases per region is obtained from \url{https://malariaatlas.org/}. Various country-level covariates can be used in our model but for the motivating example the emphasis is placed on the joint component, even though for a thorough analysis of the data itself, various fixed and random effects might be considered. \\ \\
We selected only the countries for which information for both Malaria and G6PD is available, as indicated in Figure \ref{common c}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\hspace*
{-.2cm}\includegraphics[width = 7cm]{commonc3.png}
\includegraphics[width = 7cm]{african3.png}
\caption{
Countries where both G6PD deficiency and malaria cases exist (left) on the African continent (right)}
\label{common c}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
According to Figure \ref{common c}, the countries are distributed around the world. Since we want to investigate the spatial correlation we consider the African continent so that most countries have some neighbours as in Figure \ref{common c}.
In Figure \ref{fig:fig}, \ref{smr.m} and \ref{smr.d} the SMRs for malaria and G6PD deficiency. It can be seen that, in general, the risk of G6PD deficiency is higher than the risk of malaria because G6PD deficiency has a higher SMR. Some countries like Abidjan and Madagascar that considered to have the highest risk of G6PD deficiency, they have the lowest risk of malaria according to the SMR values, which could indicate a prohibitive relationship between these two diseases.
The observed cases for malaria and G6PD can be seen in Figures \ref{observed.m} and \ref{observed.d} respectively. Kenya has the highest number of malaria cases, while Nigeria has the highest number of G6PD deficiency cases.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{observedm2.png}
\caption{Observed cases}
\label{observed.m}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{smrrrm.png}
\caption{SMR}
\label{smr.m}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{expectedm.png}
\caption{Expected cases}
\label{e.m}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{observedd.png}
\caption{Observed cases}
\label{observed.d}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{smrrrd.png}
\caption{SMR}
\label{smr.d}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{expectedd.png}
\caption{Expected cases}
\label{e.d}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Summaries from exploratory data analysis for Malaria (top row) and G6PD (bottom row)}
\label{fig:fig}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results}
It is believed that G6PD deficiency limits the occurrence of malaria \cite{beutler1994G6PD,allison1961malaria}. We expect a correlation between a high quantile of G6PD and a low quantile of malaria. Therefore we applied the joint quantile model that was discussed in section \ref{jointq} where $y_{i1}$ and $y_{i2}$ represent the cases of malaria and G6PD deficiency, respectively. The quantile levels are $\alpha_{1} = 0.2$ and $\alpha_{2} = 0.8$.\\ \\
Table \ref{apjq0} shows the overall means for the malaria and the G6PD deficiency. Table \ref{apjq1} shows the estimation of the hyperparameters. The precision of the random effects indicate that most of the spatial variability comes from the shared component. There is a significant correlation between a high quantile of G6PD deficiency and a low quantile of malaria as observed from the point estimate and the credible interval of $c$, which is the coefficient of the shared component. This finding is consistent with the studies \cite{beutler1994G6PD,allison1961malaria}.\\ \\
In contrast, Table \ref{opp} shows the estimation of the hyperparameters for a high quantile of malaria with a low quantile of G6PD deficiency. As can be seen based on the credible interval of $c$, there is no significant correlation between these two quantiles. This is expected because having G6PD deficiency protects you from having malaria, but malaria does not influence G6PD deficiency.\\ \\
Figure \ref{jointspatialqant} presents maps of the spatial effects. Figures \ref{sharedq} and \ref{sharedq1} show the shared spatial effect for malaria and G6PD deficiency, respectively. The structure of the effects appear similar. However, the shared spatial effect for the G6PD deficiency is much lower. This is expected because the value of $c$ is smaller than 1. The disease-specific spatial effects in Figures \ref{sefmjq} and \ref{sefgjq} are very low compared to the shared spatial effect. This can also be seen from the posterior precision estimates for $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ compared to that of the shared component in Table \ref{apjq1}. Because the disease-specific spatial effects are smaller than the shared spatial effect, the total spatial effect (that is, the sum of the shared and the specific-spatial effects) is very similar to those for the shared effects, see Figures \ref{tsm10q} and \ref{tsd10q}. The iid random effect for G6PD deficiency, see Figures \ref{iidqjg} and \ref{fig:fig3pmsqj}, is higher than the iid for malaria. This is understandable because the value of Phi for malaria is bigger than the one for G6PD deficiency, which means G6PD deficiency accounts for more iid effect.\\ \\ The relative risks in Figures \ref{rrqmj} and \ref{rrqgj} show similar relative risks as obtained by the separate models. However, observe that the relative risk for G6PD deficiency from the joint model is higher than the one from the separate. This difference between the relative risks is due to borrowing strength from the spatial pattern of malaria through the shared component. The joint quantile model predicts the cases well for both diseases, as can be seen in Figures \ref{pmsqj} and \ref{pgsqj}. The model comparison shows a preference for the joint quantile model over the separate models because the values of DIC and WAIC for the joint quantile are less than the sum of the tests for the separate models.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\quad & \text{mean} & \text{sd} & \text{0.025quant} & \text{0.975quant} \\
\hline
$m_1$ & 7.852 & 0.634 & 6.58 & 9.12 \\
$m_2$ & 4.245 & 0.285 & 3.669 & 4.81 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The estimated intercepts and the 95 \% credible intervals.}
\label{apjq0}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{apjq00.png}
\caption{The posterior distributions for the intercepts}
\label{apjq00}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The estimation results of the hyperparameters are given in Tables \ref{apjq1} and \ref{opp}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\quad & \text{mean} & \text{0.025quant} & \text{0.975quant} & \text{mode} \\
\hline
$\tau$ & 0.107 & 0.044 & 0.224 & 0.082 \\
$d$ & 1.665 & 0.379 & 4.434 & 0.953 \\
$\tau_{b_{1}}$ & 39.1 & 0.831 & 244.1 & 1.862 \\
$\phi_{b_{1}}$ & 0.321 & 0.021 & 0.827 & 0.056 \\
$\tau_{b_{2}}$ & 1.226 & 0.625 & 2.091 & 1.096 \\
$\phi_{b_{2}}$ & 0.186 & 0.008 & 0.658 & 0.019 \\
$c$ & 0.291 & 0.066 & 0.521 & 0.285 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The estimation of the hyperparameters for low quantile of malaria and high quantile of G6PD deficiency.}
\label{apjq1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\quad & \text{mean} & \text{0.025quant} & \text{0.975quant} & \text{mode} \\
\hline
$\tau$ & 3.648 & 1.437 & 7.976 & 2.688 \\
$d$ & 1.819 & 0.423 & 5.258 & 0.977 \\
$\tau_{b_{1}}$ & 11.31 & 5.485 & 24.16 & 8.088 \\
$\phi_{b_{1}}$ & 0.056 & 0 & 0.311 & 0 \\
$\tau_{b_{2}}$ & 131.5 & 55.62 & 326.2 & 82.55 \\
$\phi_{b_{2}}$ & 0.14 & 0 & 0.853 & 0 \\
$c$ & 0.002 & -0.008 & 0.015 & -0.002 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The estimation of the hyperparameters for high quantile of malaria and low quantile of G6PD deficiency.}
\label{opp}
\end{table}
The values for the model choice criteria, DIC and WAIC, are given in Table \ref{apj2}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
\quad & \text{DIC} & \text{WAIC} \\
\hline
\textbf{G6PD Deficiency} & 168 & 164.8 \\
\textbf{Malaria} & 246.8 & 241.4 \\
\textbf{Sum} & 414.8 & 406.2 \\
\textbf{Joint quantile} & 413.6 & 402.2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Model choice criteria.}
\label{apj2}
\end{table}
\newpage
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = 5.2cm]{ya1.png}
\includegraphics[width = 5.2cm]{ya2.png}
\includegraphics[width = 5.2cm]{ya3.png} \\
\includegraphics[width = 5.2cm]{ya4.png}
\includegraphics[width = 5.2cm]{ya5.png}
\caption{The posterior distributions for the hyperparameters}
\label{Preseions}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{rrqmj.png}
\caption{The relative risk estimate for malaria}
\label{rrqmj}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{rrqgj.png}
\caption{The relative risk estimate for G6PD}
\label{rrqgj}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{rrqms.png}
\caption{The relative risk estimate for malaria}
\label{rrqms}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{rrqgs.png}
\caption{The relative risk estimate for G6PD}
\label{rrqgs}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The estimates from the joint model (top), and the separate models (bottom)}
\label{rrqjs}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{sharedq.png}
\caption{Shared effect}
\label{sharedq}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{sefmjq.png}
\caption{specific effect}
\label{sefmjq}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{tsm10q.png}
\caption{The total effect}
\label{tsm10q}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{sharedq1.png}
\caption{Shared effect}
\label{sharedq1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{sefgjq.png}
\caption{specific effect}
\label{sefgjq}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{tsd10q.png}
\caption{The total effect}
\label{tsd10q}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Posterior estimates of the spatial effects from the joint model for malaria (top) and for G6PD deficiency (bottom)}
\label{jointspatialqant}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{iidqjm.png}
\caption{The iid effect for Malaria}
\label{iidqjm}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{iidqjg.png}
\caption{The iid effect for G6PD}
\label{iidqjg}
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{pmsqj.png}
\caption{The predicted cases for Malaria}
\label{pmsqj}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{pgsqj.png}
\caption{The predicted cases for G6PD}
\label{pgsqj}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The iid effect and predicted cases}
\label{fig:fig3pmsqj}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
The motivation stemmed from estimating the relative risk of Malaria and G6PD deficiency, jointly, on the African continent. The G6PD deficiency is considered as a resistance against malaria based on anecdotal medical studies (see \cite{beutler1994G6PD} and \cite{allison1961malaria}). In this case, joint mean disease mapping will not provide the information needed to investigate these initial findings. Therefore, we considered a joint quantile disease mapping of different quantiles for the diseases. The approach is successful since considering the joint quantile model allows a possible investigation of the correlation between any level of the conditional distributions of the random variables that represents the number of cases, not only the correlation between their means. An advantage of the proposed approach is that the computationally efficient INLA method is used for statistical inference, such as estimating the relative risk. \\ \\
Our main contribution is two-fold. Firstly, we propose a very general joint quantile disease mapping model where the correlation between different quantiles can be inferred and multiple diseases can be considered, together with an efficient computational framework for the inference thereof. Secondly, the significant correlation between a high quantile of G6PD cases and a low quantile of Malaria cases encourages further investigation based on expanded data collection efforts as already underway at the Malaria Atlas Project. This analysis provides a solid statistical framework to the anecdotal findings as remarked by medical professionals, and could underpin future studies in this direction.
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{wileyNJD-AMA}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Planning in multi-agent scenarios is a challenging task -- actions taken by any robot cannot be considered in isolation and must take the response from other agents into account. Classical approaches to tackling this problem adopt a predict-then-plan architecture, where the actions of other agents are assumed to be independent of the ego-agent's actions.
However, this assumption breaks down in the context of multi-agent games such as racing, surveillance or autonomous driving where agents may have conflicting interests and it is advantageous to manipulate the behavior of other agents.
Recent works have introduced game-theoretic formulations to address this problem
\cite{cleac2019algames, fridovich2020efficient, laine2021multi, mehr2021maximum, schwarting2021stochastic, wang2019game, wang2020multi}.
By assuming that agents act rationally, the optimal actions of other agents can be predicted by solving for the Nash equilibria of the non-cooperative game assuming that the true objectives of other agents are known.
However, in practice humans face cognitive limitations and seek decisions that are satisfactory but often suboptimal, a phenomenon described by the concept of ``bounded rationality'' \cite{simon1972theories}.
This disconnect is often modeled using the the \ac{MaxEnt} framework which models actions of agents as being stochastic in nature.
\ac{MaxEnt} has been successfully applied to diverse areas including inverse reinforcement learning \cite{mehr2021maximum, ziebart2008maximum}, forecasting \cite{evans2021maximum}, and biology \cite{de2018introduction}.
In particular, \citet{mehr2021maximum} propose a game-theoretic maximum entropy algorithm for finding nash equilibria policies to dynamic games via an extension of the iLQGames method \cite{fridovich2020efficient}.
\input{figs/eye_candy}
However, these methods consider only a single local minimum. As a result, the resulting policies are \textit{unimodal} and fail to capture the \textit{multimodal} nature of solutions under the \ac{MaxEnt} framework.
In the presence of multiple local minima, the true maximum-entropy policy will be multimodal, with one mode corresponding to each local minimum.
However, computing expectations over multimodal policies in multi-agent settings quickly leads to combinatorial explosion and is computationally intractable
when solving for multimodal Nash equilibria.
By considering a novel \ac{MaxEnt} dynamic game with incomplete information and information asymmetry,
we convert the previous challenge into that of solving a POMDP for the ego agent where the discrete latent variable corresponds to different local generalized \ac{MaxEnt} Nash equilibria found by running a constrained version of \ac{MELQGames} in parallel.
This approach further allows for Bayesian inference over the discrete latet variable by considering past observations of controls from non-ego agents.
The main contributions of our work are threefold:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose the constrained \ac{MaxEnt} dynamic game setting to handle bounded rationality in decison making under inequality constraints and extend \ac{MELQGames} to solve generalized Nash equilibrium.
\item We consider a novel \ac{MaxEnt} dynamic game with incomplete and asymmetric information. We provide a a computationally efficient solution that allows for Bayesian inference of the latent mode when the underlying control policies are multimodal in nature.
\item We showcase the benefits of the proposed algorithm in simulation, including an autonomous racing example. The results demonstrate the superiority of \ac{MMELQGames} against other game theoretic formulations in terms of successfully predicting agents behavior in dynamic settings.
\end{itemize}
\section{Problem Setup}
\label{sec:problem_setup}
In this section, we introduce the constrained \ac{MaxEnt} dynamic game and the corresponding \ac{GNEP}.
\subsection{Discrete Dynamic Games and Generalized Nash Equilibria}
We consider a discrete dynamic game with $N$ players with joint controls
${\bm{u}}_t = [u_t^1, \dots, u_t^N] = [u^i_t, \vunegi_t]\in \mathbb{R}^{n_{\bm{u}}}$,
where $u^i_t$ denotes the control input of player $i$ and
we use $\vunegi_t$ to denote the controls excluding the $i$th agent.
We denote ${\bm{x}}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{\bm{x}}}$ the joint state of the system at timestep $t$ which evolves under the discrete-time dynamics
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pf:dyn}
{\bm{x}}_{t+1} = f({\bm{x}}_t, u^1_t, \dots, u^N_t) = f({\bm{x}}_t, {\bm{u}}_t).
\end{equation}
Each agent's objective is to minimize a corresponding cost function $J^i$ in finite-horizon $T$
with running cost $l^i$ and terminal cost $\Phi^i$, where ${\bf U} = [{\bm{u}}_1, \dots, {\bm{u}}_{T-1}]$ denotes a
trajectory
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pf:obj_fn}
J^i({\bf U}) = \Phi^i({\bm{x}}_T) + \sum_{t=1}^{T-1} l^i({\bm{x}}_t, {\bm{u}}_t).
\end{equation}
The goal of agent $i$ is to choose controls $\Ui$ that optimize $J^i$ while respecting inequality constraints $h^i$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pf:opt}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{u^i} \quad J^i({\bf U}),
\qquad \textrm{s.t.} \quad h^i({\bf U}) \leq 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that both the objective function and the constraints are a function of $U^i$ and $\vUnegi$.
Due to the presence of constraints $h^i$ which may couple agent $i$'s feasible control set to other agent's controls $\vUnegi$, \eqref{eq:pf:opt} is a \ac{GNEP} \cite{facchinei2010generalized}.
Let
\begin{equation}
\feasi(\vUnegi) = \{ \Ui | h^i({\bf U}) \leq 0 \},
\end{equation}
denote the feasible control set for agent $i$ given the controls of other agents $\vUnegi$.
Solving an (open loop) \ac{GNEP} amounts to finding controls $\vUs$ such that
for each agent $i$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pf:gnep}
J^i(U^{i*}, {\bf U}^{\negi*}) \leq J^i(\Ui, {\bf U}^{\negi*}),
\quad \forall \,\Ui \in \feasi(\vUnegi).
\end{equation}
However, since solving for the global \ac{GNEP} is in general intractable, we instead look for local \ac{GNEP} where \eqref{eq:pf:gnep} is satisfied for all $\Ui$ within a local neighborhood of the optimal $\vUs$.
\subsection{Maximum Entropy Dynamic Games}
Although the (global) Nash equilibria is a powerful concept, achieving Nash equilibria requires the assumption that all cost functions are known exactly and that each agent acts rationally by solving the \ac{GNEP} exactly.
However, often times we only have an approximation of the cost function
for the non-ego agents and other agents may only act with approximate solutions of the \ac{GNEP}.
To take these stochasticities into account, we take a \textit{relaxed control} approach and
consider a stochastic control policy $\pi^i(\ui | {\bm{x}})$ with the same deterministic dynamics as in \eqref{eq:pf:dyn}.
Let $\ExP{p}{\cdot}$ denote the expectation with respect to a distribution $p$.
We introduce an entropy term to the original objective \eqref{eq:pf:obj_fn} and consider the expected cost under all agent's policies $\pi^i$:
\begin{equation}
J^i(\pi^i) = \ExP{\pi}{\Phi^i({\bm{x}}_T) + \sum_{t=1}^{T-1} \left( l^i({\bm{x}}_t, {\bm{u}}_t) - \alpha H[\pi^i(\cdot | {\bm{x}}_t)] \right)},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha > 0$ is a temperature term
and $H[\pi]$ is the Shannon entropy of $\pi$ defined as
\begin{equation}
H[\pi] = -\ExP{\pi}{\log \pi} = -\int \pi(u) \log \pi(u) \du.
\end{equation}
The resulting \ac{GNEP} is then formulated similarly to the deterministic case, except that we only require that the constraints $h^i$ hold for the mean controls:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pf_medg:gnep}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\pi^i} \quad & J^i({\bf U}),
\qquad \textrm{s.t.} \quad h^i(\ExP{\pi}{{\bf U}}) \leq 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
With \eqref{eq:pf_medg:gnep}, the task is now to find a stochastic policy $\pi^{i*}$ such that the following holds for all $\pi^i$ within a neighborhood of $\pi^{i*}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pf:gne_nec}
J^i(\pi^{i*}, \pi^{\negi*}) \leq J^i(\pi^i, \pi^{\negi*}), \quad \pi^i \in \Pi(\pi^{\negi*}),
\end{equation}
where $\Pi(\pi^{\negi*}) \coloneqq \{ \pi^i | h^i(\ExP{\pi}{{\bf U}}) \leq 0 \}$.
\section{Algorithms for Solving Maximum Entropy Dynamic Games}
\label{sec:algos}
In this section, we now derive algorithms for solving the MaxEnt Dynamics Games introduced in the previous section.
\subsection{Unconstrained Dynamic Programming}
\label{sec:me:dp}
We first consider the unconstrained case for simplicity.
Defining the value function for agent $i$ given the policies of other agents $\pinegi$ to be
\begin{equation}
V^i({\bm{x}}) = \inf_{\pii} \left\{ J^i({\bm{x}}, \pii, \pinegi) \right\},
\end{equation}
applying dynamic programming results in Bellman's equation:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dp:raw_bellman}
V^i({\bm{x}}) = \inf_{\pi^i} \Big\{
\ExP{\pi}{ l^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) + {V^i}'( f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) } - \alpha H[\pi^i(\cdot | {\bm{x}})] \Big\}.
\end{equation}
In \eqref{eq:dp:raw_bellman} and below we omit the time index $t$ for nonterminal times for simplicity and use ${V^i}'(f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}))$ to denote the value function for agent $i$ at the next timestep.
It is well known that the optimal policy $\piis$ that solves the infimum in \eqref{eq:dp:raw_bellman} is the Gibbs distribution \cite{wang2020variational, kim2020hamilton}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dp:opt_pol}
\piis( \ui | {\bm{x}} ) = \frac{1}{Z^i} \exp\Big( -\frac{1}{\alpha} \ExP{\pinegi}{ {V^i}'(f({\bm{x}},{\bm{u}})) + l^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) } \Big),
\end{equation}
where $Z^i$ denotes the partition function
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dp:Z_def}
Z^i \coloneqq \int \exp\Big( -\frac{1}{\alpha}
\ExP{\pinegi}{ {V^i}'(f({\bm{x}},{\bm{u}})) + l^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) } \Big) \dui.
\end{equation}
Although we have obtained a closed-form expression for $\piis$ in \eqref{eq:dp:opt_pol},
it is defined in terms of $\pinegi$ which is unknown.
Hence, unlike the optimal control case, we must solve a system of equations for each agent to find $\piis$ and $\pinegis$.
\subsection{Unconstrained MELQGames}
\label{sec:me}
In this section, we propose using DDP to solve for Nash Equilibria of MaxEnt dynamic games
and derive the unconstrained MELQGames algorithm similar to iLQGames in \cite{fridovich2020efficient}.
For notational simplicity, we will drop the second-order approximation of the dynamics as in \ac{iLQR} in our description of \ac{DDP}. The dropped second-order dynamics terms can easily be added
back in the derivations below. We refer readers to \cite{mayne1966second, li2004iterative, fridovich2020efficient} for a detailed overview of the vanilla \ac{DDP}, \ac{iLQR} and iLQGames algorithms.
The \ac{DDP} algorithm consists of a forward pass and a backward pass.
The forward pass simulates the dynamics forward in time obtaining a set of
nominal state and control trajectories $(\bar{{\bm{x}}}_{0:T}, \bar{{\bm{u}}}_{0:T-1})$,
while the backward pass solves the Bellman equation with a 2nd order approximation
of the costs and dynamics equations around the nominal trajectories.
The boundary conditions for the value functions $V^i$ for each agent are
obtained by performing a 2nd order Taylor expansion of the terminal costs $\Phi^i$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:me:term_quad}
\begin{aligned}
V^i_{{\bm{x}}\vx,T} &= \Phi^i_{{\bm{x}} {\bm{x}}}, & V^i_{{\bm{x}}, T} &= \Phi_{{\bm{x}}}^i, & V_T= &= \Phi^i,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we follow the notation in \ac{DDP} literature by denoting partial derivatives via subscripts.
Additionally, we perform a quadratic approximation of the costs and
linear approximation of the dynamics around a nominal trajectory $(\bar{{\bf X}}, \bar{{\bf U}})$
, where ${\bf X} = [{\bm{x}}_0, \dots, {\bm{x}}_T]$ denotes a trajectory of states
\begin{align}
l^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}})
&\approx l^i
+ \begin{bmatrix}l^i_{\bm{x}} \\ l^i_{\bm{u}}\end{bmatrix}^\mathrm{T}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}
+ \frac{1}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}^\mathrm{T}
\begin{bmatrix}l^i_{{\bm{x}}\vx} & l^i_{{\bm{x}} {\bm{u}}} \\ l^i_{{\bm{u}} {\bm{x}}} & l^i_{{\bm{u}} {\bm{u}}} \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}, \nonumber \\
f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}})
&\approx f + f_{\bm{x}} \vdx + f_{\bm{u}} \vdu,%
\label{eq:me:quad_cost_lin_dyn}
\end{align}
where we have defined $\vdx = {\bm{x}} - \vxbar$ and $\vdu = {\bm{u}} - \vubar$.
Let $Q^i$ denote the terms inside the expectation in Bellman's equation \eqref{eq:dp:raw_bellman}
\begin{equation}
Q^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) \coloneqq l^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) + {V^i}'( f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) ).
\end{equation}
Then, $Q^i$ for the approximated system is quadratic:
\begin{gather}
Q^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) = \bar{V}^i + \delta Q^i, \\
\delta Q^i \coloneqq
\begin{bmatrix}Q^i_{\bm{x}} \\ Q^i_{\bm{u}}\end{bmatrix}^\mathrm{T} \begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}
+ \frac{1}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}^\mathrm{T}
\begin{bmatrix}Q^i_{{\bm{x}}\vx} & Q^i_{{\bm{x}}{\bm{u}}} \\ Q^i_{{\bm{u}}{\bm{x}}} & Q^i_{{\bm{u}}\vu} \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}.
\end{gather}
with $\bar{V}^i \coloneqq l^i(\vxbar, \vubar) + {V^i}'(f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}))$.
The derivation and full expressions for the partial derivatives of $Q^i$
are included in \cref{sm:Q_derivs}.
Performing a change of variables $\vdu = {\bm{u}} - \vubar$
on $\pii$ and taking out terms that not functions of $\delui$, the infimum in the Bellman equation \eqref{eq:dp:raw_bellman} simplifies to
\begin{align}
&\inf_{\pii} \int \pii(\delui) \bigg\{
\Big( Q_{\ui}^i + Q_{\ui {\bm{x}}}^i \vdx
+ Q_{\ui \unegi }^i \ExP{\pinegi}{\vdunegi} \Big)^\mathrm{T} \delui \nonumber \\
&\qquad + \frac{1}{2}\delui^\mathrm{T} Q_{u^i u^i}^i \delui + \alpha \log \pii(\delui)
\bigg\} \ddelui, \label{eq:me:quad_bellman}
\end{align}
Since the expression above is now quadratic in $\delui$ for each agent $i$,
the coupled systems of equations can be solved as shown in the following lemma.
\input{lemmas/opt_melq_pol}
We defer the proof of \cref{thm:me:opt_pol} to the appendix in \cref{sm:proof:thm:me:opt_pol}.
Note that the optimal policy $\pi^{i*}$ is Gaussian distribution with mean $\deluis$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma^i = \alpha (\Quui)^{-1}$, where $\deluis$ has the same expression as in the iLQGames case.
Additionally, as $\alpha \to 0$, $\pi^{i*}$ converges to the delta distribution centered on $\delui^*$.
\input{figs/squeeze_y}
Information from the value function is incorporated in the policy in both the mean and the covariance
as the covariance is higher along eigenvectors of $\Quui$ which have small eigenvalues.
\cref{fig:squeeze_y} illustrates sampled trajectories from
the optimal \ac{MaxEnt} Nash equilibria for a single agent with triple integrator dynamics.
The trajectories have a tighter distribution in the middle where
the cost function, shown in the contour plot, has a much higher curvature.
Also, the terminal quadratic cost is higher along the direction of the x-axis,
causing the trajectories near the target (yellow star) to have a lower
variance along the x-axis.
We next substitute equation \eqref{eq:me:opt_pol} from \cref{thm:me:opt_pol} into the Bellman equation \eqref{eq:me:quad_bellman} to derive the update equations for the value function, shown in the following lemma.
\input{lemmas/melq_value_update}
Again, we defer the proof of \cref{thm:me:val_fn} to the appendix in \cref{sm:proof:thm:me:val_fn}.
Note that the update rules for $V^i, V^i_{\bm{x}}$ and $V^i_{{\bm{x}}\vx}$ are exactly the same as in
iLQGames \cite{fridovich2020efficient}, with the only difference being the addition of the $V^i_{H}$ term resulting from the maximum entropy term.
This term only depends on $\Quui$ and approaches $0$ as $\alpha \to 0$.
Since we take $\Quui$ to be constant during each iteration of MELQGames, $V^i_H$ is not a function of ${\bm{x}}$.
Consequently, the backward pass of MELQGames can be performed by additionally computing $V_H^i$ and $\Sigma^i$ in the backward pass of iLQGames. Also, note that unlike the optimal control case where we can simplify the value function update \eqref{eq:me:dV}--\eqref{eq:me:Vxx} by substituting the definition of ${\bm{k}}$ and ${\bf K}$ to cancel out terms, this does not hold in the dynamic games case.
This is because $Q_{{\bm{u}}\vu}^i$ (Hessian of $Q^i$) does not equal to $\hat{Q}_{{\bm{u}}\vu}$ (stacked rows of $Q_{\ui {\bm{u}}}^i$) in general.
\subsection{Constrained MELQGames via Augmented Lagrangian}
\label{sec:constrained_me}
To incorporate constraints, we use the augmented Lagrangian framework
similar to the approach in ALGames \cite{cleac2019algames}, except we choose to use the DDP style unconstrained optimizer as opposed to Newton's method.
Let us denote by $\mathcal{L}^i$ the augmented Lagrangian for agent $i$.
Then,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_A^i(\pi, \lambda; \rho) = J^i(\pi) + \frac{\rho}{2}
\sum_{j} \max\bigg( 0, (h^i)_j(\ExP{}{{\bf U}}) + \frac{\lambda^i_j}{\rho} \bigg)^2.
\end{equation}
where $\rho > 0$ denotes the penalty parameter and $\lambda^i_j > 0$ denotes the Lagrange multiplier corresponding to the $j$th constraint $(h^i)_j$ for agent $i$.
Since each agent may in general have a different number of constraints, the Lagrange multipliers are specific to each agent's constraints.
If the optimal Lagrange multipliers $\lambda^{i*}_j$ were known, then for a sufficiently large value of $\rho$ the minimizer of the augmented Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_A^i$ would be a local minimum of the constrained problem \cite{nocedal2006numerical, ruszczynski2011nonlinear}.
To update the dual parameters $\lambda^i_j$, we perform the following dual-ascent step
\begin{equation} \label{eq:al:dual_update}
(\lambda^i_j)^+ \gets \max(0, \lambda^i_j + \rho (h^i)_j(\ExP{}{{\bf U}}).
\end{equation}
where we use the $+$ to denote the new $\lambda$.
Intuitively, the above update can be seen as an approximation to the optimal Lagrange multipliers $\lambda^{i*}_j$. Let $\mathcal{I}_A$ denote the set of active constraints, and suppose that the Lagrange multipliers for all inactive constraints are zero such that
\begin{equation}
j \not \in \mathcal{I}_A \implies (h^i)_j + \frac{\lambda^i_j}{\rho} < 0 .
\end{equation}
Then, if $\pi$ is a minimizer of $\mathcal{L}_A^i$ then
\begin{equation}
0
= \nabla_{\ui} \mathcal{L}_A^i = \nabla_{\ui} J^i
+ \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}_A} \big[ \rho (h^i)_j + \lambda^i_j \big] \nabla_{\ui} (h^i)_j,
\end{equation}
and hence $(\lambda^i_j)^+ = \rho (h^i)_j + \lambda^i_j$ is a good approximation to the Lagrange multiplier of the original constrained problem.
To maintain dual feasibility of the Lagrange multipliers, we project them by taking the positive part.
Alternatively, the Augmented Lagrangian method can be viewed as projected steepest ascent applied to the dual problem of \eqref{eq:pf:gnep} where $\rho$ plays the role of the step size in \eqref{eq:al:dual_update}.
Indeed, convergence rate results for Augmented Lagrangian methods show that under suitable conditions (ex. \ac{LICQ} and \ac{SOSC} are satisfied at the local minima), the Lagrange multipliers converge linearly
\cite{nocedal2006numerical, ruszczynski2011nonlinear} with rate
\begin{equation}
\frac{ \norm{ (\lambda^i_j)^+ - \lambda^{i*}_j } }
{ \norm{ \lambda^i_j - \lambda^{i*}_j } } \leq \frac{M}{\rho},
\end{equation}
for some constant $M$. Hence, larger values of $\rho$ should theoretically result in faster convergence of the Lagrange multipliers.
However, values of $\rho$ that are too large may make the unconstrained problem ill-conditioned and slow down convergence \cite{nocedal2006numerical, ruszczynski2011nonlinear}.
Hence, Augmented Lagrangian methods usually advocate for increasing $\rho$ by some factor $\gamma > 0$ if a sufficient decrease condition on some feasibilty metric such as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:al:metric}
\mathcal{V} \coloneqq \norm*{ \min\left\{ -(h^i)_j, \frac{\lambda^i_j}{\rho} \right\} },
\end{equation}
has not been met \cite{birgin2014practical}.
The constrained MELQGames algorithm consists of an iterative scheme where we alternate approximately solving the (unconstrained) Nash equilibria for cost functions $\mathcal{L}_A^i$
and updating the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda^i_j$ with \eqref{eq:al:dual_update}.
If the metric $\mathcal{V}$ has not decreased by more than some $\tau \in (0, 1)$ since the last dual update, we increase $\rho$.
We now show in the following lemma that if the augmented Lagrangian MELQGames converges, the solution is a local GNEP.
\input{lemmas/aug_lang_cvg}
We defer the proof of \cref{lemma:aug_lang_cvg} to \cref{sm:proof:lemma:aug_lang_cvg}.
\section{Extensions to Modeling Multimodality}
\label{sec:multimodality}
The vast majority of existing works that investigate game theoretic multi-agent interactions
consider unimodal behaviors
\cite{cleac2019algames, fonseca2018potential, fridovich2020efficient,mehr2021maximum, spica2020real, williams2017autonomous}.
However, this may not be enough when the true value function is not unimodal, a common situation that can arise from nonconvex dynamics, cost functions or constraints.
In this section, we first outline a computational challenge for tackling the problem of multimodality in dynamic games.
We then propose a computationally efficient multimodal extension to \ac{MELQGames} by reformulating the problem as an incomplete information games with information asymmetry and show how our formulation can additionally be used for Bayesian inference of the latent mode.
In this paper, we focus our attention on multi-agent interactions where multimodality is
induced by uncertainty about multimodal behavior of non-ego agents despite having unimodal best-responses.
We leave extensions to situations where the ego agent has a multimodal best-response by considering approaches such as compositionality \cite{so2021maximum} as future work.
One of the biggest challenges for handling multimodality with multiple agents is that computational costs can quickly become unfeasible due to the combinatorial explosion when accounting for the interactions between all agents.
To see this, consider a game with $N$ agents where each agent has a policy with $A$ different modes.
Evaluating the Nash equilibrium requires evaluating the expectation over all policies for all timesteps $t=0,\dots,T-1$,
resulting in a total of $O(T\, A^N)$ evaluations of the cost function and dynamics.
This combinatorial explosion is computationally intractable for any kind of realtime planning.
\subsection{Multimodal Dynamic Games via Information Asymmetry}
\label{subsec:mme}
We now propose a method for tackling the challenges mentioned above.
To start, we refine our problem setup and identify one agent as the ``ego'' agent.
Given that many applications for planning have the goal of controlling an agent, this is not an unreasonable assumption.
From hereon after, we denote the ego agent with index $1$ and use $\nonego$ to refer to non-ego agents.
Consider a set of $A$ different local (generalized) Nash equilibria with
$\{ ({\bf X}^a, {\bf U}^a) \}_{a=1}^A$
and let $a \in \{ 1, \dots, A \}$ be a discrete latent random variable that
determines the nominal trajectory around which the cost functions and dynamics are approximated.
We now consider an extension of the maximum entropy dynamic game \eqref{eq:pf_medg:gnep}, where all agents except for the ego agent have full knowledge of the value of $a$ and are playing the corresponding optimal policy $\pi^a$.
However, the non-ego agents incorrectly believes that the ego agent knows what the true mode is.
This is now a \textbf{dynamic game with incomplete information}
since the ego agent only has a \textit{belief} of what the true game is
but does not know what the true dynamics nor cost are.
However, since the non-ego agents know what the true mode is,
their actions act as a \textit{signal} for the ego agent and allow the
ego-agent to update its belief using this information.
In the theory of games with incomplete information,
a \textit{state of the world} $\omega$
fully defines a possibility of the true cost function and dynamics of the game \cite{maschler2013game}.
Uncertainty over the true state of the world $\omega_*$ implies uncertainty over
what game is being played.
Let $Y$ be a finite set containing all possible states of the worlds
and $p_i : Y \to \Delta(Y)$ be the \textit{belief} of each agent mapping each state of the world $\omega \in Y$ to a probability distribution over $Y$.
For our problem, let $\omega_{a, s}$ and $\omega_{a, m}$ for $a=1,\dots,A$
denote different \textit{states of the world} such that
when $\omega_* \in \big\{ \omega_{a, s},\, \omega_{a, m} \big\}$,
the true cost and dynamics that correspond to the approximated costs and dynamics
around the local (generalized) Nash equilibrium $( \vxbar^a, \vubar^a )$.
The ``$s$'' and ``$m$'' here can be taken to mean ``single'' and ``multi''.
We now define our set $Y$ as
\begin{equation}
Y \coloneqq \{ \omega_{1, s}, \dots, \omega_{A, s}, \omega_{1, m}, \dots, \omega_{A, m} \}.
\end{equation}
Let $\ind$ denote the indicator function and $p_a$ denote the ego agent's prior over the modes $a$ with support on the set $\{ \omega_{a, m} \}_{a=1}^A$.
We define the beliefs of the ego agent $p_1$ and non-ego agents $p_{\nonego}$ as
\begin{align}
p_1(\omega) &= \begin{dcases}
\ind_{\omega_{a, s}}(\omega), &\omega = \omega_{a, s}, \; a \in \{1, \dots, A \} \\
p_a(\omega), &\omega = \omega_{a, m}, \; a \in \{1, \dots, A \}
\end{dcases}, \\
p_{\nonego}(\omega) &= \begin{dcases}
\ind_{\omega_{a, s}}(\omega), &\omega = \omega_{a, s}, \; a \in \{1, \dots, A \} \\
\ind_{\omega_{a, s}}(\omega), &\omega = \omega_{a, m}, \; a \in \{1, \dots, A \}
\end{dcases},
\end{align}
To give intuition to the above game setup, note that each mode $a$ is associated with two world states: $\omega_{a, s}$ and $\omega_{a, m}$.
When the true state $\omega_*$ is at $\omega_{a, s}$, all agents correctly believe that the
state is $\omega_{a,u}$.
However, when $\omega_* = \omega_{a, m}$, the non-ego agents incorrectly believe that the true state is $\omega_{a, s}$ while the ego agent correctly believes that the true state lies is in the set
$\{ \omega_{a, m} \}$ but is unsure which is the correct one.
With the above setup, we can use tools from game theory to gain intuition into the \textit{belief-structure} of this game, namely what each agent believes is true, what each agent believes other agents believe is true and so on \cite{maschler2013game}.
\begin{definition}[Belief Operator] \label{def:belief_operator}
Let $B_i$ denote the \textit{belief operator} such that for any event $A \subseteq Y$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def:belief}
B_i A \coloneqq \{ \omega \in Y : p_i(A | \omega) = 1\},
\end{equation}
and the conditional belief $p_i(A | \omega)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
p_i( A | \omega) \coloneqq \ExP{p_i(\omega)}{ \mathbbm{1}_{A} }.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
In other words, $\omega \in B_i A$ means that at $\omega$, event $A$ \textit{obtains} according to
agent $i$'s belief in the sense that at least one of $\omega \in A$ corresponds to the true state.
We next define the concept of \textit{common belief} \cite{maschler2013game}:
\begin{definition}[Common Belief] \label{def:common_belief}
Let $A \subseteq Y$ be an event and $\omega \in Y$.
The event $A$ is \textit{common belief} at state $\omega$ if every agent believes that $A$ obtains, every agent believes that every agent believes that $A$ obtains, and so on.
In other words, for every finite sequence $i_1, \dots, i_L$ of agents:
\begin{equation}
\omega \in B_{i_1} \dots B_{i_L} A,
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
In particular, the event $Y$ is common belief among the agents, i.e., each agent knows that the true world state $\omega$ must be an element of $Y$.
Using \cref{def:belief_operator} and \cref{def:common_belief}, we now precisely define the key property of the dynamic game --- it is common knowledge that the non-ego agents believes that the ego agent knows the mode.
\input{lemmas/common_belief}
We delegate the proof of \cref{thm:mme:common_belief} to \Cref{sm:sec:proof:mme:common_belief}.
Furthermore, we refer the interested reader to \citet{maschler2013game} for more information on
belief spaces and games with incomplete information.
The above lemma shows how this choice of information asymmetry simplifies computation.
Namely, since each non-ego agent believes that the ego-agent knows the mode perfectly, each non-ego agent's control will exactly be the Nash-equilibria control in the unimodal case.
Finally, we introduce the concept of a (local) \textit{Bayesian Nash equilibrium}.
This is a generalization of the classical (generalized) Nash equilibrium to the incomplete information case, where the \textit{expectation} of an agent's cost with respect to its own belief is used \cite{maschler2013game}:
\begin{definition}[Bayesian Nash equilibrium]
A policy $\pi^*$ is a Bayesian Nash equilibrium if, for all agents $i$,
\begin{equation}
\ExP{p_i}{ J^i(\pi^{i*}, \pi^{\negi *}) } \leq \ExP{p_i}{ J^i(\pi^i, \pi^{\negi *}) },
\quad \pi^i \in \Pi(\pi^{\negi *}),
\end{equation}
where the expectation is taken with respect to agent $i$'s belief of the world state $\omega_* \in Y$.
\end{definition}
As a result, when $\omega_* = \omega_{a, s}$,
since all agents know the mode $a$, the optimal $\pi^*$ simply corresponds to the optimal policy $\pi^{a}$ for the generalized Nash equilibrium found previously.
When $\omega_* = \omega_{a, m}$, the non-ego agents believe that the true state
is still $\omega_{a, s}$ and hence the optimal policy is still $\pi^{\negi, a}$.
On the other hand, for $\omega_* = \omega_{a, m}$, although the ego-agent is uncertain about the true value of $a$, it knows via \cref{thm:mme:common_belief} that the non-ego agents will play $\pi^{\negi, a}$.
Furthermore, the controls of the non-ego agents $u^{\negi}$ give information about what the true value of $a$ is.
Hence, the problem of computing the Bayesian Nash equilibrium $\pi^{i*}$ reduces to the problem of solving a \ac{POMDP}
where the belief space is over the latent variable $a$ and the observations ${\bm{o}}$ are the observed controls of the non-ego agents.
The conditional dependencies for the POMDP are shown in the graphical model in \cref{fig:pomdp_model}.
\input{figs/mmedg_pomdp_model}
By using the standard belief-space approach to solve the \ac{POMDP}, the Bellman equation takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ego_pomdp}
V^1({\bm{x}}, {\bm{b}}_t) = \inf_{\pi^1} \mathbb{E}_{\pi} \bigg[
\mathbb{E}_{{\bm{b}}_t} l^{1,a}({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) + \mathbb{E}_{\pi^{\nonego}}
{V^1}'\big( f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}), {\bm{b}}_{t+1} \big)
\bigg],
\end{equation}
where ${\bm{b}}_{t+1}$ refers to the updated belief for the next timestep via Bayesian filtering:
\begin{equation}
{\bm{b}}_{t+1}(a) \propto \pi^{\nonego}({\bm{u}}^{\nonego} | a) \, {\bm{b}}_{t}(a).
\end{equation}
While solving for general \ac{POMDP}s is computationally untractable \cite{papadimitriou1987complexity},
there exist computationally efficient methods for solving \ac{POMDP}s
over discrete latent spaces by using a \ac{DDP}-based approach \cite{qiu2020latent}.
However, to simplify the implementation and presentation of this work, we choose to bypass the problem of solving the full POMDP by
making the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}
The ego agent will be informed of the true mode $a$ after one timestep at $t=1$.
\end{assumption}
With this assumption, the value functions for $t \geq 1$ are known and correspond to the value functions $V^{1,a}$ for each mode $a$ of the found local Nash equilibrium.
Hence, the Bellman equation at $t=0$ reads
\begin{align} \label{eq:approx_pomdp}
\begin{split}
V^1
&= \inf_{\pi^1} \mathbb{E}_{{\bm{b}}_0, \pi} \bigg[
l^{1,a}({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}})
+ {V^{1,a}}'\big( f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) \big)
\bigg] - \alpha H[\pi^1],
\end{split} \nonumber \\
\begin{split}
&= \inf_{\pi^1} \bigg\{ \mathbb{E}_{\pi^i} \Big[
\frac{1}{2} {u^1}^\mathrm{T} \tilde{Q}_{u^1 u^1}^1 u^1
+ \left( \tilde{Q}_{u^1}^1 + \tilde{Q}_{u^1}^1 {\bm{x}} \right)^\mathrm{T} u^i
\Big] \\
&\qquad\qquad + c - \alpha H[\pi^1] \bigg\},
\end{split}\raisetag{1\baselineskip}
\end{align}
where ${\bm{b}}_0 \in \Delta(Y)$ denotes the ego agent's prior belief of the true mode, $c$ encapsulates all terms that are constant with respect to $u^1$, and
\begin{align}
\tilde{Q}_{u^1 u^1}^{1} &\coloneqq \ExP{{\bm{b}}_0}{ Q_{u^1 u^1}^{1,a} },
\qquad \tilde{Q}_{u^1 {\bm{x}}}^{1} \coloneqq \ExP{{\bm{b}}_0}{ Q_{u^1 {\bm{x}}}^{1,a} }, \\
\tilde{Q}_{u^1}^{1} &\coloneqq \ExP{{\bm{b}}_0}{
Q_{u^1}^{1, a} - Q_{u^1 u^1}^{1,a} \bar{u}^{1,a} - Q_{u^1 {\bm{x}}}^{1,a} \bar{{\bm{x}}}^a }.
\end{align}
Consequently, the optimal policy $\pi^1$ corresponds to the Gibbs distribution and is solved in the
same way as in \ac{MELQGames} \cref{thm:me:opt_pol}.
\textbf{Choices of the prior distribution: }
There are many valid choices for the prior distribution on the modes ${\bm{b}}_0$.
If no prior information on the non-ego agents is known, one choice is to choose ${\bm{b}}_0$ as the maximum entropy distribution that minimizes the sum of the value functions for each agent:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fair_mode_prior}
{\bm{b}}_0(a) = \inf_{p} \ExP{a \sim p}{ \sum_{i=1}^N V^{i,a}({\bm{x}}_0) } - \alpha H[p].
\end{equation}
With this prior, modes that result in lower costs for all agents will have higher probabilities over
modes that have high costs for all agents.
However, in the context of planning for an ego agent, this may favor local minima which are bad for the ego agent when better alternatives exist.
\input{figs/alg_schematic}
Alternatively, we can bias the selection of modes to ones which are favorable to the ego-agent by choosing ${\bm{b}}_0$ as the maximum entropy distribution that minimizes the sum of the ego agent's value functions
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ego_biased_mode_prior}
{\bm{b}}_0(a) = p(a|{\bm{x}}_0) = \inf_{p} \ExP{a \sim p}{ V^{1,a}({\bm{x}}_0) } - \alpha H[p].
\end{equation}
\subsection{Latent Mode Bayesian Inference via MaxEnt}
\label{subsec:bayesian_inference}
In a MPC context, we can improve on our choices of the prior since the controls of the non-ego agents from previous timesteps act as signals for the true mode $a$.
By observing them, the ego agent can form a more accurate estimate of ${\bm{b}}_0$.
For simplicity, we assume that the observations of non-ego agent's controls are noiseless, though this can be generalized to the noisy case in a Bayesian fashion by incorporating an observation model.
Suppose that the controls $\hat{{\bm{u}}}^{\nonego} \coloneqq {\bm{u}}_{-k:-1}^{\nonego}$ and optimal policies $\{ \pi^{\nonego, a} \}_{a=1}^A$ for all non-ego agents from the past $k$ timesteps are known.
Then, the posterior on those previous controls can be used for our estimate of ${\bm{b}}_0$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inference:posterior}
{\bm{b}}_0(a)
\coloneqq p( a | \hat{{\bm{u}}}^{\nonego} )
\propto p(a) \prod_{t=-k}^{-1} p({\bm{u}}_{t}^{\nonego}|a) ,
\end{equation}
where $p(a)$ is chosen to be the prior \eqref{eq:ego_biased_mode_prior} from the previous subsection
that biases towards modes that are favorable to the ego-agent.
With this choice of prior, modes which describe the controls of non-ego agents and are beneficial to the ego-agent will have high probability.
When computing the posterior in \eqref{eq:inference:posterior},
it is assumed that all of the controls in $\hat{{\bm{u}}}^{\nonego}$ correspond to the same mode $a$.
While one could simply use all of the collected observations to compute the posterior,
this choice is invalid in the case that non-ego agents switch to a different mode somewhere in the middle of the collected observations.
To solve this issue, we can make the less restrictive assumption that only the last $k$ controls from non-ego agents correspond to the same mode.
\section{Game Theoretic Model Predictive Control}
\label{sec:gt_mpc}
In this section, we summarize the MMELQGames algorithm which combines the
solution to the information asymmetric game setup described in \cref{subsec:mme}
with the latent mode Bayesian inference in \cref{subsec:bayesian_inference} and propose a receding horizon game-theoretic planner that can reason about and infer multiple hypothesis in \cref{alg:mme_mpc}, \cref{alg:find_modes}, \cref{alg:inference_mpc} and summarized in \cref{fig:alg_diagram}.
\Cref{alg:mme_mpc} can be summarized as first solving for a set of local Nash equilibrium in \cref{alg:find_modes},
then using the solutions as inputs to solve a POMDP for the ego agent with uncertainty over the mode in \cref{alg:inference_mpc}.
\input{algo/mme}
\input{algo/find_modes}
\input{algo/inference}
\Cref{alg:find_modes} starts by first finding a set of modes that each solve the local maximum entropy generalized Nash equilibrium problem \eqref{eq:pf_medg:gnep}.
Moreover, to obtain the optimal policies for the non-ego agents from previous timesteps,
we solve starting from the earliest timestep which we wish to condition our posterior computation \eqref{eq:inference:posterior} on, warm-starting this computation
from the previous iteration's solution if available.
To solve for each mode, we use the \ac{MELQGames} algorithm.
More specifically, we first compute the nominal state trajectories $\{ \vxbar^a \}_{a=1}^A$ as well as derivatives of the cost functions $l^i$ and dynamics $f$ along $(\vxbar^a, \vubar^a)$ for each mode.
Then, we solve for the backward pass by computing the optimal policy \eqref{eq:me:opt_pol} and updating the value function \eqref{eq:me:val_fn_update} for each timestep starting from the terminal time $T$.
Finally, we update the nominal controls using a line search on the maximum of the norm $\max_i \norm{J^i_{\ui}}$.
We exploit the fact that each local Nash equilibrium can be computed independent by solving for $A$ local generalized Nash equilibrium \textit{in parallel}, where $A$ is chosen to be the number of cores available for parallel processing on the CPU.
This iteration of backward and forward pass continues for each mode until this norm is smaller than some threshold $\epsilon$, upon which it is saved into a set of converged modes before being reinitialized from the current $\pi$.
After the maximum number of iterations has been reached, we perform clustering via k-means to remove potential duplicate modes before returning the reduced set $\{ (\vxbar^a, \vubar^a)_{a=1}^{\tilde{A}} \}$ of unique Nash equilibrium.
Then, in \cref{alg:inference_mpc}, we use the ego agent's value function, optimal policies for the non-ego agents $\pi^{\negi,a}$ and
observed controls from non-ego agents to perform Bayesian inference on the mode $a$ to compute our belief prior ${\bm{b}}_0$ via \eqref{eq:inference:posterior}.
Consequently, we use ${\bm{b}}_0$ and $\pi^{\negi,a}$ to solve the POMDP \eqref{eq:ego_pomdp} and obtain the optimal policy $\pi^{1,*}$.
This can be done by either solving the full POMDP \eqref{eq:ego_pomdp} using the method from \cite{qiu2020latent}
or by solving the approximated one-step POMDP \eqref{eq:approx_pomdp}.
Finally, we either execute a random sample from $\pi^{1,*}$ or use the mean control before repeating the algorithm again in a receding horizon fashion.
\section{Connections to Related Works}
\label{sec:connections}
\subsection{Game-Theoretic Planning}
There are two main approaches to solving for game-theoretic equilibria:
\ac{IBR}-based and direct methods.
\textbf{IBR-based methods: }
\ac{IBR}-based methods rely on either the Jacobi decomposition or Gauss-Seidel decomposition to decompose the problem of finding first-order stationary points into separate optimal control problems for each agent \cite{britzelmeier2019numerical, williams2017autonomous}.
These methods optimize the controls for one agent while keeping the controls for other agents fixed, repeating this process iteratively until convergence.
By holding controls, \ac{IBR} assumes that
$
\frac{ \partial \vunegi_{t+1} }{ \partial \ui_t }
= \frac{ \partial \vunegi_{t+1} }{ \partial {\bm{x}}_{t+1} }
\frac{ \partial {\bm{x}}_{t+1} }{ \partial \ui_t }
= 0%
$.
As a result, IBR lacks the term below key to describing inter-agent behavior arising from asymmetric inter-agent coupling terms:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial J^i}{\partial \ui_t}
= \frac{\partial J^i}{\partial {\bm{x}}_{t+2}} \cdot \left(
\frac{\partial {\bm{x}}_{t+2}}{\partial \vunegi_{t+1}}
\frac{\partial \vunegi_{t+1}}{ \partial {\bm{x}}_t }
\frac{\partial {\bm{x}}_t}{ \partial \ui_t }
+ \dots
\right).
\end{equation}
To remedy this, approaches from \cite{spica2020real, wang2019game, wang2020multi} propose the SE-IBR algorithm which extends \ac{IBR} by
accounting for some of missing information using the sensitivity nformation from the Lagrange multipliers of active constraints.
However, their approach relies on a particular structure of the cost function.
Additionally, the convergence of \ac{IBR}-based methods is not well understood \cite{facchinei2010generalized} and can potentially require many trajectory optimization iterations before convergence.
\textbf{Direct methods: }
Direct methods solve for the coupled system of equations resulting from the first-order stationary conditions directly.
Examples include methods based on Newton's method \cite{di2019newton, di2020first, cleac2019algames} and \ac{DDP} \cite{fridovich2020efficient, schwarting2021stochastic}.
The proposed \ac{MMELQGames} algorithm falls under the category of \ac{DDP}-based methods as it solves a quadratic approximation of the dynamic game during each timestep.
However, unlike previous methods, our method focuses on the constrained \ac{MaxEnt} version of the game and also incoporates multimodality via a novel formulation of an incomplete information with information asymmetry.
\subsection{Multimodal Planning}
There are relatively few works that explore the concept of multimodality within the context of dynamic games.
This idea is explored in \cite{laine2021multi}, but requires the multimodality to be known a priori and explicitly encoded into the model.
One series of works \cite{ivanovic2019trajectron, ivanovic2018generative, schmerling2018multimodal} approach this problem by training a generative model offline conditioned on a discrete latent variable to learn the trajectories of other agents. While this approach does take multimodality into account, it is not done in a game-theoretic context.
The work in this paper is most similar to \cite{qiu2020latent},
which also solves a POMDP with a discrete latent variable.
However, in their work, the discrete latent variable must be prespecified while the multimodality is discovered in this work.
Also, their work only looks at optimality for a single agent while
in our work we focus on solving for generalized Nash equilibria, with the POMDP being only one piece of the algorithm.
\subsection{Bayesian Inference and Laplace Approximation}
The maximum entropy term transforms the difficulty of each agent's optimization problem into that of sampling from the optimal $\pi^i$ and computing the normalization term $Z^i$, a challenge shared by many techniques for Bayesian inference.
Some popular techniques for tackling Bayesian inference include \ac{MCMC} and \ac{VI} \cite{andrieu2003introduction, salimans2015markov}, though these methods are usually much slower and are computationally intractable for planning on real time. We do note however a series of works \cite{okada2020variational, wang2021variational} which successfully apply variational inference via sampling-based optimization.
Laplace Approximation \cite{daxberger2021laplace} is an approximation framework for Bayesian inference by finding a Gaussian approximation to a probability density function
MELQGames can be viewed as applying the Laplace Approximation to $\pii_t$ at each timestep $t$.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:simulation}
In this section, we compare the proposed \ac{MMELQGames} algorithm against the IBR and MELQGames algorithms on two examples which illustrate the capabilities of MMELQGames in recovering a rich set of multi-agent interactions.
The reader is encouraged to view the videos included in the supplementary material which
showcase the behavior of \ac{MMELQGames} compared to \ac{MELQGames} and \ac{IBR}.
\input{figs/swap_compare}
\input{figs/swap_three}
\input{figs/race_results}
\subsection{Multi-agent collision avoidance}
We begin with a simple collision avoidance game between agents with unicycle dynamics to highlight the multimodality of our algorithm.
Each agent's objective function composes of a quadratic task and a soft cost for colliding with other agents.
As there is no ego agent in this example, we assume that the ego agent knows the mode $a$ from the start and choose the prior for $a$ to be of the form \eqref{eq:fair_mode_prior}.
The results are shown in \cref{fig:sim:swap_2}.
While \citet{mehr2021maximum} claims that the stochastic policy from MELQGames is able to
result in multimodal behaviors, our results show that this is not the case.
Since the mean control from MELQGames is equivalent to the linear feedback controller from iLQR, the resulting behavior should also result in a ``tube'' around the mean trajectory, which is indeed what we see on the top row of \cref{fig:sim:swap_2}.
On the other hand, the MMELQGames algorithm is able to properly handle the multimodality of this example and sucessfully find both local Nash equilibria of the game.
\input{figs/race_freeze}
\subsection{Game Theoretic Autonomous Racing}
We next consider a two-agent racing scenario where the lead vehicle has index $i=1$ and the rear vehicle has index $i=2$.
The objective of each agent is to maximize the difference between its own progress $s^i$ and the progress of the other agent $s^{\negi}$ (first term)
under quadratic control cost (second term), subject to the following
\begin{align}
\min_{u^i} &\quad (s^{\negi} - s^i)
+ \sum_{t=1}^{T-1} \frac{1}{2}{u^i_t}^\mathrm{T} R u^i_t, \\
\textrm{s.t.} &\quad h^i_{\textrm{track}}({\bf X}, {\bf U}) \leq 0, \\
&\quad \mathbbm{1}_{s^i < s^{\negi}} h^i_{\textrm{collision}}({\bf X}) \leq 0, \\
&\quad h^i_{\textrm{velocity}}({\bf X}) \leq 0.
\end{align}
where each vehicle is modeled as a unicycle with linear and angular accelerations as controls.
To make the problem interesting, the lead vehicle has a lower maximum velocity than the rear vehicle to allow the rear vehicle the opportunity to overtake.
To maintain the lead, the lead vehicle must block the rear vehicle from overtaking its position.
Furthermore, to more closely model racing in real life, the collision constraint is asymmetric with the burden of respecting the constraint placed solely on the rear vehicle.
We compare a MPC version of the IBR, iLQGames and MMELQGames algorithms for the lead vehicle by planning in a receding horizon fashion.
Note that MELQGames is equivalent to iLQGames if the mean controls are used instead of sampling from the stochastic policy.
In all cases, the rear agent solves for its controls using IBR.
The width of the track means that the rear agent can choose to overtake the lead vehicle by going either above or below
resulting in multimodality.
We test both modes in our experiments, with the results for \ac{MMELQGames} shown in \cref{fig:eyecandy} and a comparison of the algorithms shown in \cref{fig:sim:overtake}.
As expected, IBR is unable to take into account the asymmetric coupling effects between the agents.
Although the solution it does find is a local GNE, it is one which is disadvantageous for the lead agent and results in the lead agent being overtaken by the rear agent in both modes.
iLQGames is able to converge to the advantageous local GNE for the first mode and successfully finish the race ahead of the rear agent. However, the nature of the method means that it is only able to keep track of one of the two modes, resulting in the method failing to block the rear agent when the rear agent overtakes via the bottom.
Finally, the multimodal nature of MMELQGames means that it is able to keep track of both local Nash equilibria at the same time.
By using the history of the rear agent's control, the lead agent is able to infer whether rear agent is trying to overtake from the top or the bottom and then execute the corresponding control.
We also note that since MELQGames is a local method, it is prone to becoming stuck in local minima. From \cref{fig:sim:me_wrong}, even though the rear agent is clearly trying to overtake via the bottom mode, the warmstart for iLQGames means that it still predicts the rear agent will overtake from the top.
On the other hand, the multimodality of MMELQGames means that it can keep track of multiple hypothesis at the same time and hence is able to infer the correct mode using the algorithm described in \cref{subsec:bayesian_inference} and respond accordingly.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we have proposed a constrained \ac{MaxEnt} dynamic game formulation and presented an algorithm that can solve for multiple modes of the corresponding \ac{GNE}.
We demonstrate its advantages over existing unimodal algorithms in the examples of multi-agent collision avoidance and autonomous racing.
While we have explored the use of constraints on the mean control in our formulation, it may be interesting to look at different ways of including constraints in the \ac{MaxEnt} dynamic game formulation such as via chance constraints or constraints that hold almost-surely.
Finally, though our algorithm identifies multimodal behavior by exploring the state space, we do not provide any guarantees for how thorough this exploration is or whether there are additional modes which have not been discovered.
Quantifying this via uncertainty quantification tools such as Gaussian Processes can provide more structured methods of discovering different modalities in multi-agent interactions.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\section{\@ifstar{\starsection}{\nostarsection}}
\newcommand\nostarsection[1]
{\sectionprelude\origsection{#1}\sectionpostlude}
\newcommand\starsection[1]
{\sectionprelude\origsection*{#1}\sectionpostlude}
\newcommand\sectionprelude{%
}
\newcommand\sectionpostlude{%
\setcounter{equation}{0}
}
\makeatother
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newpage
\section{Expression for Partial Derivatives of $Q^i$}
\label{sm:Q_derivs}
Let $Q^i$ denote the terms inside the expectation in Bellman's equation \eqref{eq:dp:raw_bellman}:
\begin{equation}
Q^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) \coloneqq l^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) + {V^i}'( f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) ).
\end{equation}
Suppose that the value function at the next timestep ${V^i}'$ is quadratic with form
\begin{equation}
{V^i}'({\bm{x}}) = (\bar{V}^i)' + (V^i)'_x \vdx + \frac{1}{2} \vdx^\mathrm{T} (V^i)'_{xx} \vdx
\end{equation}
Using a quadratic approximation of the costs and
linear approximation of the dynamics \eqref{eq:me:quad_cost_lin_dyn} then yields
\begin{align}
Q^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) &\approx
l^i(\vxbar, \vubar)
+ \begin{bmatrix}l^i_x \\ l^i_u\end{bmatrix}^\mathrm{T}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}
+ \frac{1}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}^\mathrm{T}
\begin{bmatrix}l^i_{xx} & l^i_{xu} \\ l^i_{ux} & l^i_{uu} \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix} \\
&\quad + \Big( f(\vxbar, \vubar) + f_x \vdx + f_u \vdu \Big)^\mathrm{T}
\Big( (\bar{V}^i)' + (V^i)'_x \vdx + \frac{1}{2} \vdx^\mathrm{T} (V^i)'_{xx} \vdx \Big)
\Big( f(\vxbar, \vubar) + f_x \vdx + f_u \vdu \Big).
\end{align}
Expanding and collecting terms then results in
\begin{gather}
\begin{aligned}
Q^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) &\approx \bar{V}^i + \delta Q^i, \\
\bar{V}^i &\coloneqq l^i(\vxbar, \vubar) + (\bar{V}^i)'(f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}})),
\end{aligned} \\
\delta Q^i \coloneqq
\begin{bmatrix}Q^i_x \\ Q^i_u\end{bmatrix}^\mathrm{T} \begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}
+ \frac{1}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}^\mathrm{T}
\begin{bmatrix}Q^i_{xx} & Q^i_{xu} \\ Q^i_{ux} & Q^i_{uu} \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}\vdx \\ \vdu\end{bmatrix}.
\end{gather}
where the partial derivatives of $Q^i$ are as follows:
\begin{align}
Q^i_x &= l^i_x + f_x^\mathrm{T} (V^i)'_x \\
Q^i_u &= l^i_u + f_u^\mathrm{T} (V^i)'_x \\
Q^i_{xx} &= l^i_{xx} + f_x^\mathrm{T} (V^i)'_{xx} f_x \\
Q^i_{ux} &= l^i_{ux} + f_u^\mathrm{T} (V^i)'_{xx} f_x \\
Q^i_{uu} &= l^i_{uu} + f_u^\mathrm{T} (V^i)'_{xx} f_u
\end{align}
\newpage
\section{Proof of \Cref{thm:me:opt_pol}}
\label{sm:proof:thm:me:opt_pol}
\input{proofs/opt_melq_pol}
\newpage
\section{Proof of \Cref{thm:me:val_fn}}
\label{sm:proof:thm:me:val_fn}
\input{proofs/melq_value_update}
\newpage
\section{Proof of \Cref{lemma:aug_lang_cvg}}
\label{sm:proof:lemma:aug_lang_cvg}
\input{proofs/aug_lang_cvg}
\newpage
\section{Proof of \Cref{thm:mme:common_belief}}
\label{sm:sec:proof:mme:common_belief}
\input{proofs/common_belief}
\section{Multimodal Maximum Entropy Dynamic Games}
\label{sec:mme}
While Maximum Entropy LQGames can model inexactness in the control, it does so via a unimodal Gaussian approximation which may not be flexible enough in cases where the true value function
is not unimodal.
This is a common situation that can arise from nonconvex dynamics, nonconvex cost functions or nonconvex state constraints such as collision avoidance.
In this section, we derive a multimodal extension to MELQGames to address this problem.
Let $\{ \bar{{\bm{x}}}^{a}, \bar{{\bm{u}}}^{a} \}_{a=1}^A$ be $A$ different nominal state and control trajectories and
let $\Phi^{i, a}$ corresponds to the respective quadratic approximation of $\Phi^i$
around $\bar{{\bm{x}}}^{a}$ and $\bar{{\bm{u}}}^{a}$.
Instead of using a single quadratic approximation of $\Phi^i$ for the terminal cost as in \eqref{eq:me:term_quad}, we use the following combined approximation $\tilde{\Phi}$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mme:logsumexp_Phi}
\tilde{\Phi}^i( {\bm{x}}_T ) \coloneqq
-\alpha \ln \sum_{a=1}^A \exp \left(
-\frac{1}{\alpha} \Phi^{i,a}( {\bm{x}}_T )
\right).
\end{equation}
The log-sum-exp is a smoothed combination of the local quadratic approximation and approaches $\min_n \{ \Phi^{(n)} \}$ as $\alpha$ approaches $0$,
as shown in \cref{fig:mme:logsumexp}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{figures/logsumexp.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the individual quadratic approximation (top) and the
log-sum-exp approximation (bottom) of the cost function $l(x)$ with varying
choices of inverse temperature $\alpha$.
Higher values of $\alpha$ result in a smoother approximation of $l$.}
\label{fig:mme:logsumexp}
\end{figure}
Now, define $\expalph$ to be the following function:
\begin{equation}
\expalph(y) \coloneqq \exp \Big(-\frac{1}{\alpha} y\Big).
\end{equation}
Then, since $V^i = \Phi^i$ at the final timestep,
\begin{align}
z_T^i({\bm{x}})
&= \expalph(V^i) = \sum_{a=1}^A \expalph(\Phi^{i,a}({\bm{x}})) \\
&= \sum_{a=1}^A r^{i, a}_T({\bm{x}})
\end{align}
Now, define $z_T^{i,a}({\bm{x}}) \coloneqq r^{i, a}_T({\bm{x}})$ such that
\begin{equation}
z_T^i({\bm{x}}) = \sum_{a=1}^A z_T^{i,a}({\bm{x}})
\end{equation}
With this choice of $z^{i}_T$, Bellman's equation \eqref{eq:dp:linear_bellman} at time $T-1$ takes the form
\begin{align}
z^i_{T-1}({\bm{x}})
&= \int {q^i}'({\bm{x}}, \ui) \, r^i({\bm{x}}, \ui) \; \dui \\
&= \int \expalph\left( \ExP{\vunegi}{ {V'}^i( f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) ) }\right)
\end{align}
This additive structure of $z^i$ is preserved when recursively applying Bellman's equation, as shown in the following lemma.
\todo{Define ${q^{i,a}}'$ somewhere.}
\begin{lemma}
Define the desirability function $z^{i,a}$ for mode $a$ as
\begin{equation}
z^{i, a}({\bm{x}}) = \int (q^{i,a})'( {\bm{x}}, u^i ) r^i({\bm{x}}, u^i) \dui
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation}
z^{i}({\bm{x}}) = \sum_{a=1}^A z^{i, a}({\bm{x}})
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that ${q^i}'({\bm{x}}, \ui) = \sum_{a=1}^A {q^{i, a}}'({\bm{x}}, \ui)$.
Then,
\begin{align}
z^i({\bm{x}})
&= \int {q^i}'({\bm{x}}, u^i) r^i({\bm{x}}, u^i) \dui \\
&= \int \left( \sum_{a=1}^A {q^{i, a}}'({\bm{x}}, u^i) \right) r^i({\bm{x}}, u^i) \dui \\
&= \sum_{a=1}^A \int {q^{i, a}}'({\bm{x}}, u^i) r^i({\bm{x}}, u^i) \dui \\
&= \sum_{a=1}^A z^{i, a}({\bm{x}}) \label{eq:mme:compose_valuefn}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
We now show that the optimal policy for the $i$th agent is \textit{bilinear} in $(\tilde{z}')^i$ and $r^i$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:linear_policy}
The optimal policy $\pi^i$ for the $i$th agent has the form
\begin{equation}
\pi^{i*}(u^i) = {Z^i}^{-1} \; (\tilde{z}')^{i}( {\bm{x}}, u^i ) \, r^i( {\bm{x}}, u^i )
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align}
\pi^{i*}(u^i)
&= {Z^i}^{-1} e^{\left( -\int \pi^{\negi}(\vunegi) \left[ l^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) + {V'}^i( f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) ) \right] \dif \vunegi \right) } \\
&= {Z^i}^{-1} e^{-\ExP{\vunegi}{ l^i({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) }} \, e^{-\ExP{\vunegi}{{V'}^i( f({\bm{x}}, {\bm{u}}) } } \\
&= {Z^i}^{-1} \; (\tilde{z}')^{i}( {\bm{x}}, u^i ) \, r^i( {\bm{x}}, u^i )
\end{align}
\end{proof}
Using the above, assuming the desirability function can be represented as a sum of individual desirability functions, the following lemma show that the optimal policy is a mixture distribution of the policies corresponding to the individual desirability functions:
\begin{lemma}
Suppose that $z^i({\bm{x}}) = \sum_{a=1}^A z^{i, a}({\bm{x}})$.
Then,
\begin{equation}
\pi^{i*}(\ui|{\bm{x}}) = \sum_{a=1}^A w^{i, a}({\bm{x}}) \pi^{i, a}(\ui | {\bm{x}})
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
w^{i, a}({\bm{x}}) &\coloneqq \frac{z^{i, a}({\bm{x}})}{ z^{i}({\bm{x}}) }, \label{eq:mme:weights} \\
\pi^{i, a}(\ui | {\bm{x}}) &\coloneqq z^{i, a}({\bm{x}})^{-1} \, (\tilde{z}')^{i, a}({\bm{x}}, \ui) \, r^i( {\bm{x}}, \ui ).
\end{align}
In particular, $\pi^{i, a}$ is exactly the optimal policy from only considering the $a$th component $z^{i, a}$ from \cref{lemma:linear_policy}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using \cref{lemma:linear_policy} and that $Z^i({\bm{x}}) = z^i({\bm{x}})$:
\begin{align}
\pi^i( \ui | {\bm{x}} )
&= {z^i}({\bm{x}})^{-1} \; (\tilde{z}')^{i}( {\bm{x}}, \ui ) \, r^i( {\bm{x}}, \ui ) \\
&= {z^i}({\bm{x}})^{-1} \; \left(\sum_{a=1}^A (\tilde{z}')^{i, a}( {\bm{x}}, \ui ) \right) \, r^i( {\bm{x}}, \ui ) \\
&= \sum_{a=1}^A \frac{ z^{i, a}({\bm{x}}) }{ z^i({\bm{x}}) } z^{i, a}({\bm{x}})^{-1}
(\tilde{z}')^{i, a}( {\bm{x}}, \ui ) \, r^i( {\bm{x}}, \ui ) \\
&= \sum_{a=1}^A w^{i, a}({\bm{x}}) \, \pi^{i, a}(\ui | {\bm{x}}) \label{eq:mme:compose_policy}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
Since each $V^{i, a} = -\ln( z^{i, a} )$ is quadratic in ${\bm{x}}$ and we have taken quadratic approximations of the costs, each $\pi^{i, a}$ will hence be Gaussian as before.
Note that the weights $w^{i,a} = \frac{}{} = \frac{}{}$ is the softmax function applied to the the value functions for each mode $a$.
Additionally, since each $V^{i,a}_t$ is a quadratic approximation of the value function dependent on ${\bm{x}}_t$, the resulting weights $w^{i,a}_t$ will also depend on the ${\bm{x}}_t$.
As a result, the weights $w^{i,a}_t$ are not constant and implicitly depend on the controls ${\bm{u}}_{0:t-1}$ from earlier timesteps through ${\bm{x}}_t$.
Finally, since both $z^i$ and $\pi^i$ are weighted sums of $z^{i, a}$ and $\pi^{i, a}$,
computing the solution to the backward pass of of MMELQGames is equivalent to solving for MELQGames around the
$A$ different nominal trajectories and then \textit{composing} the value functions and policies via \eqref{eq:mme:compose_valuefn} and \eqref{eq:mme:compose_policy}.
\subsection{Latent Mode Bayesian Inference via MaxEnt}
\label{sec:inference}
One advantage of the MaxEnt approach is that we obtain a policy distribution over controls $\pi(\ui|{\bm{x}})$ for all agents.
This property is exploited in MaxEnt IRL approaches, where we can perform inference on cost functions by minimizing the KL divergence between this induced policy distribution and data.
In contrast, we make use of this to perform online Bayesian inference on the latent mode $a$ for other agents using the previous controls of the other agents.
We consider a Bayesian approach and assume that the latent mode variable $a$ is fixed in time and has probability equal to the weight of mode $a$ in agent $i$'s stochastic policy at time $t=1$ \eqref{eq:mme:weights}:
\begin{equation}
p^i(a|{\bm{x}}_1)
= \frac{ z^{i,a}(1, {\bm{x}}_1) }{ z^{i}(1, {\bm{x}}_1) }
= \mathrm{softmax}\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha} V^{i,a}(1, {\bm{x}}_1) \right)
\end{equation}
Also, we assume that the all agents observe the same value of the latent variable $a$.
Suppose that the controls of other agents $\vunegi_0$ is observed. Then,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inference:mode}
p(a | \vunegi_0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{x}}_1)
= \frac{ p(\vunegi_0 | {\bm{x}}_0, a) \; p^i(a|{\bm{x}}_1) }{ \sum_{b} p(\vunegi_0|{\bm{x}}_0, b) \; p^i(b|{\bm{x}}_1) }
\end{equation}
where $p(\vunegi_0|{\bm{x}}_0, a)$ is Gaussian from \eqref{eq:me:opt_pol}.
The above is equivalent the solution to the following MaxEnt problem for $p(a|{\bm{u}}_0, {\bm{x}}_0)$:
\begin{align}
\argmin_{p} \ExP{a \sim p}{ \sum_i Q^{i,a}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0) } - H[p]
\end{align}
The optimal distribution for $p(a | {\bm{u}}_0, {\bm{x}}_0)$ then has the form
\begin{align}
&\phantom{{}={}} p^*(a | {\bm{u}}_0, {\bm{x}}_0) \\
&= \frac{\exp(-\sum_i Q^{i, a}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0))}
{\sum_{b} \exp(-\sum_i Q^{i, b}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0)) } \\
&= \frac{\exp(-Q^{\negi, a}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0))\exp(-Q^{i, a}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0) )}
{\sum_{b} \exp(-Q^{\negi, b}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0)) \exp(-Q^{i, b}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0)) } \\
%
&= \frac{\exp(-Q^{\negi, a}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0))\exp(-V^{i, a}(1, {\bm{x}}_1) )}
{\sum_{b} \exp(-Q^{\negi, b}(0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{u}}_0)) \exp(-V^{i, b}(1, {\bm{x}}_1)) } \\
%
&= \frac{ p(\vunegi_t|a, {\bm{x}}_0) \; p^i(a | {\bm{x}}_1) }{ \sum_{b} p(\vunegi_t|b,{\bm{x}}_0) \; p^i(b | {\bm{x}}_1) }
\end{align}
Where the second last line follows from $l^{i,a}(0, x, u) = l^{i,b}(0,x,u)$.
With $p(a | \unegi_0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{x}}_1)$, we can now obtain $p(\ui_1 | \unegi_0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{x}}_1)$ via
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inference:control}
p(\ui_1 | \unegi_0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{x}}_1) = \sum_{a=1}^A p(\ui_1 | a, {\bm{x}}_1) p(a | \unegi_0, {\bm{x}}_0, {\bm{x}}_1)
\end{equation}
where $p(\ui_1 | a, {\bm{x}}_1)$ is similarly Gaussian from \eqref{eq:me:opt_pol}.
This suggests an approach of combining the game-theoretic planning from MELQGames with mode inference: instead of planning from the current timestep, we instead plan from the \textit{previous} timestep to obtain a multimodal stochastic policy for each agent.
We can then use \eqref{eq:inference:mode} to infer a distribution on $a$ and hence compute the posterior on $p(\ui_1)$ using \eqref{eq:inference:control}.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well-known that the Hessian matters to optimization, generalization, and even robustness of deep learning \citep{li2020hessian,ghorbani2019investigation,zhao2019bridging,jacot2019asymptotic,yao2018hessian,dauphin2014identifying,byrd2011use}.
Deep learning usually finds flat minima that generalize well \citep{hochreiter1995simplifying,hochreiter1997flat}. The Hessian is one of the most important measures of the minima flatness and directly relates to generalization in deep learning \citep{hoffer2017train,neyshabur2017exploring,dinh2017sharp,wu2017towards,tsuzuku2020normalized}. \citet{jiang2019fantastic} reported that minima-flatness-based generalization bound is still the most reliable metric in extensive experiments. \citet{wu2017towards} reported that the low-complexity solutions that generalize well have a small norm of Hessian matrix with respect to model parameters. \citet{yao2018hessian} reported that the spectrum of the Hessian closely connects to large-batch training and adversarial robustness.
A number of works empirically studied the Hessian in deep neural networks. Some papers \citep{sagun2016eigenvalues,sagun2017empirical,wu2017towards} empirically reported a two-component structure that, in the context of deep learning, most eigenvalues of the Hessian are nearly zero, while a small number of eigenvalues are large. \citet{sankar2021deeper} revealed that the layerwise Hessian spectrum is similar to the entire Hessian spectrum. However, the theoretical mechanism behind the spectrum is under-explored.
\textbf{Motivation.} Why does the Hessian spectrum consist of a small number of large eigenvalues and a large number of nearly zero eigenvalues? Does an elegant mathematical structure hide behind the Hessian spectrum? Inspired by protein science, our work provides a novel tool to understand and analyze deep learning from a spectral perspective.
\textbf{Contributions.} This paper has two main contributions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item First, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to empirically discover and mathematically model the power-law Hessian spectrum in deep learning. We theoretically formulated a novel maximum entropy interpretation for explaining the power-law spectrum.
\item Second, we propose a framework of power-law spectral analysis for deep learning. We not only reveal how the power-law spectrum explains the theoretical origin of striking findings but also empirically demonstrate multiple novel insights of deep learning.
\end{enumerate}
\section{The Power-Law Hessian Spectrum}
\begin{figure*
\center
\subfigure[MNIST]{\includegraphics[width =0.24\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_mnist_lenet_MomentumRandom.pdf}}
\subfigure[Fashion-MNIST]{\includegraphics[width =0.24\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_fmnist_lenet_MomentumRandom.pdf}}
\subfigure[CIFAR-10]{\includegraphics[width =0.24\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_CIFAR10_lenet_MomentumRandom.pdf}}
\subfigure[CIFAR-100]{\includegraphics[width =0.24\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_CIFAR100_lenet_MomentumRandom.pdf}}
\caption{ The power-law structure of the Hessian spectrum in deep learning. Model: LeNet. We may clearly observe that the power-law spectrums generally hold for well trained deep networks on various natural or artificial datasets, while do not hold for random neural networks. We also report that a small number of outlier eigenvalues ($\sim$10) slightly deviate from the fitted straight line.}
\label{fig:powerlaw}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we demonstrate that the Hessian spectrums of well-trained deep neural networks have a simple power-law structure and how to theoretically derive the power-law structure. We also show that the discovered power-law structure provides novel insights and helps understand important properties of deep learning.
\textbf{Notations.} We denote the training dataset as $\{ (x, y) \} = \{(x_{j}, y_{j})\}_{j=1}^{N} $ drawn from the data distribution $\mathcal{S}$, the $n$ model parameters as $\theta$ and the loss function over one data sample $\{(x_{j}, y_{j})\}$ as $l(\theta, (x_{j}, y_{j}))$. For simplicity, we further denote the training loss as $L(\theta) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} l(\theta, (x_{j}, y_{j}) )$. We write the descending ordered eigenvalues of the Hessian $H$ as $\{\lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2}, \dots, \lambda_{n}\}$ and denote the spectral density function as $p(\lambda)$.
\subsection{The Power-Law Structure and Empirical Evidence}
Recent papers studied the Hessian but failed to reveal its elegant mathematical structure. For understanding the distribution of the Hessian spectrum better, we first visualize the Hessian spectrum of a well-trained neural network and a randomly initialized neural network by using the Lanczos algorithm \citep{meurant2006lanczos,yao2020pyhessian} to estimate the eigenvalues and spectral densities. In Figure \ref{fig:powerlaw}, we display the top 6000 eigenvalues and their corresponding rank order. Both axes are $\log$-scale. And we surprisingly discover an approximately straight line fits the Hessian spectrum of the well-trained neural network surprisingly well, except that a small number of outliers ($\sim$10) slightly deviate from the fitted straight line. To the best of our knowledge, this fitted power-law Hessian spectrums were not empirically discovered or theoretically discussed by previous papers in deep learning.
The well-fitted straight line means that the observed distribution of the Hessian eigenvalues of trained neural networks approximately obey a power-law distribution,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:PLDensity}
p(\lambda) = Z_{c}^{-1} \lambda^{-\beta},
\end{align}
where $Z_{c}$ is the normalization factor. The observed eigenvalues can be considered as $n$ samples from the power-law distribution $p(\lambda)$. We may also use a corresponding finite-sample power law for describing the observed law as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:finitePL}
f_{k}= \frac{\lambda_{k}}{\Tr(H)} = Z_{d}^{-1} k^{-\frac{1}{\beta-1}},
\end{align}
where $f$ is the trace-normalized eigenvalue, $k$ is the rank order, the trace $\Tr(H) = \sum_{k=1}^{n} \lambda_{k} $, and $Z_{d} = \sum_{k=1}^{n} k^{-\frac{1}{\beta-1}}$ is the normalization factor for the finite-sample power law. Note that the finite-sample power law is also called Zipf's law. This can also be equivalently written as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:finitePL2}
\lambda_{k} = \lambda_{1}k^{-s},
\end{align}
if we let $s = \frac{1}{\beta-1}$ denote the power exponent of Zipf's law. The empirical power-law spectrums suggest that the estimated $\hat{\beta}$ is close to $2$ and the estimated $\hat{s}$ is close to $1$.
\subsection{A Maximum-Entropy Theoretical Interpretation}
The maximum entropy principle \citep{guiasu1985principle}, also named the maximum entropy prior, states that the probability distribution which best represents the current state of knowledge about a system at equilibrium is the one with the highest entropy. This principle indicates that if we have no prior knowledge for suspecting one state over any other, then all states can be considered equally likely for a system at equilibrium.
We start our theoretical analysis by maximum entropy in deep learning. The logarithmic space volume is often regarded a kind of entropy in statistical physics \citep{visser2013zipf}. Note that flat minima have larger space volume reflected by $\det (H^{-1})$. It means maximizing the minima space volume for better generalization may be regarded as a kind of entropy maximization principle. Following \citet{visser2013zipf}, we may explicitly write the volume entropy as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:VolEntropy}
S_{\rm{vol}} = \log \det (H^{-1}) = \int p(\lambda) \log \lambda d \lambda
\end{align}
and the spectral entropy as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SpecEntropy}
S_{\mathrm{p}} = - \int p(\lambda) \log p(\lambda) d \lambda,
\end{align}
which is the entropy of the spectral density distribution.
Considering the principle of maximum entropy with the two kinds of entropy, we need to maximize the total entropy with the spectral density normalization constraint
\begin{align}
\label{eq:TotalEntropy}
S_{\mathrm{total}} = - \int p(\lambda) \log p(\lambda) d \lambda + \beta_{\rm{vol}} \int p(\lambda) \log \lambda d \lambda - \beta_{\rm{norm}}(\int p(\lambda) d \lambda - 1),
\end{align}
where $S_{\mathrm{total}} = S_{\mathrm{p}} + \beta_{\rm{vol}} S_{\rm{vol}}$ and $\beta_{\rm{norm}}$ is a Lagrange multiplier. To find the optimal distribution $p^{\star}(\lambda)$ that maximizes the total entropy, we require the following
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MaxEntropy}
\frac{\partial S_{\mathrm{total}}}{\partial p(\lambda)} = - \log p(\lambda) - \beta_{\rm{vol}} \log \lambda - \beta_{\rm{norm}}= 0 .
\end{align}
Thus, the optimal distribution $p^{\star}(\lambda)$ can be solved as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:OptimP}
p^{\star}(\lambda) = e^{-\beta_{\rm{norm}}} \lambda^{\beta_{\rm{vol}}},
\end{align}
which has an amazingly similar form to Equation \eqref{eq:PLDensity} with $\beta_{\rm{norm}}= \log Z_{c}$ and $\beta = -\beta_{\rm{vol}}$.
We may interpret the power-law structure of the Hessian spectrum from two simple maximum entropy principles with the spectral density normalization constraint. It roughly means that simple rules can almost explain the power-law Hessian spectrum in deep learning. The spectrums have much simpler structures than previous work expected.
Interestingly, similar well-fitted power laws have been widely discussed in neuroscience \citep{stringer2019high} and biology \citep{reuveni2008proteins,tang2020long}. This is exactly our motivation to further verify and study the power-law structure of the Hessian spectrum in the context of deep learning. We verify the elegant power-law structure indeed exists in well-trained deep neural networks just like bioactive proteins. In contrast, random neural networks have no such a power-law structure, just like deactivated (denatured or unfolded) proteins. Random neural networks which have no functional ability on the given task break the power-law spectrums similarly to deactivated proteins.
Statistical physical theories of neural networks \citep{bahri2020statistical,torlai2016learning,teh2003energy} supports that randomly initialized neural networks are far from the equilibrium, while well-trained neural networks are more close to equilibrium. The equilibrium condition may distinguish well-trained neural networks and randomly initialized neural networks and explains why the power-law structure breaks without training neural networks. However, we also note that there are still arguable disputes on the equilibrium of DNNs, which is beyond the main scope of this paper.
\subsection{Goodness-of-fit Test}
Following \citet{alstott2014powerlaw}, we use Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) \citep{myung2003tutorial} for estimating the parameter $\beta$ of the fitted power-law distributions and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (KS Test) \citep{massey1951kolmogorov,goldstein2004problems} for statistically testing the goodness of the fit. The KS test statistic is the KS distance $d_{\rm{ks}}$ between the hypothesized (fitted) distribution and the empirical data, which measures the goodness of fitting.
According to the practice of KS Test \citep{massey1951kolmogorov}, we first state {\it \textbf{the power-law hypothesis}} that the tested spectrum is power-law. If $d_{\rm{ks}}$ is higher than the critical value $d_{\rm{c}}$ at the $\alpha=0.05$ significance level, the KS test statistically will support (not reject) the power-law hypothesis. The test results associated with Figure \ref{fig:powerlaw} are presented in Table \ref{table:kslenet-mnist-cifar}. We leave the technical details and more test results (e.g. ResNet18) in Appendix \ref{sec:kstest}.
When we say that a spectrum is (approximately) power-law in this paper, we mean that the KS test provides positive evidences to the power-law hypothesis instead of rejecting the power-law hypothesis. Our KS test results reject the power-law hypothesis for random neural networks and do not reject the power-law hypothesis for well-trained neural networks. Moreover, when the power-law hypothesis holds, the KS distance is usually significantly smaller than the critical value $d_{\rm{c}}$. For simplicity, the default $\alpha=0.05$ significance level is abbreviated in the following.
Following related work on the Hessian of neural networks \citep{thomas2020interplay}, our empirical analysis and statistical tests mainly focused on the top ($\sim 1000$) large eigenvalues larger than some minimal cutoff value $\lambda_{\rm{cutoff}}$ for three reasons. First, focusing on relatively large values is very reasonable and common in various fields' power-law studies, as real-world distributions typically follow power laws only after/large than some cutoff values \citep{clauset2009power} for ensuring the convergence of the probability distribution. Second, researchers are usually more interested in significantly large eigenvalues which contributes more to Hessian, minima sharpness, or generalization bound \citep{thomas2020interplay}. Third, empirically estimating a large number of nearly zero eigenvalues is very inaccurate and expensive.
\begin{table*
\caption{The Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics of the Hessian spectrums of LeNets on various datasets. The estimated power exponent $\hat{\beta}$ and slope magnitude $\hat{s}$ are also displayed.}
\label{table:kslenet-mnist-cifar}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lll | lllll}
\toprule
Dataset & Model & Training & $d_{\rm{ks}}$ & $d_{\rm{c}}$ & Power-Law & $\hat{\beta} \pm \sigma$ & $\hat{s}$ \\
\midrule
MNIST & LeNet & \textcolor{red}{Random} & 0.0796 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No} \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & 0.00900 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.991 \pm 0.031$ & 1.009 \\
\midrule
Fashion-MNIST & LeNet & \textcolor{red}{Random} & 0.0971 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No}& \\
Fashion-MNIST & LeNet & SGD & 0.0132 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.939 \pm 0.030 $ & 1.065\\
\midrule
CIFAR-10 & LeNet & \textcolor{red}{Random} & 0.0663 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No}& \\
CIFAR-10 & LeNet & SGD & 0.0279 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.968 \pm 0.031 $ & 1.033 \\
\midrule
CIFAR-100 & LeNet & \textcolor{red}{Random} & 0.0944 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No}& \\
CIFAR-100 & LeNet & SGD & 0.0315 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.908 \pm 0.029 $ & 1.101 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Robust and Low-Dimensional Learning Space}
\label{sec:robustlow}
\begin{figure
\center
\subfigure[Eigenvalue Rank]{\includegraphics[width =0.4\columnwidth ]{Pictures/eigengaps_mnist_lenet.pdf}}
\subfigure[Eigengap Rank]{\includegraphics[width =0.4\columnwidth ]{Pictures/eigengaps_mnist_lenet_sort.pdf}}
\caption{ The power-law Hessian eigengaps. Model: LeNet. Datsets: MNIST. Subfigure (a) displayed the eigengaps by original rank indices sorted by eigenvalues. Subfigure (b) displayed the eigengaps by rank indices re-sorted by eigengaps. We also present the results of Fashion-MNIST in Figure \ref{fig:fmnisteigengap} of Appendix \ref{sec:supresults}.}
\label{fig:eigengap}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*
\caption{The Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics of the Hessian eigengaps on various datasets. The estimated power exponent $\hat{\beta}$ and slope magnitude $\hat{s}$ are also displayed.}
\label{table:kslenet-eigengap}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lll | lllll}
\toprule
Dataset & Model & Training & $d_{\rm{ks}}$ & $d_{\rm{c}}$ & Power-Law & $\hat{\beta} \pm \sigma$ & $\hat{s}$ \\
\midrule
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & 0.0153 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.550 \pm 0.017$ & 1.817 \\
Fashion-MNIST & LeNet & SGD & 0.0240 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.520 \pm 0.017$ & 1.922 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Deep learning happens in a low-dimensional space.} \citet{gur2018gradient} empirically observed that deep learning (via SGD) mainly happens in a low-dimensional space during the whole training process. \citet{ghorbani2019investigation} studied and reported that, throughout the optimization process, large isolated eigenvalues rapidly appear in the spectrum, along with a surprising concentration of the gradient in the corresponding eigenspace. \citet{xie2021diffusion} theoretically demonstrated that the learning space is a low-dimensional subspace spanned by the eigenvectors corresponding to large eigenvalues of the Hessian, because SGD diffusion mainly happens along these principal components. Note that the low-dimensional learning space implicitly reduces deep models' complexity. However, existing work cannot explain why the low-dimensional learning space is robust during training. In this paper, robust space means that the space's dimensions are stable during training.
We try to mathematically answer this question by studying the Hessian eigengaps. We define the $i$-th eigengap as $\delta_{k} = \lambda_{k} - \lambda_{k+1} $. According to Equation \eqref{eq:finitePL}, we have $\delta_{k}$ approximately meeting
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eigengap}
\delta_{k} = \Tr(H) Z_{d}^{-1} (k^{-\frac{1}{\beta-1}} - (k+1)^{-\frac{1}{\beta-1}}) = \lambda_{k} \left[ 1 - (\frac{k}{k+1})^{s} \right].
\end{align}
Interestingly, it demonstrates that eigengaps also approximately exihibit a power-law distribution when $k$ is large. Particularly, we will have an approximate power law
\begin{align}
\label{eq:PLeigengap}
\delta_{k} = \Tr(H) Z_{d}^{-1} (k+1)^{- (s + 1)}
\end{align}
under the approximation $s \approx 1$. The power exponent $s+1$ is larger than the one in Equation \eqref{eq:finitePL} by 1.
\textbf{Empirical analysis of the decaying Hessian eigengaps.} The empirical study about the Hessian eigengaps is missing in previous papers. Our experiments filled this gap. Our experiments show that top eigengaps dominate others in deep learning similarly to eigenvalues. We further empirically verified the approximate power-law distribution of the eigengaps in Figure \ref{fig:eigengap}. Moreover, the observation that the power exponent of eigengaps is larger than the power exponent of eigenvalues by $\sim1$ even fully matches our theoretical result by comparing Equations \eqref{eq:finitePL} and \eqref{eq:PLeigengap}.
Note that the existence of top large eigenvalues does not necessarily indicate their gaps are also statistically large. Previous papers revealed that top eigenvalues dominate others but did not reveal if top eigengaps dominate others in deep learning. Fortunately, we theoretically and empirically demonstrate that both eigenvalues and eigengaps decay, are power-law as the rank order increase. Eigengaps even decay faster than eigenvalues due to the larger magnitude of the power exponent. We will show that this is the foundation of learning space robustness in deep learning.
\textbf{Eigengaps Bound Learning Space Robustness.} Based on the well-known Davis-Kahan $\sin (\Theta)$ Theorem \citep{davis1970rotation}, we use the angle of the original eigenvector $u_{k}$ and the perturbed eigenvector $\tilde{u}_{k}$, namely $\langle u_{k} , \tilde{u}_{k}\rangle$, to measure the robustness of space's dimensions. We directly apply Theorem \ref{pr:lspacerobustness}, a useful variant of Davis-Kahan Theorem \citep{yu2015useful}, to the Hessian in deep learning, which states that the eigenspace (spanned by eigenvector) robustness can be well bounded by the corresponding eigengap.
\begin{theorem}[Eigengaps Bound Eigenspace Robustness \citep{yu2015useful}]
\label{pr:lspacerobustness}
Suppose the true Hessian is $H$, the perturbed Hessian is $\tilde{H} = H + \epsilon M$, the $i$-th eigenvector of $H$ is $u_{i}$ , and its corresponding perturbed eigenvector is $\tilde{u}_{i}$. Under the conditions of Davis-Kahan Theorem, we have
\[ \sin \langle u_{k} , \tilde{u}_{k}\rangle \leq \frac{2\epsilon \|M \|_{op}}{ \min( \lambda_{k-1} - \lambda_{k}, \lambda_{k} - \lambda_{k+1}) }, \]
where $ \|M \|_{op}$ is the operator norm of $M$.
\end{theorem}
As we have a small number of large eigengaps corresponding to the large eigenvalues, the corresponding learning space robustness has a tight upper bound. For example, given the power-law eigengaps in Equation \eqref{eq:PLeigengap}, the upper bound of eigenvector robustness can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:robustspace}
\sup \sin \langle u_{k} , \tilde{u}_{k}\rangle = \frac{2 \epsilon \|M \|_{op} (k+1)^{s+1} }{\lambda_{1} } ,
\end{align}
which is relatively tight for top dimensions (small $k$) but becomes very loose for tailed dimensions (large $k$). A similar conclusion also holds given Equation \eqref{eq:eigengap}. As $s \approx 1$ suggests, the experimental results in Figure \ref{fig:eigengap} also well supports that the upper bound of $k=1000$ is $10^{4}$ times the upper bound of $k=10$. This indicates that non-top eigenspace can be highly unstable during training, because $\delta_{k} $ can decay to nearly zero for a large $k$. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to demonstrate that the robustness of low-dimensional learning space directly depends on the eigengaps of the Hessian $H$.
\section{Related Works}
A number of related works analyzed the spectral distribution of the Hessian in deep learning. \citet{pennington2017geometry} introduced an analytical framework from random matrix theory and reported that the shape of the spectrum depends strongly on the energy and the overparameterization parameter, $\phi$, which measures the ratio of parameters to data points. However, \citet{pennington2017geometry} mainly evaluated single-hidden-layer networks, which limits the scope of the conclusion. A followup work \citep{pennington2018spectrum} focused on a single-hidden-layer neural network with Gaussian data and weights in the limit of infinite width. Obviously, its theoretical and empirical analysis is far from practical deep models. \citet{jacot2019asymptotic} analyzed the limiting spectrum of the Hessian in neural networks with infinite width. \citet{fort2019goldilocks} analyzed the Hessian spectrums of initialized neural networks. \citet{fort2019emergent} studied the role of Hessian in learning in the low-dimensional subspace. \citet{papyan2019measurements} studied the three-level hierarchical structure and outliers in Hessian spectrums. \citet{liao2021hessian} studied the Hessian spectrums of more realistic nonlinear models. While a number of previous papers studied the Hessian spectrum, they failed to empirically discover the simple but important power-law structure and missed the theoretical interpretation.
\section{Empirical Analysis and Discussion}
\label{sec:empirical}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width =0.49\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_mnist_lenet_optimizer.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width =0.49\columnwidth ]{Pictures/slope_error_mnist_lenet.pdf}}
\caption{The power-law spectrums hold across optimizers. Moreover, the slope magnitude $\hat{s}$ is an indicator of minima sharpness and a predictor of test performance. Model:LeNet. Dataset: MNIST.}
\label{fig:optimizerspectrum-mnist}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width =0.99\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_mnist_fcn_Depth.pdf}}
\caption{The power-law spectrum holds well in overparameterized deep models but disappears in the underparameterized single-layer FCN.}
\label{fig:depth}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width =0.99\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_mnist_lenet_numN.pdf}}
\caption{The spectrums of LeNet on MNIST with respect with various numbers of training samples.}
\label{fig:numtraining}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
In this section, we conduct extensive experimental results to explore novel behaviors of deep learning via power-law spectral analysis.
\textbf{Model:} LeNet \citep{lecun1998gradient}, Fully Connected Networks (FCN), and ResNet18 \citep{he2016deep}. \textbf{Dataset}: MNIST \citep{lecun1998mnist}, Fashion-MNIST \citep{xiao2017fashion}, CIFAR-10/100 \citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, and non-image Avila \citep{de2018reliable}.
\textbf{1. Optimization and Generalization.} Figure \ref{fig:optimizerspectrum-mnist} discovered that the power-law spectrum consistently holds for various popular optimizers, such as SGD, Vanilla SGD, Adam \citep{kingma2014adam}, AMSGrad \citep{reddi2019convergence}, AdaBound \citep{luo2019adaptive}, Yogi \citep{zaheer2018adaptive}, RAdam \citep{liu2019variance}, Adai \citep{xie2022adaptive}, PNM \citep{xie2021positive}, Lookahead \citep{zhang2019lookahead}, and DiffGrad \citep{dubey2019diffgrad}, as long as the optimizers can train neural networks well.
We find that the slope magnitude $\hat{s}$ of the fitted straight line may serve as a nice indicator of minima sharpness and a predictor of test performance. It is common to measure minima sharpness by the largest Hessian eigenvalue or the Hessian trace. A smaller $\hat{s}$ highly correlates to a smaller largest eigenvalue and a smaller trace in Figure \ref{fig:slopesharpness-mnist} of Appendix \ref{sec:supresults}. The observation also holds on CIFAR-10 in Figures \ref{fig:optimizerspectrum-cifar10} and \ref{fig:slopesharpness-cifar10} of Appendix \ref{sec:supresults}. Interestingly, we also observe that $\hat{s} \approx 1$ is common in the spectrums of DNNs as well as the spectrums of natural proteins.
\textbf{2. Overparameterization.} Figure \ref{fig:depth} shows that the power-law spectrum holds well in overparameterized models, but disappears in underparameterized models. Overparameterization is necessary for the power-law spectrum in deep learning, while proteins are also high-dimensional. It will be interesting to study the phase transition of overparameterization and underparameterization in future.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width =0.49\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_mnist_lenet_LargeBatch.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width =0.49\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_mnist_lenet_FullBatch.pdf}}
\caption{Batch size matters to the spectrum. We discover three phases of the Hessian spectrums for large-batch training. Model:LeNet. Dataset: MNIST.}
\label{fig:batchspectrum}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width =0.49\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_noisymnist_lenet_train.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width =0.49\columnwidth ]{Pictures/spectrum_noisymnist_lenet_test.pdf}}
\caption{The spectrum in the presence of noisy labels. Left: MNIST Trainset. Right: MNIST Testset.}
\label{fig:noisyspectrum}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{The Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics of the Hessian spectrums for various batch sizes.}
\label{table:kslenet-batch}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{llll | lllll}
\toprule
Dataset & Model & Training & Batch Size & $d_{\rm{ks}}$ & $d_{\rm{c}}$ & Power-Law & $\hat{\beta} \pm \sigma$ & $\hat{s}$ \\
\midrule
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $B=128$ & 0.00900 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.991 \pm 0.031$ & 1.009 \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $B=512$ & 0.00787 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.894 \pm 0.028$ & 1.119 \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $B=640$ & 0.0125 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{blue}{Yes}& $1.838 \pm 0.027$ & 1.194 \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $\textcolor{red}{B=768}$ & 0.278 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No} \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $\textcolor{red}{B=1024}$ & 0.129 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No} \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $\textcolor{red}{B=16384}$ & 0.249 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No} \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $\textcolor{red}{B=32768}$ & 0.201 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No} \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $\textcolor{red}{B=50000}$ & 0.139 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No} \\
MNIST & LeNet & SGD & $\textcolor{red}{B=60000}$ & 0.0936 & 0.0430 & \textcolor{red}{No} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\textbf{3. The Size of Training Dataset.} We evaluate the Hessian spectrums of DNNs trained over various training data sizes and evaluated on the same test dataset in Figure \ref{fig:numtraining}. The model trained with very limited training data finds minima with the Hessian spectrum that have multiple sharp directions, similarly to underparameterized models.
\textbf{4. Batch Size.} We discover the three different phases for large-batch training via the curves in Figure \ref{fig:batchspectrum} and the KS test results in Table \ref{table:kslenet-batch}.
First, in Phase I ($B\leq640$), moderately large-batch ($B=512$) training indeed finds sharper minima than small-batch ($B=128$) training, while the power-law spectrum still holds well. Power laws may guarantee that the top eigenvalues of large-batch trained networks are all larger than the corresponding eigenvalues of small-batch trained networks. The main challenge of large-batch training in Phase I is consistent with the common belief that large-batch training suffers from sharp minima and, thus, leads to bad generalization \citep{hoffer2017train,keskar2017large}. The minima sharpness measured by $\hat{s}$ obviously increases with the batch size.
Second, in Phase II ($768\leq B\leq50000$), the spectrum of large-batch ($B=1024$) trained networks does not exhibit power laws but is visually similar to the spectrum of underparameterized models in Figure \ref{fig:depth}. In Phase II, large-batch trained overparameterized models behave like underparameterized models from a spectral perspective, and, thus, can lead to bad generalization. The phase transition from Phase I to Phase II occurs in a narrow range of $640<B<768$, which is visually observable in Figure \ref{fig:batchspectrum}a and statistically observable in Table \ref{table:kslenet-batch}.
Third, in Phase III ($B \sim 60000$), extremely large-batch training ($B=60000$) cannot optimize the training loss well or find the Hessian spectrum similarly to random initialized neural networks. Phase III indicates that, sometimes, bad convergence rather than sharp minima can become the main performance bottleneck in large-batch training \citep{xie2020stable}, when the batch size is too large.
To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to report Phase II, while Phase III was theoretically predicted by \citet{xie2020stable} but lacked direct empirical evidence before.
\textbf{5. Overfitting and Noisy Labels.} As DNNs overfit noisy labels easily, previous papers choose learning with noisy labels \citep{han2020survey} as an important setting for evaluating overfitting and generalization. Figure \ref{fig:noisyspectrum} shows that overfitting label noise makes the Hessian spectrums less power-law on both the corrupted training dataset and the clean test dataset. In contrast, in the absence of noisy labels, the power-law spectrums exist on both the training dataset and the test dataset.
\textbf{6. Supplementary Results.} In Appendix \ref{sec:supresults}, we further discussed various interesting empirical results, including ResNet18, Random Labels, and Avila (a non-image dataset).
\section{A Spectral Parallel between Proteins and DNNs}
In this section, we make a pioneering discussion on a potential bridge between proteins and DNNs from a spectral perspective. This may be attract more attention to this topic from researchers with interdisciplinary backgrounds (e.g. protein science, biophysics, etc.).
As the basic building blocks of biological intelligence, proteins work as the main executors of various vital functions, including catalysis (enzyme), transportation (carrier proteins), defense (antibodies), and so on. The polypeptide chain made up of amino acid residues can fold into its native (energy-minimum) three-dimensional structure from a random coil, which is comparable with training of DNNs.
It is worth noting that, in a long timescale, the native structure (network parameter) $\vec{r}^0$ has been gradually shaped by evolution. Due to random mutations, the native structure (energy-minimum point) and corresponding elastic network have varied. Thus, protein evolution can be recognized as an optimization process of the network parameters \citep{tang2021dynamics}. With the second-order Taylor approximation near a minimum, for a given native structure $\vec{r}^0$, the potential energy can be calculated as:
\begin{equation}
E(\vec{r}^0) = E(\vec{r}^{\star}) + \frac{1}{2} (\vec{r}^0 - \vec{r}^{\star})^{\top} H(\vec{r}^{\star}) (\vec{r}^0 - \vec{r}^{\star}),
\label{eqn:protein}
\end{equation}
in which $\vec{r}^{\star}$ denote the reference structure, a selected ancestral structure in the evolution, and $H(\vec{r}^{\star})$ is its corresponding Hessian. In this way, the evolution of a protein become comparable to the training of artificial neural networks.
We use the elastic network model (ENM) of the proteins \citep{atilgan2001anisotropy, bahar2010global} to calculate the vibrational spectrums of 9166 kinds of protein molecules from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) \citep{PDB}. To our knowledge, this is the most large-scale spectral study via ENM for proteins. We take a human protein assembly (shown in Figure \ref{fig:protein}a) as an example to obtain the vibration spectrums. The result is shown in Figure \ref{fig:protein}b.
\begin{figure
\center
\includegraphics[width = 0.66\columnwidth]{Pictures/protein-illustration.pdf}
\caption{(a) The cartoon illustration of human deoxyhemoglobin tetramer (PDB code: 4HHB). (b) The vibrational spectrum of the protein's elastic network. The estimated power exponent $\hat{s} = 0.992$ ($\hat{\beta} = 2.008 \pm 0.032$) is very close to the estimated power exponent in deep learning. }
\label{fig:protein}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{The estimated $\hat{s}$ for various sized proteins.}
\label{table:ksproteinsize}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\resizebox{0.6\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l | lll}
\toprule
Slope/SIze & $300 \leq 3N_{\rm{AA}} \leq 1000$ & $1000 \leq 3N_{\rm{AA}} \leq 3000$ & $3000 \leq 3N_{\rm{AA}} \leq 6000$ \\
\midrule
$\hat{s}$ & $1.050 \pm 0.175$ & $1.041 \pm 0.119$ & $1.002 \pm 0.084$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Surprisingly, we observed $\hat{s} \approx 1$ for the protein in Figure \ref{fig:protein} and in the spectrums of total 9166 kinds of protein molecules. Each of the protein molecule has $100\leq N_{\rm{AA}}\leq2000$ amino acid residues. All of the protein spectrums are statistically supported by the power-law KS tests with the estimated $mean(\hat{s})= 1.045$ ($mean(\hat{\beta})= 1.975$). The approximation $\hat{s} \approx 1$ also holds better for larger models (namely, proteins) in terms of the mean and the standard error, shown in Table \ref{table:ksproteinsize}.
A parallel maximum-entropy theory has been proposed very recently for understanding the native structure and evolution of proteins in the statistical physical community \citep{tang2020functional}. Given the essential importance of protein science, our contribution to the similar power-law behaviors and theoretical interpretation may suggest a novel bridge between protein evolution and training of DNNs. In Appendix \ref{sec:protein} and \ref{sec:enmprotein}, we leave more formal discussion on the spectral similarity of protein and deep learning and present more technical details.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we report the power-law spectrum in deep learning. Inspired by statistical physical theory \citep{visser2013zipf} and protein theory \citep{tang2020functional}, we successfully formulated a novel maximum-entropy interpretation and explain why the learning space may be lower dimensional and robust. The power-law spectrums provide us with a powerful tool to understand and analyze deep learning. We empirically demonstrate multiple novel behaviors of deep learning, particularly deep loss landscape, beyond previous studies. Particularly, those DNNs that do not exhibit power-law decaying Hessian eigenvalues after training usually have a large number of similarly large Hessian eigenvalues and cannot generalize well. Moreover, our theoretical interpretation and large-scale empirical study on proteins suggest a likely spectral bridge to deep learning. We believe our work will inspire more theories and empirical advancements on deep learning via power-law spectral analysis in the future.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We gratefully thank Profs. Zhanxing Zhu, Kunihiko Kaneko and Taro Toyoizumi for the helpful discussions. Q.-Y. T. thanks the support from the Brain/MINDS from AMED under Grant no. JP21dm0207001.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is a remarkable feature of Lorentzian geometry that indecomposable Lorentzian symmetric spaces either have constant sectional curvature or belong to the class of Cahen-Wallach spaces, \cite{cahen-wallach70}. A {\em Cahen-Wallach space} is a
Lorentzian manifold $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ with $n\ge 1$ and Lorentzian metric
\begin{equation}\label{cwmetric}g_S=2\d v\d t +S_{ij}x^ix^j\,(\d t)^2+ \delta_{ij}\d x^i \d x^j = 2\d v\d t +\veccy{x}^\top S\veccy{x} (\d t)^2+ \d \veccy{x}^\top \d \veccy{x} ,\end{equation}
where $(t,x^1, \ldots, x^n,v)=(t,\veccy{x},v)$ are coordinates on $\R^{n+2}$ and $S=(S_{ij})$ is a symmetric $(n\times n)$-matrix with non-zero determinant.
Whereas the constant sectional curvature spaces are Einstein and conformally flat, the Cahen-Wallach spaces in general are neither Einstein nor conformally flat.
Motivated by the Clifford-Klein program one mays ask which compact manifolds arise as compact quotients of an indecomposable Lorentzian symmetric space by a group of isometries. For the constant curvature spaces Calabi and Markus \cite{CalabiMarkus62} have shown that a group that acts properly discontinuously on de Sitter space must be finite and hence cannot produce a compact quotient. Moreover, Kulkarni has shown \cite{Kulkarni81} that the universal cover of anti-de Sitter space admits a compact quotient if and only if its dimension is odd.
For Cahen-Wallach spaces this question only recently has been answered by Kath and Olbrich in \cite{KathOlbrich15}, who gave a classification of groups of isometries of a Cahen-Wallach space that act properly discontinuously and with a compact quotient. Together with the completeness results in \cite{carriere89,klingler96,leistner-schliebner13} this yields a classification of Lorentzian compact indecomposable locally symmetric spaces.
One may extend such questions to conformal structures, that is, to manifolds equipped with an equivalence class of conformally equivalent metrics. For example,
one may consider the
conformal class of a Cahen-Wallach metric and ask for groups of conformal transformation that yield interesting and perhaps compact quotients. The resulting manifold would be equipped with a conformal structure that is locally conformally equivalent to a Cahen-Wallach metric.
The local conformal geometry of Cahen-Wallach spaces, and more generally pseudo-Riemannian symmetric spaces, in particular their Killing vector fields, have been studied in papers by Cahen and Kerbrat \cite{CahenKerbratPraet75,CahenKerbratPraet76,CahenKerbrat77,CahenKerbrat78,CahenKerbrat82}. Questions about the global conformal geometry and in particular the existence of compact conformal quotients to our knowledge have not been considered in the literature and in this paper we are going to address some of these questions.
For our first result, we follow the convention of \cite{KathOlbrich15} and say that a Cahen-Wallach space is of {\em imaginary type} if all eigenvalues of $S$ are negative.
\begin{theorem}\label{intro-thm_no-homoth-quotients-of-imaginary-CW}
Let $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ be a conformally curved Cahen-Wallach space of imaginary type and $\Gamma$ a subgroup of its conformal group. If $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously and with compact orbit space $M=\R^{n+2}/\Gamma$, then
$\Gamma$ is a group of isometries. Consequently, $M$ with the metric induced from $g_S$ is locally isometric to $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ and its conformal group is equal to its isometry group.
\end{theorem}
Hence, the question about compact conformal quotients of Cahen-Wallach spaces of imaginary type is reduced to the case of compact isometric quotients and the work in \cite{KathOlbrich15}.
Our proof of Theorem~\ref{intro-thm_no-homoth-quotients-of-imaginary-CW} relies on an analysis of the group of conformal transformations of a Cahen-Wallach space.
First, it is straightforward to show that a Cahen-Wallach metric $g_S$ is conformally flat (i.e.~with vanishing Weyl tensor) if and only if the matrix $S$ is a scalar matrix, see Proposition~\ref{Wflatprop}. Since Cahen-Wallach spaces are locally symmetric, a result in \cite[Proposition 2.1]{CahenKerbrat82} implies that the conformal group of a conformally curved Cahen-Wallach space is equal to its homothety group. This implies in particular, that for compact quotients by a group of isometries the conformal group is equal to the isometry group, see Corollary~\ref{locsymcompconf}.
The homothety group of a Cahen-Wallach space
is equal to $\Iso(\R^{n+2},g_S)\rtimes \R$, and
the isometry group $\Iso(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ is well-known \cite{cahen-wallach70, KathOlbrich15} to be isomorphic to
\[
\Hei_n\rtimes \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\right),\]
where $\Hei_n$ is the $2n+1$-dimensional Heisenberg group, $\E(1)=\R\rtimes \Z_2$ is the Euclidean group in one dimension and $C_{\O(n)}(S)$ is the centraliser of the matrix $S$ in $\O(n)$. For details about the group structure and the result, see Section~\ref{confcw-sec} and Corollary~\ref{curvedconf}.
Explicitly, each homothety of $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{homoth}
\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy{x}\\v\end{pmatrix} \stackrel{\phi}{\longmapsto} \begin{pmatrix}\epsilon\, t+c \\ \mathrm{e}^sA\veccy{x}+\beta(t) \\ \epsilon \left(\mathrm{e}^{2s}v+b-\< \dot\beta(t),A\boldsymbol{x}+\frac12\beta(t)\>\right)\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $(c,\epsilon)\in\R\times\{\pm 1\}=\E(1)$, $A\in C_{\O(n)}(S)$, $b\in \R$, $\beta:\R\to\R^n$ is a solution to $\beta''=S\beta$ and $\<.,.\>$ is the standard Euclidean inner product on $\R^n$. The boundedness of the functions $\beta$ for Cahen-Wallach spaces of imaginary type will yield the result in Theorem~\ref{intro-thm_no-homoth-quotients-of-imaginary-CW}. For Cahen-Wallach spaces that are not of imaginary type (i.e.~when $S$ has at least one positive eigenvalue), the method of our proof does not immediately apply and we are not able to answer the question whether there are properly discontinuous groups of homotheties acting with a compact orbit space. In Section~\ref{ex-sec} we illustrate the difficulties that arise when trying to construct an example of such group.
A motivation for studying conformal transformations of Cahen-Wallach spaces also comes from rigidity questions in conformal geometry, namely the question for which conformal manifolds the group of conformal transformation is {\em essential}, that is, not contained in the isometry group of a metric in the conformal class.
Of course, by definition the group of conformal transformations of a semi-Riemannian manifold is larger than the group of isometries, however examples of manifolds with {\em essential conformal transformations} are relatively rare.
In fact, for Riemannian manifolds, Ferrand \cite{Lelong-Ferrand71} and Obata \cite{Obata71} showed that a compact Riemannian manifold with essential conformal transformations must be conformally diffeomorphic to the round sphere. More surprisingly, any non-compact Riemannian manifold with essential conformal transformations must be conformally diffeomorphic to Euclidean space, \cite{Ferrand96}. These results confirmed the {\em Lichnerowicz conjecture}, \cite{Lichnerowicz64}. The conjecture can be extended to conformal structures given by indefinite metrics, however already in Lorentzian signature it turns out to be false: there are many non compact Lorentzian manifolds that are not conformally flat but with essential conformal transformations \cite{Alekseevski85,Podoksenov89,Podoksenov92,KuhnelRademacher95,KuhnelRademacher97}, and Cahen-Wallach spaces are amongst them.
In Section~\ref{fixpoint-sec} we determine which conformal transformations of a conformally curved Cahen-Wallach space are essential.
\begin{theorem}\label{intro-esstheo}
Let $\phi$ be a homothety of a Cahen-Wallach space that is not an isometry. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi$ is essential.
\item $\phi$ has a fixed point.
\item In equation (\ref{homoth}) for $\phi$ it is $\epsilon=-1$ or $c=0$.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, when the Cahen-Wallach space is not conformally flat, then every essential conformal transformation is given by a homothety with the above properties.
\end{theorem}
Returning to the compact case in the Lichnerowicz conjecture for indefinite metrics, Frances \cite{Frances05} constructed examples of compact Lorentzian manifolds with essential conformal transformations that are not conformally diffeomorphic to the flat model of constant curvature, however, all of the examples constructed by Frances are conformally flat, i.e. have vanishing Weyl tensor. This leads to the {\em generalised pseudo-Riemannian Lichnerowicz conjecture:} any compact pseudo-Riemannian manifold with essential conformal transformations must have vanishing Weyl tensor. Again Frances constructed counterexamples in all but Lorentzian signature \cite{frances12}, which leaves us with the {\em Lorentzian Lichnerowicz conjecture:} any compact Lorentzian manifolds with essential conformal transformations is conformally flat. This conjecture remains unproven in general until now although substantial progress has been made \cite{FrancesMelnick10, Pecastaing17,Pecastaing18,MelnickPecastaing21,Melnick21} and it has recently has been proved for real analytic manifolds of dimension three, \cite{FrancesMelnick21}.
The counterexamples found by Frances \cite{frances12} in signatures beyond the Lorentzian start with a locally symmetric space in signature $(2+p,2+q)$ which admits a group of homotheties that acts with compact quotient and centralises an essential homothety, which then descends to the compact quotient manifold. These examples are a motivation for our results in Section~\ref{centralsec}. Here we study whether for a given
essential homothety $\phi$ of a Cahen-Wallach space there is a group $\Gamma$ of conformal transformations that acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly and such that $\phi$ is in the centraliser of $\Gamma$.
In this case, $\phi$ would descend to an essential conformal transformation of the compact conformal manifold $M$.
We will show however, that this is not possible.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_main-no-essential-quotient}
A group of conformal transformations of a conformally curved Cahen-Wallach space centralising an essential conformal transformation cannot act properly discontinuously and cocompactly.
\end{theorem}
This does not exclude the possibility of compact conformal quotients of Cahen-Wallach spaces with essential conformal transformation. We believe however that no such quotient exists.
The structure of the paper is as follows: in Section~\ref{prelimsec} we recall some basic notations and facts from conformal geometry including a short section about group actions; in Section~\ref{cwsec} we give a criterion for conformal flatness, describe the isometries, homotheties and conformal transformations of Cahen-Wallach spaces and prove Theorem~\ref{intro-esstheo}; Section~\ref{compact-sec} contains the proofs of the non-existence results in Theorems~\ref{intro-thm_no-homoth-quotients-of-imaginary-CW} and~\ref{thm_main-no-essential-quotient}. The article concludes with a few examples that illustrate the obstacles for constructing compact conformal quotients.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
Most of the results in this paper are contained in second author's MPhil thesis \cite{stuart-thesis}, which was written under supervision of the first author. We would like to thank Michael Eastwood for taking the role of co-supervisor and for helpful discussions and comments. The first author would also like to thank Vicente Cort\'{e}s for inspiring discussions on the topic and the University of Hamburg for its hospitality.
\section{Preliminaries on conformal geometry}
\label{prelimsec}
\subsection{Curvature conventions and conformal rescalings}
Let $(M,g)$ be a semi-Riemannian manifold of dimension $m$ and $\nabla$ the Levi-Civita connection.
Our convention for the curvature tensors are as follows: the Riemannian curvature as a $2$-form with values in $\mathfrak{so}(TM,g)$, or equivalently as a $(1,3)$-tensor, is defined as
\[
R(X,Y)=\left[\nabla_X,\nabla_Y\right]-\nabla_{[X,Y]},\]
and the $(0,4)$-curvature tensor
as
\[R(X,Y,Z,V)=g(R(X,Y)V,Z).\]
The Ricci-tensor is the trace of the $(1,3)$-curvature tensor
\[Ric(Y,Z)=\mathrm{tr}( X\mapsto R(X,Y)Z ).\]
We denote the corresponding endomorphism also by $Ric$ and
and the scalar curvature $\mathrm{scal}$ as its trace.
Moreover, we define the Schouten tensor $\mathsf{P}$ by
\[Ric=(m-2)\mathsf{P} +\tfrac{\mathrm{scal}}{2(m-1)}g,\]
and the $(0,4)$-Weyl tensor as
\[W(X,Y,Z,V)=
R(X,Y,Z,V)-g\owedge \mathsf{P},
\]
where $\owedge$ is the {\em Kulkarni-Nomizu product} of two symmetric bilinear forms defined as
\begin{eqnarray*}
A\owedge B(X,Y,Z,V)&=&
A(X,Z)B(Y,V)+ B(X,Z)A(Y,V)
\\
&&{}
- A(X,V)B(Y,Z)+ B(X,V)A(Y,Z),\end{eqnarray*}
and produces a $(0,4)$-tensor with the same symmetries as the Riemannian curvature tensor.
We define the $(1,3)$-Weyl tensor by \[g(W(X,Y)Z,V)=W(X,Y,Z,V).\]
We say that $g$ is {\em Weyl-flat} if the Weyl tensor of $g$ vanishes.
If $\widehat{g}=\mathrm{e}^{2f}g$ is a conformally equivalent metric to $g$, where $f$ is a smooth function on $M$, then the Levi-Civita connection, the $(0,4)$-curvature tensor, and the Ricci and scalar curvature change as follows (see\cite[Section 1.J]{besse87},
\begin{equation}
\label{confchange}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\widehat{\nabla}_XY&=&\nabla_XY+\d f( X)Y+\d f ( Y)X-g(X,Y)\nabla f,\\[2mm]
\mathrm{e}^{-2f}\widehat{\RR}&=&R -g\owedge\left( \nabla \d f - (\d f)^2 +\tfrac{1}{2}g(\nabla f,\nabla f)g\right),
\\[2mm]
\widehat{\Ric}&=&Ric-(m-2) \left( \nabla \d f - (\d f)^2 \right) +\left(\Delta f - (m-2) g(\nabla f,\nabla f)\right)g,
\\[2mm]
\mathrm{e}^{2f}\widehat{\scal}&=&\mathrm{scal} +(m-1)\left( 2\Delta f -(m-2) g(\nabla f,\nabla f)\right),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
whereas the $(1,3)$-Weyl tensor is conformally invariant. Here
$\nabla f$ is the gradient of $f$ and $\Delta f$ the Laplacian, both with respect to $g$.
We observe the following useful relation.
\begin{lemma}\label{obslem}
If both $g$ and $\widehat{g}=\mathrm{e}^{2f}g$ have vanishing scalar curvature then
\[
\mathrm{e}^{-2f}\widehat{\RR} =R+\tfrac{1}{m-2}g\owedge\left(\widehat{\Ric}-Ric\right).\]
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Homotheties, conformal and essential conformal transformations}
A {\em conformal diffeomorphism} between semi-Riemannian manifolds $(M,g)$ and $(\widehat{M},\widehat{g})$ is a diffeomorphism $\phi:M\to \widehat{M}$ for which there is a smooth function $f$ on $M$ such that
\[\phi^*\widehat{g}=\mathrm{e}^{2f}g.\]
A conformal diffeomorphism for which $f$ is constant is called a {\em homothety}. We call a homothety {\em strict} if it is not an isometry. We denote by $\Conf(M,g)$ the conformal transformations of $(M,g)$, i.e.~the conformal diffeomorphisms from $(M,g)$ to itself, by $\Homoth (M,g)$ the homotheties of $(M,g)$, and by $\Iso(M,g)$ the isometries of $(M,g)$.
We say that $(M,g)$ is {\em conformally flat} if each point admits a local conformal diffeomorphism from a neighbourhood into a flat semi-Riemannian manifold. If there is a global conformal diffeomorphism from $M$ to a flat semi-Riemannian manifold, we say that $(M,g)$ {\em globally conformally flat}. All manifolds of dimension $2$ are conformally flat. In dimension $3$, $(M,g)$ is conformally flat if and only if the Cotton tensor $A$ of $g$ vanishes, which is defined as
\[
A(X,Y,Z)=\nabla_Y\mathsf{P} (Z,X) -\nabla_Z\mathsf{P}(Y,X).
\]
When $\dim(M)\ge 4$, $(M,g)$ is conformally flat if and only if $g$ is Weyl-flat.
Moreover, if two metrics $g$ and $\hat g$ on $M$ are {\em conformally equivalent}, i.e.~$\widehat{g}=\mathrm{e}^{2f}g$, then the identity transformation is a conformal diffeomorphism between $(M,g)$ and $(M,\widehat{g})$.
Let $(M,g)$ be a semi-Riemannian manifold. The map $\Homoth(M,g)\to \R$ that sends a homothety $\phi$ with $\phi^*g = \mathrm{e}^{2s}g$ to $s$
is a group homomorphism with kernel $\Iso(M,g)$.
Hence we have that \[\Homoth(M,g)=\Iso(M,g)\rtimes H,\]
for some subgroup $H$ of $\R$.
Further, if for each $s\in\R$, there is a $h_s$ such that $h_s^*g=\mathrm{e}^{2s}g$, then $\Homoth(M,g)=\Iso(M,g)\rtimes\R$.
An important result for our purposes is the following:
\begin{theorem}[{Cahen \& Kerbrat \cite[Proposition 2.1]{CahenKerbrat82}}]\label{prop_cahen-kerbrat-weyl-curved-implies-no-conformals}
Let $(M,g)$ be a connected semi-Riemannian manifold of dimension $m\geq 4$, such that its Weyl tensor is parallel, $\nabla W=0$.
Let $U\subset M$ be open and $\phi:U\to \phi(U)\subset M$ be a conformal diffeomorphism. Then $\phi$ is a homothety or the Weyl tensor is identically zero.
\end{theorem}
Since $\nablaR=0$ implies that $\nablaW=0$, we obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor_locally-symmetric-implies-Cahen-Kerbrat-result}
Let $(M,g)$ be a connected, locally symmetric, semi-Riem\-an\-nian manifold of dimension $m\geq 4$.
Let $U\subset M$ be open, and let $\phi:U\to \phi(U)\subset M$ be a conformal diffeomorphism. Then $\phi$ is a homothety, or the Weyl tensor is identically zero.
\end{corollary}
If $\phi$ is a homothety with $\phi^*g=\mathrm{e}^{2s}g$, the volume form $\nu$ of a semi-Riemannian manifold satisfies
that $\phi^*\nu =\mathrm{e}^{ms}\nu$. Hence,
compact semi-Riemannian manifolds cannot have any strict homotheties (see for example \cite{Alekseevski85}). This yields another result, which we could not find in the literature.
\begin{corollary}\label{locsymcompconf}
Let $(M,g)$ be a connected, compact and locally symmetric semi-Riem\-an\-nian manifold of dimension $m\geq 4$. Then the conformal group is equal to its isometry group.
\end{corollary}
A conformal transformation $\phi$ on a semi-Riemannian manifolds $(M,g)$ is called {\em essential} if there is no conformally equivalent metric on $M$ for which $\phi$ is an isometry. Similarly, the conformal group $\Conf(M,g)$ is called {\em essential} if there s no conformally equivalent metric $\widehat{g}$ on $M$ for which $\Conf(M,g)$ is contained in the isometries of $(M,\widehat{g})$. Clearly, if $(M,g)$ admits an essential conformal transformation, then its conformal group is essential, however the converse, that an essential conformal group contains an essential conformal transformation, is not obvious.
For Riemannian conformal structures this implication follows from from the confirmed Lichnerowicz conjecture \cite{Lelong-Ferrand71,Obata71,Ferrand96}.
For homotheties, there is a sufficient condition for being essential.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_finite-orbit-homoth-implies-essential}
Let $(M,g)$ be a semi-Riemannian manifold and let $\phi$ be a strict homothety with a finite orbit
point $p$, i.e.~ for some $k>0$, $\phi^k(p)=p$. Then $\phi$ is essential. In particular, a strict homothety with fixed point is essential.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\phi^*g = \mathrm{e}^{2s}g$ for $s\in\R$.
Assume $\phi^k(p)=p$ for $p\in M$ and that $\phi$ is not essential: let $f$ be a smooth function on $M$ such that $\phi$ is an isometry of $\mathrm{e}^{2f}g$.
Then we evaluate at $p$,
\begin{align*}
(\mathrm{e}^{2f}g)|_p = (\phi^k)^*(\mathrm{e}^{2f}g)|_p = \mathrm{e}^{2f\circ \phi^k}(p)((\phi^k)^*g)|_p = \mathrm{e}^{2ks}\mathrm{e}^{2f(p)}g|_p = \mathrm{e}^{2ks}(\mathrm{e}^{2f}g)|_p.
\end{align*}
But this implies $s=0$, and so $\phi$ is an isometry.
\end{proof}
We will later see that for Cahen-Wallach spaces also the converse holds, so that the essential isometries are exactly those with a fixed point.
\subsection{Properly discontinuous cocompact and conformal group actions}
Let $\Gamma$ be a group of diffeomorphism acting on a smooth manifold $M$. The group action is \emph{properly discontinuous} if it satisfies the following two conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item[(PD1)] For each point $x\in M$, there is a neighbourhood $U$ of $x$ such that if $\gamma U$ meets $U$, i.e. $\gamma U\cap U\neq\emptyset$ for $\gamma\in \Gamma$, then $\gamma=e$, where $e$ is the identity element.
\item[(PD2)] For all pairs of points $x,y\in M$ in different orbits, there are neighbourhoods $U$ of $x$, and $V$ of $y$, such that for all $\gamma\in \Gamma$, $\gamma U$ and $V$ are disjoint, i.e. $\gamma U\cap V=\emptyset$.
\end{itemize}
Clearly, (PD1) implies that $\Gamma$ acts freely, that is, its elements act without fixed points. If a group $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously on a manifolds $M$, then there is a unique smooth manifold structure on the orbit space $M/\Gamma$ and $\pi:M\to M/\Gamma$ is a covering map, see for example \cite[Proposition 7 in Chapter 7]{oneill83}.
If a group $\Gamma$ acts by diffeomorphisms on $M$ such that the orbit space $M/\Gamma$ is compact we say that $\Gamma$ acts {\em cocompactly}.
If a group $\Gamma$ acts by diffeomorphisms on $M$ and admits a fundamental region with compact closure, then $M/\Gamma$ is compact. The converse is not true in general in the sense that a $\Gamma$ acting on $M$ can have a compact orbit space but admits fundamental domains with non-compact closures.
For metric spaces the converse holds if the fundamental region is assumed to be locally finite \cite[Chapter 6]{Ratcliffe06}.
In \cite{FSApaper,stuart-thesis} we prove a converse that holds also for non-isometric (in the metric space sense) group actions, but requires the following, stronger assumption on the fundamental region (we state it here for smooth actions): if a group $\Gamma$ acts smoothly on a manifold $M$, then we call a fundamental region $R$ {\em finitely self adjacent} if there is a neighbourhood $U$ of the closure $\overline{R}$ of $R$, such that $\gamma(U)$ meets $U$ for only finitely many $\gamma\in \Gamma$. Note that a finitely self adjacent fundamental domain is necessarily locally finite, i.e.~$\{\gamma(\overline{R})\}_{\gamma\in \Gamma}$ is a locally finite family of sets.
From \cite{FSApaper,stuart-thesis} we obtain:
\begin{lemma}\label{FSAlemma}
Let $\Gamma$ be a group of diffeomorphisms acting on a manifold $M$ such that the topological space $M/\Gamma$ is compact. If $R$ is a finitely self adjacent fundamental region, then its closure must be compact.
\end{lemma}
Now let $(\widetilde{M},\widetilde{g})$ be a semi Riemannian manifold and $\Gamma$ a group that acts properly discontinuously on $\widetilde{M}$. If $\Gamma$ is contained isometry group of $(\widetilde{M},\widetilde{g})$, then the orbit space $M=\widetilde{M}/\Gamma$ is equipped with a unique semi-Riemannian metric $g$ such that $\pi^*g=\widetilde{g}$, where $\pi:\widetilde{M}\to M$ is the covering map. Similarly, when $\Gamma$ is a group of conformal transformation, the orbit space $M=\widetilde{M}/\Gamma$ is equipped with a conformal structure $\mathbf{c}$ such that $\pi:\widetilde{M}\to M$ is a conformal covering map, that is, $\pi$ is a covering map and for each $g\in \mathbf{c}$ there is a function $f\in C^\infty(\widetilde{M})$ such that $\pi^*g=\mathrm{e}^{2f}\widetilde{g}$. Note that the original metric $\widetilde{g}$ on $\widetilde{M}$ in general is not a lift of a metric in $\mathbf{c}$. This only the case if $\Gamma$ is consists of isometries.
For more details and results, see \cite{stuart-thesis}.
\section{Conformal transformations of Cahen-Wallach spaces}
\label{cwsec}
\subsection{Conformal flatness of Cahen-Wallach space}
M.~Cahen and N.~Wallach have shown in \cite{cahen-wallach70} that an indecomposable simply connected Lorentzian symmetric space either has constant curvature or is isometric to a {\em Cahen-Wallach space}, which is defined as a Lorentzian manifold $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ with $n\ge 1$ and
$g_S$ is the metric in (\ref{cwmetric}) defined by a symmetric $(n\times n)$-matrix $S=(S_{ij})$ with non-zero determinant.
The condition that $S_{ij}$ is invertible is to ensure that $(M,g)$ is indecomposable. If $S_{ij}$ is not invertible, then the metric $g_S$ is a product of Euclidean space $\R^k$ and a Cahen-Wallach space of dimension $n+2-k$. Some of our results remain valid when $S$ is not invertible, and we will point out when this is the case.
Clearly, if $S$ is the zero matrix, $g_S$ is just the Minkowski metric.
We call the metric $g_S$ a {\em Cahen-Wallach metric}, even when it is only defined on an open subset of $\R^{n+2}$.
We denote by $\Sigma$ the spectrum of the matrix $S$ and by $\Sigma_\pm$ the positive and negative eigenvalues. A Cahen-Wallach space is of {\em real type} if $\Sigma=\Sigma_{+}$ and of {\em imaginary type} if $\Sigma=\Sigma_{-}$. Otherwise it is of {\em mixed type}, see \cite{KathOlbrich15}.
Two Cahen-Wallach spaces are isometric if and only if the corresponding matrices $S$ and $\hat S$ have the same spectrum with the same multiplicities up to multiplication by a positive number, so that $\hat\Sigma =a\Sigma$, with $a>0$.
For the metric $g_S$, even when $S$ is degenerate,
the vector field $\partial_v=\frac{\partial}{\partial v}$, and consequently the one-form $\d t=g(\partial_v,.)$, are parallel and null. Moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{cwnab}
\nabla \partial_i =x^jS_{ij} \,\d t \otimes \partial_v,\qquad \nabla \partial_t= x^i S_{ij} \left( \d x^j\otimes \partial_v - d t \otimes \partial_j\right).
\end{equation}
By slightly abusing notation, we define the symmetric bilinear form $S=S_{ij}\d x^i\d x^j$
on $M$, so that the curvature of $g_S$ is given as
\begin{equation}\label{cwcurv}
R=-S\owedge (\d t)^2,\end{equation}
and consequently $\nabla R=0$,
and the Ricci curvature is
\begin{equation}
\label{cwric}
Ric=-\mathrm{tr}(S) (\d t)^2,
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{tr}(S) $ is the trace of the matrix $S$. Hence, $g_S$ has vanishing scalar curvature and Weyl tensor
\begin{equation}\label{cwweyl}W= -S\owedge (\d t)^2 +\tfrac{\mathrm{tr}(S) }{n} g_S\owedge (\d t)^2 = \left( \tfrac{\mathrm{tr}(S)}{n} \mathrm{I} - S\right) \owedge \d t^2,\end{equation}
where we define $\mathrm{I}=\delta_{ij}\d x^i \d x^j$ and use that \[g_S\owedge (\d t)^2= \mathrm{I} \owedge (\d t)^2.\] This yields the following result:
\begin{proposition}\label{Wflatprop}
The metric $g_S$ is conformally flat if and only if $S$ is a scalar matrix.
\end{proposition}
Note that this result includes the case of dimension $3$, i.e.~when $n=1$: since the Ricci tensor is parallel, the Cotton tensor of a Cahen-Wallach metric always vanishes.
It also implies that in each dimension there are exactly two non-isometric Weyl-flat Cahen-Wallach spaces, namely those with $S=\pm\mathbf{1}$, where $\mathbf{1}$ is the identity matrix of $n$ dimensions. We denote their metrics by $g_\pm$. Since $g_\pm$ are conformally flat, every local conformal transformation is given, via conjugation with the local conformal diffeomorphism to $\R^{1,n+1}$, by a local conformal transformation of Minkowski space, that is, by the composition of a similarity and a local inversion of $\R^{1,n+1}$.
Due to Kuiper's result about the conformal development map \cite{MR31310}, see also \cite{KuhnelRademacher08} for a survey, a conformally flat Cahen-Wallach space $(\R^{n+2},g_\pm)$ embeds into the conformally flat model space, the Einstein universe $\S^1\times \S^{n+1}$ with conformal class defined by the product metric $-\d \theta^2 + g_{\S^{n+1}}$, which has the conformal group $\mathbf{PO}(2,n+2)$, see \cite{frances08} for a survey. Hence, the Lie algebra of conformal vector fields of a conformally flat Cahen-Wallach space $(\R^{n+2},g_\pm)$ has maximal dimension, that is $\tfrac{1}{2}(n+4)(n+3)$.
An explicit basis for the Lie algebra of conformal vector fields
was given in \cite[Proposition~4.4]{CahenKerbrat78}.
Since our focus is on the conformally curved case, we will not study the conformal group of $(\R^{n+2},g_\pm)$ further, we will only make a few more comments on the difference between the real and the imaginary case.
In terms of global rescaling to a flat metric we have:
\begin{proposition}
Let $(\R^{n+2},g_\pm)$ be the conformally flat Cahen-Wallach spaces of dimension $n+2$.
Then any conformal rescaling to a Ricci-flat metric is a rescaling to a flat metric and we have the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The metric $g_0=\mathrm{e}^{2 t } g_+$
on $\R^{n+2}$ is flat.
\item There is no global rescaling $f\in C^\infty(\R^{n+2})$ such that $\mathrm{e}^{2f}g_-$ is flat.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
With $S=\epsilon\mathrm{I}$, with $\epsilon=\pm 1$, the curvature of $g_\epsilon$ is
\[R=-\epsilon \mathrm{I} \owedge (\d t)^2 = -\epsilon g_S\owedge (\d t)^2.\]
Now assume that $f$ is a rescaling to a Ricci-flat metric $\widehat{g}=\mathrm{e}^{2f}g_\epsilon$.
Both metrics have vanishing scalar curvature, so Lemma~\ref{obslem} and equations (\ref{cwcurv}) and (\ref{cwric}) yield
\[
\mathrm{e}^{-2f}\widehat{\RR} =R-\frac{1}{n}g_S\owedge Ric=
\left( -\epsilon +\tfrac{\mathrm{tr}(S)}{n}\right) g_S\owedge (d t)^2 =0,
\]
as $\mathrm{tr}(S)=n\epsilon$. Hence, $\widehat{g}$ is not only Ricci-flat but also flat.
By equations (\ref{confchange}) a conformal rescaling $f$ to a Ricci-flat metric
satisfies
$2\Delta f= ng(\nabla f,\nabla f)$ and hence
is a solution to
\begin{equation}
\label{ric0eq}
0= \epsilon (\d t)^2+ \left( \nabla \d f - (\d f)^2 \right) +\tfrac{1}{2} g(\nabla f,\nabla f)g.\end{equation}
If $\epsilon=1$, then a solution to this equation is $f= t$. Indeed, $\d f = \d t$ and hence $\nabla \d f=0$ and $g(\nabla f,\nabla f)=0$.
Now assume that $\epsilon=-1$ and that $f\in C^\infty(M)$ is a global solution to equation (\ref{ric0eq}). We consider the function $h(t)=f(t,0,\ldots, 0)$ which is defined on $\R$.
Evaluating the equation in the $\partial_t$ direction and only along $(t,0,\ldots, 0)$ yields
\[
0=
-1+{\partial^2_t}f -x^i\partial_if -(\partial_tf)^2 -\tfrac{\|\veccy{x}\|^2}{2}g(\nabla f,\nabla f)
=
-1+{\partial^2_tf} -(\partial_tf)^2,
\]
which shows that $h$ satisfies the ODE
\[\ddot{h}=\dot{h}^2+1.\]
Its derivative $y=\dot h\in C^\infty(\R)$ satisfies the first order separable equation
\[\dot y=y^2+1.\]
Since $\int\frac{1}{y^2+1}\d y =\arctan(x)$ is bounded, the maximal domain of the solutions $y$ is also bounded (see for example \cite[p.~9]{teschl12}), which contradicts the assumption.
\end{proof}
In the real type case this proposition shows that $g_+$ is {\em globally} conformally equivalent to a flat Lorentzian metric $\widehat{g}$ on $\R^{n+2}$. We will see that this flat metric is in fact a {\em geodesically incomplete} Lorentzian metric.
For this one uses (\ref{confchange}) and (\ref{cwnab}) to show that the vector fields
\[\partial_v,\quad Y_i:= \mathrm{e}^{-t}\left( \partial_i+x^i\partial_v\right),\quad Z:=\mathrm{e}^{-2t}\partial_t -\mathrm{e}^{-t}x^kY_k=\mathrm{e}^{-2t}\left( \partial_t-x^k\partial_k- \|\veccy{x}\|^2\partial_v\right)
\]
on $\R^{n+2}$ are parallel for $\widehat{\nabla}$ and satisfy
\[
\widehat{g} (\partial_v,\partial_v)=\widehat{g} (\partial_v,Y_i)=\widehat{g} (Y_i,Z)= \widehat{g} (Z,Z)=0,\quad \widehat{g}(\partial_v,Z)=1,\quad \widehat{g}(Y_i,Y_j)=\delta_{ij}.\]
Observe now that the vector field $Z$ is not complete. For example, its maximal integral curve through the origin is given as
\[\gamma(s) = \begin{pmatrix} t(s)=\frac12 \ln(2s+1) \\0\\0\end{pmatrix}.\]
Since $Z$ is parallel, this is also a maximal geodesic for $\widehat{g}$, which consequently is a geodesically {\em incomplete} flat Lorentzian metric on $\R^{n+2}$.
We will find an explicit conformal transformation between $(\R^{n+2},g_+)$ and an open set in Minkowski space $\R^{1,n+1}$. Since $\partial_v$, $Y_i$ and $Z$ are parallel, their metric duals are closed $1$-forms and we can find a diffeomorphism
\[\phi=\begin{pmatrix}
u\\ y^i\\ z\end{pmatrix}\]
of from $\R^{n+2}$ by integrating the equations
\[
\begin{array}{rcccl}
\d u&=&\widehat{g}(\partial_v,.,)& =& \mathrm{e}^{2t} \d t,
\\
\d y^i&=&\widehat{g} (Y_i,.) & =& \mathrm{e}^t\d x^i+\mathrm{e}^t x^i\d t,
\\
\d z &=& \widehat{g}(Z,.)& = &\d v- x^k \d x^k.
\end{array}
\]
A solution that yields a diffeomeorphism $\phi: \R^{n+2}\to \{u>0\}\subset \R^{1,n+1}$ is
given by
\[
u=
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2t}}{2},\quad
y^i=
\mathrm{e}^t x^i
,\quad
z=v-\tfrac{\|\veccy{x}\|^2}{2}.
\]
Hence we arrive at:
\begin{proposition}\label{confmink}
Let $(\R^{n+2},g_+)$ be the Weyl-flat Cahen-Wallach space of real type and let $(M,g_0)$ be the Minkowski half space,
\[M=\{(u,y^1,\ldots , y^n,z) \in \R^{n+2}\mid u>0\},\quad g_0=2\d u \d z +\delta_{ij} \d y^i\d y^j. \]
Then $\phi$ defined by
\[
\R^{n+2}\ni \begin{pmatrix}
t\\ \veccy{x}\\ v\end{pmatrix}
\stackrel{\phi}{\longmapsto}
\begin{pmatrix}u=
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2t}}{2}\\[2mm]
\veccy{y}=\mathrm{e}^t \veccy{x}\\[2mm]
z=v-\frac{\|\veccy{x}\|^2}{2}
\end{pmatrix}\in M
\]
is a global conformal diffeomorphism between $(\R^{n+2},g_+)$ and $(M,g_0)$ with $
\phi^*g_0=\mathrm{e}^{2t}g_+$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Note that the inverse of $\phi$ is
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
u\\
\veccy{y}
\\
z
\end{pmatrix}\stackrel{\phi^{-1}}{\longmapsto} \begin{pmatrix}
t=\frac{1}{2} \ln (2u)
\\[1mm]
\veccy{x}=\frac{\veccy{y}}{\sqrt{2u}}
\\[2mm]
v=z+\frac{\|\veccy{y}\|^2}{4u}
\end{pmatrix},
\]
so that
$(\phi^{-1})^*g_+=\tfrac{1}{2u}g_0$.
Under conjugation by $\phi$, the isometries of $(\R^{n+2},g_+)$ that are given by a translation in the $t$-component by $c$ (see next section),
\[
\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy{x}\\v\end{pmatrix} \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} t+c \\\veccy{x} \\ v\end{pmatrix},
\]
are mapped to strict homotheties of $(M,g_0)$ of the form
\[
\begin{pmatrix}u\\\veccy{y}\\ z\end{pmatrix} \longmapsto \begin{pmatrix} \mathrm{e}^{2c} u \\ \mathrm{e}^c \veccy{y}\\ z\end{pmatrix},
\]
whereas the isometry of $g_+$,
\[
\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy{x}\\v\end{pmatrix} \longmapsto \begin{pmatrix} -t \\\veccy{x} \\ -v\end{pmatrix},
\]
is mapped to the non-homothetic conformal transformation of $g_0$ given by
\[
\begin{pmatrix}u\\\veccy{y}\\ z\end{pmatrix} \stackrel{\eta}{\longmapsto} \begin{pmatrix} \tfrac{1}{4 u} \\[2mm] \tfrac{ \veccy{y}}{2u} \\- z- \tfrac{\|\veccy{y}\|^2}{2u}\end{pmatrix},
\]
that satisfies $\eta^*g_0=\frac{1}{4u^2}g_0$.
\end{remark}
In the imaginary case, only local rescalings to a flat metric $\widehat{g}$ exists, for example,
\[ \widehat{g}=\tfrac{1}{\cos^{2} (t) } \, g_-.\]
Similarly to the real case one can show that the parallel vector fields of $\widehat{g}$ on $\{t\not=\frac{(2k+1) \pi}{2}\}$ are
\[\partial_v, \quad Y_i=\cos (t)\, \partial_i +x^i\sin (t)\,\partial_v,\]
and \[
Z=\cos^2(t)\partial_t-x^i\sin(t) Y_i+\tfrac{\|x\|^2}{2} \partial_v=
\cos^2(t)\partial_t-\tfrac{x^i}{2}\sin(2t) \partial_i+\tfrac{\|x\|^2}{2} \cos (2t) \partial_v.
\]
Note that now the integral curves of $Z$ through the origin are given by
\[\gamma(s)=\begin{pmatrix}
\arctan(s)
\\
0
\\
0
\end{pmatrix}
\]
and hence defined for all $s$.
As before, for finding a diffeomeorphism $\phi=(u,y^i,z)$ we can integrate the equations
\[
\begin{array}{rcccl}
\d u&=&\widehat{g}(\partial_v,.,)& =&\tfrac{1}{\cos^2(t)} \d t,
\\
\d y^i&=&\widehat{g} (Y_i,.) & =& \tfrac{1}{\cos(t)} \d x^i+\tfrac{\tan(t)}{\cos(t)} x^i\d t,
\\
\d z &=& \widehat{g}(Z,.)& = &\d v- x^k \tan (t) \d x^k - \tfrac{\|x\|^2}{2\cos^2(t)} \d t
\end{array}
\]
and get a diffeomeorphism $\phi: \{ -\tfrac{\pi}{2}<t<\frac{\pi}{2} \}\to \R^{1,n+1}$ is
given by
\[
u=
\tan (t) ,\quad
y^i=
\tfrac{ x^i}{\cos (t) }
,\quad
z=v-\tfrac{\|x\|^2}{2}\tan(t).
\]
Indeed, for the Minkowski metric $g_0=2\d u\d z +\sum_{i=1}^n(\d y^i)^2$ on $\R^{1,n+1}$ we have that
\[ \phi^*g_0= \tfrac{1}{\cos^2(t) }g_-.\]
\subsection{Isometries, homotheties and conformal transformations}
\label{confcw-sec}
In this section we are going to determine the homothety group of a Cahen-Wallach space, and consequently by virtue of Corollary~\ref{cor_locally-symmetric-implies-Cahen-Kerbrat-result} in the conformally curved case also its conformal group. First we describe its isometry group, which is well known since
\cite{cahen-wallach70}, see also \cite{KathOlbrich15}.
Let $(\R^{n+2}, g_S)$ in be a Cahen-Wallach space defined by the matrix $S$, which, for the moment, we do not assume to be invertible.
We denote
by $C_{\O(n)}(S)$ the orthogonal matrices commuting with $S$ and by $V_S$ the $2n$-dimensional solution space of the ODE system
\[V_S:=\{\beta:\R\to \R^n\mid \ddot\beta=S\beta\}.\]
It is straightforward to check that the following diffeomorphisms are isometries of $g_S$,
\begin{equation}\label{isom}
\psi=\psi_{c,\epsilon,b,\beta,A}:\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy{x}\\v\end{pmatrix} {\longmapsto} \begin{pmatrix}\epsilon\, t+c \\ A\veccy{x}+\beta(t) \\ \epsilon \left(v+b-\< \dot\beta(t),A\boldsymbol{x}+\frac12\beta(t)\>\right)\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $c\in \R$, $\epsilon\in\{\pm 1\}$, $A\in C_{\O(n)}(S)$, $b\in \R$, $\beta\in V_S$ and $\<.,.\>$ is the standard Euclidean inner product on $\R^n$. Moreover, when $S$ is invertible, using the fact that an isometry preserves the parallel null vector field $\partial_v$,
one can show that every isometry of $g_S$ is of this form (see \cite[Section 4.2]{stuart-thesis} for an explicit calculation).
In order to describe the group structure of the isometry group we will identify several subgroups of the isometry group and their relation to each other. All of these groups come with their natural action on $\R^{n+2}$ via formula (\ref{isom}).
First note that $ \R\times \{\pm1\}$ is a subgroup of the isometries with the group structure of the Euclidean group of $\R$, $\E(1)=\R\rtimes \Z_2$. We denote its elements by either $(c,\epsilon)$ or by $E_{c,\epsilon}$ when we refer to the Euclidean motion $E_{c,\epsilon}(t)=\epsilon\,t+c$ of $\R$.
Next, note that $\E(1)$ and $ C_{\O(n)}(S)$ commute with each other and that $\E(1)\timesC_{\O(n)}(S)$ forms a subgroup of $\Iso(\R^{n+2},g_S)$, and we denote its elements by pairs $(E_{c,\epsilon}, A)$.
Secondly, also $\R\times V_S$ with its elements denoted by $(b,\beta)$ forms a subgroup with group operation
\[(b,\beta) +_\omega (\hat b, \hat \beta):= (b+\hat b +\omega (\beta ,\hat\beta) ,\beta+\hat\beta),\]
where $\omega$ is the symplectic form on $V_S$, defined by
\[ \omega(\beta,\hat\beta) :=\tfrac{1}{2}\left( \<\beta(0),\dot{\hat\beta}(0) \>- \<\dot\beta(0),\hat\beta(0)\>\right).\]
Note that the function $t\mapsto \<\beta(t),\dot{\hat\beta}(t) \>- \<\dot\beta(t),\hat\beta(t)\>$ is actually constant, so in order to define $\omega$ we could have evaluated it at any other $t\not=0$. In particular, $\omega$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{shiftomega}
\omega(\beta,\hat\beta\circ E_{c,\epsilon} )=\epsilon\omega (\beta\circ E_{c,\epsilon}^{-1},\hat\beta),\quad\text{ for all $E_{c,\epsilon}\in \E(1)$}
\end{equation}
which will turn out to be useful, as well as \begin{equation}\label{Aomega}
\omega (A \beta, A\hat \beta)= \omega(\beta,\hat\beta),\quad\text{ for all $A\in \O(n)$.}\end{equation} This shows that $\R\times V_S$ has the group structure of the $(2n+1)$-dimensional Heisenberg group
\[\Hei_n:=\R\times_\omega V_S,\]
which is the central extension of $V_S$ by $\R$.
Thirdly, $\Hei_n$ is normal in $\Iso(\R^{n+2},g_S)$. In fact, if $E_{c,\epsilon}\in \E(1)$ and $A\in C_{\O(n)}(S)$, we have for $(b,\beta)\in \Hei_n$ that
\[ (E_{c,\epsilon},A)(b,\beta)(E_{c,\epsilon},A)^{-1}=(E_{c,\epsilon},A)(b,\beta)(E_{\epsilon,-\epsilon c},A^\top)
=
\left( \epsilon b, A \beta\circ E_{-\epsilon c,\epsilon}\right)\in \Hei_n.\]
Finally, any isometry $\psi$ as in (\ref{isom}) is a product of elements from $\Hei_n$ and $\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)$. Indeed, it is
\begin{equation}\label{actions}\psi =\psi_{c,\epsilon,b,\beta,A}=
\underbrace{E_{\epsilon, c}}_{\in \E(1)} \underbrace{(b,\beta)}_{\in \Hei_n} \underbrace{A}_{\in C_{\O(n)}(S)}
=
\underbrace{\left( \epsilon b, \beta\circ E_{-\epsilon c,\epsilon}\right)}_{\in \Hei_n} \underbrace{(E_{c,\epsilon},A)}_{\in \E(1)\timesC_{\O(n)}(S)}.
\end{equation}
The reader may have noticed that, in order to keep the notation brief, we use it quite flexibly: for example by $A$ we refer to $\psi_{0,1,0,0,A}$,
by $(E_{c,\epsilon},A)$ to $\psi_{c,\epsilon,0,0,A}$, by $(b,\beta)$ to $\Psi_{0,1,b,\beta,\mathbf{1}}$, etc., and the group product the is the composition when acting on $\R^{n+2}$.
Hence, we have arrived at the well known fact \cite{cahen-wallach70,KathOlbrich15}:
\begin{proposition}\label{isoprop}
The isometry group of a Cahen-Wallach space $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ is isomorphic to the semidirect product
\[
\Hei_n\rtimes_\alpha \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\right),\]
where
$\Hei_n$ is the $2n+1$-dimensional Heisenberg group, $\E(1)=\R\rtimes \Z_2$ is the Euclidean group in one dimension, $C_{\O(n)}(S)$ is the centraliser of the matrix $S$ in $\O(n)$,
and the homomorphism
$\alpha:\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\to\Aut(\Hei_n)$ is defined as
\[\alpha_{(c,\epsilon,A)} (b,\beta) :=\left( \epsilon b, A \beta\circ E_{c,\epsilon}^{-1}\right).\]
The isomorphism maps $\psi_{c,\epsilon,b,\beta,A}$ in (\ref{isom}) to
\[
\left( (\epsilon b, \beta \circ E_{-\epsilon c,\epsilon} ) ,E_{c,\epsilon},A\right)\in \Hei_n\rtimes(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)).
\]
\end{proposition}
To be very explicit, let us emphasise again that the action of an element $\left( (b,\beta), (E_{c,\epsilon},A) \right)
$ of $\Hei_n\rtimes_\alpha \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\right)$ on $\R^{n+2}$ is given via (\ref{isom}) as
\[\left( (b,\beta), (E_{c,\epsilon},A) \right) (t,\veccy{x},v)= \psi_{0,1,b,\beta,\mathbf{1}}\left( \psi_{c,\epsilon,0,0,A} (t,\veccy{x},v)\right).\]
Moreover, the
explicit formula for the group product in $\Hei_n\rtimes_\alpha \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\right)$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\lefteqn{
\Big((b,\beta), (E_{c,\epsilon} ,A)\Big) \left((\hat b,\hat\beta), (E_{\hat c,\hat\epsilon} ,\hat A)\right)}\\
&
=&
\nonumber
\left( \left( (b,\beta)+_\omega\alpha_{c,\epsilon,A} (\hat b,\hat \beta)\right),
\left( E_{c,\epsilon}\circ E_{\hat c,\hat \epsilon}, A\hat A\right)\right)
\\
&=&
\label{product}
\left( \left( (b+\epsilon \hat b +
\omega(\beta, A\hat \beta\circ E_{-\epsilon c,\epsilon}) , \beta+ A\hat \beta\circ E_{-\epsilon c,\epsilon}\right) ,( E_{c+
\epsilon \hat c, \epsilon\hat \epsilon}, A\hat A)\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $(b,\beta)$ and $(\hat b,\hat\beta)$ are elements from $\Hei_n$ and $(E_{c,\epsilon} ,A)$ and $(E_{\hat c,\hat\epsilon} ,\hat A)$ from $\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)$.
The formula for the inverse is
\begin{equation}\label{inverse}
\Big((b,\beta), (E_{c,\epsilon} ,A)\Big)^{-1}= \Big((-\epsilon b,-A^\top\beta\circ E_{c,\epsilon}), (E_{-\epsilon c,\epsilon} ,A^\top)\Big).\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
We should also point out that if $S$ is not invertible, then the isometry group of $g_S$ contains the group $\Hei_n\rtimes_\alpha \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\right)$, but is generally bigger, for example when $S=0$, in which case $g_S$ is the Minkowski metric.
When $S$ is not zero but has a kernel of dimension $k\ge 1$, the metric $g_S$ is isometric to a product of an indecomposable Cahen-Wallach space of dimension $n-k+2$ and Euclidean space of dimension $k$. Interestingly, since it contains $\Hei_n\rtimes_\alpha \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\right)$, the isometry group is larger than the product of the isometry groups of both manifolds,
whose dimension is
\[\dim(C_{\O(n-k)}(S)) + 2(n+1) + \frac{1}{2} k(k-3).\]
On the other hand, since the centraliser of $S$ in $\O(n)$ is $C_{\O(n-k)}(S)\times \O(k)$, the dimension of $\Hei_n\rtimes_\alpha \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\right)$
is \[\dim(C_{\O(n-k)}(S)) + 2(n+1) + \frac{1}{2} k(k-1).\]
Moreover, observe that if
$(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ is conformally flat, then \[\Iso(\R^{n+2},g_S)=
\Hei_n\rtimes_\alpha \left(\E(1)\times \O(n)\right),\]
and hence
the dimension of the isometry group is reduced by $n+1$ from the dimension of the isometry group of Minkowski space $\R^{1,n+1}$, which is $\tfrac{1}{2}(n+2)(n+3)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The transvection group within the isometry group is
$\Hei\ltimes_\alpha \R$, where $\R$ are the translations in $\E(1)$.
The stabiliser in $\Iso(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ of the origin is given as
\[L_S\rtimes_\alpha (\Z_2\times C_{\O(n)}(S)),\]
where
\[L_S:=\{\beta\in V_S\mid \beta(0)=0\}\subset \Hei_n,\]
is a Lagrangian subspace in $V_S$ and hence a subgroup of $\Hei_n$.
Similarly the stabiliser in the transvections is just $L_S$ and we have
\[ (\R^{n+2},g_S)= (\Hei\ltimes_\alpha \R)/L_S.\]
\end{remark}
Now we turn to the homotheties of $(\R^{n+2}, g_S)$. Clearly, for each $s\in \R$ the linear map given by the matrix $h_s:=\diag (1,\mathrm{e}^s,\ldots , \mathrm{e}^s, \mathrm{e}^{2s} )$,
\begin{equation}
\label{hs}
\begin{pmatrix}
t\\ \veccy{x} \\ v\end{pmatrix}\stackrel{h_s}{\longmapsto}
\begin{pmatrix}
t\\ \mathrm{e}^s\veccy{x} \\ \mathrm{e}^{2s}v\end{pmatrix}\end{equation}
is a homothety of $g_S$. We call $h_s$ a {\em pure homothety}. The pure homotheties are a subgroup in the homotheties which we denote by $\R$.
The isometries are normal in the homotheties and we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{hprod}
h_s\left((b,\beta)\cdot(c,\epsilon, A)\right) h_s^{-1}= (\mathrm{e}^{2s} b,\mathrm{e}^s \beta)\cdot (c,\epsilon, A) .
\end{equation}
In particular, the pure homotheties commute with $\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)$.
This yields
\begin{proposition}\label{homoprop}
The homothety group of a Cahen-Wallach space is isomorphic to
\[ \Hei_n\rtimes_\varphi \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R\right), \]
where $\varphi:\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R\to \Aut(\Hei_n)$ is defined as
\[\varphi{(c,\epsilon,A,s)} (b,\beta) :=\left( \epsilon \mathrm{e}^{2s} b, \mathrm{e}^sA \beta\circ E_{c,\epsilon}^{-1}\right).\]
\end{proposition}
In the following we will denote
\begin{equation}\label{defHS}
H_{S} := \Hei_n\rtimes_\varphi \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S) \times \R\right),
\end{equation}
and identify it with the
the homothety group of the Cahen-Wallach space $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$. From the proposition it follows that there is a surjective group homomorphism
\[H_S\longrightarrow H_S/\Hei_n \simeq \E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R,\]
and for a homothety $\phi$ we denote the image under this projection by \[(E_\phi,A_\phi,s_\phi)=(c_\phi,\epsilon_\phi,A_\phi,s_\phi)\in \E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R
=
(\R\ltimes \Z_2) \times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R.\]
\begin{remark}
It was already noted in \cite{Alekseevski85}, see also \cite{Podoksenov89,Podoksenov92}, that the diffeomorphism $h_s$ in (\ref{hs})
is a homothety for many Lorentzian metrics, namely those of the form
\[
2 \d t \left( \d v + P_{ij}(t) x^i\d x^j + \left(Q_{ij}(t) x^ix^j+ R(t) v\right)\d t\right) +\delta_{ij}\d x^i \d x^j,\]
including the so-called pp-waves, of which the Cahen-Wallach metrics are a special case.\end{remark}
In the non Weyl-flat case with $n\ge 2$, the conformal group of $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$, reduces to the homotheties by Corollary~\ref{cor_locally-symmetric-implies-Cahen-Kerbrat-result}.
\begin{corollary}\label{curvedconf}
Let $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ be a Cahen-Wallach space of dimension $n+2\ge 4$ such that $S$ has at least two different eigenvalues, i.e.~$g_S$ is not Weyl-flat. If $\phi:U\to\phi(U)$ is a conformal transformation on an open set $U$, then $\phi$ is a homothety. In particular,
\[\Conf(\R^{n+2},g_S)=H_S= \Hei_n\rtimes_\varphi \left(\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times\R \right) .\]
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Fixpoints and essential homotheties}
\label{fixpoint-sec}
In this section, we will prove Theorem~\ref{intro-esstheo}. For this we detail various sufficient conditions for a homothety of a Cahen-Wallach space to have a fixed point and hence be essential. Using this, we will show the converse of Proposition~\ref{prop_finite-orbit-homoth-implies-essential}.
Throughout this section, we denote by
$\phi=\phi_{c,\epsilon,b,\beta,A,s}$ the homothety
\begin{equation}\label{homoth1}
\phi=\phi_{c,\epsilon,b,\beta,A,s}\ :\ \begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy{x}\\v\end{pmatrix} {\longmapsto} \begin{pmatrix}\epsilon\, t+c \\ \mathrm{e}^sA\veccy{x}+\beta(t) \\ \epsilon \left(\mathrm{e}^{2s}v+b-\< \dot\beta(t),A\boldsymbol{x}+\frac12\beta(t)\>\right)\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and by $E_\phi$ the Euclidean motion $E_{c,\epsilon}$ that maps $t$ to $\epsilon\,t+c$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_homothetic-fixed-points}
A strict homothety $\phi$ of
$(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ has a fixed point if and only if the Euclidean motion $E_\phi$ of $\R$ has a fixed point, i.e.~if and only if $\epsilon=-1$ or $c=0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $E_\phi$ is defined by $E_\phi (t)=\epsilon\, t+c$. If $E_\phi$ has no fixed point, then $\phi$ cannot fix any point.
Conversely, let $t$ be a fixed point of $E_\phi$. Then one can verify that
$$\begin{pmatrix}t\\-(\mathrm{e}^sA-\mathbf{1})^{-1}\beta(t)\\ -(\mathrm{e}^{2s}a-1)^{-1}a\left(b-\<\dot\beta(t),-\mathrm{e}^sA(\mathrm{e}^sA-I_n)^{-1}\beta(t)+\frac12\beta(t)\>\right)\end{pmatrix}$$
is a fixed point of $\phi$. The assumption that $\phi$ is a strict homothety is crucial for the inverses of $(\mathrm{e}^{2s}\epsilon-1)$ and $(\mathrm{e}^sA-\mathbf{1})$ to exist.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_isometry-a=-1-fixed-points}
Let $\phi$ be an isometry of $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ with $\epsilon=-1$.
Then $\phi$ fixes a point if and only if $\veccy x \mapsto A\veccy x +\beta(\tfrac{c}{2})$ fixes a point.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\tfrac{c}{2}$ is the unique fixed point of $E_\phi=E_{c,-1}:t\mapsto -t+c$, so if $A\veccy x+\beta(\tfrac{c}{2})$ does not have a fixed point, then $\phi$ cannot fix any point.
Conversely, let $\veccy y=A\veccy y+\beta(\tfrac{c}{2})$. Then one can check that
$$\begin{pmatrix}\tfrac{c}{2}\\\veccy y\\-\frac12\left(b-\<\dot\beta(\tfrac{c}{2}),A\veccy y+\frac12\beta(\tfrac{c}{2})\>\right)\end{pmatrix}$$
is a fixed point of $\phi$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_torsion-implies-fixed-point}
Let $\phi$ be a homothety of $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$, such that for some $k>0$, $\phi^k=\id$. Then $\phi$ fixes a point.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We construct a point $y$ fixed by $\phi$.
We start with the $t$ component of $y$: If $\epsilon=1$, then $t \circ \phi^k = t+kc$. This can only fix a point for $k>0$ if $c=0$, so we conclude either $c=0$ or $\epsilon=-1$. In either case
$$t(y):=\tfrac{c}{2}$$
is a fixed point of $t\mapsto \epsilon\, t+c$. From this we also get by Proposition~\ref{prop_homothetic-fixed-points}, that $\phi$ either has a fixed point or is an isometry. So we assume that $\phi$ is an isometry. Define $\beta_0 := \beta(\tfrac{c}{2})$ and $\dot\beta_0 := \dot\beta(\tfrac{c}{2})$.
Next we consider the $\veccy x$ component: since $\phi^k(\tfrac{c}{2},0,0)=(\tfrac{c}{2},0,0)$ we get that the Euclidean motion $E_{\beta_0,A}(\veccy x) = A\veccy x + \beta_0$ satisfies $E^k_{\beta_0,A} \equiv \Id$. In particular, \[E^k_{\beta_0,A}(0) = \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}A^i\beta_0 = 0.\]
In general any euclidean motion $E$ satisfying $E^k(\veccy x) = \veccy x$ fixes a point. This fixed point is given by the centre of mass (in our case, $\veccy x=0$),
$$\veccy y := \frac1k \sum_{i=1}^k E^i_{\beta_0,A}(0).$$
Now when $\epsilon=-1$, Lemma~\ref{lem_isometry-a=-1-fixed-points} gives us a fixed point of $\phi$.
When $\epsilon=1$, to have a fixed point we require that $b-\<\dot\beta_0,A\veccy y+\frac12\beta_0\> = 0$. But since $\phi(\frac{c}{2} , \veccy y, .) = (\frac{c}{2}, \veccy y,\hdots)$, we get
$$\phi^k\begin{pmatrix}\frac{c}{2}\\\veccy y\\0\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}\frac{c}{2}\\\veccy y\\k(b-\<\dot\beta_0,A\veccy y+\frac12\beta_0\>)\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}\frac{c}{2}\\\veccy y\\0\end{pmatrix}.$$
Hence $b-\<\dot\beta_0,A\veccy y+\frac12\beta_0\>=0$, and so any choice of $v(y)$, for example $v(y):= 0$ makes $(\frac{c}{2},\veccy y,0)$ a fixed point of $\phi$.
\end{proof}
Now we give a characterisation of essential homotheties of Cahen-Wallach spaces. The non-trivial part of the proof is a special case of the results in
\cite{FSApaper,stuart-thesis}, however we will present it here for the sake of completeness.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_CW-essential-iff-fixed-point}
A strict homothety $\phi$ of a Cahen-Wallach space is essential if and only if it fixes a point.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, if $\phi$ has a fixed point, then by Proposition~\ref{prop_finite-orbit-homoth-implies-essential}, $\phi$ is essential. For the converse, assume that
$\phi$ is essential but without fixed point.
Then by Proposition~\ref{prop_homothetic-fixed-points}, $t\circ \phi(x) = t(x)+c$ for some $c>0$. We will now construct a function $f$ such that $\phi$ is an ismometry for the metric $\mathrm{e}^{2f}g$.
The group $\langle\phi\rangle$ admits a fundamental domain $D=\R^{n+1}\times(0,c)$. Let $h:\R\to \R_{>0}$ be a smooth function of $t$ such that $h|_{[0,c]}\equiv 1$ and with support in $(-\tfrac{c}{4},\tfrac{5c}{4} )$. Then define functions $\{h_k\}_{k\in \Z}$ on $\R^{n+2}$ by
\[h_0(t,\veccy{x},v)=h(t),\qquad h_{k}:=h_0\circ \phi^{-k},\]
so that $h_k=h_{k+1}\circ\phi$.
Since $\{\mathrm{supp}(h_k)\}_{k\in \Z}$ is locally finite, the function $\sum_{k\in \Z}h_k$ is well defined. Since $D$ is a fundamental domain and $h_k\ge 0$, the function $\sum_{k\in \Z}h_k$ has no zeros. Hence,
\[f_k:=\frac{h_k}{\sum_{k\in \Z}h_k} \]
is a partition of unity on $\R^{n+2}$ that satisfies $f_{k}=f_{k+1}\circ\phi$. If $\phi^*g=\mathrm{e}^{2s}g$, we set
\[f:=-s\sum_{k\in \Z}k f_k,\]
which yields that $\phi$ is an isometry for $\mathrm{e}^{2f}g$ as
\[
f\circ \phi= -s\sum_{k\in \Z}k f_{k-1}=f -s\sum_{k\in \Z}f_k=f-s.\]
Therefore, $\phi$ is not essential and we arrive at a contradiction, so that $\phi$ must have a fixed point.
\end{proof}
\section{Non-existence results for compact conformal quotients of Cahen-Wallach spaces}
\label{compact-sec}
\subsection{Conformal compact quotients of imaginary type}
In this section we show that conformal compact quotients of Cahen-Wallach spaces of imaginary type must be isometric quotients.
We start with some technical results about cocompact conformal group actions of Cahen-Wallach spaces.
Recall the definition of $H_S$ in (\ref{defHS}),
which is the group of homotheties of the Cahen-Wallach space $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$, i.e.~when $S$ is invertible. The technical statements that will lead up to Theorem~\ref{thm_no-homoth-quotients-of-imaginary-CW} however will not require that $S$ is invertible.
First we show that cyclic groups of homotheties cannot act cocompactly.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_cyclic-isnt-cocompact}
If $\gamma\in H_S$, then
$\<\gamma\>$ does not act cocompactly.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\< \gamma \>$ acts cocompactly. Then $\Gamma:=\<\gamma^2\> $ acts cocompactly and we have that $t\circ\gamma^2 =t+c$, where $t$ is the coordinate
\begin{align*}
t:\R^{n+2} \to \R,\qquad (t,\veccy{x}, v)\mapsto t.
\end{align*}
If $c=0$, then
the smooth map $t$
is invariant under $\Gamma$ and descends to a smooth, surjective map $ f:\R^{n+2}/\Gamma \to \R$.
This contradicts the compactness of $\R^{n+2}/\Gamma$.
If $c\neq 0$,
then $D=\R^{n+1}\times(0,c)$ is a finitely self adjacent fundamental domain, see
\cite{FSApaper,stuart-thesis}, and hence, by Lemma~\ref{FSAlemma}, $M/\<\gamma\>$ cannot be compact.
\end{proof}
Next we find an obstruction for a cocompact group acting properly discontinuously. Recall that $\Sigma_{+}$ denotes the set of positive eigenvalues of $S$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_good-homoth-quotient-implies-exponential-beta}
Let $\Gamma\subset H_S$ be a subgroup
that acts cocompactly.
If $\Gamma$ contains a strict homothety \[\gamma=(c_\gamma,A_\gamma,s_\gamma)\in \R\times C_{\O(n)}(S) \times \R\] with the property
\begin{equation}\label{lcs}
\text{
$ s^2_\gamma -\lambda^2_ic_\gamma^2>0\quad$
for all $\lambda_i^2\in \Sigma_+$},\end{equation}
then $\Gamma$ cannot act properly discontinuously.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Since $\Gamma$ acts cocompactly, by Lemma~\ref{lem_cyclic-isnt-cocompact} it cannot be cyclic, so there is a homothety $\phi\in \Gamma\setminus \<\gamma\>$, which we fix.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that $\phi$ is a strict homothety, otherwise we multiply $\phi$ by $\gamma$.
Let $\phi=\phi_{c,\epsilon,b,\beta,A,s}$ be a homothety as in (\ref{homoth1}).
For a proof by contradiction, assume that $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously.
This implies that $\epsilon=1$ and $c\not=0$, as otherwise,
by Proposition~\ref{prop_homothetic-fixed-points},
$\phi$ would have a fixed point and $\Gamma$ could not act properly discontinuous.
Furthermore, if $\beta$, $b$ are both zero, then for any sequence of rational numbers $p_i/q_i\to c/c_\gamma$, we have that $\gamma^{p_i}\phi^{-q_i}(0)\to 0$, contradicting PD1. Hence at least one of $b$ or $\beta$ is non-zero.
The assumption that
\[ 0<s^2_\gamma -\lambda^2_ic^2_\gamma =(s_\gamma+\lambda_i c_\gamma)(s_\gamma-\lambda_i c_\gamma)\]
means that $(s_\gamma+\lambda c_\gamma)$ and $(s_\gamma-\lambda c_\gamma)$ have the same sign. Without loss of generality, we assume that both are positive (if both are negative, we use $\gamma^{-1}$ in what follows).
Now consider the sequence
\[y_k=\gamma^{-k}\phi\gamma^k(0) = \begin{pmatrix}c \\[1mm]\mathrm{e}^{-ks_\gamma}(A^\top_\gamma)^k \beta(kc_\gamma)\\[1mm] \mathrm{e}^{-2ks_\gamma}\left(b-\<\dot\beta(kc_\gamma), \frac12\beta(kc_\gamma)\>\right)\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Let $\beta^i:\R\to\R$, $i=1, \ldots , n$ be the components of $\beta\in V_S$.
For those $i$ for which the eigenvalues of $S$ are negative, the sequence $\beta^j(kc_\gamma)$ is bounded and hence $\mathrm{e}^{-ks_\gamma} \beta^j(kc_\gamma)$ converges to zero when $k$ goes to infinity.
For those $j$ that correspond to the kernel of $S$, $\beta^i$ is linear and again $\mathrm{e}^{-ks_\gamma} \beta^i(kc_\gamma)$ converges to zero when $k$ goes to infinity.
For those $i$ for which the eigenvalues $\lambda_i^2$ of $S$ is positive we have
\begin{equation}\label{hyps}
\beta^i(kc_\gamma)=b^i\cosh(\lambda_i kc_\gamma )+ c^i\sinh (\lambda_i k c_\gamma)= \tfrac{b^i+c^i}{2}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda_i kc_\gamma}+ \tfrac{b^i-c^i}{2} \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_i kc_\gamma},\end{equation}
for some constants $b^i$ and $c^i$, not both zero.
By the assumption that both $(s_\gamma+\lambda_i c_\gamma)$ and $(s_\gamma-\lambda_i c_\gamma)$ are positive, we have that
\[
\mathrm{e}^{-ks_\gamma} \beta^i(kc_\gamma)= \tfrac{b^i+c^i}{2}\mathrm{e}^{-k(s_\gamma- \lambda_i c_\gamma)}+ \tfrac{b^i-c^i}{2} \mathrm{e}^{-k(s_\gamma+\lambda_i c_\gamma)}\]
(no summation over $i$), is a non-constant sequence that converges to zero when $k\to\infty$. Since $A_\gamma$ is an orthogonal matrix this implies that $y_k^i$ is a non-constant sequence converging to zero for $k\to \infty$.
Finally for $v_k=v(y_k)=\mathrm{e}^{-2ks_\gamma}(b-\<\dot\beta(kc_\gamma), \frac12\beta(kc_\gamma)\>$, using the formula (\ref{hyps}) for the $\beta^i$s, we have that \[\lim_{k\to\infty} v_k =\frac14 \sum_{i=1}^p \lim_{k\to \infty} \left( \mathrm{e}^{-2k(s_\gamma-\lambda_ic_\gamma)}- \mathrm{e}^{-2k(s_\gamma+\lambda_ic_\gamma)}\right)=0,\]
since both $(s_\gamma\pm\lambda c_\gamma)$ are positive.
Hence, $y_k=\gamma^{-k}\phi\gamma^k(0)$ is a non-constant sequence in the $\Gamma$-orbit of $0$ that converges to $(c ,0,0)$. This contradicts the assumption that $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The proof also shows that if $\Gamma$ contains a $\gamma=(c_\gamma,A_\gamma,s_\gamma)\in \R\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R$
and acts cocompactly and properly discontinuously, then for all $\phi\in \Gamma\setminus \<\gamma\>$ the corresponding $\beta$ must have at least one exponentially growing component, that is, $\beta$ must have a non-vanishing component in an eigenspace for a positive eigenvalue.
Note also that we have not assumed that $S$ is non-degenerate.
\end{remark}
As the next step we show that under certain conditions, every strict homothety is conjugated to a homothety $\gamma\in \R\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R$.
This requires the following technical result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_beta-solving-conjugation-equation}
Let $\hat\beta\in V_S$, $A\in C_{\O(n)}(S)$, $s\in\R$, $s\not=0$, and $ c\in \R$. Unless $(\frac{s}{c})^{2}$ is an eigenvalue of $S$,
there is a $\beta\in V_S$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{betaeq}
\mathrm{e}^{ s} A \,\beta\circ \sigma_{c}-\beta =\hat\beta,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_c=E_{c,1}\in\E(1)$ is the shift by $c$ in $\R$, $\sigma_c(t)=t+c$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $A$ commutes with $S$, it preserves the eigenspaces of $S$ and it suffices to determine $\beta$ on each eigenspace separately. We abuse notation by denoting by $\beta$ and $\hat \beta$ their component on each eigenspace and by $n$ the dimension of an eigenspace.
Since $\beta\in V_S$ and $\hat\beta\in V_S$, both are determined by their initial values $\beta_0:=\beta(0)$, $\hat\beta_0:=\hat\beta(0)$ and derivatives $\beta_1:=\beta'(0)$ and $\hat\beta_1:=\hat\beta'(0)$ we have to show that we can choose $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ such that the corresponding solution $\beta$ satisfies (\ref{betaeq}). First we consider the case of a negative eigenvalue $-\mu^2$. A solution $\beta $ is given as
\[
\beta(t)=\beta_0\cos(\mu t)+\tfrac{\beta_1}{\mu}\sin (\mu t).
\]
Hence we are looking for initial condition $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ satisfying the linear system of $2n$ equations
\begin{equation}\label{linsystrig}
\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix}
\mu ( \mathrm{e}^s \cos(\mu c) A -\mathbf{1}) & \mathrm{e}^s \sin(\mu c) A
\\[1mm]
-\mu \mathrm{e}^s \sin(\mu c) A & \mathrm{e}^s \cos(\mu c) A -\mathbf{1}
\end{pmatrix}}_{=:M}
\begin{pmatrix}\beta_0\\
\beta_1\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}\mu\hat\beta_0\\
\hat\beta_1\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
This system has a solution for any given right-hand-side if the matrix $M$ is invertible.
Since the bottom two blocks commute, we get the determinant
\[
\det(M)
= \mu^n \det\Big(\mathrm{e}^{2s}A^2-2 \mathrm{e}^s\cos(\mu c)A+\mathbf{1} \Big),
\]
see \cite{Silvester00} for details.
We know that $A$ is orthogonal and hence is diagonalisable over $\C$ with complex eigenvalues $z_1,\ldots , z_n$ which lie on the unit circle, $|z_i|=1$. So we compute this determinant by diagonalisation to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\det(M) = \prod_{i=1}^n\left( \mathrm{e}^{2s}z_i^2-2\mathrm{e}^s\cos(\mu c)z_i + 1\right).
\end{equation*}
Hence, the determinant of $M$ can only be zero if one of the $z_i$'s is a root of
\[ \mathrm{e}^{2s}z^2-2\mathrm{e}^s\cos(\mu c)z+1.\]
However, the roots of this quadratic are given by the complex numbers $z=\mathrm{e}^{-s\pm \mathrm{i}\mu c}$, which do not lie on the unit circle as $s\not=0$. Hence $M$ is invertible and by inverting it we find suitable initial conditions $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ so that $\beta$ solves (\ref{betaeq}).
Secondly, we consider the case of a positive eigenvalue $\lambda^2$. Now a solution $\beta $ is given as
\[
\beta(t)=\beta_0\cosh(\lambda t)+\tfrac{\beta_1}{\lambda}\sinh (\lambda t).
\]
The corresponding linear system for $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ that replaces (\ref{linsystrig}) now is given by the matrix
\[
M=
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda ( \mathrm{e}^s \cosh(\lambda c) A -\mathbf{1}) & \mathrm{e}^s \sinh(\lambda c) A
\\[1mm]
\lambda \mathrm{e}^s \sinh(\lambda c) A & \mathrm{e}^s \cosh(\lambda c) A -\mathbf{1}
\end{pmatrix}
\]
with determinant
\[
\det(M)
= \lambda^n \det\Big(\mathrm{e}^{2s}A^2-2 \mathrm{e}^s\cosh(\lambda c)A+\mathbf{1} \Big) = \prod_{i=1}^n\left( \mathrm{e}^{2s}z_i^2-2\mathrm{e}^s\cosh(\lambda c)z_i + 1\right).
\]
Again, the determinant of $M$ can only be zero if one of the $z_i$'s is a root of
\[ \mathrm{e}^{2s}z^2-2\mathrm{e}^s\cosh(\lambda c)z+1.\]
Now the roots are real numbers $z=\mathrm{e}^{-s\pm \lambda c}$ which do not lie on the unit circle {\em unless} $s=\pm \lambda c$. This however was excluded in the assumption and so $M$ is invertible and yields a solution $\beta$ to (\ref{betaeq}).
Finally, in the case of eigenvalue zero, the solution are affine,
$\beta(t)=\beta_1 t+\beta_0$,
so that (\ref{betaeq}) is equivalent to
\[(\mathrm{e}^sA -\mathbf{1})\beta_1=\hat\beta_1, \quad (\mathrm{e}^sA -\mathbf{1})\beta_0=\hat\beta_0-c\mathrm{e}^sA\beta_1.\]
Inverting $(\mathrm{e}^sA -\mathbf{1})$ gives the result also in this case.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_conjugating-good-homotheties}
Let $\hat\phi\in H_S$ be a strict homothety such that $\epsilon_{\hat\phi}=1$. Unless
$\left(\frac{s_{\hat\phi}}{c_{\hat\phi}}\right)^2$ is an eigenvalue of $S$, the homothety
$\hat\phi$ is conjugate by an isometry from $\Hei_n\rtimes \Z_2$ to a strict homothety $\phi
\in \E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R$ with $\epsilon_\phi=1$ and $c_\phi\ge 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\hat\phi$ be a strict homothety with $\epsilon_{\hat\phi}=1$. Then $\hat\phi=\hat\psi \circ h_{\hat{s}}$ with an isometry $\hat \psi=(\hat b,\hat \beta)\circ (\hat c,1,\hat A)$ with $(\hat b,\hat \beta)\in \Hei_n$ and $(\hat c,1,\hat A)\in \E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)$, and $h_{\hat{s}}$ a pure homothety with $\hat s=s_{\hat\phi}\not=0$.
First, we are searching for an isometry $\psi=(b,\beta)\in\Hei_n$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{wanted}
\psi\hat\phi\psi^{-1}=
\psi\hat\psi h_{\hat s}\psi^{-1} \in \E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R.
\end{equation}
Note that, since $\epsilon_{\hat \phi}=1$ we automatically have that
$\epsilon_{\psi\hat\phi\psi^{-1}}=1$.
Denoting by \begin{equation}
\label{fis}
\varphi_s:=\varphi(0,1,\mathbf{1},s)\end{equation}
with $\varphi:\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R\to \Aut(\Hei_n)$ from Proposition~\ref{homoprop} and using
using~\ref{hprod}), we have
\[
\psi\hat\phi\psi^{-1}=
\psi\hat\psi h_{\hat s}\psi^{-1} =\psi\hat\psi\varphi_{\hat s}(\psi^{-1}) h_{\hat{s}}.\]
Hence condition (\ref{wanted} ) is equivalent to
\[\psi\hat\psi\varphi_{\hat{s}}(\psi^{-1}) \in \E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S).\]
Now we compute using the formulas (\ref{product}), (\ref{inverse}) and (\ref{hprod}),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\psi\hat\psi\varphi_{\hat{s}}(\psi^{-1})}
\\
&=&
\left( \left( (b+ \hat b +
\omega(\beta, \hat \beta) , \beta+ \hat \beta\right) ,(
\hat c,1 , \hat A)\right)
(- b\mathrm{e}^{2\hat s} ,-\mathrm{e}^{\hat{s}} \beta)
\\
&=&
\left( b+\hat b- \mathrm{e}^{2\hat s}b +\omega(\beta,\hat\beta) -\mathrm{e}^{\hat s}\omega \left(\beta+\hat\beta,\hat A \,\beta\circ \sigma_{-\hat c} \right) , \beta +\hat\beta- \mathrm{e}^{\hat s} \hat A \beta\circ \sigma_{-\hat c} \right) \left( \hat c,
1, \hat A\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\sigma_{-\hat c} (t)=t-\hat c$ denotes the shift by $-\hat c$. By Lemma~\ref{lem_beta-solving-conjugation-equation}, there is a solution $\beta\in V_S$ to
\[
\mathrm{e}^{\hat s} \hat A\, \beta\circ \sigma_{-\hat c}-\beta =\hat\beta.
\]
Given this $\beta$, we can solve for $b$ such that the first entry in the above display is zero, i.e.~such that
$\psi\hat\psi\varphi_{\hat{s}}(\psi^{-1})\in\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)$.
Finally, we can conjugate
$\psi\hat\psi\varphi_{\hat{s}}(\psi^{-1})$ to the required $\phi$ by $\epsilon\in \Z_2$ to achieve that $c_\phi=\epsilon \hat c\ge 0$.
\end{proof}
This leads to the following result:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_no-homoth-quotients-of-imaginary-CW}
Any group of homotheties of a Cahen-Wallach space of imaginary type acting properly discontinuously and cocompactly must be contained within the isometries.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume for contradiction that $\hat\Gamma$ contains a strict homothety.
Since $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ is of imaginary type, and so every eigenvalue of $S$ is negative, after possibly squaring $\phi$, we may apply without restriction Proposition~\ref{prop_conjugating-good-homotheties} to get a group $\Gamma$ conjugate to $\hat\Gamma$ such that $\Gamma$ contains an element of the form $\phi=(c,A,s) \in \R\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R $ such that $s\neq 0$.
Being of imaginary type, the condition in Proposition ~\ref{prop_good-homoth-quotient-implies-exponential-beta} is trivially satisfied and we can apply it to obtain a contradiction. Hence $\phi$ must be an isometry.
\end{proof}
For the remainder of Theorem~\ref{intro-thm_no-homoth-quotients-of-imaginary-CW}, recall from by Proposition~\ref{prop_cahen-kerbrat-weyl-curved-implies-no-conformals} that if $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ is conformally curved, $\Gamma$ is a group of homotheties and by Theorem ~\ref{prop_cahen-kerbrat-weyl-curved-implies-no-conformals}
a group of isometries.
Then the metric endowed to the quotient is locally isometric to $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$ and hence locally symmetric,
so by Corollary~\ref{locsymcompconf}, the conformal group of the quotient is equal to its isometry group.
\subsection{Cocompact groups in the centraliser of an essential homothety} \label{centralsec}
In this section we are going to provide another non-existence result. We will show that given an essential conformal transformation $\eta$ on a conformally curved Cahen-Wallach space, there is no subgroup in the centraliser of $\eta$ that acts cocompactly and properly discontinuously. The motivations for this was explained in the introduction: if there was such a subgroup, then the essential conformal transformation would descend to the compact quotient (see \cite{stuart-thesis} for details) and hence would provide a counterexample to the Lorentzian Lichnerowicz conjecture. The counterexamples to the conjecture in signatures beyond Lorentzian in \cite{frances12} are constructed in this way. Our result excludes this possibility.
Recall the definition of $H_S$ in (\ref{defHS})
and consider a pure homothety \[h_s=\diag (1, \mathrm{e}^s\mathbf{1}, \mathrm{e}^{2s})\in H_S.\] It is straightforward to compute its centraliser in $H_S$ as
\[C_{H_S}(h_s) =\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S) \times \R.\]
Furthermore, denote by $p$ the projection
\[
p:H_S\longrightarrow \E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S) \times \R\ \simeq\ H_S/\Hei_n,\]
which is a group homomorphism with kernel $\Hei_n$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_cent-essential-homothety-projection-to-cent-pure-injective}
Let $\eta\in H_S$ a strict homothety fixing the origin in $\R^{n+2}$ and with $\epsilon_\eta=1$ and let $C_{H_S}(\eta)$ be its centraliser in the homotheties.
Then the group homomorphism
\[q:=p|_{C_{H_S}(\eta)}: C_{H_S}(\eta)\longmapsto \E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S) \times \R,\]
is injective.
Moreover, let $\gamma_n=(b_n,\beta_n)\cdot (c_n,\epsilon_n,A_n,s_n)\in C_{H_S}(\eta)$ such that $c_n\to_{n\to\infty} 0$. Then $b_n\to0$, and $\beta_n(0)\to 0$.
In particular, if $c_n\to 0$, then $\gamma_n(0)\to0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, observe that since $\eta(0)=0$ and $\epsilon_\eta=1$, we have that $c_\eta=0$ and
$\eta=\psi h_{s}$ with \[\psi=(0,\beta_\eta)\cdot A_\eta\in V_S\rtimes_\varphi C_{\O(n)}(S)\subset \Hei_n\rtimes_\varphi C_{\O(n)}(S)\] an isometry fixing the origin, i.e.~with $\beta_\eta(0)=0$.
Let $\gamma=(b,\beta) \in\ker(q)= \Hei_n\cap C_{H_S}(\eta)$.
By (\ref{hprod}) we have that $\gamma\in C_{H_S}(\eta)$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{isocen}
\psi= \gamma\cdot \psi \cdot\varphi_s(\gamma^{-1}) =(b,\beta)\cdot \psi \cdot \left(-\mathrm{e}^{2s}b,-\mathrm{e}^s\beta\right),
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_s$ was defined in (\ref{fis}), and equivalently
by
(\ref{product}) that
\[
0=(1-\mathrm{e}^{2s})b +\langle \beta (0),\dot\beta_\eta(0)\rangle
\quad\text{
and }\quad \mathrm{e}^sA_\eta\beta(t) = \beta ( t)\quad\text{for all $t$}
.\]
Since $s\not=0$, the second equation implies that $\beta \equiv 0$, and with that the first gives $b =0$. Therefore, $\gamma=\id$ and $q$ is injective.
To show the second part of the proposition, we first determine the inverse of $q$ on its image.
For $(c, \epsilon ,A ,r )=q (\gamma)$ in the image of $q$ we need to find $(b,\beta)\in \Hei_n$ such that $\gamma=\phi h_{r }\in C_{H_S}(h_s)$ with
\[\phi=(b,\beta)\cdot(c, \epsilon ,A ) \in \Hei_n\rtimes_\varphi (\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S).\]
Since homotheties commute and using (\ref{hprod}) again, $\eta=\gamma \eta \gamma^{-1}$ yields the equation
\[
\psi =
\phi h_{r } \psi h_s h_{r }^{-1} \phi^{-1} h_s^{-1}
=
\phi \varphi_{r}(\psi) \varphi_s(\phi^{-1}).\]
Using (\ref{product}) this can be seen to be equivalent to $A_\eta=A A_\eta A ^\top$,
\[
(\mathbf{1}-\mathrm{e}^sA_\eta ) \beta (t) =\beta_\eta (t)-\mathrm{e}^{r }A \beta_\eta(\epsilon (t -c ))
\]
and
\[
b (1-\epsilon \mathrm{e}^{2s}) = - \mathrm{e}^{r } \omega\left((1-\epsilon\mathrm{e}^s A_\eta) \beta ,A \beta_\eta\circ E_{-\epsilon c, \epsilon}\right)
+\mathrm{e}^s \omega\left(\beta, A_\eta \beta \right),
\]
where we use (\ref{shiftomega}) and (\ref{Aomega}).
Evaluating these equations at $t=0$ and taking into account that $\beta_\eta(0)=0$ we get
\[
(\mathbf{1}-\mathrm{e}^sA_\eta) \beta (0) =-\mathrm{e}^{r }A \beta_\eta(-\epsilon c ))
\]
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
2b (1-\epsilon \mathrm{e}^{2s}) &=&
- \mathrm{e}^{r }\left( \langle (1-\epsilon \mathrm{e}^s A_\eta) \beta(0) ,A \dot \beta_\eta( -\epsilon c)\rangle - \langle (1-\epsilon\mathrm{e}^s A_\eta) \dot\beta(0) ,A \beta_\eta(-\epsilon c) \rangle\right)
\\
&&{ }+\mathrm{e}^s \langle (\beta(0) , A_\eta \dot \beta(0) \rangle.\end{eqnarray*}
If $\gamma_n$ is a sequence as in the proposition, i.e.~with $c_n\to 0$, using that $s\not=0$, the first equation implies that $\beta_n (0)\to 0$ and consequently the second implies that $b_n\to 0$. Hence, $\gamma_n(0)$ converges to $0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_cent-fixes-zero-not-PD-cocompact}
Let $\eta$ be a strict homothety in $H_S$ that fixes zero. Let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of the centraliser of $\eta$ in $H_S$.
Then $\Gamma$ does not act properly discontinuously and cocompactly.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume for contradiction that $\Gamma$ is a subgroup of $C_{H_S}(\eta)$ acting properly discontinuously and cocompactly. Without loss of generality we can assume that $\epsilon_\eta=1$. If not, $\eta^2$ has this property and we still have that $\Gamma$ is contained in the centraliser of $\eta$. We will derive a contradiction to (PD1).
We can apply Proposition~\ref{prop_cent-essential-homothety-projection-to-cent-pure-injective} to get an isomorphism between $\Gamma$ and a subgroup $\hat \Gamma=q(\Gamma)$ of $\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S) \times \R$.
We briefly justify that $\hat\Gamma=q(\Gamma)$ is discrete when the homotheties are given the product topology:
Let $\Gamma$ be equipped with a topology such that the action of $\Gamma$ is continuous, i.e.~the map $(\gamma,x)\mapsto \gamma(x)$ is continuous. Note that the map $\Theta(\gamma,x) = (x,\gamma(x))$ is then also continuous.
Because of (PD1), there is an open set $U$ such that $\Theta^{-1}(U\times U) = \{\id\}\times U$. Then, with
with $\Theta$ being continuous,
$\{\id\}$ is open in $\Gamma$ and hence $\Gamma$ is discrete.
Hence, since the homotheties act continuously when given the product topology, $\Gamma$ is discrete with respect to this topology. Then we note that $p$ is a projection map and hence is an open map. Therefore $\hat\Gamma=q(\Gamma) = p(\Gamma)$ is discrete. We remark that this argument does not require us to claim that the compact-open topology on the homotheties coincides with the product topology.
By the second part of Proposition~\ref{prop_cent-essential-homothety-projection-to-cent-pure-injective}, if we have $\gamma\in\Gamma$ such that $c_\gamma=0$, then $\gamma(0)=0$.
Then by freeness of $\Gamma$, $\gamma=\id$. So for all non-identity elements $\gamma\in \Gamma$ we have $c_\gamma\neq 0$.
Note that by Proposition~\ref{prop_torsion-implies-fixed-point}, $\Gamma$ has no torsion elements.
Then we also conclude that $\epsilon_\gamma=1$ for all non-identity elements $\gamma\in \Gamma $, since otherwise $c_{\gamma^2}=0$.
Now we observe that the projection
$$\rho:\hat \Gamma=q(\Gamma)\longrightarrow \R^2,\qquad \gamma=(c_\gamma,\epsilon_\gamma, A_\gamma,s_\gamma)\longmapsto (c_\gamma,s_\gamma)$$
is an injective homomorphism. Indeed, its kernel is contained in the compact group $K=\Z_2\times C_{\O(n)}(S)$. Since $\hat\Gamma$ is discrete, any non-identity element in the kernel must be torsion, which would imply that $\Gamma$ does not act freely by Proposition~\ref{prop_torsion-implies-fixed-point}. Therefore $\rho$ is injective.
Since $\rho$ is a projection map, it is also an open map, i.e.~$\rho(q(\Gamma))$ is a discrete subgroup of $\R^2$. Hence, using that $\Gamma$ cannot be cyclic and also act cocompactly by Lemma~\ref{lem_cyclic-isnt-cocompact}, $\Gamma$ is a discrete non-cyclic subgroup of $\R^2$. Therefore $\Gamma$ must contain a subgroup that is isomorphic to $\Z^2$.
Let $\gamma,\phi\in\Gamma$ be two generators of $\Z^2$, i.e.~such that $\<\gamma\>\cap\<\phi\>=\{\id\}$.
By earlier in this proof, $c_\phi\neq0$, and so we take a sequence of rational numbers $p_n/q_n$ approaching $c_\gamma/c_\phi$. Then we consider the sequence $\gamma^{p_n}\phi^{-q_n}$. This is a sequence of elements for which the component $c_n$ approaches $0$. Hence by the second part in Proposition~\ref{prop_cent-essential-homothety-projection-to-cent-pure-injective}, $\gamma^{p_n}\phi^{-q_n}(0)\to 0$, contradicting {PD1} in the definition of proper discontinuity.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_no-centraliser-essential-quotient}
A group of homotheties of a Cahen-Wallach space centralising an essential homothety cannot act properly discontinuously and cocompactly.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}Let $\eta $ be the essential homothety.
By Theorem~\ref{thm_CW-essential-iff-fixed-point}, $\eta$ has a fixed point.
Since Cahen-Wallach spaces are homogeneous, the isometry group acts transitively. We conjugate $\eta$ and $\Gamma$ by the isometry that sends $0$ to the fixed point of $\eta$.
Note that $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly if and only if its conjugate acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly.
Hence, without loss of generality, we assume that $\eta$ fixes $0$.
Since $\Gamma$ centralises $\eta$, by \cref{thm_cent-fixes-zero-not-PD-cocompact}, $\Gamma$ does not act properly discontinuously and cocompactly.
\end{proof}
Combining this result with
Proposition~\ref{prop_cahen-kerbrat-weyl-curved-implies-no-conformals},
we obtain Theorem~\ref{thm_main-no-essential-quotient}.
\subsection{Examples}
\label{ex-sec}
In this last section we are going to illustrate some of the difficulties that arise when attempting to construct compact quotients of Cahen-Wallach spaces by groups of conformal transformations. We start with some examples of isometric quotients.
\begin{example}[Compact isometric quotient of imaginary type]\label{ex_Isometric-quotient}
For Cahen-Wallach spaces of imaginary type, the function $\beta$ in an isometry is given by trigonometric functions. This makes it relatively straightforward to find groups of isometries that act
properly discontinuously and cocompactly. For simplicity, let $(\R^4,g_{-})$ be a conformally flat Cahen-Wallach space of imaginary type of dimension $4$.
Solutions to $\ddot\beta=S\beta$ are of the form $\veccy u\cos(t)+\veccy w\sin(t)$, where $\veccy u, \veccy w\in \R^2$.
Let $\Gamma$ be generated by the following isometries,
\begin{align*}
\gamma\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy x\\v\end{pmatrix} &:= \begin{pmatrix}t+\frac\pi2\\\veccy x\\v\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
\eta\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy x\\v\end{pmatrix} := \begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy x\\v+1\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
where $\veccy{x}=(x^1,x^2)$ and
\begin{align*}
\zeta\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy x\\v\end{pmatrix} &:= \begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy x+ \beta(t) \\v - \<\beta(t) , \veccy x\>\end{pmatrix},\quad \text{ with }\quad\beta(t)=\begin{pmatrix} \cos(t)\\\sin(t)\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
Consider the diffeomorphism $f:\R^4 \to (\R^4,g_{-})$ given by
$$f\begin{pmatrix}u\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y}\\v\end{pmatrix} := \begin{pmatrix}u\\veccy{x}\begin{pmatrix}\cos(u)\\\sin(u)\end{pmatrix}+y\begin{pmatrix}-\sin(u)\\\cos(u)\end{pmatrix}\\-v-xy\end{pmatrix},$$
with inverse
$$f^{-1}\begin{pmatrix}t\\ x^1\\ x^2\\v\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}t\\ x^1\begin{pmatrix}\cos(-t)\\\sin(-t)\end{pmatrix}+ x^2\begin{pmatrix}-\sin(-t)\\\cos(-t)\end{pmatrix}\\-v-\left( x^1\cos(-t)- x^2sin(-t)\right)\left( x^1\sin(-t)+ x^2\cos(-t)\right)\end{pmatrix}.$$
Then the action on $\R^4$ by $\Gamma$ is given by
\begin{align*}
f^{-1}\gamma f\begin{pmatrix}u\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y}\\v\end{pmatrix} &= \begin{pmatrix}u+\frac\pi2\\veccy{y}\\-x\\v\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
f^{-1}\eta f\begin{pmatrix}u\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y}\\v\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}u\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y}\\v-1\end{pmatrix},&
f^{-1}\zeta f\begin{pmatrix}u\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y}\\v\end{pmatrix} &= \begin{pmatrix}u\\veccy{x}+1\\veccy{y}\\v\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
The conjugation has removed the dependence of the group action on $t$. $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on $\R^4$:
Observe that
$$\Lambda:= f\<\gamma^4,\ \zeta,\ \gamma^{-1}\zeta\gamma,\ \eta\>f^{-1} = \<2\pi e_1,e_2,e_3,-e_4\>$$
is a subgroup of $f\Gamma f^{-1}$ of index 4, and is a lattice, so $\Lambda$ acts properly and cocompactly. Hence
$f\Gamma f^{-1}$ acts properly and cocompactly.
Then we observe that $f\Gamma f^{-1}$ and $\Lambda$ both act freely. Hence $f\Gamma f^{-1}$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on $\R^4$.
Therefore, $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on $(\R^4,g_{-})$ and $\R^4/\Gamma$ is a $4$-torus.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Compact isometric quotient of real type]\label{example}
Here we give an example of a group $\Gamma$
acting properly discontinuously and cocompact by isometries on a conformally flat Cahen-Wallach space of real type and of dimension $4$. We will also show why an attempt to generalise this to a group of homotheties fails. We follow the construction in \cite[Chapter~5]{KathOlbrich15}.
For $r\in \N_{\ge 3}$, consider the polynomial
\[f(x)=x^2-rx+1,\]
and let $\rho\not=\tfrac{1}{\rho}$ be its roots.
Let $(\R^4,g_\rho)$ be the conformally flat Cahen-Wallach space of real type defined by $g_\rho:=g_S$ with $S=(\ln|\rho|)^2\mathbf{1}$, i.e.~
\[ g_\rho =2\d t \d v + (\ln|\rho|)^2(x^2+y^2)\d t^2 + \d x^2 +\d y^2.\]
According to \cite[Proposition~8.8]{KathOlbrich15}, $(\R^4,g_\rho)$ admits a subgroup of the transvections, $\Gamma \subset \Hei_2\rtimes_\varphi\R$, such that $\R^4/\Gamma$ is a compact manifold.
Such $\Gamma$ can be given as follows:
Let
\[
\beta (t)=\begin{pmatrix} \rho^t\\[1mm] \rho^{-t}\end{pmatrix} \quad \text{ and }\quad \hat\beta(t)=\beta (t+1)
\]
be solutions to $\ddot\beta=S\beta$ and denote the corresponding isometries also by $\eta$ and $\hat\eta$. Let $\alpha_b$ be the translation in the $v$-component by $ b$ and define $\gamma_c$ as the translation by $c$ in the $t$-component,
\[
\begin{pmatrix}t\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y} \\v\end{pmatrix} \stackrel{\alpha_b}{\mapsto}
\begin{pmatrix}t
\\
x
\\
y
\\
v+ b
\end{pmatrix},\quad
\begin{pmatrix}t\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y} \\v\end{pmatrix} \stackrel{\gamma_c}{\mapsto}
\begin{pmatrix}t+c
\\
x
\\
y
\\
v
\end{pmatrix}
\]
and let $\Gamma$ be the group of isometries generated by $\alpha:=\alpha_1$, $\eta$, $\hat \eta$ and $\gamma:=\gamma_1$. An arbitrary group element in $\Gamma$ is given as
\[
\begin{pmatrix}t\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y} \\v\end{pmatrix} \stackrel{\phi}{\mapsto}
\begin{pmatrix}t+ k \\[1mm] x +\rho^{t}(n +m\rho)
\\[1mm]
y+\rho^{-t}(n +\frac{m}{\rho})
\\[1mm]
v+l - \ln|\rho | \left( (n+m\rho)x \rho^{t} +\frac{1}{2}(n+m\rho)^2\rho^{2t}
+ (n+\frac{m}{\rho})y \rho^{-t} +\frac{1}{2}(n+\frac{m}{\rho})^2 \rho^{-2t}\right)
\end{pmatrix}
\]
with $k,l,m,n\in \Z$.
In order to show that $\Gamma$ acts cocompactly and properly discontinuously, we use \cite[Proposition~4.8]{KathOlbrich15}).
First we note that
\[
\beta(0)= \begin{pmatrix}1\\mathbf{1}\end{pmatrix},\quad \hat\beta(0)= \begin{pmatrix}\rho\\\tfrac{1}{\rho}\end{pmatrix}
\]
are linearly independent. This is condition (a) in \cite[Proposition~4.8]{KathOlbrich15}). Note that $L=\Span_\R(\beta,\hat\beta)$ is a Lagrangian subspace for $\omega$, i.e.~$\omega(\beta,\hat\beta)=0$.
For condition (b) \cite[Proposition~4.8]{KathOlbrich15}) we need to find a lattice $\Lambda$ in $\R\times L\subset \Hei_2$ that is invariant under the shift $\tau: t\mapsto t+1$. Note that
\[\hat\beta(t+1)-r\hat\beta(t) +\beta(t)
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho^{t} f(\rho)\\[2mm]
\rho^{-t} f(\rho^{-1})
\end{pmatrix} =0,
\]
so that
\[\tau(\eta)=\hat\eta,\quad \tau(\hat\eta)= -\eta+r\hat\eta,\quad \tau^{-1}(\hat\eta)=\eta,\quad \tau^{-1}(\eta)= r\eta-\hat\eta.\]
Hence,
the lattice $\Lambda_0=\Span_\Z\{\eta,\hat\eta\}$ is stable under the action of the group $\<\tau\>$ and so is the lattice $\Lambda=\Span_\Z\{\alpha,\eta,\hat\eta\}$ in $\R\times L\subset \Hei_2$.
Hence, by \cite[Proposition~4.8]{KathOlbrich15}), $\Gamma$ is a group of isometries that acts properly discontinously and cocompactly on $\R^4$.
In order to generalise this to a group $\hat \Gamma$ of homotheties acting cocompactly and properly discontinuously one could try to replace $\alpha$ by the translation $\alpha_\rho$ by $\rho$ in the $v$-component and $\gamma$ by the homothety $\hat \gamma$,
\[
\begin{pmatrix}t\\veccy{x}\\veccy{y} \\v\end{pmatrix} \stackrel{\gamma_c}{\mapsto}
\begin{pmatrix}t+ 1
\\
\rho x
\\
\rho y
\\
\rho^{2} v
\end{pmatrix}
\]
and $\hat\Gamma$ be the subgroup of $H= (\Hei\rtimes_\varphi(\R\times\R)$ that is generated by $\alpha_\rho$, $\eta$, $\hat\eta $ $\hat\gamma$,
\[\Gamma=\<\alpha, \eta,\hat\eta,\hat\gamma\>.\]
Then one may try use
ideas in \cite[Chapters 3 \& 4]{KathOlbrich15}
to show that $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on $\R^4$.
For this we need a group $G$ that is a semidirect product of a nilpotent group with $\R$.
Note that also $\Hei_2$ is invariant under conjugation with
$\R \hat\gamma$
in $H= (\Hei\rtimes_\varphi(\R\times\R)$ and we set
\[G=
\Hei_2\rtimes_{\varphi}\R\hat\gamma.\]
Note that even though $\Hei_2$ is normal in $G$, $\Lambda_3$ is not normal in $\Gamma$, in fact
\[
\hat{\gamma}^{k}( m\alpha+n\eta+\hat n\hat\eta) \hat{\gamma}^l=
\hat{\gamma}^k\left( m\alpha +n\sigma_l\eta+\hat n\sigma_l\hat\eta+ \hat{\gamma}_{l}\right)
=
m\alpha_{\rho^{1+2k}} +n\rho^{k}\sigma_l\eta+\hat n\rho^{k}\sigma_l\hat\eta+ \hat{\gamma}_{k+l}.
\]
This shows that the group $\Gamma$ is not discrete. Indeed, the sequence $\hat{\gamma}^{-k}\alpha\hat{\gamma}^k=\alpha_{\rho^{1-2k}} $ for $k\in \N$ converges to the identity.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{ex_homoth-no-real-type-quotient}
The previous example demonstrates the issues that arise when attempting to modify a properly discontinuous and cocompact group of isometries of a Wey-flat Cahen-Wallach space of real type to a group of homotheties by maintaining the translations in the $v$-direction. In this example we will try a different approach that avoids these translations.
For simplicity, let $(\R^3,g_1)$ be a three dimensional Cahen-Wallach space of real type. Solutions to $\ddot \beta = S\beta$ are of the the form $a \mathrm{e}^{t}+ b \mathrm{e}^{-t}$, where $a,b\in\R$.
As before, we consider the homothety $\gamma$ and the isometry $\eta$
$$\gamma:\begin{pmatrix}t\\ x\\v\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}t+1\\mathrm{e} x\\mathrm{e}^2v\end{pmatrix},\quad \eta: \begin{pmatrix}t\\ x\\v\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}x\\ x + k\mathrm{e}^{t}\\v - \<k\mathrm{e}^{t}, x + \frac12 k\mathrm{e}^{t}\>\end{pmatrix}.$$
We define a diffeomorphism $f:\R^3\to \R^3$ and its inverse by
$$f:\begin{pmatrix}t\\veccy{y}\\mathfrak{z}\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}t\\mathrm{e}^ty\\mathrm{e}^{2t}(z-y^2/2)\end{pmatrix},\qquad
f^{-1}:\begin{pmatrix}t\\ x \\v\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}t\\mathrm{e}^{-t} x\\mathrm{e}^{-2t}(v+ x^2/2)\end{pmatrix}.$$
The conjugates are
$$f^{-1}\gamma f:\begin{pmatrix}x\\veccy{y}\\mathfrak{z}\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}x+1\\veccy{y}\\mathfrak{z}\end{pmatrix},\qquad f^{-1}\eta f:\begin{pmatrix}x\\veccy{y}\\mathfrak{z}\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}x\\veccy{y}+k\\mathfrak{z}\end{pmatrix}.$$
At this stage it looks promising, but we still have a remaining direction to compactify. The issue that occurs in general at this stage is that when we have a strict homothety $\gamma$ of the simplest form possible without admitting fixed points as in Proposition~\ref{prop_homothetic-fixed-points}, introducing an element $\alpha$ that translates in the $v$-direction will not help us, for the same reason as in the previous example: $\gamma^{-i}\alpha\gamma^i(0)$ will approach $0$. What this means is that it seems we will require $\beta$-terms to compactify in $n+1$ directions. However this turns out to be difficult: if
$$\zeta: \begin{pmatrix}t\\ x\\v\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}t\\ x + k\mathrm{e}^{-t}\\v - k\mathrm{e}^{-t}\left( x + \frac12 k\mathrm{e}^{-t}\right)\end{pmatrix},$$
then
$$f^{-1}\zeta f: \begin{pmatrix}x\\veccy{y}\\mathfrak{z}\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}x\\veccy{y}+l\mathrm{e}^{-2x}\\mathfrak{z}\end{pmatrix}.$$
This demonstrates two issues: first that our conjugated element fails to act at all on the $z$ direction --- which is the direction still remaining to be compactified. And secondly, that when we have a homothety in the form of $\gamma$, we see immediately that only $n$ of the $\beta$ dimensions are able to grow fast enough to avoid $\gamma^{-i}\zeta\gamma^i(0)\to 0$. This is because it is not sufficient that $\beta$ be exponential, it must grow exponentially in the same direction as $\gamma$.
So this example too cannot lead to a properly discontinuous and cocompact action.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Compact homothetic quotient of an open subset]\label{ex_removed-homoth-fixed-points}
In this example, we produce a compact quotient of an open submanifold of a Cahen-Wallach space by homotheties.
Consider the metric $g_S$ on
$U:= \R^{n+2}\setminus\{(t,0,0)\ |\ t\in\R\}$. We have removed all fixed points of a pure homothety, allowing us to use a pure homothety to compactify:
set
$$\gamma\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy x\\ v\end{pmatrix}:= \begin{pmatrix}t+1\\ \veccy x \\ v\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \eta\begin{pmatrix}t\\\veccy x\\ v\end{pmatrix}:= \begin{pmatrix}t\\ 2\veccy x \\ 4 v\end{pmatrix},$$
and $\Gamma:= \<\gamma,\eta\>$.
We now show that $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on $U$.
A fundamental region for this action is a product of the unit interval and an annulus in the last $n+1$ dimensions.
Define
$$R:= (0,1)\times \left((-2,2)^n\times(-4,4)\right)\setminus[-1,1]^{n+1}.$$
It is not hard to see that $\phi(R)$, $\phi\in \Gamma$ does not meet $R$,
so $R$ is a fundamental region.
We take a neighbourhood $V$ of $\overline R$:
$$V:=(-1,2)\times \left((-4,4)^n\times(-16,16)\right)\setminus\left([-\tfrac12,\tfrac12]^n\times[-\tfrac14,\tfrac14]\right).$$
Note that $\phi(V)$ meets $V$ only for
$$\{\gamma^i\eta^j\ |\ i,j\in\{-2,-1,0,1,2\}\}.$$
Hence $R$ is finitely self adjacent.
In particular, by results in \cite{FSApaper,stuart-thesis}, $R$ is locally finite, so $U/\Gamma$ is homeomorphic to $\overline R/\Gamma$. Then, since $\overline R/\Gamma$ is a manifold we get that $\Gamma$ acts properly discontinuously and since $\overline R$ is compact, $\Gamma$ also acts cocompactly.
Hence the action on the open submanifold $U$ is properly discontinuous and cocompact. However, the homotheties centralised by $\Gamma$ are not essential. We have
$$C_{H_S}(\Gamma) =
\R\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R
$$
and define
$$f(t,\veccy x, v) = (||\veccy x||^4 + (v)^2)^{-1/2}.$$
Then for $\phi\in C_{H_S}(\Gamma)$,
\[
\phi^*(fg)|_x
= (||\mathrm{e}^sA\veccy x||^4 + (\mathrm{e}^{2s}v)^2)^{-1/2} \mathrm{e}^{2s}g|_x
= (||\veccy x||^2 + (v)^2)^{-1/2} g|_x
= (fg)|_x,
\]
so $\phi$ is inessential on $U$. Note that this same choice of $f$ works for all such $\phi$, and thus $C_{H_S}(\Gamma)$ is inessential.
In this example we can go further and conclude that the normaliser of $\Gamma$ is inessential as well, since $\phi\gamma^r\eta^t = \gamma^{r'}\eta^{t'}\phi$ implies already that $t=t'$, and that $r' = ar$. Hence we see that the normaliser is simply $\E(1)\times C_{\O(n)}(S)\times \R$, and the same $f$ as before makes the normaliser inessential.
We stress that this is not a proof that $U/\Gamma$ has an inessential conformal structure, because, it is possible to have an essential transformation on the quotient whose lift is not essential and a transformation may be preserved without normalising $\Gamma$. For details see \cite[Section~5.4]{stuart-thesis}.
\end{example}
\begin{remark} In this final remark we address the fact that
our results are about compact quotients of a {\em complete} Cahen-Wallach space $(\R^{n+2},g_S)$, whereas
the construction in \cite{frances12} starts with an {\em incomplete} locally symmetric space that has the origin removed.
For this, note that every non-isometric conformal transformation of a conformally curved Cahen-Wallach space is a homothety and hence either has no fixed points or it has a line of finite-orbit points parameterised by $t$.
Now assume that we have two strict homotheties $\gamma$ and $\phi$, each with finite-orbit points, such that $\phi$ descends to the quotient by a group $\Gamma$ containing $\gamma$. Then $\gamma$ and $\phi$ must have the same line of finite-orbit points, since $\phi$ must map finite-orbit points of $\gamma$ to finite-orbit points of $\gamma$. Consequently,
if $\Gamma $ is acting on an open subset of of a Cahen-Wallach space that has the finite-orbit points removed, so that it acts properly discontinuous, then also $\phi$ has had its finite-orbit points removed and therefore can no longer be expected to be essential.
\end{remark}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\providecommand{\MR}[1]{}\def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'${$'$}
|
\section{Introduction}
A (\emph{generalized}) \emph{simplicial complex} $X$ on a vertex set $V$ is simply a family of subsets of $V$, closed under inclusion. In particular, $\operatorname{vert}(X):=\{x\in V\colon \{x\}\in X\}$ is called the set of \emph{actual vertices} of $X$. If $u\in V\setminus \operatorname{vert}(X)$, we say that $u$ is a \emph{ghost vertex} of $X$. A set $A\in X$ is said to be a \emph{face} of $X$, and the dimension of a face $A$ is $\dim(A)=|A|-1$. The \emph{dimension} $\dim(X)$ of a complex $X$ is the maximum dimension of a face in $X$. For a given vertex $v\in \operatorname{vert}(X)$, the \emph{deletion} and \emph{link} subcomplexes of $X$ at the vertex $v$ is defined by $\operatorname{del}(X;v):=\{S\in X\colon v\notin S\}$ and $\operatorname{lk}(X;v):=\{T\in X\colon v\notin T\;\textnormal{and}\;T\cup \{v\}\in X\}$. For convenience, if $u$ is a ghost vertex, we set $\operatorname{lk}(X;u):=\operatorname{del}(X;u)=\{\emptyset\}$. A vertex $v\in V$ is said to be a \emph{cone vertex} of $X$ if
$\operatorname{lk}(X;v)=\operatorname{del}(X;v)$, and denote by $V^{\circ}$, the set of all non-cone vertices in $X$. Unless stated otherwise, by a vertex of a simplicial complex, we mean an actual vertex of it.
We introduce and study a new combinatorial invariant on simplicial complexes.
\begin{definition}\label{defn:dreg}
We define the \emph{theta-number} of a simplicial complex $X$ by $\theta(X):=0$ if $V(X)^{\circ}=\emptyset$, and
$$\theta(X):=\underset{v\in V(X)^{\circ}}{\min}\{\max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\}\}$$
whenever $V(X)^{\circ}\neq \emptyset$.
\end{definition}
Our main motivation to study such an invariant comes from the fact that
it is closely related to two other well-known parameters of simplicial complexes that we recall next.
A (finite) simplicial complex $X$ is $k$-collapsible if it can be reduced to the void complex by repeatedly removing a face of size at most $k$ that is contained in a unique maximal face of $X$. The collapsibility number $\mathcal{C}(X)$ of $X$ is the smallest integer $k$ such that it is $k$-collapsible. On the other hand, a simplicial complex $X$ is $k$-\emph{Leray} (over a field $\mathbf{k}$, mostly chosen to be rationals), if the homology of every induced subcomplex $X[S]:=\{A\in X\colon A\subseteq S\}$ of $X$ with $S\subseteq V(X)$ vanishes in dimension $k$ and larger (with coefficients in $\mathbf{k}$). The \emph{Leray number} $\mathcal{L}(X)$ of $X$ is the least integer $k$ for which $X$ is $k$-Leray. This coincides with the (Castelnuovo-Mumford) \emph{regularity} of the Stanley-Reisner ring of $X$ (see~\cite{BC-prime} for details). Wegner proved that the inequality $\mathcal{L}(X)\leq \mathcal{C}(X)$ always holds~\cite{Weg}.
We initiate a detail analyze on the properties of theta-number of simplicial complexes. In particular, we verify that the inequality $\mathcal{C}(X)\leq \theta(X)$ holds for every simplicial complex $X$. In fact, this is rather an easy consequence of a known upper bound on the collapsibility number due to Tancer~\cite{MT-2}. By taking the advantages of its recursive formulation, we exhibit that the theta-number may overcome some technical difficulties caused by homology/geometric dependencies of Leray and collapsibility numbers. We prove that the theta-number is additive under the simplicial join operation. Meanwhile, we note that the additivity of the collapsibility number is currently unknown.
In an analogy with Leray numbers~\cite{BC-prime}, we show that $\theta(X)$ always equals to either $\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v))$ or $\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1$ for every vertex $v$ in $X$. This brings the use of a reduction process that may ease calculations in specific cases as well as bounding the theta-number of simplicial complexes in general. We say that a simplicial complex $X$ is a $\theta$-\emph{prime complex} if $\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v))<\theta(X)$ for each vertex $v\in V(X)$. We prove that a simplicial complex $X$ is either itself $\theta$-prime or else it can be decomposed into its induced subcomplexes $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ for which each subcomplex $X_i$ is $\theta$-prime with $\theta(X)=\sum_{i=1}^n \theta(X_i)$. It would be an intriguing question to figure out what makes a simplicial complex $\theta$-prime.
In the case of independence complexes of graphs, we show that the theta-number is closely related to the induced matching number. We describe graph classes where they are equal, and otherwise provide upper bounds involving it. We prove that the theta-number is bounded from above by $2\sqrt{n\cdot \operatorname{im}(G)}$ for every $n$-vertex graph $G$, and in the case of $2K_2$-free graphs, we lower this bound to $2\log n$. Furthermore, we verify that the theta-number is monotone decreasing under edge contractions on the underlying graph.
Matou{\v{s}}ek and Tancer~\citep{MT} show that the gap $\mathcal{C}(X)-\mathcal{L}(X)$ between the collapsibility and Leray numbers could be arbitrarily large. On the other hand, we verify that the theta-nuber, collapsibility and Leray numbers of a vertex decomposable simplicial complex are equal.
It would be important to point out that when the characteristic of the coefficient field is irrelevant, the existing calculations or known bounds on the Leray number of simplicial complexes are combinatorial in nature~\citep{BC-prime, HW}. In other words, all these methodologies used to calculate or bound the Leray number are in fact applicable for the theta-number. Our present work supports this assertion in generality.
\section{Properties of theta-number of simplicial complexes}\label{sec:prop-theta}
This section exposes some properties satisfied by our new parameter. We prove that the theta-number is additive on simplicial join operation, and characterize those simplicial complexes for which $\theta(X)=1$. We initially note that in many cases, we will apply to an induction on the number of vertices of a simplicial complex. So, wherever it is convenient, we will not repeat to mention this formally.
Let $X$ be a simplicial complex and $S\subseteq V$ a subset. Then the \emph{subcomplex} of $X$ \emph{induced} by the set $S$ is defined by $X[S]:=\{A\in X\colon A\subseteq S\}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:induced}
$\theta(X[S])\leq \theta(X)$ for any subset $S\subseteq V$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $X$ contains no cone vertex. So, let $x\in V=V^{\circ}$ be a vertex such that $\theta(X)=\max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;x)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;x))+1\}$. There are two cases to consider.
\medskip
{\it Case} $1$: $x\in S$. It then follows from the Definition~\ref{defn:dreg} that
\begin{align*}
\theta(X[S])&\leq \max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X[S];x)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X[S];x))+1\}\\
&=\max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;x)[S]),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;x)[S])+1\}\\
&\leq \max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;x)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;x))+1\}\\
&=\theta(X),
\end{align*}
where the second inequality is by the induction.\medskip
{\it Case} $2$: $x\notin S$. Notice that $X[S]\cong \operatorname{del}(X;x)[S]$ so that
\begin{align*}
\theta(X[S])&\leq \theta(\operatorname{del}(X;x))\\
&\leq \max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;x)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;x))+1\}\\
&=\theta(X),
\end{align*}
where the first inequality is by the induction.
\end{proof}
If we denote by $X^n$, the $n$-dimensional simplex on a $(n+1)$-element set, and by $\partial X^n$ its boundary, then $\theta(\partial X^n)=n$ for each $n\geq 1$. This follows from the obvious facts that $\operatorname{del}(\partial X^n;x)\cong X^{n-1}$ and $\operatorname{lk}(\partial X^n;x)\cong \partial X^{n-1}$ for each vertex $x$ together with the induction on $n$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:lk-del-exchange}
Let $u$ and $v$ be two vertices of a simplicial complex $X$. Then the followings hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v);u)=\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{lk}(X;u);v)$,\\
\item[(2)] $\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{del}(X;v);u)=\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{del}(X;u);v)$,\\
\item[(3)] $\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v);u)=\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{del}(X;u);v)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We only verify $(3)$, since the proofs of $(1)$ and $(2)$ are routine. So, consider a face $A\in \operatorname{del}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v);u)$. This means that $A\in \operatorname{lk}(X;v)$ and $u\notin A$. The former implies that $v\notin A$ and $A\cup \{v\}\in X$, and the latter forces that $A\in \operatorname{del}(X;u)$. Combining these, we obtain that $A\in \operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{del}(X;u);v)$. For the opposite direction, let $B\in \operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{del}(X;u);v)$ be given. It follows that $B\in \operatorname{del}(X;u)$, $v\notin B$ and $B\cup \{v\}\in \operatorname{del}(X;u)$. Notice that $B\in \operatorname{lk}(X;v)$ while $u\notin B$. In other words,
$B\in \operatorname{del}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v);u)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
$\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))\leq \theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v))$ for every vertex $v$ in $X$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note first that the claimed inequality holds if $v\notin V^{\circ}$ by our previous convention. So, assume that $v\in V^{\circ}$.
Then there exists a vertex $z\in V\setminus \{v\}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v))=\max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{del}(X;v);z)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{del}(X;v);z))+1\}.
\end{equation*}
If such a vertex $z$ is a ghost vertex of the complex $\operatorname{lk}(X;v)$, then
$\operatorname{lk}(X;v)=\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{del}(X;z);v)$. So, we conclude by the induction that
\begin{equation*}
\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))=\theta(\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{del}(X;z);v))\leq \theta(\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{del}(X;z);v))\leq \theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v)).
\end{equation*}
Otherwise, by employing Lemma~\ref{lem:lk-del-exchange} together with the induction, we have that
\begin{align*}
\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))&\leq \max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v);z)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v);z))+1\}\\
&=\max \{\theta(\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{del}(X;z);v)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{lk}(X;z);v))+1\}\\
&\leq \max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{del}(X;z);v)),\theta(\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{lk}(X;z);v))+1\}\\
&=\max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{del}(X;v);z)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{del}(X;v);z))+1\}\\
&=\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v)).\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:induct}
$\theta(X)$ always equals to one of $\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v))$ or $\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1$ for every vertex $v$ in $X$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{definition}
We call a vertex $v$ of $X$, a $\theta$-\emph{prime vertex} if
$\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v))<\theta(X)$. A simplicial complex $X$ is called a \emph{$\theta$-prime complex} if every vertex of it is $\theta$-prime.
\end{definition}
We remark that if $v$ is a $\theta$-prime vertex of $X$, then $\theta(X)=\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:induct}. Furthermore, we count the complex $\{\emptyset\}$, as a $\theta$-prime complex with $\theta(\{\emptyset\})=0$.
The notion of a $\theta$-prime vertex allows us to formulate a \emph{$\theta$-prime reduction process}. Let $X$ be a simplicial complex and $F=\{v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_n\}$ be an ordered subset of $V(X)$.
We repeatedly apply
Corollary~\ref{cor:induct} to the vertices of $F$ and associate an integer $\operatorname{prime}_i$ at each state $i\geq 0$.
We start with the complex $X_0:=X$, and set $F_0:=F$ and $\operatorname{prime}_0:=0$. Pick a vertex $v_{i+1}\in F_i$ for some $i\geq 0$. If $v_{i+1}$ is a $\theta$-prime vertex of $X_i$, we define $X_{i+1}:=\operatorname{lk}(X_i;v_{i+1})$, $F_{i+1}:=F_i\cap V(\operatorname{lk}(X_i;v_{i+1}))$ and $\operatorname{prime}_{i+1}:=\operatorname{prime}_i+1$. On the other hand, if $v_{i+1}$ is not a $\theta$-prime
vertex of $X_i$, we then set $X_{i+1}:=\operatorname{del}(X_i;v_{i+1})$, $F_{i+1}:=F_i-\{v_{i+1}\}$ and $\operatorname{prime}_{i+1}:=\operatorname{prime}_i$.
The reduction process terminates when $F_k=\emptyset$ for some $k\geq 0$, in which case we denote by $X_F$ and $\operatorname{prime}_F$, the resulting complex and the count of in how many steps the counter is incremented by one.
Observe that for any subset $F\subseteq V(X)$, the inequality $\theta(X)\leq \theta(X_F)+\operatorname{prime}_F$ holds.
We call an ordered subset $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}$ of vertices of $X$, a \emph{$\theta$-prime set} if it is the set of those vertices at which the counter is incremented by one under the reduction process on $X$ with respect to $V$.
Notice that every $\theta$-prime set for $X$ has the same order, namely $\theta(X)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:cprime-face}
Given a simplicial complex $X$ and $F\subseteq V$. If $A=\{v_1,\dots,v_k\}\subseteq F$ is the subset of vertices at which the counter is incremented by one under the reduction process on $X$ with respect to $F$, then $A\in X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by the induction on $k$. If $k=1$, there is nothing to show. Denote by $l_i$, the stage of the reduction process that applies to the vertex $v_i$. In other words, $l_i$ is the integer so that $X_{l_i}=\operatorname{lk}(X_{(l_i-1)};v_i)$ for each $i\in [k]$. If we consider the complex $X_{l_1}=\operatorname{lk}(X_{(l_1-1)};v_1)$, we may assume that $\{v_2,\ldots,v_k\}\in X_{l_1}$ by the induction hypothesis. However, this implies that $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}\in X_{(l_1-1)}$. Since $X_{(l_1-1)}$ is a subcomplex of $X$, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:dim-bound}
$\theta(X)\leq \dim(X)+1$ for every simplicial complex $X$.
\end{corollary}
We may further improve the bound of Corollary~\ref{cor:dim-bound}.
Recall that a subset $S\subseteq V$ is said to be a \emph{circuit} (\emph{minimal non-face}) of $X$ if $S$ is not a face of $X$ while any proper subset of $S$ is.
\begin{definition}
We call a subset $C\subseteq V$, a \emph{circuit cover} for $X$ provided that $|S\cap C|\geq |S|-1$ for every circuit $S$ in $X$.
We define the \emph{circuit cover number} of a simplicial complex $X$ by
$$\operatorname{ccn}(X):=\min\{\dim(X[C])\colon C\;\textnormal{is a circuit cover of}\;X\}+1.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:ce-cin}
$\theta(X)\leq \operatorname{ccn}(X)$ for every simplicial complex $X$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $C$ is a circuit cover of $X$ for which $\operatorname{ccn}(X)=\dim(X[C])+1$.
We run the $\theta$-prime reduction on $X$ with respect to the set $C$, and let $U=\{u_1,\ldots,u_k\}\subseteq C$ be the subset of vertices at which the counter is incremented by one. Since $C$ is a circuit cover, the complex $X_C$ is a simplex. Therefore, we conclude that $\theta(X)\leq k\leq \operatorname{ccn}(X)$, since $U\in X[C]$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:cprime-face}.
\end{proof}
We next prove that the theta-number is additive on simplicial join operation. Meanwhile, we note that whether a similar property holds for the collapsibility number is currently unknown.
If $X_1$ and $X_2$ are two simplicial complexes on disjoint sets $V_1$ and $V_2$, then their \emph{join} is the simplicial complex $X_1\ast X_2:=\{A\cup B\colon A\in X_1, B\in X_2\}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:dreg-join}
If $X_1$ and $X_2$ are two simplicial complexes on disjoint sets $V_1$ and $V_2$, then $\theta(X_1\ast X_2)=\theta(X_1)+\theta(X_2)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first note that the equality $(V_1\cup V_2)^{\circ}=V_1^{\circ}\cup V_2^{\circ}$ holds. Furthermore, if $x\in V_1^{\circ}$, then $\operatorname{del}(X_1\ast X_2;x)\cong \operatorname{del}(X_1;x)\ast X_2$ and $\operatorname{lk}(X_1\ast X_2;x)\cong \operatorname{lk}(X_1;x)\ast X_2$. Thus, the equalities
\begin{align*}
&\theta(\operatorname{del}(X_1\ast X_2;x))=\theta(\operatorname{del}(X_1;x))+\theta(X_2)\\
&\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X_1\ast X_2;x))=\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X_1;x))+\theta(X_2)
\end{align*}
hold by the induction. Assume now that $a\in (V_1\cup V_2)^{\circ}$ and
$b\in V_1^{\circ}$ are vertices such that
\begin{align*}
\theta(X_1\ast X_2)&=\max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X_1\ast X_2;a)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X_1\ast X_2;a))+1\}\\
\theta(X_1)&=\max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X_1;b)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X_1;b))+1\}.
\end{align*}
It then follows that
\begin{align*}
\theta(X_1\ast X_2)&\leq \max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X_1\ast X_2;b)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X_1\ast X_2;b))+1\}\\
&=\max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X_1;b)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X_1;b))+1\}+\theta(X_2)\\
&=\theta(X_1)+\theta(X_2),
\end{align*}
and similarly
\begin{align*}
\theta(X_1\ast X_2)&=\max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X_1\ast X_2;a)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X_1\ast X_2;a))+1\}\\
&=\max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X_1;a)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X_1;a))+1\}+\theta(X_2)\\
&\geq \theta(X_1)+\theta(X_2),
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Let $X$ be a simplicial complex and let $\mathcal{R}=\{R_1,\ldots, R_r\}$ be a set of pairwise vertex disjoint subsets of $V$ such that $|R_i|\geq 2$ for each
$1\leq i\leq r$. Then $\mathcal{R}$ is said to be an \emph{induced decomposition} of $X$ if $X[\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^r R_i]\cong X[R_1]\ast\ldots \ast X[R_r]$, and $\mathcal{R}$ is maximal with this property. The set of induced decompositions of a complex $X$ is denoted by $\mathcal{I}\mathcal{D}(X)$.
Let $\mathcal{R}=\{R_1,\ldots, R_r\}$ be an induced decomposition of a complex $X$. If each $X[R_i]$ is a $\theta$-prime complex,
then we call $\mathcal{R}$ as a \emph{prime decomposition} of $X$, and the set of prime decompositions of a complex $X$ is denoted by
$\mathcal{P}\mathcal{D}(X)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:complex-ce-dec}
For any simplicial complex $X$, we have $$\theta(X)=\max \{\sum_{i=1}^{r}\theta(X[R_i])\colon \{R_1,\ldots,R_r\}\in \mathcal{P}\mathcal{D}(X)\}.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $X$ is itself a $\theta$-prime complex, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise there exists a vertex $v\in V$ such that $\theta(X)=\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v))$. If $\operatorname{del}(X;v)$ is a $\theta$-prime complex, then $\{\operatorname{del}(X;v)\}\in \mathcal{P}\mathcal{D}(X)$ so that the result follows. Otherwise, we have
$\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v))=\max \{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{t}\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v)[S_i])\colon \{S_1,\ldots,S_t\}\in \mathcal{P}\mathcal{D}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))\}$ by the induction. However,
since $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{D}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))\subseteq \mathcal{P}\mathcal{D}(X)$ for such a vertex, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\medskip
Our final aim in this section is to identify those simplicial complexes $X$ for which $\theta(X)=1$. Having this in mind, we shortly review graph's terminology first.
When $G=(V,E)$ is a (finite and simple) graph, we denote by $N_G(x):=\{y\in V\colon xy\in E\}$, the (open) neighborhood of $x$ in $G$, whereas $N_G[x]:=N_G(x)\cup \{x\}$ is its closed neighborhood. The degree of a vertex $x$ and the maximum degree of a graph $G$ are denoted by $\deg_G(x)$ and $\Delta(G)$ respectively. Furthermore, $\overline{G}$ denotes the complement of the graph $G$. For a given subset $S\subseteq V$, the subgraph $G[S]$ of $G$ induced by the set $S$ is the graph on $S$ with $E(G[S])=E\cap (S\times S)$. Note that $\operatorname{Ind}(G)[S]=\operatorname{Ind}(G[S])$ for every subset $S\subseteq V$.
A set $A\subseteq V$ is said to be an \emph{independent set} of $G$ provided that it contains no edge of $G$. The maximum size $\alpha(G)$ of an independent set in $G$ is the independence number of a graph $G$.
The family of all independent sets forms a simplicial complex, the \emph{independence complex} $\operatorname{Ind}(G)$ of $G$. Note also that a subset $C\subseteq V$ is a \emph{vertex cover} of $G$ provided that $V\setminus C$ is an independent set.
\begin{definition}
For a given graph $G$, we define $\theta(G):=\theta(\operatorname{Ind}(G))$. Furthermore, we say that a graph $G$ is $\theta$-\emph{prime} if $\operatorname{Ind}(G)$ is a $\theta$-prime complex.
\end{definition}
Since $\operatorname{del}(\operatorname{Ind}(G);v)=\operatorname{Ind}(G-v)$ and $\operatorname{lk}(\operatorname{Ind}(G);v)=\operatorname{Ind}(G-N_G[v])$ for every vertex $v$ in $G$, we may naturally think of the theta-number of a graph as a purely combinatorial graph invariant without any emphasis on its independence complex. Note also that $V^{\circ}=V(\operatorname{Ind}(G))^{\circ}$ is the set of all non-isolated vertices in $G$. We may therefore write $\theta(G)=0$ if $E=\emptyset$, and
$$\theta(G)=\underset{v\in V^{\circ}}{\min}\{\max\{\theta(G-v),\theta(G-N_G[v])+1\}\}$$
otherwise. In the guise, Corollary~\ref{cor:induct} can be rewritten as in the following form.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:induct-g}
$\theta(G)$ always equals to one of $\theta(G-v)$ or $\theta(G-N_G[v])+1$.
\end{corollary}
We remark that the circuits of the complex $\operatorname{Ind}(G)$ are exactly the edges of the graph $G$; hence, a circuit cover is nothing but a vertex cover in $G$. Therefore, we may rewrite the circuit cover number as
$$\operatorname{ccn}(G)=\min\{\alpha(G[F])\colon F\;\textnormal{is a vertex cover for}\;G\}.$$
Notice that the gap between $\operatorname{ccn}(G)$ and $\theta(G)$ could be arbitrarily large. For instance, if we denote by $K_{n,n}$, the complete bipartite graph with $n\geq 1$, then $\operatorname{ccn}(K_{n,n})=n$ while $\theta(K_{n,n})=1$.
We denote by $K_n$, $P_n$ and $C_k$, the complete, path and cycle graphs on $n\geq 1$ and $k\geq 3$ vertices respectively.
\begin{example}\label{exmp-complement-cycle}
$\theta(\overline{C}_n)=2$ for each $n\geq 4$. Firstly, we note that $\theta(\overline{C}_n)\leq \alpha(\overline{C}_n)=2$. On the other hand,
$\theta(\overline{C}_n-N_{\overline{C}_n}[v])=1$ for each vertex $v\in V(\overline{C}_n)$ as the graph $\overline{C}_n-N_{\overline{C}_n}[v]$ is isomorphic to $K_2$. This implies that $2\geq \theta(\overline{C}_n-N_{\overline{C}_n}[v])+1\geq 2$ so that $\theta(\overline{C}_n-N_{\overline{C}_n}[v])+1=2$. Furthermore, since $\theta(\overline{C}_n-v)\leq \theta(\overline{C}_n)\leq 2$, we conclude that $\max\{\theta(\overline{C}_n-v), \theta(\overline{C}_n-N_{\overline{C}_n}[v])+1\}=2$ for every vertex $v\in V(\overline{C}_n)$, which proves that $\theta(\overline{C}_n)=2$. Finally, we point out that one may easily verify that the graph $\overline{C}_n$ is $\theta$-prime for each $n\geq 4$.
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:vertex-vertex-cover}
If $u$ is a vertex of a graph $H$ such that the set $N_H[u]$ is a vertex cover for $H$, then either $\theta(H)=\theta(H-u)$ or else $\theta(H)=1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $\theta(H)=\theta(H-u)$, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, it follows that $\theta(H)=\theta(H-N_H[u])+1$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:induct-g}. However, since $V\setminus N_H[u]$ is an independent set, we conclude that $\theta(H-N_H[u])=0$.
\end{proof}
We say that $G$ is $H$-free if no induced subgraph of $G$ is isomorphic to $H$. A graph $G$ is called \emph{chordal} if it is $C_r$-free for every $r>3$. Moreover, a graph $G$ is said to be \emph{co-chordal} if its complement $\overline{G}$ is a chordal graph.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:cc-vertex-cover}
If $G$ is a co-chordal graph, then there exists a vertex $x$ such that $N_G[x]$ is a vertex cover for $G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Consider the complement $\overline{G}$ of $G$. Since $\overline{G}$ is a chordal graph, it has a simplicial vertex~\citep{Dirac}, say $x\in V$. This means that the set $N_{\overline{G}}(x)$ induces a complete subgraph of $\overline{G}$. Now, if $u,v\in V$ are two vertices with $uv\notin E(\overline{G})$, then $V(\overline{G}-N_{\overline{G}}(x))\cap \{u,v\}\neq \emptyset$. However, this latter fact is equivalent to saying that $N_G[x]\cap \{u,v\}\neq \emptyset$ whenever $uv\in E(G)$, i.e., the set $N_G[x]$ is a vertex cover for $G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:froberg}
Let $G$ be a graph with $E(G)\neq \emptyset$. Then $G$ is co-chordal if and only if $\theta(G)=1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Example~\ref{exmp-complement-cycle}, we may easily conclude that $G$ is co-chordal if $\theta(G)=1$. Therefore, we only need to verify that $\theta(G)=1$ provided that $G$ is co-chordal.
Now, suppose that $G$ is a co-chordal graph. If $G$ contains a vertex $v$ such that $G-v$ is an edgeless graph, then $\operatorname{ccn}(G)=1$ so that $\theta(G)=1$.
Otherwise, we may apply to an induction on the order of $G$ to conclude that
$\theta(G-v)=1$ for each vertex $v\in V$. In order to complete the proof, we are left to prove that $\theta(G-N_G[x])=0$ for some vertex $x\in V$. However, this is exactly what Lemma~\ref{lem:cc-vertex-cover} shows.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:1-col}
Let $X$ be a simplicial complex. Then $\theta(X)=1$ if and only if $X=\operatorname{Ind}(G)$ for some co-chordal graph $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:froberg} together with the fact that $X$ must be a flag simplicial complex, i.e., if $S$ is a circuit in $X$, then $|S|=2$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:induced}.
\end{proof}
\section{Collapsibility of simplicial complexes}
In this section, we prove an analog of Corollary~\ref{cor:induct} for the collapsibility number of simplicial complexes. It implies that $\mathcal{C}(X)$ always equals to either $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))$ or $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1$ for every vertex $v$ in $X$. We begin with recalling some of the definitions mentioned in the introduction more formally.
A face $A\in X$ is a \emph{free face} of $X$ if there exists a unique facet (maximal face) containing it. When $A$ is a free face and $B$ is the unique facet containing $A$, we denote by $[A,B]$, the interval $\{C\in X\colon A\subseteq C\subseteq B\}$. This defines an operation $X\xrightarrow{[A,B]}X-[A,B]$, which is called an \emph{elementary} $k$-\emph{collapse} provided that $|A|\leq k$. For two simplicial complexes $X$ and $Y$, we say that $X$ is $k$-\emph{collapsible} to $Y$, if there exists a sequence of elementary $k$-collapses
$$X=X_0\xrightarrow{[A_1,B_1]} X_1\xrightarrow{[A_2,B_2]}\cdots
\xrightarrow{[A_d,B_d]}X_d=Y,$$
in which case we write $X\xra{k} Y$. In particular, a simplicial complex $X$ is called $k$-\emph{collapsible} if $X\xra{k} \emptyset$. The \emph{collapsibility number} of a simplicial complex $X$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{C}(X):=\min\{k\colon X\;\textnormal{is}\;k\textnormal{-collapsible}\}.
\end{equation*}
The family of $k$-collapsible simplicial complexes were introduced by Wegner~\citep{Weg}.
We next recall a crucial result of Tancer~\citep{MT-2}.
\begin{lemma}\textnormal{\citep[Proposition $1.2$]{MT-2}}\label{lem:tancer-max}
$\mathcal{C}(X)\leq \max\{\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v)),\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\}$ holds for every vertex $v$ of $X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:del-lk}
$\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))\leq \mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))$ for every vertex $v$ in $X$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))=k\geq 1$ and it requires $d$ elementary $k$-collapses in order to reduce $\operatorname{del}(X;v)$ to the void complex, that is,
there exists a sequence
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{del}(X;v)=Y_0\xrightarrow{[A_1,B_1]} Y_1\xrightarrow{[A_2,B_2]}\cdots
\xrightarrow{[A_d,B_d]}Y_d=\emptyset
\end{equation*}
of elementary $k$-collapses. We then appeal to an induction on the number of faces of $X$, that is, on $|X|$ to show that $\operatorname{lk}(X;v)$ is $k$-collapsible.
{\em Case} $1$: $B_1\in \operatorname{lk}(X;v)$. We note that the face $B_1\cup \{v\}$ must be a facet of $X$. However, this in turn forces that $A_1\in X$ is a free face of $X$ and $B_1\cup \{v\}$ is the unique facet containing it. Consider the elementary $k$-collapse $X\xrightarrow{[A_1,B_1\cup \{v\}]}X_1:=X-[A_1,B_1\cup \{v\}]$.
{\em Claim} $1.1$: $\operatorname{del}(X_1;v)=Y_1$.
{\em Proof of Claim} $1.1$: Suppose that $U\in \operatorname{del}(X_1;v)$. Then, $U\in X_1$, $v\notin U$ and $U\cup \{v\}\in X_1$. This implies that neither of faces $U$ and $U\cup \{v\}$ is contained in the interval $[A_1,B_1\cup \{v\}]$. In other words, $U\notin [A_1,B_1]$ so that $U\in \operatorname{del}(X;v)-[A_1,B_1]=Y_1$. For the other direction, consider a face $S\in Y_1$. Then, $S\in \operatorname{del}(X;v)$ and
$S\notin [A_1,B_1]$; hence, $A_1\nsubseteq S$. However, we then have that
$S\notin [A_1,B_1\cup \{v\}]$ so that $S\in \operatorname{del}(X_1;v)$.
{\em Claim} $1.2$: $\operatorname{lk}(X;v)\xrightarrow{[A_1,B_1]}\operatorname{lk}(X_1;v)$ is an elementary $k$-collapse.
{\em Proof of Claim} $1.2$: Notice first that $A_1$ is a free face of $\operatorname{lk}(X;v)$ and $B_1$ is the unique facet containing it. So, it remains to show that $\operatorname{lk}(X_1;v)=\operatorname{lk}(X;v)-[A_1,B_1]$. Assume that $D\in \operatorname{lk}(X;v)-[A_1,B_1]$ is a face. This means that $D\in X$, $v\notin D$ and $D\cup \{v\}\in X$. Since $A_1$ is a free face, we conclude that $A_1\nsubseteq D$. In other words,
we have that $D\notin [A_1,B_1\cup \{v\}]$. This also implies that $D\cup \{v\}\notin [A_1,B_1\cup \{v\}]$, since $v\notin A_1$. However, this means that
$D\in \operatorname{lk}(X_1;v)$. Next, suppose that $F\in \operatorname{lk}(X_1;v))$ is a face, and assume to the contrary that $F\in [A_1,B_1]$. However, since $v\notin F$, we would have $F\in [A_1,B_1\cup \{v\}]$ so that $F\notin X_1$, a contradiction.
Now, $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X_1;v))\leq k$ by Claim $1.1$ together with the fact that $Y_1$ is $k$-collapsible. This implies that $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X_1;v))\leq k$ by the induction. Finally, we conclude that $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))\leq k$ by Claim $1.2$.
{\em Case} $2$: $B_1\notin \operatorname{lk}(X;v)$. Since $B_1\in \operatorname{del}(X;v)$, it then follows that $B_1\cup \{v\}\notin X$. In other words, $A_1$ is a free face of $X$ and $B_1$ is the unique facet containing it. So, there is an elementary $k$-collapse $X\xrightarrow{[A_1,B_1]}X':=X-[A_1,B_1]$.
{\em Claim} $2.1$: $\operatorname{del}(X';v)=Y_1$.
{\em Proof of Claim} $2.1$: If $S\in \operatorname{del}(X';v)$, then $v\notin S$, $S\in X$ and $S\notin [A_1,B_1]$. In other words, $S\in \operatorname{del}(X;v)-[A_1,B_1]=Y_1$. On the other hand, if $T\in Y_1$, then $v\notin T$, $T\in X$ and $T\notin [A_1,B_1]$. Therefore, we have that $T\in \operatorname{del}(X';v)$.
{\em Claim} $2.2$: $\operatorname{lk}(X;v)=\operatorname{lk}(X';v)$.
{\em Proof of Claim} $2.2$: Let $L\in \operatorname{lk}(X;v)$ be given. If $L\in [A_1,B_1]$, then it follows that $A_1\cup \{v\}\in X$, since $A_1\cup \{v\}\subseteq L\cup \{v\}\in X$. However, since $B_1$ is the unique facet in $X$ containing $A_1$, we must have that $v\in B_1\in \operatorname{del}(X;v)$, a contradiction. Thus,
we conclude that $L\in X'$; hence, $L\in \operatorname{lk}(X';v)$. For the other direction, suppose that $P\in \operatorname{lk}(X';v)$ is a face. This means that $v\notin P$, $P\in X' $ and $P\cup \{v\}\in X'$. However, since $X'$ is a subcomplex of $X$, we have that $P\in X$ and $P\cup \{v\}\in X$. In other words, $P\in \operatorname{lk}(X;v)$.
Now, $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X';v))\leq k$ by Claim $2.1$ together with the fact that $Y_1$ is $k$-collapsible; hence $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))=\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X';v))\leq k$ by Claim $2.2$ and the induction.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:main-1}
$\mathcal{C}(X)$ always equals to one of $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))$ or $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1$ for every vertex $v$ in a simplicial complex $X$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Recall first that the collapsibility number satisfies that $\mathcal{C}(X[S])\leq \mathcal{C}(X)$ for any subset $S\subseteq V$~\citep[Corollary $4.1$]{IK} so that
$\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))\leq \mathcal{C}(X)$ holds for every vertex $v$.
Next, assume to the contrary that the claim is not true. However it then follows that
$$\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))<\mathcal{C}(X)<\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\leq\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v))+1,$$
a contradiction, where the inequalities follow from Lemma~\ref{lem:tancer-max} and Theorem~\ref{thm:del-lk} respectively.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Following Corollary~\ref{cor:main-1}, one may define the notion of a $\mathcal{C}$-prime vertex as well as a $\mathcal{C}$-prime reduction process on simplicial complexes as they are discussed for the theta-number in Section~\ref{sec:prop-theta}.
\end{remark}
\section{Theta-number and collapsibility of simplicial complexes}
In this section, we prove that our new parameter provides an upper bound to the collapsibility number. We also verify that an already known bound on the collapsibility number due to Lew~\cite{AL} is a valid upper bound to the theta-number of every simplicial complex. Finally, we show that the theta-number, the collapsibility and Leray numbers of a vertex decomposable simplicial complex are all equal.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:ce-theta}
$\mathcal{C}(X)\leq \theta(X)$ for every simplicial complex $X$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note first that $\mathcal{C}(X)=\theta(X)=0$ whenever $V^{\circ}=\emptyset$. On the other hand, if $v$ is a vertex for which
$\theta(X)=\max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\}$ holds, then
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}(X)&\leq \max\{\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{del}(X;v)),\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\}\\
&\leq \max\{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\}\\
&=\theta(X),
\end{align*}
where the first inequality is due to Lemma~\ref{lem:tancer-max}, while the second is by the induction.\medskip
\end{proof}
The characterization of simplicial complexes satisfying $\mathcal{C}(X)=1$ seems to first appear in the work of Lekkerkerker and Boland~\cite{LB}. In our language, they show that $\mathcal{C}(X)=1$ if and only if $X=\operatorname{Ind}(G)$ for some co-chordal graph $G$ with $E(G)\neq \emptyset$ (see also~\cite{Weg}). Therefore, combining their result with Theorem~\ref{thm:1-col}, we obtain the following.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:theta=1}
$\mathcal{C}(X)=1$ if and only if $\theta(X)=1$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{example}\label{exmp:kalai}
The inequality $\mathcal{C}(X)\leq \theta(X)$ could be strict. Consider the simplicial complex $X_6$ on $\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ (compare to~\citep[Table $1$]{Kalai}) with the following facets
\begin{align*}
&\{1,2,4\},\{1,2,5\},\{1,3,4\},\{1,4,5\},\{1,3,6\},\\
&\{2,3,5\},\{2,3,6\},\{2,5,6\},\{3,4,6\},\{3,5,6\}.
\end{align*}
The complex $X_6$ is $2$-collapsible, while the link of each vertex contains an induced subcomplex isomorphic to a triangulation of a one-dimensional sphere. In other words, we have $\mathcal{C}(X_6)=2<3=\theta(X_6)$. However, we do not know whether the gap $\theta(X)-\mathcal{C}(X)$ could be arbitrarily large.
\end{example}
Our next aim is to show that an existing upper bound on the collapsibility number of simplicial complexes also bounds the theta-number.
Denote by $S(X)$, the collection
of all (ordered) subsets $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_k\}$ of vertices in $X$ satisfying the following condition:
There exist facets $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_{k+1}$ of $X$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[•] $x_i\notin A_i$ for each $1\leq i\leq k$,\\
\item[•] $x_i\in A_j$ for all $1\leq i<j\leq k+1$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{theorem}
If $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}$ is a $\theta$-prime set of $X$, then $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}\in S(X)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:cprime-face}, denote by $l_i$, the stage of the reduction process that applies to the vertex $v_i$. Since $\{v_2,\ldots,v_k\}$ is a $\theta$-prime set of $X_{l_1}=\operatorname{lk}(X_{(l_1-1)};v_1)$, we may appeal to an induction in order to assume that $\{v_2,\ldots,v_k\}\in S(X_{l_1})$. So, there exist facets $A'_2,\ldots,A'_{k+1}$ of $X_{l_1}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[•] $v_i\notin A'_i$ for $2\leq i\leq k$,\\
\item[•] $v_i\in A'_j$ for $2\leq i<j\leq k+1$.
\end{itemize}
Now, if we define $A_i:=A'_i\cup \{v_1\}$ for each $2\leq i\leq k+1$,
then $A_i$ is a facet of $X_{(l_1-1)}$. On the other hand, since $v_1$ is not a cone-vertex of $X_{(l_1-1)}$, there exists a facet, say $A'_1$ of $X_{(l_1-1)}$ such that $v_1\notin A'_1$.
Finally, since $v_1$ is the first $\theta$-prime vertex of the reduction process,
the complex $X_{(l_1-1)}$ is obtained from $X$ by the deletions of some vertices $u_1,\ldots,u_r$ consecutively, that is, $X_{(l_1-1)}=X[V-\{u_1,\ldots,u_r\}]$ for some $r\geq 0$. It then follows that either $A_i$ is a facet of $X$ or else there exists a subset $U_i\subseteq \{u_1,\ldots,u_r\}$ such that $A_i\cup U_i$ is a facet of $X$ for each $1\leq i\leq k+1$. In either case, the resulting set of facets satisfies the requirements.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:alew}
If $k(X)$ denotes the maximum size of a set in $S(X)$, then $\theta(X)\leq k(X)$.
\end{corollary}
We remark that the bound of Corollary~\ref{cor:alew} is proved by Lew~\citep[Theorem $4$]{AL} for the collapsibility number, which is adapted from the work of Matou{\v{s}}ek and Tancer~\cite{MT}. In the same paper, Matou{\v{s}}ek and Tancer show that the gap $\mathcal{C}(X)-\mathcal{L}(X)$ between the collapsibility and Leray numbers could be arbitrarily large. On the other hand, we next verify that these three invariants coincide on a distinguished class of simplicial complexes.
A simplicial complex $X$ is said to be \emph{vertex decomposable} if it is either a simplex or else there exists a vertex $v$ such that $\operatorname{del}(X;v)$ and $\operatorname{lk}(X;v)$ are vertex decomposable, and every facet of $\operatorname{del}(X;v)$ is a facet of $X$. In the latter, the vertex $v$ is called a \emph{shedding vertex} of $X$.
\begin{theorem}
$\theta(X)=\mathcal{C}(X)=\mathcal{L}(X)$ for every vertex decomposable simplicial complex.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since the inequalities $\mathcal{L}(X)\leq \mathcal{C}(X)\leq \theta(X)$ hold, we are only left to verify that $\theta(X)\leq \mathcal{L}(X)$ whenever $X$ is vertex decomposable.
If $X$ is a simplex, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, let $v$ be a shedding vertex of $X$. It then follows from~\citep[Theorem $1.5$]{HW} that
$\mathcal{L}(X)=\max \{\mathcal{L}(\operatorname{del}(X;v)),\mathcal{L}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\}$. Therefore, once we apply to an induction, we conclude that
\begin{align*}
\theta(X)&\leq \max \{\theta(\operatorname{del}(X;v)),\theta(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\}\\
&\leq \max \{\mathcal{L}(\operatorname{del}(X;v)),\mathcal{L}(\operatorname{lk}(X;v))+1\}\\
&=\mathcal{L}(X).\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{The theta-number of independence complexes of graphs}
In this section, we only consider the theta-number of independence complexes of graphs. In an analogy with the Leray number of such complexes~\citep{BC-prime}, we first prove that the theta-number is monotone decreasing under edge contractions on the underlying graph. We then show that the theta-number of graphs is closely related to the induced matching number. In particular, we provide upper bounds involving the induced matching number. Notice that any possible upper bound on the theta-number of a graph also bounds the collapsibility number of its independence complex. Finally, we describe a family of $\theta$-prime graphs such that their independence complexes are weak pseudo-manifolds.
\subsection{Theta-number under edge contractions}
We recall that if $e=xy$ is an edge of a graph $G$, the \emph{contraction} of $e$ on $G$ is the graph $G/e$ defined by
$V(G/e)=(V(G)\setminus\{x,y\})\cup \{w\}$ and $E(G/e)=E(G-\{x,y\})\cup \{wz\colon z\in N_G(x)\cup N_G(y)\}$. A graph $H$ is a \emph{contraction minor} of $G$ if $H$ is obtained from $G$ by a sequence of edge contraction.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:minor}
If $H$ is a contraction minor of $G$, then $\theta(H)\leq \theta(G)$.
\end{theorem}
We divide the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:minor} into several steps. We abbreviate $N_G[x]\cup N_G[y]$ to $N_G[e]$ when $e=xy$ is an edge of $G$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:edge-negh-remove}
If $e=xy$ is an edge of a graph $G$, then $\theta(G-N_G[e])+1\leq \theta(G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $\{G-N_G[e], K_2\}$ is an induced decomposition of $G$,
where $K_2$ corresponds to the edge $e=xy$. In other words,
$\theta(G-N_G[e])+1\leq \theta(G)$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:complex-ce-dec}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:vertex-remove-edge}
If $e=xy$ is an edge of a graph $G$, then $\theta(G-\{x,y\})\leq \theta(G)\leq \theta(G-\{x,y\})+1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first inequality directly follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:induced}. A similar reasoning together with Corollary~\ref{cor:induct-g} also implies the validity of the following inequalities:
\begin{align*}
&\theta(G-N_G[x])\leq \theta(G-\{x,y\}),\\
&\theta(G-x)\leq \max\{\theta(G-\{x,y\}), \theta((G-x)-N_{(G-x)}[y])+1\},\\
&\theta((G-x)-N_{(G-x)}[y])\leq \theta(G-\{x,y\}).
\end{align*}
Now, if $x$ is a $\theta$-prime vertex of $G$, then it follows that
$\theta(G)=\theta(G-N_G[x])+1\leq \theta(G-\{x,y\})+1$. So, assume that $x$ is not a $\theta$-prime vertex; hence, $\theta(G)=\theta(G-x)$. If $y$ is a $\theta$-prime vertex of $G-x$, we conclude that $\theta(G)=\theta(G-x)=\theta((G-x)-N_{(G-x)}[y])+1\leq \theta(G-\{x,y\})+1$. On the other hand, if $y$ is not a $\theta$-prime vertex of $G-x$, we would have that $\theta(G)=\theta(G-x)=\theta((G-x)-y)=\theta(G-\{x,y\})\leq \theta(G-\{x,y\})+1$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:vertex-remove-edge-contract}
If $e=xy$ is an edge of a graph $G$, then $\theta(G-\{x,y\})\leq \theta(G/e)\leq \theta(G-\{x,y\})+1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $w_e$ is the vertex of $G/e$ obtained by contracting the edge $e=xy$ in $G$. Now, $\theta(G/e)\leq \max\{\theta(G/e-w_e), \theta(G/e-N_{G/e}[w_e])+1\}$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:induct-g}. Since the graphs $G/e-w_e$ and $G-\{x,y\}$ are isomorphic, we have that $\theta(G/e-w_e)=\theta(G-\{x,y\})$. Similarly, $\theta(G/e-N_{G/e}[w_e])=\theta(G-N_G[e])\leq \theta(G-\{x,y\})$, since $G/e-N_{G/e}[w_e]\cong G-N_G[e]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:contract-reg}
The inequality $\theta(G/e)\leq \theta(G)\leq \theta(G/e)+1$ holds for the contraction of any edge $e$ of $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $w_e$ is the vertex of $G/e$ obtained by contracting the edge $e=xy$ in $G$. Observe that $(G/e)-w_e\cong G-\{x,y\}$ and
$(G/e)-N_{(G/e)}[w_e]\cong G-N_G[e]$. By Corollary~\ref{cor:induct-g}, there are two cases. Now, if $\theta(G/e)=\theta((G/e)-w_e)=\theta(G-\{x,y\})\leq \theta(G)$. On the other hand, if $\theta(G/e)=\theta((G/e)-N_{(G/e)}[w_e])+1=\theta(G-N_G[e])+1\leq \theta(G)$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:edge-negh-remove}.
For the second inequality, we note that $\theta(G)\leq\theta(G-\{x,y\})+1\leq \theta(G/e)+1$ by Propositions~\ref{prop:vertex-remove-edge} and~\ref{prop:vertex-remove-edge-contract}.
\end{proof}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:minor} follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:contract-reg}. We remark that we do not know whether the collapsibility number is monotone decreasing under edge contractions.
\subsection{Bounds on the theta-number of graphs}
Recall that a matching in a graph is a subset of edges no two of which share a vertex. The minimum size of a maximal matching in $G$ is denoted by $\operatorname{min-m}(G)$. An induced matching is a matching $M$ if no two vertices belonging to different edges of $M$ are adjacent. The maximum size of an induced matching of $G$ is known as the \emph{induced matching number} $\operatorname{im}(G)$ of $G$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:im-cin-minm}
$\operatorname{im}(G)\leq \theta(G)\leq \operatorname{ccn}(G)\leq \operatorname{min-m}(G)$ for every graph $G$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If we denote by $nK_2$, the disjoint union of $n$ copies of $K_2$, the first inequality follows from the fact that $\theta(nK_2)=n$ for each $n\geq 1$ together with Proposition~\ref{prop:induced}. For the last one, if $M$ is a maximal matching in $G$, then $V(M)$, the set of vertices incident to edges in $M$, is a vertex cover. Therefore, the inequality $\operatorname{ccn}(G)\leq \alpha(G[V(M)])\leq |M|$ holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:im-vertexcover}
If a graph $G$ contains an induced matching $M$ for which $V(M)$ is a vertex cover, then $\theta(G)=\operatorname{im}(G)$.
\end{corollary}
Graphs satisfying the requirement of Corollary~\ref{cor:im-vertexcover} are commonly known as \emph{graphs with an efficient edge dominating set} (or \emph{graphs with a dominating induced matching})~\citep{GSSH}. We demonstrate an application of Corollary~\ref{cor:im-vertexcover} in the following example. Let $n$ and $k$ be two positive integers with $n\geq 2k$. Recall that the \emph{Kneser graph} $K(n;k)$ is the graph whose vertices are all $k$-subsets of an $n$-set, where two vertices are adjacent if and only if the corresponding $k$-subsets are disjoint.
\begin{example}
$\theta(K(2n+1;n))=\frac{1}{2}\binom{2n}{n}$ for every $n\geq 1$. Indeed, if we define $M_n:=E(K(2n;n))$,
then $M_n$ forms an induced matching of size $\frac{1}{2}\binom{2n}{n}$
in $K(2n+1;n)$. On the other hand, $V(M_n)$ is a vertex cover for $K(2n+1;n)$, since $V(K(2n+1;n))\setminus V(M_n)$ is an independent set from which the claim follows.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:im-kappa-dim}
The equality $\operatorname{im}(H)=\operatorname{ccn}(H)$ could be possible even if the graph $H$ admits no dominating induced matchings. For instance, the graph $H$ depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:im-kappa-dim} satisfies $\operatorname{im}(H)=\operatorname{ccn}(H)=\alpha(H)=3$, while it has no dominating induced matchings.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9]
\node [noddee] at (1,0) (v1) [] {};
\node [noddee] at (0,1) (v2) [] {}
edge [] (v1);
\node [noddee] at (1.5,1) (u1) [] {}
edge [] (v1)
edge [thick] (v2);
\node [noddee] at (3.5,1) (u2) [] {}
edge [] (u1);
\node [noddee] at (4,0) (b1) [] {}
edge [] (u2);
\node [noddee] at (5,1) (b2) [] {}
edge [thick] (b1)
edge [] (u2);
\node [noddee] at (2.5,2) (u3) [] {}
edge [] (u1)
edge [] (u2);
\node [noddee] at (1.5,3) (a1) [] {}
edge [] (u3);
\node [noddee] at (3.5,3) (a2) [] {}
edge [thick] (a1)
edge [] (u3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{A graph $H$ without any dominating induced matchings while satisfying $\operatorname{im}(H)=\operatorname{ccn}(H)=3$.}
\label{fig:im-kappa-dim}
\end{figure}
Graphs with $\theta(G)=\operatorname{im}(G)$ are not limited to those of Corollary~\ref{cor:im-vertexcover}. Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a graph class with the property that if $G\in \mathcal{G}$, then both subgraphs $G-x$ and $G-N_G[x]$ belong to $\mathcal{G}$ for each vertex $x\in V(G)$. Notice that if there exists a vertex $v\in V(G)$ such that $\operatorname{im}(G-N_G[v])<\operatorname{im}(G)$ for every graph $G\in \mathcal{G}$, then $\theta(G)=\operatorname{im}(G)$. The class of chordal graphs is an example.
We recall that the \emph{maximum privacy degree} of a graph $G$ is defined by
\begin{displaymath}
\Gamma(G)=\max\{|N_G[x]\setminus N_G[y]|\colon\;xy\in E(G)\}.
\end{displaymath}
The proof of the following result is almost identical to that of~\citep[Theorem $1.3$]{BC-prime}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:deg-dreg}
$\theta(G)\leq (\Gamma(G)+1)\operatorname{im}(G)$ holds for every graph $G$. In particular,
the inequality $\theta(G)\leq \Delta(G)\operatorname{im}(G)$ holds for every graph $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sqtr}
If $G$ is an $n$-vertex graph, then $\theta(G)\leq 2\sqrt{n\cdot \operatorname{im}(G)}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $E(G)=\emptyset$, there is nothing to prove. So, we may assume that $G$ contains at least one edge.
We first prove that
$\theta(G)\leq d\cdot\operatorname{im}(G)+\frac{n}{d+1}$ for every integer $1\leq d<n$.
If $\Delta(G)\leq d$, then the required inequality is the consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:deg-dreg}. We may therefore assume that $1\leq d<\Delta(G)$. We define $W_d(G)=\{v\in V\colon \deg_G(v)> d\}$, and apply to the $\theta$-prime reduction process on $G$ with respect to the set $W_d(G)$. If we denote by $G_d$ the resulting graph and $\operatorname{prime}_d$, the counter of the process, then $\theta(G)\leq \theta(G_d)+\operatorname{prime}_d$. Since $\Delta(G_d)\leq d$, we have $\theta(G_d)\leq d\cdot\operatorname{im}(G_d)\leq d\cdot\operatorname{im}(G)$. On the other hand, the inequality $\operatorname{prime}_d\leq \frac{n}{d+1}$ holds, since if a vertex $v\in W_d(G)$ turns out to be a $\theta$-prime vertex at some stage of the process, then we delete $v$ and all of its neighbors, that is, we delete at least $(d+1)$ vertices. Therefore, we conclude that $\theta(G)\leq d\cdot\operatorname{im}(G)+\frac{n}{d+1}$.
Finally, if we set $d:=\Big\lceil\sqrt{\frac{n}{\operatorname{im}(G)}}\Big\rceil-1$, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
One may naturally generalize the notion of the induced matching number of a graph to arbitrary simplicial complexes, possibly by using the concept of the circuit. So, it would be interesting to decide whether a similar bound as in Theorem~\ref{thm:sqtr} would be valid under such a generalization.
\end{remark}
We may improve the upper bound in the absence of an induced subgraph. We have two candidates to forbid. We denote by $K_{n,m}$, the complete bipartite graph for any $n,m\geq 1$. In particular, the graph $K_{1,3}$ is known as the \emph{claw}. Once again, the proof of the following is almost identical to that of~\citep[Theorem $1.2$]{BC-prime}.
\begin{theorem}
$\theta(G)\leq 2\operatorname{im}(G)$ if $G$ is a claw-free graph.
\end{theorem}
We next consider $2K_2$-free graphs, and begin with recalling a technical property that they must satisfy.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $S,T\subseteq V$ be two subsets. We denote by $G(S,T)$, the subgraph of $G$ on $S\cup T$ consisting of those edges of $G$ whose one end in $S$ and the other end in $T$. We say that a subset $L\subseteq V$ \emph{meets} $G(S,T)$ if $L\cap \{x,y\}\neq \emptyset$ for each edge $xy$ in $G(S,T)$.
\begin{theorem}\textnormal{\citep[Theorem $1$]{CGTT}}\label{thm:chung}
If $G$ is a $2K_2$-free graph for which $S\subseteq V$ is an independent set, then there exists $x\in T:=V-S$ such that $N_G(x)$ meets $G(S,T)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:chung}
Let $G$ be a $2K_2$-free graph and $S$ be an independent set of $G$. If $x\in T=V-S$ is a $\theta$-prime vertex such that $N_G(x)$ meets $G(S,T)$, then $\theta(G)\leq \theta(G[T])+1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $x$ is $\theta$-prime, we have $\theta(G)=\theta(G-N_G[x])+1$. However, if $e=xy\in E(G-N_G[x])$, then we must have $x,y\in T$. In other words, $E(G-N_G[x])\subseteq E(G[T])$; hence, $\theta(G-N_G[x])\leq \theta(G[T])$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:2k2up}
$\theta(G)\leq 2\log{n}$ for every $n$-vertex $2K_2$-free graph $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by the induction on the order of $G$. We may therefore assume that $G$ is a $\theta$-prime graph.
If $G$ has a vertex $v\in V$ such that $\deg_G(v)\geq \frac{n}{2}$, then $\theta(G)=\theta(G-N_G[v])+1\leq 2\log{(\frac{n}{2})}+1\leq 2\log{n}$, where the first inequality is due to the induction. As a result we may further suppose that $\Delta(G)<\frac{n}{2}$. We pick a vertex $x\in V$ and a neighbor $y\in N_G(x)$. We let $S:=G-(N_G[x]\cup N_G[y])$ and $T:=N_G(y)\setminus N_G[x]$. Note that $S$ is an independent set of $G[S\cup T]=G-N_G[x]$. It then follows that there exists a vertex $z\in T$ such that $N_G(z)$ meets $G(S,T)$. If $z$ is a $\theta$-prime vertex, then
$$\theta(G)=\theta(G-N_G[x])+1\leq \theta(G[T])+2\leq 2\log{\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)}+2=2\log{n},$$
where the second inequality is due to the fact that $|T|<\frac{n}{2}$.
If $z$ is not a $\theta$-prime vertex of $G-N_G[x]$, we look at the graph $G[S\cup T\setminus\{z\}]$, and apply once again Theorem~\ref{thm:chung} together with Lemma~\ref{lem:chung}. It then follows that there exists a subset $T'\subset T$, and vertex $z'\in T'$ such that $\theta(G[S\cup T])=\theta(G[S\cup T'])$, the set $N_G(z')$ meets $G(S,T')$ and $z'$ is a $\theta$-prime vertex of $G[S\cup T']$. Since $|T'|<|T|<\frac{n}{2}$, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Strongly $\theta$-prime graphs}
In this final subsection, we describe a family of $\theta$-prime graphs such that their independence complexes are weak pseudo-manifolds. Recall that a simplicial complex $X$ is called a \emph{weak pseudo-manifold} if all facets of $X$ have the same dimension, say $d$, and
each $(d-1)$-dimensional face of $X$ is contained in exactly two facets of $X$.
We note that as in the case of the Leray number of graphs~\cite{BC-prime}, we are far from a convincing description of $\theta$-prime graphs. However, we may at least reveal the existence of a property preventing a graph to be $\theta$-prime.
\begin{proposition}
If $x,y\in V$ are two vertices in $G$ satisfying $N_G[x]\subseteq N_G[y]$ and $\deg_G(y)\geq 2$, then $G$ is not a $\theta$-prime graph.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume to the contrary that $G$ is a $\theta$-prime graph.
If we define $A:=V\setminus N_G[y]$, then $\{G[A], K_2\}$ is an induced decomposition of $G$, where $V(K_2)=\{x,y\}$.
Since $x$ and $y$ are $\theta$-primes, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\theta(G-y)=\theta(G-x)&=\theta(G-N_G[y])=\theta(G-N_G[x])\\
&<\theta(G)=\theta(G-N_G[y])+1\\
&=\theta(G[A])+1=\theta(G[A]\cup K_2).
\end{align*}
In other words, $\theta(G)=\theta(G-(N_G(y)\setminus \{x\}))$ so that
$G$ is not a $\theta$-prime graph.
\end{proof}
We call a $\theta$-prime graph $G$, a \emph{strongly} $\theta$-\emph{prime graph} if either $G=\emptyset$ or else $G-N_G[x]$ is a strongly $\theta$-prime graph for every vertex $x\in V$. If $G$ is a strongly $\theta$-prime graph, then there exists a sequence $\{x_1,\ldots,x_k\}$ of some vertices of $G$ with $\theta(G)=k$ such that if we set $G_0:=G$ and $G_{i+1}:=G_i-N_{G_i}[x_{i+1}]$ for each $0\leq i<k$, then $G_k=\emptyset$. We call such a sequence a \emph{strong} $\theta$-\emph{prime sequence} of $G$. We remark that strongly $\theta$-prime sequences of a strongly $\theta$-prime graph are of the same length, namely, $\theta(G)$.
\begin{corollary}
If $G$ is a strongly $\theta$-prime graph, so is $G-N_G[S]$ for every independent set $S$ in $G$.
\end{corollary}
We recall that a graph is \emph{well-covered} if all its maximal independent sets are of the same size, and a well-covered graph $G$ is $1$-\emph{well}-\emph{covered} if $G-x$ is well-covered for each vertex $x\in V$.
\begin{lemma}
If $G$ is a strongly $\theta$-prime graph, then $G$ is $1$-well-covered.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We initially verify that $G$ is well-covered. Assume to the contrary that there exist two maximal independent sets $A=\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$ and $B=\{y_1,\ldots,y_m\}$ with $n\neq m$. Now, if we define
$G_0:=G$ and $G_{i+1}:=G_i-N_{G_i}[x_{i+1}]$ for each $1\leq i<n$, and similarly, $G'_0:=G$, $G'_{j+1}:=G'_j-N_{G'_j}[y_{j+1}]$ for each $1\leq j<m$, then each of the graphs in the sequences $G_0,G_1,\ldots,G_n$ and $G'_0,G'_1,\ldots,G'_m$ is a strongly $\theta$-prime graph.
However, it then follows that both $\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$ and $\{y_1,\ldots,y_m\}$ form strongly $\theta$-prime sequences for $G$. This implies that $\theta(G)=n=m$, a contradiction.
For the $1$-well-covered property, it is sufficient to show that every vertex in $G$ is a shedding vertex of $\operatorname{Ind}(G)$ (compare to~\citep[Corollary $3.4$]{ML}). Since $G$ is well-covered, so is $G-N_G[x]$. In particular, we have $\alpha(G-N_G[x])=\alpha(G)-1$. If $S$ is an independent set in $G-N_G[x]$, there exists a maximum independent set $S'$ in $G-N_G[x]$ with $S\subseteq S'$. However, since $|S'|=\alpha(G)-1$, we would have that
$G-N_G[S']\cong K_2$ as $G$ is a strongly $\theta$-prime graph. This means that there exists $y\in N_G(x)$ such that $V(G-N_G[S'])=\{x,y\}$. It then follows that $S\cup \{y\}$ is an independent set in $G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:pseudo}
If $G$ is a strongly $\theta$-prime graph, then $\operatorname{Ind}(G)$ is a weak pseudo-manifold.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\alpha(G)=n$, and consider an independent set $I$ in $G$ of size $(n-1)$. Since $G-N_G[I]\cong K_2$, the set $I$ is contained in exactly two maximum independent sets.
\end{proof}
We remark that $\theta(G)=\alpha(G)$ whenever $\operatorname{Ind}(G)$ is a weak pseudo-manifold, which follows easily from the fact that $\mathcal{C}(\operatorname{Ind}(G))=\alpha(G)$.
However, we note that when $\operatorname{Ind}(H)$ is a weak pseudo-manifold, the graph $H$ does not need to be even a $\theta$-prime graph. For instance, consider a graph whose complement is the disjoint union of two $5$-cycles. We close our discussion with an example of a strongly $\theta$-prime graph.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9]
\node [nod2] at (1,0) (v1) [label=below:$46$]{};
\node [nod2] at (7.8,0) (v2)[label=below:$15$]{}
edge [] (v1);
\node [nod2] at (1,2) (v3)[label=left:$24$]{};
\node [nod2] at (2.7,2) (v4)[label=:$36$]{}
edge [] (v3)
edge [] (v2);
\node [nod2] at (6.2,2) (v5)[label=$25$]{}
edge [] (v1)
edge [] (v4);
\node [nod2] at (7.8,2) (v6)[label=below:$13$]{}
edge [bend left] (v3)
edge [] (v5);
\node [nod2] at (1,4) (v7)[label=above:$35$]{}
edge [] (v3)
edge [bend right=60] (v1);
\node [nod2] at (4.5,4) (v8)[label=above:$14$]{}
edge [] (v7)
edge [] (v4)
edge [] (v5);
\node [nod2] at (7.8,4) (v9)[label=above:$26$]{}
edge [bend left=60] (v2)
edge [] (v8)
edge [] (v6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The associahedral graph $A(6)$.}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}[Associahedral graphs]
For $n\geq 4$, we consider a (convex) realization of the $n$-cycle graph $C_n$ (an $n$-gon) in the plane. Then, the \emph{associahedral graph} $A(n)$ is defined to be the graph whose vertices are $\frac{n(n-3)}{2}$-diagonals of $C_n$, thas is, the edge set of the complement graph $\overline{C}_n$, such that two vertices form an edge in $A(n)$ if and only if the corresponding diagonals intersect at some interior point of $C_n$. The independence complex of $A(n)$ is known as the \emph{simplicial associahedron} (see \cite{CL} for more details), and it is a simplicial manifold of dimension $(n-4)$.
Observe that $A(4)\cong K_2$ and $A(5)\cong C_5$, while we depict the graph $A(6)$ in Figure~\ref{fig:fig1}. Notice that the graph $A(6)$ is not vertex-transitive.
Note also that the graph $A(n)$ is a strongly $\theta$-prime graph with $\theta(A(n))=n-3$ and $\operatorname{im}(A(n))=\lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1$ for each $n\geq 4$.
\end{example}
\section*{acknowledgement}
In the first version of our present work, we falsely thought that the theta-number equals the collapsibility number for every simplicial complex. We thank the anonymous reviewer of that version for bringing Example~\ref{exmp:kalai} to our attention.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Statement of main results} The purpose of this note is to show the following theorem regarding volume-preserving right-handed vector fields.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:mainTechnical} Let $X$ be a volume-preserving right-handed vector field on a closed, oriented rational homology three-sphere $M$ with volume form $\Omega$. Then the two-form $\omega = \Omega(X, -)$ is contact-type.
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{thm:mainTechnical} implies the titular theorem of this note, which states that a volume-preserving right-handed vector field is equal to a Reeb vector field after multiplication by a positive smooth function.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main} Any volume-preserving right-handed vector field $X$ on a closed, oriented rational homology three-sphere $M$ is conformally Reeb; there is a contact form $\lambda$ on $M$ with Reeb vector field $R$ and a positive smooth function $f > 0$ such that $R = fX$.
\end{thm}
Right-handed vector fields are a special class of non-singular vector fields on closed, oriented rational homology three-spheres introduced by Ghys \cite{Ghys09}. Informally, a non-singular vector field $X$ on a closed, oriented rational homology three-sphere is right-handed if any pair of long embedded loops which are nearly tangent to $X$ link positively. One example is the vector field generating the \emph{Hopf fibration} on the three-sphere $S^3$, where any pair of orbits form a Hopf link with linking number $1$. Theorem \ref{thm:main} indicates that, for any right-handed vector field $X$, there is a Reeb vector field $R$ with the same simple periodic orbits as $X$.
Taubes' proof \cite{TaubesWeinstein} of the Weinstein conjecture in dimension three shows that any Reeb flow on a closed $3$-manifold has at least one simple periodic orbit; a quantitative refinement by Cristofaro-Gardiner--Hutchings \cite{CGH} shows that there are at least two. We deduce the following corollary from this discussion and Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:orbits} Any volume-preserving right-handed vector field $X$ on a closed, oriented rational homology three-sphere $M$ has at least two simple periodic orbits.
\end{cor}
Theorem \ref{thm:main} is sharp in the sense that there are volume-preserving right-handed vector fields which are not Reeb vector fields; right-handed vector fields remain right-handed under conformal change while the same is not true for Reeb vector fields. As a concrete example, consider the Reeb vector field $R$ on $S^3 \subset \mathbb{R}^4$ associated to the standard Liouville contact form. The vector field $R$ generates the Hopf fibration, so all of its orbits are periodic. Wadsley's theorem\footnote{The theorem is stated for geodesible vector fields, but all Reeb vector fields are geodesible.} \cite{Wadsley75} shows that for any Reeb vector field on a closed, connected, oriented three-dimensional manifold, all of whose orbits are periodic, the orbits share a common period. We fix a positive function $f$ on $S^3$ such that the vector field $X = fR$ has all of its orbits closed, but two periodic orbits have rationally independent minimal periods. Therefore, $X$ cannot be a Reeb vector field, but it is right-handed because it is a multiple of the right-handed vector field $R$ by a positive smooth function. It is also volume-preserving; if we write $\Omega$ for the volume form on $S^3$ then $X$ preserves the volume form $f^{-1}\Omega$.
Right-handed vector fields are interesting from a dynamical perspective because they potentially admit an abundance of global surfaces of section. A \emph{global surface of section} for a vector field $X$ on a three-manifold $M$ is a compact, embedded, oriented\footnote{We follow the orientation conventions in \cite[Remark $1.4$]{FlorioHryniewicz21}. The orientation on a global surface of section $\Sigma$ is the one determined by the orientation of $M$ and the co-orientation of $\Sigma \setminus \partial\Sigma$ by $X$.} surface $\Sigma$ with oriented boundary $\partial\Sigma$ equal to a union of periodic orbits of $X$, such that $\Sigma \setminus \partial\Sigma$ is transverse to $X$ and at any point $p \in M$ the forward and backward orbits of $p$ under the flow of $X$ both intersect $\Sigma$. The first return map for the surface of section $\Sigma$ induces a diffeomorphism from $\Sigma$ to itself, effectively reducing the study of the three-dimensional flow of $X$ to the study of a two-dimensional surface diffeomorphism.
This has been used to great effect, for example, by Hofer--Wysocki--Zehnder \cite{HWZ} and Cristofaro-Gardiner--Hutchings--Pomerleano \cite{CGHP} to show that many Reeb flows have two or infinitely many periodic orbits. The general strategy is to show that the Reeb flow has a genus zero surface of section $\Sigma$ with at least one boundary component (which relies on pseudoholomorphic curve techniques in both cases). Then the first return map of the Reeb flow induces an area-preserving diffeomorphism on $\Sigma$, and any periodic orbit of the Reeb flow either is a boundary component or induced by an periodic point in $\Sigma$. Then one can appeal to a theorem of Franks \cite{franks} showing that area-preserving maps of an annulus have zero or infinitely many periodic points, which given the above proves the desired result.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:ghys}
\cite{Ghys09} Let $X$ be a right-handed vector field on a closed, oriented rational homology three-sphere $M$. Then any collection of periodic orbits of $X$ bound a global surface of section.
\end{thm}
We refer the reader to Dehornoy \cite{Dehornoy17} and Florio--Hryniewicz \cite{FlorioHryniewicz21} for results demonstrating that certain geodesic and Reeb flows, respectively, are right-handed. An alternate proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ghys} can also be found in \cite[Appendix $B$]{FlorioHryniewicz21}. Corollary \ref{cor:orbits} and Theorem \ref{thm:ghys} imply the unconditional existence of global surfaces of section for volume-preserving right-handed vector fields.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:gss}
Any volume-preserving right-handed vector field $X$ on a closed, oriented rational homology three-sphere $M$ with volume form $\Omega$ admits a global surface of section.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Conventions and notation} For the rest of this note, we fix the following notation. Fix a closed, oriented rational homology three-sphere $M$ equipped with a volume form $\Omega$ of volume $1$. Fix a smooth, non-singular volume-preserving vector field $X$ with flow $\{\phi^t\}_{t \in \bR}$ and define the two-form $\omega = \Omega(X, -)$. An application of Cartan's formula to the identity $L_X\Omega = 0$ shows that $\omega$ is closed. We will at times abuse notation and regard the three-form $\Omega$ as an $X$-invariant probability measure. Fix also the notation $\cP(X)$ for the space of $X$-invariant Borel probability measures, and fix a Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$ such that $\|X\|_g \equiv 1$. We do not require that the volume form associated to $g$ is equal to $\Omega$.
\subsection{Outline of proof} The strategy of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainTechnical} is as follows. We will define, via a Hopf-type integral, a function $\Lk_\omega$ on the space of $X$-invariant probability measures. This is another version of the ``linking number'' of an invariant measure $\mu$ and the volume form $\Omega$ first introduced in \cite{Ghys09}. We will show that if $X$ is right-handed, then $\Lk_\omega(\mu)$ is positive for any $X$-invariant probability measure $\mu$. It is then immediate from McDuff's contact-type criterion \cite{McDuff87} that $\omega$ is contact-type as desired.
\subsection{Acknowledgements} I would like to thank my advisor, Helmut Hofer, as well as Julian Chaidez, Umberto Hryniewicz, and Georgios Kotsovolis for useful conversations regarding this work. This work is supported by the NSF under Award \#DGE-1656466.
\section{The Gauss linking form} \label{sec:gaussLinking}
Our main technical tool will be the \emph{Gauss linking form}, as introduced by Vogel \cite{Vogel03}. The Gauss linking form, which we denote by $L$, is a \emph{double form} on the product manifold $M \times M$. The \textbf{bundle of double forms} $$\pi_L^*(\Lambda^*(T^*M)) \otimes \pi_R^*(\Lambda^*(T^*M))$$ over $M \times M$ is the tensor product of the pullbacks of the bundle $\Lambda^*(T^*M)$ of differential forms by the projections
$$\pi_L,\,\pi_R: M \times M \to M.$$
Any differential form $\eta$ induces two distinct double forms $\eta^L$ and $\eta^R$, constructed by pulling back $\eta$ by $\pi_L$ and $\pi_R$ respectively. There are left and right exterior derivative operators $d_L$ and $d_R$ acting on double forms, as well as left and right Hodge star operators $\star_L$ and $\star_R$ induced by the Riemannian metric. The grading on $\Lambda^*(T^*M)$ induces a bigrading on the bundle of double forms. The operators $d_L$ and $d_R$ have bidegree $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$.
Let $\cG$ denote the \emph{Green's form} of the Hodge Laplacian $\Delta$ associated to the Riemannian metric. This is an integrable double form, smooth outside the diagonal and satisfying the pointwise bound
$$\|\cG_{p,q}\| \lesssim \text{dist}(p,q)^{-1},$$
such that for any differential form $\beta$ the differential form
$$\eta_p = \int_{M} \cG_{p,q} \wedge \beta_q$$
satisfies the equation $\Delta \eta = \beta$. An explicit construction, using the Riemannian distance function to construct a parametrix, is found in \cite[Chapter V]{deRham}. The \emph{Gauss linking form} is defined by
$$\cL = \star_R d_R \cG.$$
It is immediate that $\cL$ is integrable and smooth outside of the diagonal in $M \times M$, satisfying the pointwise bound
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linkingFormBound} \|\cL_{p,q}\| \lesssim \text{dist}(p,q)^{-2}.\end{equation}
It will also be important to note the following behavior of $\cL$ with respect to the volume measure $\Omega$, which is also mentioned in \cite{KotschickVogel}. Write $\|\cL\|_R$ for the norm of $\cL$ in the right factor, which in terms of local product coordinates $(p,q)$ on $M \times M$ is equal to a differential form in the $p$-coordinates which may have coefficients depending on both $p$ and $q$. Then for each $p \in M$ the differential form
$$\int_M \|\cL_{p,q}\|_R \Omega(q)$$
exists and varies continuously in $p$. Next, we note the following technical property of the Gauss linking form $\cL$, proved in \cite{Vogel03}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:linkingFormIdentity} \cite[Lemma $2$]{Vogel03} For any smooth one-form $\eta$ on $M$ there is a smooth function $h$ on $M$ such that for any $p \in M$,
$$\eta(p) - \int_M (d\eta)^R_q \wedge \cL_{p,q} = dh(p).$$
\end{lem}
Lemma \ref{lem:linkingFormIdentity} was used by Vogel to show that $\cL$ can be used to compute the linking number of two loops in $M$. It can be thought of as saying that $\cL$ is an ``inverse'' to the exterior derivative operator up to an error given by an exact form.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:gaussLinking} \cite[Theorem $3$]{Vogel03} Let $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ be a pair of disjoint, oriented embedded loops in $M$. Then the linking number $\text{link}(\gamma_1, \gamma_2)$ is equal to the integral
$$\int_{\gamma_1 \times \gamma_2} \cL.$$
\end{lem}
The final property of the Gauss linking form we need is the boundedness of its integral on pairs of short geodesics.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:gaussLinkingGeodesics} Fix $r_0 \leq \text{injrad}(g)/100$. Then there is a constant $C = C(g) > 0$ depending on the Riemannian metric such that for any pair of embedded geodesics $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ of length less than or equal to $r_0$, intersecting at most once,
$$|\int_{\gamma_1 \times \gamma_2} \cL| \leq C.$$
\end{lem}
Lemma \ref{lem:gaussLinkingGeodesics} is stated less formally in the proof of \cite[Theorem $5$]{Vogel03}, as well as in \cite{ArnoldKhesin}. It follows from an explicit computation in the case where the Riemannian manifold $(M, g)$ is $\bR^3$ with the Euclidean metric; the case of a general Riemannian metric on a closed $3$-manifold can be reduced to the Euclidean case by taking geodesic normal coordinates. Our main application, Proposition \ref{prop:LkOmegaRightHanded} below, will as a consequence of making some convenient assumptions on the Riemannian metric $g$ require only the computation in the Euclidean case.
To illustrate the idea behind this computation for the reader, we discuss it in a simple case. When $M = \bR^3$ and $g$ is the Euclidean metric, the Gauss linking form is the double form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:euclideanLinkingForm} \cL_{p,q}(V, W) = \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{\langle V, W \times (p - q)\rangle}{\|V - W\|^3}.\end{equation}
The ``$\times$'' symbol denotes in this case the cross product of vectors in $\bR^3$. Let $\gamma_1, \gamma_2: \bR \to \bR^3$ be two straight lines intersecting once. It follows that for any $s$ and $t$, the vector $\gamma_1(s) - \gamma_2(t)$ is a linear combination of $\dot{\gamma}_1(s)$ and $\dot{\gamma}_2(t)$, from which it follows that
$$\langle \dot{\gamma}_1(s), \dot{\gamma}_2(t) \times (\gamma_1(s) - \gamma_2(t)) \rangle \equiv 0$$
which using (\ref{eq:euclideanLinkingForm}) implies that the integral of $\cL$ over the product of the two lines vanishes.
\section{The linking of an invariant measure with the volume}
\subsection{The function $\Lk_\omega$}
For every $X$-invariant probability measure $\mu \in \cP(X)$, choose a primitive $\nu$ of $\omega$ and define the quantity
$$\Lk_\omega(\mu) = \int_M \nu(X) d\mu.$$
\begin{lem}
For any $\mu \in \cP(X)$, the quantity $\text{Lk}_\omega(\mu)$ does not depend on the choice of primitive $\nu$ of $\omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $M$ is a rational homology three-sphere, any two primitives $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ of $\omega$ differ by an exact one-form $df$ for $f \in C^\infty(M)$. Let $\mu$ be an $X$-invariant probability measure. Since it is $X$-invariant, we find for any smooth function $g: M \to \mathbb{R}$ that
$$\int_M dg(X) d\mu = 0.$$
We use this to show that the two versions of $\Lk_\omega$ for $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ coincide:
\begin{equation*}
\int_M (\nu_1(X) - \nu_2(X)) d\mu = \int_M df(X) d\mu = 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Right-handed vector fields} \label{subsec:rightHanded} We now describe Ghys' notion of right-handedness of a non-singular vector field on a rational homology three-sphere. We use the definition given in \cite[Section $2.2$]{FlorioHryniewicz21}.
Let $Y$ be a non-singular smooth vector field on $M$. Denote the flow of $Y$ by $\{\psi^t\}_{t \in \bR}$. Denote the set of recurrent points of the flow of $Y$ by $\cR(Y)$. There is an associated measurable subset
$$R(Y) = \{(p,q) \in \cR(Y) \times \cR(Y)\,|\,\psi^{\bR}(p) \cap \psi^{\bR}(q) = \emptyset\}$$
of $M \times M$.
\subsubsection{Positive linking of ergodic invariant measures} Fix any two ergodic measures $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ in $\cP(Y)$. It follows by the ergodicity assumption and the definition of $R(Y)$ that one of the following two conditions hold.
\begin{comment}
We sketch here a proof that at least one of Condition $1$ and Condition $2$ holds. Suppose that $(\mu_1 \times \mu_2)(R) < 1$. Let $E \subset \mathcal{R}(Y)$ be the invariant set of $p \in M$ such that $\mathcal{R}(Y) \setminus \psi^{\bR}(p)$ has zero $\mu_2$-measure. Then our assumption that $(\mu_1 \times \mu_2)(R) < 1$ implies that $E$ has positive measure, and since $\mu_1$ is ergodic this implies $E$ has full $\mu_1$-measure.
Note that $\mathcal{R}(Y)$ has full measure by Poincar\'e recurrence, so we conclude from this that $\mu_2(\psi^{\bR}(p)) = 1$ for each $p \in E$. This implies by invariance and countable subadditivity of $\mu_2$ that $\psi^{\bR}(p)$ is a closed orbit for any $p \in E$ and $\mu_2$ is supported within $\psi^{\bR}(p)$. It follows from this that for any $p$ and $q$ in $E$, $\psi^{\bR}(p) = \psi^{\bR}(q)$. Call this common orbit $\gamma$. We conclude that $E$ is equal to $\gamma$ and so $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are both supported in $\gamma$.
\end{comment}
\textbf{Condition 1:} $(\mu_1 \times \mu_2)(R) = 1$. We define in this case the notion of \textbf{positive linking} of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$. Fix $(p, q) \in R(X)$ and let $\cS(p, q)$ denote the set of ordered pairs of monotonically increasing sequences $(\{S_n\}, \{T_n\})$ such that $S_n, T_n \to \infty$, $\psi^{S_n}(p) \to p$ and $\psi^{T_n}(q) \to q$. For $n \gg 1$ let $\alpha_n = \sigma(\psi^{S_n}(p), p)$ and $\beta_n = \sigma(\psi^{T_n}(q), q)$ be the shortest geodesic arcs from $\psi^{S_n}(p)$ to $p$ and from $\psi^{T_n}(q)$ to $q$, respectively. For each $n$, fix $C^1$-small perturbations $\hat{\alpha}_n$, $\hat{\beta}_n$ of $\alpha_n$ and $\beta_n$, respectively, so that the loops
$$k(S_n, p) = \psi^{[0,S_n]}(p) \cup \hat{\alpha}_n$$
and
$$k(T_n, q) = \psi^{[0,T_n]}(q) \cup \hat{\beta}_n$$
do not intersect. Define
$$\link_-(\psi^{[0,S_n]}(p), \psi^{[0,T_n]}(q)) = \liminf_{\hat{\alpha}_n \xrightarrow{C^1} \alpha_n, \hat{\beta}_n\xrightarrow{C^1}\beta_n} \link(k(S_n,p), k(T_n,q))$$
and
$$\ell(p,q) = \inf_{(\{S_n\},\{T_n\}) \in \cS(p,q)} \liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{S_n T_n}\link_-(\psi^{[0,S_n]}(p), \psi^{[0,T_n]}(q)).$$
We say that $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are \textbf{positively linked} if there is a subset $E \subset R(Y)$ of full $(\mu_1 \times \mu_2)$-measure such that $\ell(p,q) > 0$ for every $(p, q) \in E$.
\textbf{Condition 2:} $(\mu_1 \times \mu_2)(R) = 0$ and $\text{supp}(\mu_1) \cup \text{supp}(\mu_2) = \gamma$ for some periodic orbit $\gamma$. We say $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are \textbf{positively linked} if the periodic orbit $\gamma$ has positive rotation number in a Seifert framing.
\subsubsection{Definition of right-handedness} Given the definition of positive linking of pairs of ergodic measures above, we say that the vector field $Y$ is \textbf{right-handed} if any pair of ergodic measures $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ is positively linked.
\subsection{$\Lk_\omega$ is positive for right-handed vector fields} The aim of this subsection is to show the following proposition.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:LkOmegaRightHanded}
Let $\mu \in \cP(X)$ be any $X$-invariant probability measure. If the vector field $X$ is right-handed then $\Lk_\omega(\mu) > 0$.
\end{prop}
We use Lemma \ref{lem:linkingFormIdentity} to compute $\Lk_\omega$ in terms of the Gauss linking form. Let $\cL$ be the Gauss linking form from Section \ref{sec:gaussLinking}. For any pair of vector fields $Y_1$ and $Y_2$, we will use the notation $\cL(Y_1, Y_2)$ to denote the contraction of the bidegree $(1,1)$ part of the double form $\cL$ with $Y_1$ and $Y_2$. Lemma \ref{lem:lkOmegaComputation} is essentially contained in the work of Kotschick--Vogel \cite{KotschickVogel}, using the correspondence between invariant measures $\mu \in \cP(X)$ and Ruelle-Sullivan cycles for $X$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:lkOmegaComputation}
For any $X$-invariant probability measure $\mu$, $\cL(X, X)$ is integrable with respect to the product measure $d\mu \times \Omega$ and
$$\Lk_\omega(\mu) = \int_{M \times M} \cL_{p,q}(X, X) (d\mu \times \Omega)(p,q).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that for any exact one-form $dh$, the fact that $\mu$ is an invariant probability measure implies that
$$\int_M dh(X) d\mu = 0.$$
Then the lemma follows from Lemma \ref{lem:linkingFormIdentity}:
\begin{align*}
\Lk_\omega(\mu) &= \int_M (\iota_X \nu)_p d\mu(p) \\
&= \int_M \iota_X\big(\int_M \omega_q \wedge \cL_{p,q}) d\mu(p) \\
&= \int_M \iota_X \big(\int_M \cL_{p,q}(-, X) \Omega(q)\big) d\mu(p) \\
&= \int_M \big(\int_M \cL_{p,q}(X, X)\Omega(q)\big) d\mu(p).
\end{align*}
For any fixed $p \in M$, the function $\cL_{p,q}(X, X)$ is integrable with respect to the measure $\Omega(q)$. From what was said in Section \ref{sec:gaussLinking}, the function
$$\int_M |\cL_{p,q}(X, X)| \Omega(q)$$
varies continuously in $p$. The lemma then follows from Fubini's theorem and the prior computation.
\end{proof}
We are now equipped to prove Proposition \ref{prop:LkOmegaRightHanded}. This will use the above computation, Tempelman's multiparameter pointwise ergodic theorem (\cite{Tempelman72}, \cite[Chapter $6$]{TempelmanBook}), and the fact that the integral of the linking form computes linking numbers of loops. For the purposes of computation, we will assume that the Riemannian metric $g$ takes on the following form. Fix some positive constant $r_0 \ll 1$. Write $(\overline{B}_{r_0}(0), g_{\text{Euc}})$ for the closed Euclidean ball in $\mathbb{R}^3$ of radius $r_0$. Then we assume that there are isometric embeddings
$$\iota_1,\,\iota_2: (\overline{B}_{r_0}(0), g_{\text{Euc}}) \hookrightarrow (M, g)$$
with disjoint images such that
$$(\iota_i)_*(\partial_z) = X$$
for $i \in \{1,2\}$, where we write the coordinates on $\mathbb{R}^3$ as $(x, y, z)$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:LkOmegaRightHanded}]
Suppose $X$ is right-handed. We will assume for the sake of contradiction that $\Lk_\omega(\mu) \leq 0$ for some $\mu \in \cP(X)$. The proof then proceeds in $6$ steps.
\textbf{Step 1:} This step reduces the proposition to the case where $\mu$ is ergodic. The ergodic decomposition theorem shows that if
$$\Lk_\omega(\mu) = \int_M \nu(X) d\mu \leq 0,$$ for some $\mu \in \cP(X)$ then there must be some ergodic probability invariant measure $\mu_*$ such that $\Lk_\omega(\mu_*) \leq 0$. Therefore, we assume without loss of generality in the following steps that there is an \emph{ergodic} measure $\mu \in \cP(X)$ such that $\Lk_\omega(\mu) \leq 0$ and derive a contradiction, which will prove the proposition. We will split up the proof into two cases and derive a contradiction in each case. The first case, which is the subject of Steps $2$ through $5$, assumes that $\mu$ does not have support in a periodic orbit of $X$. The second case, which is the subject of Step $6$, assumes that $\mu$ is supported in a periodic orbit of $X$.
\textbf{Step 2:} Our assumptions and the computation from Lemma \ref{lem:lkOmegaComputation} imply the inequality
$$\int_{M \times M} \cL_{p,q}(X, X) (d\mu \times \Omega)(p, q) \leq 0.$$
It is also important to note that $\cL_{p,q}(X, X) \in L^1(M \times M; \mu \times \Omega)$.
\textbf{Step 3:} Another application of the ergodic decomposition theorem to the inequality from the previous step produces an ergodic invariant probability measure $\eta \in \cP(X)$ such that $\cL_{p,q}(X, X) \in L^1(M \times M, \mu \times \eta)$ and
$$\int_{M \times M} \cL_{p,q}(X, X) (d\mu \times d\eta)(p, q) \leq 0.$$
Write $R = R(X)$ for the set introduced in Section \ref{subsec:rightHanded}. Since we are assuming that $\mu$ does not have support contained in a periodic orbit, it follows that $(\mu \times \eta)(R) = 1$. Since $X$ is right-handed the measures $\mu$ and $\eta$ are ``positively linked'' in the sense described in Condition $1$ in Section \ref{subsec:rightHanded}. Tempelman's multiparameter pointwise ergodic theorem (\cite{Tempelman72}, \cite[Corollary $6.3.3$]{TempelmanBook}) tells us that the pointwise limit
$$\lim_{S, T \nearrow \infty} \frac{1}{ST} \int_{\phi^{[0,S]}(p) \times \phi^{[0,T]}(q)} \cL = \int_{M \times M} \cL_{p,q}(X, X)(d\mu \times d\eta)(p, q)$$
exists almost everywhere. Here the notation ``$\nearrow$'' indicates that $S$ and $T$ are taken to be monotonically increasing.
The prior inequality tells us that there is a Borel set $E \subset M \times M$ such that $(\mu \times \eta)(E) = 1$ and for any $(p, q) \in E$, the limit
$$\lim_{S, T \nearrow \infty} \frac{1}{ST} \int_{\phi^{[0,S]}(p) \times \phi^{[0,T]}(q)} \cL$$
exists and is non-positive.
\textbf{Step 4:} In Steps $4$ and $5$, we use the inequality from Step $3$ and the fact that the ergodic measures $\mu$ and $\eta$ are positively linked to derive a contradiction. Recall the quantity $\ell(p,q)$ defined in Section \ref{subsec:rightHanded}. Since $\mu$ and $\eta$ are positively linked, we can choose a pair of points $(p, q) \in E \cap R$ such that $\ell(p,q) > 0$. Moreover, we can assume without loss of generality that, after possibly shrinking $r_0$ slightly,
$$p = \iota_1(0)$$
and
$$q = \iota_2(0)$$
where $\iota_1$ and $\iota_2$ are the isometric embeddings of Euclidean balls $(\overline{B}_{r_0}(0), g_{\text{Euc}})$ fixed prior to the beginning of the proof of the proposition.
It follows from the prior step that for any pair $(\{S_n\}, \{T_n\}) \in \mathcal{S}(p,q)$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lkOmegaRightHanded1} \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{S_n T_n} \int_{\phi^{[0,S_n]}(p) \times \phi^{[0,T_n]}(q)} \cL \leq 0. \end{equation}
For any $n$, let $\alpha_n$ and $\beta_n$ be the shortest geodesic arcs from $\phi^{S_n}(p)$ to $p$ and from $\phi^{T_n}(q)$ to $q$, respectively. Choose for any $n$ small $C^1$ perturbations $\hat{\alpha}_n$ of $\alpha_n$ and $\hat{\beta}_n$ of $\beta_n$ such that the loops $k(S_n, p)$ and $k(T_n, q)$ given by closing up the flow lines $\phi^{[0,S_n]}(p)$ and $\phi^{[0,T_n]}(q)$ by $\hat{\alpha}_n$ and $\hat{\beta}_n$ are disjoint. Then using the fact that $\ell(p, q) > 0$, then it follows for any $n$ there is a constant $\epsilon_n = \epsilon_n(p, q, \{S_n\}, \{T_n\}) > 0$ depending on $n$, the pair $(p, q)$, and the pair $(\{S_n\}, \{T_n\})$ such that if
$$\text{dist}_{C^1}(\alpha_n, \hat{\alpha}_n) + \text{dist}_{C^1}(\beta_n, \hat{\beta}_n) \leq \epsilon_n$$
for every $n$, we find
$$\liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{S_n T_n}\text{link}(k(S_n, p), k(T_n, q)) > 0.$$
Observe by Lemma \ref{lem:gaussLinking} that for any $n$,
$$\text{link}(k(S_n, p), k(T_n, q)) = \int_{k(S_n, p) \times k(T_n, q)} \cL.$$
We conclude that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lkOmegaRightHanded2} \liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{S_n T_n}\int_{k(S_n, p) \times k(T_n, q)} \cL > 0\end{equation}
where we continue to assume that the $C^1$ perturbations are taken to be of size at most $\epsilon_n$ for any $n$.
Subtracting (\ref{eq:lkOmegaRightHanded1}) from (\ref{eq:lkOmegaRightHanded2}) yields the inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lkOmegaRightHanded3} \liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{S_n T_n} \big(\int_{\phi^{[0,S_n]}(p) \times \hat{\beta}_n} + \int_{\hat{\alpha}_n \times \phi^{[0,T_n]}(q)} + \int_{\hat{\alpha}_n \times \hat{\beta}_n}\big) \cL > 0.
\end{equation}
We will derive a contradiction by showing that, for some suitable choice of pair $(\{S_n\}, \{T_n\}) \in \cS(p,q)$ and subsequent choice of approximations $\hat{\alpha}_n$ and $\hat{\beta}_n$, there is some uniform constant $C \geq 1$ such that
\begin{gather}
\label{ineq:contradiction1} |\int_{\phi^{[0,S_n]}(p) \times \hat{\beta}_n} \cL| \leq CS_n, \\
\label{ineq:contradiction2} |\int_{\hat{\alpha}_n \times \phi^{[0,T_n]}(q)} \cL| \leq CT_n, \\
\label{ineq:contradiction3} |\int_{\hat{\alpha}_n \times \hat{\beta}_n} \cL| \leq C.
\end{gather}
The bounds (\ref{ineq:contradiction1}--\ref{ineq:contradiction3}) are incompatible with the inequality (\ref{eq:lkOmegaRightHanded3}), which leads to a contradiction and therefore a proof of the proposition in the case where the measure $\mu$ is ergodic with support not contained in a periodic orbit. Note that the bound (\ref{ineq:contradiction3}) is straightforward using the pointwise bound (\ref{eq:linkingFormBound}) for the linking form, since by definition for sufficiently large $n$ the distance between $\hat{\alpha}_n$ and $\hat{\beta}_n$ is bounded below by $\text{dist}(p,q)/2$.
\textbf{Step 5:} This step proves the inequality (\ref{ineq:contradiction1}). The argument for the inequality (\ref{ineq:contradiction2}) is identical after cosmetic changes, in particular replacing all uses of the embedding $\iota_2$ with the embedding $\iota_1$.
Recall from the choice of $(p,q)$ in Step $4$ that there are isometric embeddings
$$\iota_1,\,\iota_2: (B_{r_0}(0), g_{\text{Euc}}) \hookrightarrow (M, g)$$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\iota_1(0) = p$ and $\iota_2(0) = q$.
\item $(\iota_i)_*(\partial_z) = X$ for $i \in \{1,2\}$.
\end{itemize}
For any positive $r \leq r_0$, we write $D_{r} = \{ (x, y, 0) \in B_{r_0}(0)\,|\,|x|^2 + |y|^2 < r^2\}$ for the open disk of radius $r$ in the $xy$-plane. We now fix the pair $(\{S_n\}, \{T_n\}) \in \cS(p,q)$ to be such that for any $n$, the point $\phi^{T_n}(q)$ lies in the embedded disk $\iota_2(D_{r_0/4} \times \{0\})$. For every $n$, write $(x_n, y_n, 0)$ for the unique point in $D_{r_0/4}$ such that
$$\iota_2(x_n, y_n, 0) = \phi^{T_n}(q).$$
It follows that the unique length-minimizing geodesic $\beta_n$ from $\phi^{T_n}(q)$ to $q$ is the composition of $\iota_2$ with the radial path
$$t \mapsto ((1-t)x_n, (1-t)y_n, 0)$$
for $t \in [0,1]$. Let $\gamma_n$ be any segment of the flow-line $\phi^{[0,S_n]}(p)$ of length $2r_0$. If $\gamma_n$ is disjoint from the image of the embedding $\iota_2$, it follows from the bound (\ref{eq:linkingFormBound}) that the integral of the linking form on $\gamma_n \times \beta_n$ is uniformly bounded in $n$:
\begin{equation} \label{ineq:outsideBound} |\int_{\gamma_n \times \beta_n} \cL| \lesssim 1. \end{equation}
We now only need to bound the integral of $\gamma_n \times \beta_n$ when $\gamma_n$ is not disjoint from the image of $\iota_2$. To do so, it suffices to consider the case where $\gamma_n$ is the composition of $\iota_2$ with the curve
$$t \mapsto (x, y, t)$$
for $t \in (-r_0, r_0)$ and some fixed $(x, y, 0) \in D_{r_0/2}$. This is because, in the coordinates given by $\iota_2$, the flow-lines of $X$ are flow-lines of the coordinate vector field $\partial_z$.
Fix any $(x, y, 0)$ in $D_{r_0/2}$ and set $\gamma_{x,y}$ to be the composition of $\iota_2$ with the curve
$$t \mapsto (x, y, t)$$
for $t \in (-r_0, r_0)$. Since the metric is Euclidean in the image of the embedding $\iota_2$, both $\gamma_{x,y}$ and $\beta_n$ are short geodesics. We also observe that $\gamma_{x,y}$ and $\beta_n$ intersect at most once, at a right angle. It then follows from Lemma \ref{lem:gaussLinkingGeodesics} that the integral of $\cL$ over $\gamma_{x,y} \times \beta_n$ is bounded independently of the choice of $(x, y)$ or $n$:
\begin{equation} \label{ineq:flowBoxBound} |\int_{\gamma_{x,y} \times \beta_n} \cL| \lesssim 1. \end{equation}
The inequalities (\ref{ineq:outsideBound}) and (\ref{ineq:flowBoxBound}) suffice to show the inequality (\ref{ineq:contradiction1}). This is because the flow-line $\phi^{[0,S_n]}$ is covered by $\lesssim S_n$ segments of size $2r_0$. We split up the integral on the left-hand side of (\ref{ineq:contradiction1}) along this cover and deduce the desired inequality by application of (\ref{ineq:outsideBound}) or (\ref{ineq:flowBoxBound}) to the integral corresponding to each segment.
\textbf{Step 6:} We now address the case where $\mu$ is ergodic and supported in a periodic orbit $\gamma$ of the vector field $X$ of minimal period $S > 0$. It follows that
$$\Lk_\omega(\mu) = \frac{1}{S}\int_\gamma \nu$$
and, by our assumption,
$$\int_\gamma \nu \leq 0$$
where $\nu$ is any primitive of $\omega$. Theorem \ref{thm:ghys} implies that $\gamma$ bounds a global surface of section $\Sigma$. The orientation on $\Sigma$ inducing the orientation by $X$ on $\gamma$ coincides with the orientation induced by the ambient orientation on $M$ and the co-orientation of $\Sigma \setminus \gamma$ by $X$, see the convention in \cite[Remark $1.4$]{FlorioHryniewicz21}. Then $\Sigma$ is positively transverse to $X$ at any point not on its boundary, and it follows that the two-form $\omega$ is pointwise positive on the tangent plane at any non-boundary point of $\Sigma$. We then conclude using Stokes theorem the inequality
$$0 < \int_\Sigma \omega = \int_\gamma \nu \leq 0$$
and therefore arrive at a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
A more elegant proof of Proposition \ref{prop:LkOmegaRightHanded} can be derived from the results of Ghys' original paper \cite{Ghys09} on right-handed vector fields. Ghys demonstrates the existence of a ``universal linking form'' $\overline{\cL}$, a double form such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{\cL} = \cL + d_L d_R f$, where $f$ is some smooth function on $M \times M$.
\item The function $\overline{\cL}(X, X)$ is smooth and pointwise positive on the complement of the diagonal in $M \times M$.
\end{itemize}
Then Proposition \ref{prop:LkOmegaRightHanded} is immediate from the properties of $\overline{\cL}$ and the computation in Lemma \ref{lem:lkOmegaComputation}. We present a different proof above to avoid delving into the details of Ghys' linking form for invariant measures. We also note that, following the approach of Kotschick--Vogel \cite{KotschickVogel}, one should be able to show that the linking number $\Lk_\omega(\mu)$ is equal to $\Lk_{\text{Ghys}}(\mu, \Omega)$, where we use $\Lk_{\text{Ghys}}$ to denote Ghys' linking form. This would provide a third proof of Proposition \ref{prop:LkOmegaRightHanded}, since by definition $\Lk_{\text{Ghys}}(\mu, \Omega) > 0$ when the vector field $X$ is right-handed.
\end{rem}
\section{Proof of Theorems \ref{thm:mainTechnical} and \ref{thm:main}}
We will use McDuff's contact-type criterion \cite{McDuff87} to deduce Theorem \ref{thm:mainTechnical}, and as a consequence Theorem \ref{thm:main}. The two-form $\omega$ on $M$ is said to be \textbf{contact-type} if there is a primitive $\nu$ such that $\nu \wedge \omega > 0$. The contact-type criterion gives a condition on the structure boundaries of $X$ for $\omega$ to be contact-type. A \textbf{structure boundary}\footnote{These are typically called \textbf{structure cycles}, but since $M$ is a rational homology $3$-sphere every structure cycle is a structure boundary.} is a $1$-dimensional current $X \otimes \mu$, where $\mu$ is an $X$-invariant measure, defined by
$$(X \otimes \mu)(\alpha) = \int_M \alpha(X) d\mu$$
where $\alpha$ is any smooth $1$-forms. Then McDuff's contact-type criterion states that $\omega$ is contact-type if and only if there is a primitive $\nu$ of $\omega$ such that for any structure boundary $X \otimes \mu$, we have
$$(X \otimes \mu)(\nu) \neq 0.$$
Observe that since $\mu$ is an $X$-invariant measure, this criterion does not depend on the choice of primitive $\nu$. Indeed by definition we have
$$(X \otimes \mu)(\nu) = \Lk_\omega(\mu).$$
Therefore, McDuff's contact-type criterion in our setting can be phrased as the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:mcduff}
\cite{McDuff87} Let $X$ be a non-singular volume-preserving vector field on a closed, oriented rational homology three-sphere $M$ with volume form $\Omega$. Then the two-form $\omega = \Omega(X, -)$ is contact-type if and only if $\Lk_\omega(\mu) \neq 0$ for any $X$-invariant probability measure $\mu$.
\end{thm}
We now finish the proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:mainTechnical} and \ref{thm:main}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainTechnical}]
Combine Proposition \ref{prop:LkOmegaRightHanded} and Theorem \ref{thm:mcduff}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}]
Theorem \ref{thm:mainTechnical} shows that $\omega$ is contact-type. Therefore, it admits a primitive $\nu$ such that $\nu \wedge \omega > 0$. The Reeb vector field $R$ of $\nu$ is the \emph{unique} vector field such that
$$\nu(R) \equiv 1 \qquad \qquad \omega(R, -) \equiv 0.$$
Observe that since $\nu \wedge \omega > 0$, the smooth function $\nu(X)$ is everywhere positive. If we set $f = \nu(X)^{-1}$, we compute
$$\nu(fX) \equiv 1 \qquad \qquad \omega(fX, -) \equiv 0.$$
It follows that $R = fX$ as desired.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{introduction}\label{1}
Let $G$ be a simple and simply connected complex Lie group. In Schubert calculus, an unpublished result of Peterson \cite{Peter}, first proved by Lam-Shimozono \cite{LS}, states that the Pontryagin product of the homology of the affine Grassmannian $Gr_G$ determines completely, via an explicit ring homomorphism defined in terms of the (affine) Schubert bases, the quantum cup product of the quantum cohomology of any flag variety $G/P$. Recently, Chow \cite{me} has given a new proof of this result by computing Savelyev's parametrized version \cite{S_QCC} of Seidel representations \cite{Seidel}.
In $K$-theory, Lam-Li-Mihalcea-Shimozono \cite{LLMS} conjectured a similar homomorphism for the case of $G/B$ where the bases are replaced by the structure sheaves of the (affine) Schubert varieties. Their conjecture was first proved by Kato \cite{Kato1, Kato2}. Kato also extended the result to the general parabolic case \cite{Kato3}. In this paper, we give an alternative proof of Kato's result by following the approach in \cite{me}.
\begin{theorem} \label{main} The map
\[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\Phi&:&K^T(Gr_G)&\rightarrow &QK_T(G/P)[\Lambda^{-1}]\\ [0.5em]
& & \OO_{wt_{\lambda}} & \mapsto & q^{\lambda+Q^{\vee}_P}\OO_{\widetilde{w}}
\end{array}
\]
is an $R(T)$-algebra homomorphism, where $\widetilde{w}$ is the minimal length coset representative of $wW_P$.
\end{theorem}
As already pointed out by Lam-Li-Mihalcea-Shimozono, Theorem \ref{main} implies immediately the finiteness property of the quantum $K$-product $\star$.
\begin{corollary} \label{introcor1} For any $v_1, v_2\in W^P$,
\[ \OO_{v_1}\star \OO_{v_2} \in K_T(G/P)\otimes \mathbb{Z}[\Lambda] .\]
\end{corollary}
\noindent Corollary \ref{introcor1} is not as obvious as the case of quantum cohomology because the moduli spaces of stable maps of arbitrary dimension contribute. What's more, as proved by Givental \cite{Givental}, in order for $\star$ to be associative, it is necessary to introduce a deformation of the Poincar\'e pairing $\chi_{G/P}(-\otimes -)$ by two-pointed $K$-theoretic GW invariants which is in general an infinite sum. Thus, the finiteness must follow from a non-trivial cancellation of terms. This issue has already been settled by Kato \cite{Kato1, Kato3, Kato2} and Anderson-Chen-Tseng \cite{ACT2}. See also the earlier work \cite{ACT1} of the authors of \cite{ACT2} and the work of Buch-Chaput-Mihalcea-Perrin \cite{BCMP1, BCMP2}.
\section*{Outline of the proof}
Our approach is to define a map by Gromov-Witten theory and show that it is an $R(T)$-algebra homomorphism and has the desired form.
We first recall the proof of Peterson's original result given in \cite{me}. Take $Gr_G$ to be Pressley-Segal's model \cite{Segal}. In \textit{loc. cit.}, they constructed, for any holomorphic map $f:\Gamma\rightarrow Gr_G$, a holomorphic principal $G$-bundle $P_f$ over $\mathbb{P}^1\times\Gamma$ with a trivialization over $(\mathbb{P}^1\setminus\{|z|\leqslant 1\})\times\Gamma$. In particular, we obtain a $G/P$-fibration $\fib{f}$ over $\mathbb{P}^1\times\Gamma$ by reduction of fibers. One should think of $\fib{f}$ as a holomorphic family of $G/P$-fibrations over $\mathbb{P}^1$ parametrized by $\Gamma$. For any section class $\beta$, define
\begin{center}
$\overline{\mathcal{M}}(f,\beta):=~$moduli stack of holomorphic sections in $\fib{f}$ representing $\beta$
\end{center}
and
\[\ev:\overline{\mathcal{M}}(f,\beta)\rightarrow G/P\]
to be the evaluation map at $\infty\in\mathbb{P}^1$. Thanks to the above trivialization, $\ev$ is well-defined.
For our purpose, we consider two classes of $f$: the $T$-fixed points of $Gr_G$ and Bott-Samelson resolutions of the affine Schubert varieties. They give rise to the localization basis $\{\eta_{\mu}\}_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}}$ and the affine Schubert basis $\{\xi_{wt_{\lambda}}\}_{wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-}$ of $H^T(Gr_G)$ respectively. Denote by $\MM(\mu,\b)$ and $\overline{\mathcal{M}}(wt_{\lambda},\beta)$ the corresponding moduli stacks defined above. Define the \textit{Savelyev-Seidel homomorphism} \cite{S_QCC, Seidel}
\[ \Phi_{QH}: H^T(Gr_G)\rightarrow QH_T(G/P)[\Lambda^{-1}]\]
either by
\begin{equation}\label{introdef1}
\Phi_{QH}(\eta_{\mu}):= \sum_{\beta}q^{\beta} \ev_*[\MM(\mu,\b)]^{vir}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}\label{introdef2}
\Phi_{QH}(\xi_{wt_{\lambda}}):= \sum_{\beta}q^{\beta} \ev_*[\overline{\mathcal{M}}(wt_{\lambda},\beta)]^{vir}.
\end{equation}
By the virtual localization formula \cite{GP}, these two definitions are equivalent. \eqref{introdef1} is used when we show that $\Phi_{QH}$ is a ring homomorphism and \eqref{introdef2} is used for the computation. The former follows from a degeneration argument and the latter relies on the following key observation:
\begin{center}
$\MM(\wl,\b)$ is smooth and of expected dimension.
\end{center}
Since $\ev$ is $B$-equivariant, $\ev_*[\MM(\wl,\b)]$ is equal to a multiple of a Schubert class or zero depending on whether the generic fiber of $\ev$ has zero or positive dimension. This reduces our computation to a purely combinatorial problem which can be solved in a straightforward way.
Back to the situation in the present paper, we will prove Theorem \ref{main} by adapting the above approach to the $K$-theoretic settings. By recalling the definition of the quantum $K$-product, one expects that the $K$-theoretic Savelyev-Seidel homomorphism should be defined by incorporating a new feature that the contribution of each $\MM(\mu,\b)$ or $\MM(\wl,\b)$ be corrected by the two-pointed $K$-theoretic GW invariants (see the paragraph following Corollary \ref{introcor1}). Define
\[A_{G/P}:= \sum_{\beta\ne 0}q^{\beta}(\ev^{\beta}_2)_*(\ev^{\beta}_1)^*\]
where $\ev^{\beta}_1, \ev^{\beta}_2$ are the evaluation maps on $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta)$. The aforementioned correction is given by $(\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}$. Therefore, we define
\[\Phi_{QK} : K^T(Gr_G)\rightarrow QK_T(G/P)[\Lambda^{-1}]\]
by
\[ \Phi_{QK}(\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}):= (\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}\left(\sum_{\beta}q^{\beta}\ev_*[\mathcal{O}_{\MM(\wl,\b)}]\right).\]
where $\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is the $K$-theoretic analogue of $\xi_{wt_{\lambda}}$. That $\Phi_{QK}$ is a ring homomorphism follows from similar localization and degeneration arguments as well as an argument used by Givental \cite{Givental} and Lee \cite{Lee} in their proof of the $K$-theoretic WDVV equation.
The heart of the paper is the computation of $\Phi_{QK}(\OO_{wt_{\lambda}})$. Our strategy is to introduce a $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-action on $\MM(\wl,\b)$ by rescaling the domain of free loops in $G$, and apply Oprea's stacky version \cite{Oprea} of Bia\l{ynicki}-Birula's theorem \cite{BB} to this action. We show that if $\MM(\wl,\b)\ne\emptyset$, there exists a unique component of $\MM(\wl,\b)^{\mathbb{C}^{\times}}$ whose Bia\l{ynicki}-Birula cell is open, and hence
\begin{center}
$\MM(\wl,\b)$ is either empty or irreducible.
\end{center}
A more in-depth analysis of this component gives
\[\{\beta|~\MM(\wl,\b)\ne \emptyset\} = [\lambda]+\Lambda\]
and
\begin{equation}\label{introeq}
\ev_*[\mathcal{O}_{\MM(\wl,\b)}] = (\ev^{\beta-[\lambda]}_2)_*(\ev^{\beta-[\lambda]}_1)^*\ev_*[\mathcal{O}_{\overline{\mathcal{M}}(wt_{\lambda},[\lambda])}],\quad\beta\in [\lambda]+(\Lambda\setminus\{0\})
\end{equation}
where we put $[\lambda]:=\lambda+Q^{\vee}_P$ for simplicity, $\Lambda$ is the semigroup of effective curve classes and $\ev^{\beta-[\lambda]}_1, \ev^{\beta-[\lambda]}_2:\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-[\lambda])\rightarrow G/P$ are the evaluation maps. Summing up \eqref{introeq} over all $\beta$, weighted by $q^{\beta}$, we get
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{QK}(\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}) & = (\id +A_{G/P})^{-1}\circ (\id +A_{G/P})\left(q^{[\lambda]} \ev_*[\mathcal{O}_{\overline{\mathcal{M}}(wt_{\lambda},[\lambda])}]\right)\\
& = q^{[\lambda]} \ev_*[\mathcal{O}_{\overline{\mathcal{M}}(wt_{\lambda},[\lambda])}].
\end{align*}
The last term can easily be shown to be equal to $q^{[\lambda]}\OO_{\widetilde{w}}$ as stated in Theorem \ref{main}.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{2}
\subsection{Some Lie-theoretic notations} \label{2aa}
Let $G$ be a simple and simply connected complex Lie group and $T\subset G$ a maximal torus. Put $\mathfrak{g}:=\lie(G)$ and $\mathfrak{h}:=\lie(T)$. We have the root space decomposition
\[\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{h}\oplus\bigoplus_{\alpha\in R}\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}\]
where $R$ is the set of roots associated to the pair $(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h})$ and each $\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}$ is a one-dimensional eigenspace with respect to the adjoint action of $\mathfrak{h}$. Denote by $W$ the Weyl group. Fix a set $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\}$ of simple roots of $R$. Denote by $\alpha_i^{\vee}$ the corresponding coroots. Define $R^+\subset R$ to be the set of positive roots spanned by $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r$. Define $B^-$ (resp. $B^+$) to be the Borel subgroup of $G$ containing $T$ with Lie algebra equal to $\mathfrak{h}\oplus\bigoplus_{\alpha\in -R^+}\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}$ (resp. $\mathfrak{h}\oplus\bigoplus_{\alpha\in R^+}\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}$).
Define the affine Weyl group $W_{af}:=W\ltimesQ^{\vee}$ where $Q^{\vee}\subset\mathfrak{h}$ is the $\mathbb{Z}$-span of $\alpha^{\vee}_i$, $i=1,\ldots,r$. Typical elements of $W_{af}$ are denoted by $wt_{\lambda}$. Define the affine simple roots $\widetilde{\alpha}_0,\ldots,\widetilde{\alpha}_r$ by $\widetilde{\alpha}_0:=-\alpha_0+1$ and $\widetilde{\alpha}_i:=\alpha_i$ for $i=1,\ldots, r$, where $\alpha_0$ is the highest positive root.
\subsection{Algebraic K-theory} \label{2ab}
A good reference for the following materials is \cite{Ginzburg}.
Let $Y$ be a (finite-dimensional) scheme over $\mathbb{C}$ with an action of a complex torus $T$ (which will be the maximal torus fixed in Section \ref{2aa} throughout). Define $K_T(Y)$ (resp. $K^T(Y)$) to be the Grothendieck group of $T$-equivariant vector bundles (resp. $T$-equivariant coherent sheaves) on $Y$. If $Y$ is smooth and quasi-projective, they are known to be isomorphic.
Pullback and tensor product of vector bundles give rise to the pullback operator and a ring structure on $K_T(Y)$ respectively. Tensor product also defines a $K_T(Y)$-module structure on $K^T(Y)$, since for any vector bundle $E$, $E\otimes -$ is an exact functor on the abelian category of coherent sheaves. If $f:Y\rightarrow Z$ is a $T$-equivariant proper morphism, we define the pushforward operator
\[ f_*: K^T(Y)\rightarrow K^T(Z)\]
by
\[ f_*([\mathcal{E}]):=\sum_{i\geqslant 0} (-1)^i [R^if_*(\mathcal{E})].\]
In particular, if $Y$ is proper and $Z$ is a point, the corresponding operator is denoted by $\chi_Y$.
There is a natural $K_T(pt)$-module structure on $K_T(Y)$ and $K^T(Y)$, defined via the pullback operator associated to the structure morphism $Y\rightarrow pt$. It is well-known that $K_T(pt)$ is isomorphic to the representation ring $R(T)$ of $T$. We will adopt the latter notation throughout the paper.
\begin{remark} \label{2abrmk}
In this paper, we have to work with Deligne-Mumford stacks because moduli spaces of stable maps are not schemes in general. While the above definitions extend to Deligne-Mumford stacks, they are not strictly necessary for the computational aspect of this paper. We will bypass them by following the approach explained in \cite[Remark 5]{Lee}.
Let $\mathcal{Y}$ be a Deligne-Mumford stack arising from the moduli of stable maps to a smooth projective variety. Consider the canonical map
\[ p:\mathcal{Y}\rightarrow Y\]
from $\mathcal{Y}$ to its coarse moduli $Y$. By the tameness property of $\mathcal{Y}$ (see \cite{AV}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{2ab3}
p_*[\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{Y}}]=[\mathcal{O}_Y].
\end{equation}
The quantum $K$-invariants considered in this paper are of the form
\[\chi_{\mathcal{Y}}(\mathcal{O}^{vir}_{\mathcal{Y}}\otimes\ev_1^*\alpha_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\ev_k^*\alpha_k)\]
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{O}^{vir}_{\mathcal{Y}}\in K^T(\mathcal{Y})$ is the virtual structure sheaf constructed in \cite{Lee};
\item $\ev_i$ are the evaluation maps on $\mathcal{Y}$; and
\item $\alpha_i$ are some $K$-theory classes on the target space.
\end{itemize}
The key observation is that each $\ev_i$ factors through $p$, and hence the above invariant is equal to
\[ \chi_Y(p_*\mathcal{O}^{vir}_{\mathcal{Y}}\otimes\ev_1^*\alpha_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\ev_k^*\alpha_k),\]
by the projection formula. For our computation, $\mathcal{Y}$ will be smooth and of expected dimension. It follows that $\mathcal{O}^{vir}_{\mathcal{Y}}=[\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{Y}}]$. This allows us to work only with the coarse moduli $Y$, by \eqref{2ab3}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Flag varieties} \label{2b} A \textit{flag variety} is a homogeneous space $G/P$ where $P$ is any parabolic subgroup containing $B^+$. We have
\[ \lie(P)=\lie(B^+)\oplus\bigoplus_{\alpha\in -R_P^+}\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}\]
where $R_P^+:=R_P\cap R^+$ and $R_P$ is the set of roots of $P$. Denote by $W_P$ the Weyl group of $P$ and by $W^P$ the set of minimal length coset representatives in $W/W_P$. For any $v\in W^P$, put $y_v:=vP\in G/P$. Then $\{y_v\}_{v\in W^P}$ is the set of $T$-fixed points of $G/P$. Define
\[ \OO_v := [\mathcal{O}_{\overline{B^-\cdot y_v}}]\in K_T(G/P).\]
\begin{lemma}\label{2blemma}
$\{\OO_v\}_{v\in W^P}$ is an $R(T)$-basis of $K_T(G/P)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See the proof of Lemma \ref{2cbasislemma}.
\end{proof}
We recall the \textit{equivariant quantum $K$-theory} of $G/P$ defined by Givental \cite{Givental}. See also the work of Lee \cite{Lee} which deals with general smooth projective varieties. Denote by $\Lambda\subset\pi_2(G/P)$ the semigroup of effective curve classes. We identify $\Lambda$ with $\bigoplus_{i=1}^r\mathbb{Z}_{\geqslant 0}\langle \alpha_i^{\vee}\rangle\subsetQ^{\vee}$ via the dual of the composition of three isomorphisms
\begin{equation}\label{2bisom}
\left(Q^{\vee}/Q^{\vee}_P\right)^*\xrightarrow{\rho~\mapsto L_{\rho}} \pic(G/P) \xrightarrow{c_1} H^2(G/P)\simeq \pi_2(G/P)^*
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $Q^{\vee}_P:=\spann_{\mathbb{Z}}\{\alpha_i^{\vee}|~\alpha_i\in R_P\}$;
\item $L_{\rho}:= G\times_P \mathbb{C}_{-\rho}$; and
\item $\mathbb{C}_{-\rho}$ is the one-dimensional representation of weight $-\rho$ on which $P$ acts by forgetting the semi-simple and unipotent parts.
\end{itemize}
\noindent We have, as abelian groups,
\[QK_T(G/P):= K_T(G/P)\otimes \mathbb{Z}[[\Lambda]]\]
where $\mathbb{Z}[[\Lambda]]$ is the formal completion of the group ring $\mathbb{Z}[\Lambda]$.
\begin{remark} The reason for enlarging the standard coefficient ring $\mathbb{Z}[\Lambda]$ for quantum cohomology is to ensure that the ring product we are going to define is well-defined. It turns out that this is unnecessary by Corollary \ref{introcor1}.
\end{remark}
What is non-trivial is the definition of the \textit{quantum $K$-product $\star$} on $QK_T(G/P)$. For any $\beta\in\Lambda$ and $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_k\in K_T(G/P)$, define
\[\gw^{\beta}(\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_k) := \chi_{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k}(G/P,\beta)}(\ev_1^*\gamma_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \ev_k^*\gamma_k)\in R(T)\]
where $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k}(G/P,\beta)$ is the Deligne-Mumford moduli stack of genus zero $k$-pointed stable maps to $G/P$ representing $\beta$. Clearly, we can extend $\gw$ to a linear map $(QK_T(G/P))^{\otimes k}\rightarrow R(T)\otimes\mathbb{Z}[[\Lambda]]$ by linearity. Take an $R(T)$-basis $\{e_i\}_{i\in I}$ of $K_T(G/P)$ (the Schubert basis, for example) and denote by $\{g^{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ the inverse of the matrix $\{\chi_{G/P}(e_i\otimes e_j)\}_{i,j\in I}$. It is well-known that the latter matrix is indeed invertible. Define a linear operator
\[A_{G/P}: QK_T(G/P)\rightarrow QK_T(G/P)\]
by
\begin{equation}\nonumber
A_{G/P}(\gamma):=\sum_{i,j\in I}\sum_{\beta\in\Lambda\setminus\{0\}}q^{\beta}g^{ij}\gw^{\beta}(\gamma,e_i) e_j.
\end{equation}
We have, for any $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in QK_T(G/P)$,
\[\gamma_1\star\gamma_2 :=\sum_{i,j\in I}\sum_{\beta\in\Lambda}q^{\beta}g^{ij}\gw^{\beta}(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,e_i)(\id +A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_j). \]
By \cite{Givental} or \cite{Lee}, $\star$ defines a ring structure on $QK_T(G/P)$.
\subsection{Affine Grassmannian} \label{2c}
There are many models for the affine Grassmannian $Gr_G$. In this paper, we work with Pressley-Segal's version \cite{Segal}.
Define $H:=L^2(S^1;\mathfrak{g})$ to be the Hilbert space of $L^2$-functions on $S^1$ with values in $\mathfrak{g}$. We have an orthogonal decomposition $H=H_+\oplus H_-$ where $H_+$ (resp. $H_-$) consists of functions whose negative (resp. non-negative) Fourier coefficients are zero. Let $\pr_{\pm}:H\rightarrow H_{\pm}$ denote the orthogonal projections. Define
\[ Gr(H):=\{W\subset H\text{ closed subspaces}|~\pr_+|_W\text{ is Fredholm and }\pr_-|_W\text{ is Hilbert-Schmidt}\}.\]
It is proved in \cite{Segal} that $Gr(H)$ is a complex Hilbert manifold.
Fix a maximal compact subgroup $K$ of $G$. Define
\begin{align*}
L_{sm}G & :=\{\text{smooth free loops in }G\}\\
L_{pol}G & :=\{\text{polynomial free loops in }G\}\\
\Omega_{sm}K & :=\{\text{smooth based loops in }K\}\\
\Omega_{pol}K & :=\{\text{polynomial based loops in }K\}.
\end{align*}
Then $L_{sm}G$ (resp. $\Omega_{sm}K$) is an infinite-dimensional complex (resp. real) Fr\'echet Lie group in the $C^{\infty}$-topology. Consider the following action on $H$ by $L_{sm}G$:
\[(\varphi\cdot f)(z):= \Ad(\varphi(z)) f(z)\quad \varphi\in L_{sm}G,~f\in H\]
where $\Ad$ is the adjoint action. This action induces an $L_{sm}G$-action on $Gr(H)$ with respect to which the stabilizer of $H_+\in Gr(H)$ is equal to $L^0_{sm}G$, the subgroup of $L_{sm}G$ consisting of $\varphi$ which extend to holomorphic functions defined on the unit disk.
\begin{theorem} \label{2cdiffeo} \cite[Theorem 8.6.2]{Segal} There exists a diffeomorphism
\[ L_{sm}G\cdot H_+\simeq \Omega_{sm} K\]
under which the sub-orbit $L_{pol}G\cdot H_+$ corresponds to $\Omega_{pol}K$.
\end{theorem}
From now on, we identify the orbit $L_{sm}G\cdot H_+$ (resp. $L_{pol}G\cdot H_+$) with $\Omega_{sm} K$ (resp. $\Omega_{pol} K$) via the above diffeomorphism . Since $G$ is assumed to be simply connected, $\Omega_{sm}K$ is connected and so lies in the connected component $Gr(H)^o$ of $Gr(H)$ containing $H_+$. For any natural number $n$, define
\[ Gr^{(n)}(H):=\{W\in Gr(H)^o|~z^n H_+\subseteq W\subseteq z^{-n} H_+\}\]
and
\[\Omega_{pol}^{(n)}K:=\Omega_{pol}K\cap Gr^{(n)}(H).\]
Notice that $Gr^{(n)}(H)$ is a submanifold of $Gr(H)^o$ biholomorphic to the type-A Grassmannian $Gr(n\cdot \dim_{\mathbb{C}}\mathfrak{g}, 2n\cdot \dim_{\mathbb{C}}\mathfrak{g})$ and $\Omega_{pol}^{(n)}K$ is a possibly singular closed subvariety of $Gr^{(n)}(H)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{2cunion}\cite[Theorem 8.3.3]{Segal} $\Omega_{pol}K=\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty} \Omega_{pol}^{(n)}K$.
\end{theorem}
Consider the action on $\Omega_{pol}K$ by the maximal torus $T\subset G$. It is easy to see that the fixed-point set $(\Omega_{pol}K)^T$ is equal to $\{x_{\mu}\}_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}}$ where $x_{\mu}$ is the cocharacter of $T$ associated to any element $\mu\inQ^{\vee}$. Define
\[\mathcal{B}^{0,-}_{sm}:=\{\varphi\in L^0_{sm}G|~\varphi(0)\in B^-\}.\]
(By abuse of notation, the holomorphic extension of any $\varphi\in L^0_{sm}G$ is denoted by the same symbol.)
\begin{theorem} \label{2cBruhat} \cite[Theorem 8.6.3]{Segal}
\begin{enumerate}
\item (Bruhat decomposition) We have
\[ \Omega_{pol}K=\bigcup_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}}\mathcal{B}_{sm}^{0,-}\cdot x_{\mu}.\]
\item For any $\mu\inQ^{\vee}$, the orbit $\mathcal{B}_{sm}^{0,-}\cdot x_{\mu}$ is biholomorphic to a complex affine space.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{definition} Define the \textit{affine Grassmannian} $Gr_G:=\Omega_{pol}K$.
\end{definition}
Now we define, following \cite{KumarJEMS}, the \textit{$K$-homology} $K^T(Gr_G)$ of $Gr_G$. Notice that the definition does not follow directly from Section \ref{2ab} where we only deal with finite-dimensional schemes. By Theorem \ref{2cunion}, $Gr_G$ is the union of the chain of projective varieties
\[ \Omega_{pol}^{(0)}K\subset \Omega_{pol}^{(1)}K\subset \Omega_{pol}^{(2)}K\subset\cdots.\]
This chain induces a direct system of $R(T)$-modules
\[ K^T(\Omega_{pol}^{(0)}K)\rightarrow K^T(\Omega_{pol}^{(1)}K) \rightarrow K^T(\Omega_{pol}^{(2)}K)\rightarrow \cdots .\]
\begin{definition} Define
\[ K^T(Gr_G):=\varinjlim_{n} K^T(\Omega_{pol}^{(n)}K).\]
\end{definition}
Denote by $W_{af}^-$ the set of minimal length coset representatives in $W_{af}/W$. Notice that the map $W_{af}^-\rightarrow Q^{\vee}$ sending $wt_{\lambda}$ to $w(\lambda)$ is bijective.
\begin{definition} $~$
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $\mu\in Q^{\vee}$. Define
\[ \OO_{\mu}:= [\mathcal{O}_{x_{\mu}}]\in K^T(Gr_G).\]
\item Let $wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-$. Define
\[ \OO_{wt_{\lambda}}:= [\mathcal{O}_{\overline{\mathcal{B}^{0,-}_{sm}\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}}}] \in K^T(Gr_G)\]
where $\overline{\mathcal{B}^{0,-}_{sm}\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}}$ is the Zariski closure of $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}_{sm}\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}$ taken in $\Omega_{pol}^{(n)}K$ for some large $n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{2cbasislemma} $~$
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}\}_{wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-}$ is an $R(T)$-basis of $K^T(Gr_G)$.
\item There exists a monomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{2cmono}
K^T(Gr_G)\hookrightarrow \bigoplus_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}}\fof(R(T))\langle\OO_{\mu}\rangle
\end{equation}
which fixes every $\OO_{\mu}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) follows from an argument of Kumar \cite{KumarJEMS} based on the following two standard results:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item (The excision sequence) If we have $U\xhookrightarrow{i} X \xhookleftarrow{j} X\setminus U$ where $X$ is projective and $U$ is open, then the sequence
\begin{equation}\label{2cseq}
K^T(X\setminus U)\xrightarrow{j_*} K^T(X)\xrightarrow{i^*} K^T(U)\rightarrow 0
\end{equation}
is exact.
\item (The Thom isomorphism: a special case) If $T$ acts on a vector space $\mathbb{C}^r$ linearly, then $K^T(\mathbb{C}^r)$ is freely generated by $[\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^r}]$.
\end{enumerate}
Proofs of (i) and (ii) can be found in \cite{Ginzburg}. To prove (2), it suffices to show that every $\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is an $\fof(R(T))$-linear combination of $\OO_{w(\lambda)}$ and some other $\OO_{w't_{\lambda'}}$ with $\ell(w't_{\lambda'})<\ell(wt_{\lambda})$. This follows from \eqref{2cseq} and a local computation in $K^T(\mathbb{C}^{\ell(wt_{\lambda})})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition} Define an $R(T)$-algebra structure $\bulletsmall$ on $\bigoplus_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}}\fof(R(T))\langle\OO_{\mu}\rangle$ by
\begin{equation}\label{2calg}
\OO_{\mu_1}\bulletsmall \OO_{\mu_2} := \OO_{\mu_1+\mu_2}\quad \mu_1,\mu_2\in Q^{\vee}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} Via the monomorphism \eqref{2cmono}, $K^T(Gr_G)$ is a sub-$R(T)$-algebra.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is proved by Lam-Schilling-Shimozono \cite{LSS}. Notice that they first defined an $R(T)$-algebra structure on $K^T(Gr_G)$ and verified \eqref{2calg}.
Alternatively, we show that it follows from our proof of Theorem \ref{main}, although the statement of this theorem assumes the lemma we are proving. Take $P=B^+$. In Section \ref{4a}, we will construct an $R(T)$-algebra homomorphism
\[ \Phi: \bigoplus_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}}\fof(R(T))\langle\OO_{\mu}\rangle \rightarrow QK_T(G/B^+)[\Lambda^{-1}]\otimes\fof(R(T)).\]
In Section \ref{4b}, \ref{4c} and \ref{4d}, we will show
\[\Phi(\OO_{wt_{\lambda}})=q^{\lambda}\OO_w\]
where $\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is regarded as an element of the domain of $\Phi$ via \eqref{2cmono}. This implies that $\Phi$ sends an $R(T)$-basis of $K^T(Gr_G)$ injectively into an $R(T)$-basis of $K_T(G/B^+)\otimes\mathbb{Z}[\Lambda^{\pm}]$, and hence
\[K^T(Gr_G)=\Phi^{-1}(QK_T(G/B^+)[\Lambda^{-1}])\]
which is clearly a sub-$R(T)$-algebra of $\bigoplus_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}}\fof(R(T))\langle\OO_{\mu}\rangle$.
\end{proof}
\section{The key moduli}\label{3}
\subsection{The G/P-fibration} \label{3a}
The following theorem is the starting point of everything.
\begin{theorem} \cite[Theorem 8.10.2]{Segal} For any complex manifold $\Gamma$, there exists a bijection between
\begin{enumerate}
\item the set of holomorphic maps $\Gamma\rightarrow \Omega_{sm}K$; and
\item the set of isomorphism classes of holomorphic principal $G$-bundles over $\mathbb{P}^1\times \Gamma$ with a trivialization over $(\mathbb{P}^1\setminus\{|z|\leqslant 1\})\times \Gamma$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
We will need the $G/P$-bundle associated to the bundle in (2). To simplify the exposition on how this bundle is constructed, we introduce some Banach Lie groups as in \cite{me}. Define
\begin{align*}
D_0&:= \{z\in\mathbb{C}|~|z|\leqslant 2\}\\
D_{\infty} &:= \{z\in\mathbb{C}\cup\{\infty\}|~1/2\leqslant |z|\}\\
A&:= D_0\cap D_{\infty},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{G}&:= \{\varphi:A\rightarrow G|~\varphi\text{ is continuous and }\varphi|_{\mathring{A}}\text{ is holomorphic}\}\\
\mathcal{G}^0&:= \{\varphi:D_0\rightarrow G|~\varphi\text{ is continuous and }\varphi|_{\mathring{D}_0}\text{ is holomorphic}\}\\
\mathcal{G}^{\infty}&:= \{\varphi:D_{\infty}\rightarrow G|~\varphi\text{ is continuous and }\varphi|_{\mathring{D}_{\infty}}\text{ is holomorphic}\}.
\end{align*}
These groups are complex Banach Lie groups in the $C^0$-topology. Moreover, $\mathcal{G}^0$ and $\mathcal{G}^{\infty}$ naturally embed into $\mathcal{G}$ as subgroups in the sense of \cite{Bourbaki}.
Define $\widetilde{\fib{}}$ to be the pushout of the diagram
\begin{center}
\vspace{.2cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{\x1 = 3; \x2 = 2;}
\node (A) at (-\x1,\x2) {$\mathring{D}_0\times \mathcal{G}\times G/P$} ;
\node (B) at (\x1,\x2) {$\mathring{D}_0\times \mathcal{G}\times G/P$} ;
\node (C) at (0,0) {$\mathring{A}\times \mathcal{G}\times G/P$} ;
\path[left hook->, font=\tiny]
(C) edge node[left]{$\text{inclusion~}$} (A);
\path[right hook->, font=\tiny]
(C) edge node[right]{$~(z,\phi,y)\mapsto (z^{-1},\phi,\phi(z)\cdot y)$} (B);
\end{tikzpicture}.
\end{center}
We call the left (resp. right) copy $\mathring{D}_0\times \mathcal{G}\times G/P$ the \textit{$0$-chart} (resp. \textit{$\infty$-chart}). We have a map
\[ \widetilde{\pi}: \widetilde{\fib{}} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1\times \mathcal{G}\]
defined by forgetting the factor $G/P$ in each of these charts.
Define a left $\mathcal{G}^{\infty}$-action and a right $\mathcal{G}^0$-action on $\widetilde{\fib{}}$ by
\[ \psi^{\infty}\cdot (z,\phi,y)\cdot \psi^0 := \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(z,\psi^{\infty}\phi\psi^0, \psi^0(z)^{-1}\cdot y)& 0\text{-chart}\\
(z,\psi^{\infty}\phi\psi^0, \psi^{\infty}(z^{-1})\cdot y)& \infty\text{-chart}\\
\end{array}
\right. \]
for any $\psi^0\in\mathcal{G}^0$ and $\psi^{\infty}\in\mathcal{G}^{\infty}$. It is easy to see that these actions are free and commute with each other. Moreover, $\widetilde{\pi}$ is equivariant where the action on $\mathbb{P}^1$ is assumed to be trivial. Define
\[ \fib{} := \widetilde{\fib{}}/\mathcal{G}^0\]
and
\[ \pi:\fib{}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1\times (\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{G}^0)\]
to be the map induced by $\widetilde{\pi}$. It is straightforward to verify that
\begin{enumerate}
\item the left $\mathcal{G}^{\infty}$-action on $\widetilde{\fib{}}$ induces a left $\mathcal{G}^{\infty}$-action on $\fib{}$;
\item $\pi$ is a $\mathcal{G}^{\infty}$-equivariant $G/P$-fibration; and
\item the $\infty$-chart of $\widetilde{\fib{}}$ induces an $\infty$-chart of $\fib{}$ in the obvious sense.
\end{enumerate}
Observe that the above construction works not only for $G/P$ but also any $G$-spaces. In particular, if we take the $G$-equivariant line bundle $L_{\rho}=\Gt{P}\mathbb{C}_{-\rho}$ associated to any $\rho\in(Q^{\vee}/Q^{\vee}_P)^*$ (see Section \ref{2b}), we obtain a line bundle $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ on $\fib{}$ which restricts to $L_{\rho}$ on each fiber of $\pi$. Line bundles of this form will be useful in the next subsection.
\subsection{Definition of the moduli} \label{3b}
Following \cite{me}, we introduce two moduli spaces $\MM(\mu,\b)$ and $\MM(\wl,\b)$ which will be used for the definition and computation of the $R(T)$-algebra homomorphism $\Phi$ stated in Theorem \ref{main} respectively. Recall the fibration $\fib{}$ defined in the last subsection.
Let $\mu\in Q^{\vee}$. We have the associated cocharacter $x_{\mu}$ of $T$ which is naturally an element of $\mathcal{G}$. By abuse of notation, the corresponding point in $\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{G}^0$ is denoted by the same symbol. Define
\[\fibc{{\mu}}:=\fib{}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times\{x_{\mu}\}}\]
and
\[ \pi_{\mu} : \fibc{{\mu}}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1\]
to be the map induced by $\pi$. By \cite[Lemma 3.2]{me}, it is a smooth projective variety. Define $D_{\mu}:=\pi_{\mu}^{-1}(\infty)$ and $\iota_{\mu}:D_{\mu}\hookrightarrow \fibc{{\mu}}$ to be the inclusion.
\begin{definition}\label{3bdefm} Let $\beta\in\pi_2(G/P)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Define
\[ \MM(\mu,\b):= \bigcup_{\widetilde{\beta}}\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,1}(\fibc{{\mu}},\widetilde{\beta})\times_{(\ev_1,\iota_{\mu})}D_{\mu}\]
where $\widetilde{\beta}$ runs over all classes in $\pi_2(\fibc{{\mu}})$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $(\pi_{\mu})_*\widetilde{\beta}=[\mathbb{P}^1]\in\pi_2(\mathbb{P}^1)$; and
\item $\langle\widetilde{\beta},c_1(\mathcal{L}_{\rho})\rangle = \langle\beta,c_1(L_{\rho})\rangle$ for any $\rho\in(Q^{\vee}/Q^{\vee}_P)^*$.
\end{enumerate}
(The line bundles $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ and $L_{\rho}$ are defined in Section \ref{3a} and Section \ref{2b} respectively.)
\vspace{.2cm}
\item Define
\[\ev:\MM(\mu,\b)\rightarrow D_{\mu}\simeq G/P\]
to be the morphism induced by the evaluation map $\ev_1$ on $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,1}(\fibc{{\mu}},\widetilde{\beta})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Next we define $\MM(\wl,\b)$. Define
\[ \mathcal{B}^{0,-}:=\{\varphi\in\mathcal{G}^0|~\varphi(0)\in B^-\}.\]
For any affine simple root $\widetilde{\alpha}_i$, $i=0,\ldots,r$ (see Section \ref{2aa}), there exists a unique connected subgroup $\mathcal{P}_{\widetilde{\alpha}_i}$ of $\mathcal{G}$ with $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}\subset \mathcal{P}_{\widetilde{\alpha}_i}$ such that
\[ \lie(\mathcal{P}_{\widetilde{\alpha}_{i}}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\lie(\mathcal{B}^{0,-})\oplus z^{-1}\mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha_0}& i=0\\ [1em]
\lie(\mathcal{B}^{0,-})\oplus \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_i}& i=1,\ldots, r\\
\end{array}
\right. .\]
For any $wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-$, choose a reduced word decomposition $(i_1,\ldots,i_{\ell(wt_{\lambda})})$ of it. Define the associated Bott-Samelson variety
\[\G_{wt_{\lambda}}:= \mathcal{P}_{\widetilde{\alpha}_{i_1}}\times_{\mathcal{B}^{0,-}}\cdots\times_{\mathcal{B}^{0,-}}\mathcal{P}_{\widetilde{\alpha}_{i_{\ell(wt_{\lambda})}}}/ \mathcal{B}^{0,-}.\]
It is easy to see that $\G_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is a smooth projective variety with a structure of iterated $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundles. Define a holomorphic map
\[ f_{wt_{\lambda}}:\G_{wt_{\lambda}}\rightarrow \mathcal{G}/\mathcal{G}^0\]
by
\[ f_{wt_{\lambda}}([\varphi_1:\cdots:\varphi_{\ell(wt_{\lambda})}]) := \varphi_1\cdots \varphi_{\ell(wt_{\lambda})}\mathcal{G}^0.\]
Define
\[\fib{wt_{\lambda}}:=(\mathbb{P}^1\times\G_{wt_{\lambda}})\times_{(\id\times f_{wt_{\lambda}},\pi)}\fib{}\]
and
\[ \pi_{wt_{\lambda}}:\fib{wt_{\lambda}}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1\times \G_{wt_{\lambda}}\]
to be the map induced by $\pi$. By \cite[Lemma 3.2]{me}, $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}$ is a smooth projective variety. Define $D_{wt_{\lambda}}:=\pi_{wt_{\lambda}}^{-1}(\{\infty\}\times \G_{wt_{\lambda}})$ and $\iota_{wt_{\lambda}}:D_{wt_{\lambda}}\hookrightarrow \fib{wt_{\lambda}}$ to be the inclusion. Then $D_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is a smooth divisor of $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}$ and isomorphic to $\G_{wt_{\lambda}}\times G/P$ via the $\infty$-chart of $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}$.
\begin{definition}\label{3bdefw} Let $\beta\in\pi_2(G/P)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Define
\[ \MM(\wl,\b):= \bigcup_{\widetilde{\beta}}\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,1}(\fib{wt_{\lambda}},\widetilde{\beta})\times_{(\ev_1,\iota_{wt_{\lambda}})}D_{wt_{\lambda}}\]
where $\widetilde{\beta}$ runs over all classes in $\pi_2(\fib{wt_{\lambda}})$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $(\pi_{wt_{\lambda}})_*\widetilde{\beta}=[\mathbb{P}^1\times\{pt\}]\in\pi_2(\mathbb{P}^1\times\G_{wt_{\lambda}})$; and
\item $\langle\widetilde{\beta},c_1(\mathcal{L}_{\rho})\rangle = \langle\beta,c_1(L_{\rho})\rangle$ for any $\rho\in(Q^{\vee}/Q^{\vee}_P)^*$.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{.2cm}
\item Define
\[\ev:\MM(\wl,\b)\rightarrow G/P\]
to be the composite
\[ \MM(\wl,\b)\rightarrow D_{wt_{\lambda}}\simeq \G_{wt_{\lambda}}\times G/P\rightarrow G/P\]
where the first arrow is induced by the evaluation map $\ev_1$ on $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,1}(\fib{wt_{\lambda}},\widetilde{\beta})$ and the second arrow is the canonical projection.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
In order to compute $\Phi$, we have to establish some geometric properties of $\MM(\wl,\b)$. This will be done in Section \ref{3e}. The intermediate subsections \ref{3c} and \ref{3d} will serve as preparations.
\subsection{An extra torus action on the moduli} \label{3c}
We define an algebraic $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-action on $\MM(\wl,\b)$. To avoid confusion with other actions, we will introduce the subscript ``$t$'' for the action.
The desired action is defined in several steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Define an $S^1_t$-action on $\mathcal{G}$ by
\[ (t\cdot \varphi)(z) := \varphi(tz)\quad t\in S^1_t,~\varphi\in\mathcal{G}.\]
Observe that this action preserves the subgroups $\mathcal{G}^0$, $\mathcal{G}^{\infty}$, $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{\widetilde{\alpha}_i}$.
\item Define an $S^1_t$-action on $\widetilde{\fib{}}$ by
\[ t\cdot (z,\phi,y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
(t^{-1}z,t\cdot\phi, y)& 0\text{-chart}\\
(tz,t\cdot \phi ,y) & \infty\text{-chart}
\end{array}
\right. .\]
It is straightforward to check that this action descends to an $S^1_t$-action on $\fib{}$ which satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item it is compatible with the $\mathcal{G}^{\infty}$-action in the sense that
\[ t\cdot(\psi^{\infty}\cdot x) = (t\cdot\psi^{\infty})\cdot (t\cdot x)\]
for any $t\in S^1_t$, $\psi^{\infty}\in \mathcal{G}^{\infty}$ and $x\in \fib{}$; and
\item the map $\pi:\fib{}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^1\times (\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{G}^0)$ is equivariant where $S^1_t$ acts on $\mathbb{P}^1$ by
\[ t\cdot z = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
t^{-1}z& 0\text{-chart}\\
tz & \infty\text{-chart}
\end{array}
\right. .\]
\end{enumerate}
\item Consider the $S^1_t$-action on $\G_{wt_{\lambda}}$ induced by the one defined in (1). Then $f_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is equivariant.
\item It follows that there is an induced $S^1_t$-action on $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}$. It is not hard to show that this $S^1_t$-action extends to a unique algebraic $\CC^{\times}_t$-action. See Remark \ref{3crmk} below.
\item Clearly, $D_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is $\CC^{\times}_t$-invariant, and hence the $\CC^{\times}_t$-action in (4) induces a $\CC^{\times}_t$-action on $\MM(\wl,\b)$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{remark}\label{3crmk}
Every $S^1$-action on a smooth projective variety by biholomorphisms extends to a unique holomorphic $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-action. In this paper, we require the latter action to be algebraic. One way of showing this is to construct a lift of the given $S^1$-action on an ample line bundle. Observe that the spaces in question, including $\G_{wt_{\lambda}}$ and $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}$, have a structure of iterated fibrations such that the fibers at each step are Fano. Thus, it suffices to deal with the following situation. Let $F\rightarrow E\xrightarrow{\pi} B$ be a fibration with $F$ being Fano. Suppose $S^1$ acts on $E$ and $B$ such that $\pi$ is equivariant and $B$ admits an equivariant ample line bundle $\mathcal{L}_B$. For sufficiently large $N$, the line bundle $\mathcal{L}_E:=\omega_{E/B}^{\vee}\otimes\pi^{*}\left(\mathcal{L}_B^{\otimes N}\right)$ is ample. Then $S^1$ acts on $\mathcal{L}_E$ naturally because $\omega_{E/B}^{\vee}$ is formed out of the vertical tangent bundle of $\pi$ and $\pi$ is equivariant.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Constant sections} \label{3d}
Let $\mu\inQ^{\vee}$. Recall the point $x_{\mu}\in\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{G}^0$. Define
\[P_{\mu}:=\{g\in G|~g\cdot x_{\mu}=x_{\mu}\}.\]
\begin{lemma}
$P_{\mu}$ is a parabolic subgroup with Lie algebra
\begin{equation}\label{3deq}
\lie(P_{\mu}) = \mathfrak{h}\oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha(\mu)\leqslant 0} \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First notice that $P_{\mu}$ is an algebraic subgroup of $G$. It is clear that the RHS of \eqref{3deq} is a parabolic subalgebra and so defines a parabolic subgroup $P'$. Then $P'\subseteq P_{\mu}$, and hence $P_{\mu}$ is connected. Suppose $P'\subsetneq P_{\mu}$. Then there exists $v\in\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}\setminus\{0\}$ for some $\alpha\in R$ with $\alpha(\mu)>0$ such that $g:=\exp(v)\in P_{\mu}$. This implies that the holomorphic function $z\mapsto x_{\mu}(z^{-1})g x_{\mu}(z)$ extends to a holomorphic function on $\mathbb{P}^1$. Since $G$ is affine, this function is constant but this is impossible.
\end{proof}
Recall $\fibc{{\mu}}=\fib{}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times\{x_{\mu}\}}$. Observe it can also be defined as the pushout of the diagram
\begin{center}
\vspace{.2cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{\x1 = 3; \x2 = 2;}
\node (A) at (-\x1,\x2) {$\mathbb{C}\times G/P$} ;
\node (B) at (\x1,\x2) {$\mathbb{C}\times G/P$} ;
\node (C) at (0,0) {$\mathbb{C}^{\times}\times G/P$} ;
\path[left hook->, font=\tiny]
(C) edge node[left]{$\text{inclusion~}$} (A);
\path[right hook->, font=\tiny]
(C) edge node[right]{$~(z,y)\mapsto (z^{-1},x_{\mu}(z)\cdot y)$} (B);
\end{tikzpicture}.
\end{center}
\noindent Notice $x_{\mu}\in (\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{G}^0)^{S^1_t}$, and hence the $S^1_t$-action preserves $\fibc{{\mu}}$. One checks easily that the induced action on $\fibc{{\mu}}$, which actually extends to a $\CC^{\times}_t$-action, reads
\[ t\cdot (z,y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
(t^{-1}z,x_{\mu}(t)\cdot y)& 0\text{-chart}\\
(tz,y) & \infty\text{-chart}
\end{array}
\right. .\]
Consider the $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-action on $G/P$ induced by the cocharacter $x_{\mu}:\mathbb{C}^{\times}\rightarrow T$. We will write $\CC^{\times}_{\mu}$ in place of $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$ in this context. Let $y\in G/P$. Since $G/P$ is complete, the morphism $\mathbb{C}^{\times}\rightarrow G/P:z\mapsto x_{\mu}(z^{-1})\cdot y$ extends to a morphism defined on $\mathbb{C}$.
\begin{definition} \label{3dconstsectiondef}
Let $y\in G/P$. Define a section $u_y$ of $\fib{\mu}$ by
\[ u_y(z) := \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
(z,x_{\mu}(z^{-1})\cdot y)& 0\text{-chart}\\
(z,y) & \infty\text{-chart}
\end{array}
\right. .\]
Any sections of the form $u_y$ are called \textit{constant sections} (meaning constant in the $\infty$-chart).
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{3dconst} Let $u:\mathbb{P}^1\rightarrow \fibc{{\mu}}$ be a holomorphic section. Suppose for any $t\in \CC^{\times}_t$, there exists $\phi\in\aut(\mathbb{P}^1)$ such that for any $z\in\mathbb{P}^1$,
\[ t\cdot u(z) = u(\phi(z)).\]
Then $u$ is a constant section.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Restricting $u$ to the $0$-chart and $\infty$-chart, we get two maps $u_0,u_{\infty}:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow G/P$ satisfying
\[ u_{\infty}(z^{-1}) = x_{\mu}(z)\cdot u_0(z)\quad\text{for any }z\in\mathbb{C}^{\times}.\]
The given condition implies $u_{\infty}$ is constantly equal to a point $y\in G/P$. This forces $u\equiv u_y$.
\end{proof}
Denote by $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{\mu}}{G/P}$ the unique component of $(G/P)^{\CC^{\times}_{\mu}}$ whose normal bundle has only positive weights. The superscript ``attr'' will be explained in Definition \ref{3efix}.
\begin{lemma}\label{3dtrans} $P_{\mu}$ preserves and acts transitively on $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{\mu}}{G/P}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to look at the infinitesimal action. Let $y\in \fm{\CC^{\times}_{\mu}}{G/P}$. Notice that $T_y(G/P)$ is a direct sum of weight spaces (with respect to the $\CC^{\times}_{\mu}$-action) of non-negative weights and the set of these weights (counted with multiplicities) is a subset of the set of weights of the $\CC^{\times}_{\mu}$-module $\mathfrak{g}$. By definition, $\lie(P_{\mu})$ contains all non-positive weights of $\mathfrak{g}$. It follows that the weights contributed by the infinitesimal action of $P_{\mu}$ are precisely all the zero weights.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{3dbwl} Define $\beta_{\mu}\in\pi_2(G/P)$ to be the unique element such that
\[\deg(u^*\mathcal{L}_{\rho})=\langle \beta_{\mu}, c_1(L_{\rho})\rangle \]
for any $\rho\in (Q^{\vee}/Q^{\vee}_P)^*$ where $u$ is the constant section of $\fibc{{\mu}}$ corresponding to a point in $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{\mu}}{G/P}$. (The line bundles $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ and $L_{\rho}$ are defined in Section \ref{3a} and Section \ref{2b} respectively.)
\end{definition}
\subsection{Some properties of the moduli} \label{3e}
\begin{proposition} \cite[Proposition 4.5]{me} The stack $\MM(\wl,\b)$ is smooth and of expected dimension.
\end{proposition}
In what follows, we prove some further properties of $\MM(\wl,\b)$. More precisely, we determine the set of $\beta$ for which $\MM(\wl,\b)\ne\emptyset$ and show that $\MM(\wl,\b)$ is irreducible for these $\beta$. Our approach is to apply Oprea's stacky version \cite{Oprea} of a theorem of Bia\l{ynicki}-Birula \cite{BB} to the $\CC^{\times}_t$-action on $\MM(\wl,\b)$ defined in Section \ref{3c} and study the geometry of a particular fixed-point component. It turns out that this component is determined by $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta')$ for some other $\beta'$ and $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{\mu}}{G/P}$ defined in Section \ref{3d}.
\begin{definition} \label{3efix} Let $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$ act on a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack $\mathcal{X}$. A component $\mathcal{F}$ of $\mathcal{X}^{\mathbb{C}^{\times}}$ is said to be \textit{attractive} if for a (and hence any) geometric point $x\in \mathcal{F}$, the weights (more precisely, the orbi-weights) of the tangent space $T_x\mathcal{X}$ with respect to the $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-action are all non-negative.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{3ebb} \cite{BB} Let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective variety with a $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-action and $F$ an attractive component of $X^{\mathbb{C}^{\times}}$. There exists a unique $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-invariant open subscheme $U$ of $X$ containing $F$ which is isomorphic to a $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-equivariant affine fibration over $F$.
\end{theorem}
For other components of $X^{\mathbb{C}^{\times}}$, there are similar affine fibrations which are in general locally closed subschemes. Bia\l{ynicki}-Birula also showed that if $X$ is proper, these subschemes form a decomposition of $X$. His result has been generalized by Oprea \cite{Oprea} to Deligne-Mumford stacks. For our purpose, we only need the following application.
\begin{theorem} \label{3ebbstack} Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a non-empty proper smooth Deligne-Mumford stack with a $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-action. Suppose $\mathcal{X}$ admits a $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$-equivariant \'etale atlas. Then $\mathcal{X}^{\mathbb{C}^{\times}}$ has an attractive component. It is unique if and only if $\mathcal{X}$ is irreducible.
\end{theorem}
Denote by $\fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}$ the unique attractive component of $\G_{wt_{\lambda}}^{\CC^{\times}_t}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{3elemma} $f_{wt_{\lambda}}(\fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}})\subseteq G\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\gamma\in \G_{wt_{\lambda}}$ be the unique point such that $f_{wt_{\lambda}}(\gamma)=x_{w(\lambda)}$. The result follows from the observations that $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}\cdot \gamma$ is open and the weights of $\lie(B^-)$ (resp. $\lie(\mathcal{B}^{0,-})/ \lie(B^-)$) are all zero (resp. positive).
\end{proof}
By Lemma \ref{3dtrans}, $\Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$ is well-defined. Consider the diagram
\begin{equation}\label{3edia}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{\x1 = 5; \x2 = 2.5; \x3=1.8;}
\node (A) at (-\x1,0) {$\fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}$} ;
\node (B) at (-\x2,-\x3) {$G\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}\simeq G/P_{w(\lambda)}$} ;
\node (C) at (0,0) {$\Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$} ;
\node (D) at (\x2,-\x3) {$G/P$};
\node at (-1.4*\x2, -0.4*\x3) {{\scriptsize $f$}};
\node at (-0.58*\x2, -0.4*\x3) {{\scriptsize $\pi$}};
\node at (0.58*\x2, -0.4*\x3) {{\scriptsize $j$}};
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(A) edge node[anchor = south west]{} (B);
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(C) edge node[anchor = south east]{} (B);
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(C) edge node[anchor = south west]{} (D);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$ and $P_{w(\lambda)}$ are defined in Section \ref{3d};
\item $f$ is the restriction of $f_{wt_{\lambda}}$ to $\fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}$ (it does land in $G\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}$ by Lemma \ref{3elemma});
\item $\pi$ is the canonical projection; and
\item $j$ is the unique $G$-equivariant map extending the inclusion $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}\hookrightarrow G/P$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{definition} \label{3edef} Define a smooth variety
\[F_{wt_{\lambda}} := \fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}\times_{(f,\pi)}(\Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P})\]
and $h_{wt_{\lambda}}:F_{wt_{\lambda}}\rightarrow G/P$ to be the composite
\[ F_{wt_{\lambda}}\xrightarrow{f'}\Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}\xrightarrow{j} G/P \]
where $f'$ is induced by $f$ in the fiber product.
\end{definition}
The role of $F_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is to parametrize a class of holomorphic sections of $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times \fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}}$. Notice $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$ parametrizes a component of the space of constant sections of $\fibc{{w(\lambda)}}$. Indeed, $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$ is attractive so we have
\begin{equation}\label{3eimply}
\displaystyle \lim_{z\to 0}x_{\mu}(z^{-1})\cdot y \in \fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P} ~\Longrightarrow ~y\in \fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Since $\fib{}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times (G\cdot x_{w(\lambda)})}\simeq \Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fibc{{w(\lambda)}}$, we see that $F_{wt_{\lambda}}$ parametrizes the pullbacks of the $G$-translates of these constant sections.
\begin{definition} \label{3eembdef}
Let $\beta\in\pi_2(G/P)$. Define a morphism
\begin{equation}\label{3eemb}
F_{wt_{\lambda}}\times_{(h_{wt_{\lambda}},\ev_1)}\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})\rightarrow \MM(\wl,\b)
\end{equation}
as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Every point of the domain of \eqref{3eemb} is of the form $(\gamma,[g:y],u)$ where
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\gamma\in \fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}$;
\item $[g:y]\in \Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$; and
\item $u\in \overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})$
\end{enumerate}
\noindent such that $f_{wt_{\lambda}}(\gamma)=g\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}$ and $u(z_1)=g\cdot y$, where $z_1$ is the first marked point on the domain of $u$.
\item We send this point to $u_1\#u_2$ where
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $u_1$ is the section of $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times\{\gamma\}}\simeq \fib{}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times\{g\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}\}}$ which is the $g$-translate of the constant section of $\fibc{{w(\lambda)}}$ corresponding to $y$; and
\item $u_2$ is just $u$ but regarded as a stable map to the fiber of $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}$ over $(\infty,\gamma)$.
\end{enumerate}
\item If $\beta=\beta_{w(\lambda)}$, the domain of \eqref{3eemb} is understood to be $F_{wt_{\lambda}}$. In this case, the morphism is defined in a similar way.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that morphism \eqref{3eemb} is injective. One can show that it is even a closed immersion. But we will not use this fact.
\begin{proposition}\label{3emain} Suppose $\MM(\wl,\b)\ne\emptyset$. Then $\MM(\wl,\b)^{\CC^{\times}_t}$ has a unique attractive component. Set-theoretically, it is equal to the image of morphism \eqref{3eemb}.
\end{proposition}
Recall $\Lambda\subset\pi_2(G/P)$ is the semigroup of effective curve classes in $G/P$ and $\beta_{w(\lambda)}\in \pi_2(G/P)$ is defined in Definition \ref{3dbwl}.
\begin{corollary}\label{3ecor1} The set $\{\beta\in\pi_2(G/P)|~\MM(\wl,\b)\ne\emptyset\}$ is equal to $\beta_{w(\lambda)}+\Lambda$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $\beta=\beta_{w(\lambda)}$, then the domain of \eqref{3eemb} is $F_{wt_{\lambda}}$ which is clearly non-empty. If $\beta\ne\beta_{w(\lambda)}$, then the stack $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})$ is non-empty if and only if $\beta\in\beta_{w(\lambda)}+(\Lambda\setminus\{0\})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{3ecor2} For any $\beta\in \beta_{w(\lambda)}+\Lambda$, $\MM(\wl,\b)$ is irreducible.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition \ref{3emain} and Theorem \ref{3ebbstack}. Notice that $\MM(\wl,\b)$ does admit a $\CC^{\times}_t$-equivariant \'etale atlas, provided we reparametrize the torus $\CC^{\times}_t$. (So we actually apply Theorem \ref{3ebbstack} to this reparametrized action, but this will not affect our arguments.) See Remark \ref{4brmk}.
\end{proof}
\begin{myproof}{Proposition}{\ref{3emain}}
First observe that the domain of \eqref{3eemb} is irreducible, by a result of Kim-Pandharipande \cite{KP}, and that this morphism sends every point into $\MM(\wl,\b)^{\CC^{\times}_t}$. It follows that the image of \eqref{3eemb} is contained in a unique component of $\MM(\wl,\b)^{\CC^{\times}_t}$. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be an attractive component of $\MM(\wl,\b)^{\CC^{\times}_t}$ which exists by Theorem \ref{3ebbstack}. Let $u\in \mathcal{F}$. Observe that $u$ lies over a point $p$ in a component $F$ of $\G_{wt_{\lambda}}^{\CC^{\times}_t}$.
We claim $F=\fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}$. Suppose the contrary. Since the $T$-action commutes with the $\CC^{\times}_t$-action (see Section \ref{3c}(2)(i)), $T$ preserves $\mathcal{F}$, and hence we can replace $u$ with another $\overline{u}\in\mathcal{F}$ which is also a $T$-fixed point of $\MM(\wl,\b)$. Then $\overline{u}$ lies over a $T$-fixed point $\overline{p}$ of $F$. Since $F\ne \fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}$, the tangent space $T_{\overline{p}}\G_{wt_{\lambda}}$ contains a weight vector $v$ of negative weight. Consider $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}\cdot\overline{p}$, the $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}$-orbit passing through $\overline{p}$. Then $v\not\in T_{\overline{p}}(\mathcal{B}^{0,-}\cdot\overline{p})$. By \cite[Proposition 4.5]{me}, $\overline{u}$ is still unobstructed when it is regarded as a stable map to $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times(\mathcal{B}^{0,-}\cdot \overline{p})}$ (a smooth $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}$-equivariant compactification of $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}\cdot\overline{p}$ is not required since $\overline{u}$ is $T$-invariant). Therefore, $v$ lifts to a weight vector in the tangent space $T_{\overline{u}}\MM(\wl,\b)$ which has the same weight as $v$. By assumption, the weight is negative, a contradiction.
By Lemma \ref{3elemma}, $f_{wt_{\lambda}}(\fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}})\subseteq G\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}$ and
\[\fib{wt_{\lambda}}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times\{p\}}\simeq \fib{}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times{\{f_{wt_{\lambda}}(p)}\}}\simeq \fibc{{w(\lambda)}}\]
as $\CC^{\times}_t$-varieties. Since the rest of the proof relies only on constructing some deformation vector fields of $u$ in $\fib{wt_{\lambda}}|_{\mathbb{P}^1\times\{p\}}$, we may assume $f_{wt_{\lambda}}(p)=x_{w(\lambda)}$ so that $u$ is a stable map to $\fibc{{w(\lambda)}}$ which represents a section class and is a $\CC^{\times}_t$-fixed point in the moduli. Write $u=u_0\#u_s\#u_{\infty}$ where $u_s$ is a section and $u_0$ (resp. $u_{\infty}$) is a stable map to the fiber of $\fibc{{w(\lambda)}}$ over $0$ (resp. $\infty$). By Lemma \ref{3dconst}, $u_s$ is the constant section corresponding to a point $y\in G/P$.
We first reduce the situation to the case $y\in (G/P)^{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}$. More precisely, we show that there exists another stable map $u'\in\mathcal{F}$ such that if we write $u'=u'_0\#u'_s\#u'_{\infty}$ as before, then $u'_s$ is the constant section corresponding to a point in $(G/P)^{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}$. For any $\eta\in\mathbb{C}^{\times}$, define $y_{\eta}:= x_{\mu}(\eta^{-1})\cdot y$. Let $u_{y_{\eta}}$ be the constant section of $\fib{w(\lambda)}$ corresponding to $y_{\eta}$. Define a morphism
\begin{equation}\label{3emor}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbb{C}^{\times}& \rightarrow & \MM(\wl,\b)\\ [.5em]
\eta &\mapsto & u_0\# u_{y_{\eta}}\# (x_{\mu}(\eta^{-1})\cdot u_{\infty})
\end{array}
\end{equation}
By \cite[Proposition 6]{FP}, after a base change $\mathbb{C}^{\times}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}^{\times}$, the above morphism extends to a morphism defined on $\mathbb{C}$. The stable map at $\eta =0$ will be our $u'$.
From now on, we assume $y\in (G/P)^{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}$. We show
\begin{enumerate}
\item $u_0$ does not exist; and
\item $y\in\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$.
\end{enumerate}
For (1), recall $\CC^{\times}_t$ acts on $\mathbb{P}^1$, the base of $\fibc{{w(\lambda)}}$, in the following way:
\[ t\cdot z = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
t^{-1}z & 0\text{-chart}\\
tz & \infty\text{-chart}
\end{array}
\right. .\]
Take a weight vector $\zeta\in H^0(\mathbb{P}^1;T\mathbb{P}^1)$ such that $\zeta(0)\ne 0$. Then it has weight $-1$. It is easy to show that there exists a weight vector $\zeta'$ in $H^0(u^*T\fibc{{w(\lambda)}})$ which is non-tangential to $u$ such that $\zeta'|_{u_s}$ projects to $\zeta$. It follows that $\zeta'$ defines a weight vector in $T_u\MM(\wl,\b)$ of weight $-1$, a contradiction.
For (2), notice that $T_y(G/P)$ is isomorphic, as $\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}$-modules, to a direct sum of weight spaces of the form $\mathbb{C}_{\alpha(w(\lambda))}$ where $\alpha\in R$. If $y\not\in\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$, then $T_y(G/P)$ contains a weight vector $v\in\mathbb{C}_{\alpha(w(\lambda))}$ for some $\alpha$ with $\alpha(w(\lambda))<0$. Define a vector field $\xi\in H^0(\mathbb{P}^1; u_s^*T\fibc{{w(\lambda)}})$ by
\[ \xi(z) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
v & 0\text{-chart}\\
z^{-\alpha(w(\lambda))} v& \infty\text{-chart}
\end{array}
\right. .\]
Since $\xi(\infty)=0$, we can extend $\xi$ trivially to a deformation vector field $\xi'$ of $u$. (Recall we have proved that $u_0$ does not exist.) It is clear that $\xi'$ is non-tangential to $u$, and hence it defines a weight vector in $T_u\MM(\wl,\b)$ of weight $\alpha(w(\lambda))<0$, a contradiction.
Thus, every $u\in\mathcal{F}$ is contained in the set-theoretic image of morphism \eqref{3eemb} after passing to the limit of morphism \eqref{3emor}. By \eqref{3eimply}, $u$ actually lies in the image set before passing to the limit. The proof of Proposition \ref{3emain} is complete.
\end{myproof}
\section{Proof of the main theorem}\label{4}
\subsection{Construction of the homomorphism} \label{4a}
\begin{definition}\label{4adef}
Define an $R(T)$-linear map
\[\Phi: \bigoplus_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}} \fof(R(T))\langle\OO_{\mu}\rangle\rightarrow QK_T(G/P)[\Lambda^{-1}]\otimes\fof(R(T))\]
by
\[\Phi(\OO_{\mu}):= \sum_{i,j\in I} \sum_{\beta\in\pi_2(G/P)} q^{\beta} g^{ij}\chi_{\MM(\mu,\b)}(\mathcal{O}_{\MM(\mu,\b)}^{vir}\otimes \ev^*e_i)(\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_j),\]
where $\mathcal{O}_{\MM(\mu,\b)}^{vir}\in K^T(\MM(\mu,\b))$ is the virtual structure sheaf constructed in \cite{Lee}. See Section \ref{2b} for the definition of $\{e_i\}_{i\in I}$, $\{g^{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ and $A_{G/P}$, and Section \ref{3b} for the definition of $\MM(\mu,\b)$.
\end{definition}
In order for $\Phi$ to be well-defined, we must verify
\begin{lemma} $\Phi(\OO_{\mu})$ lands in $QK_T(G/P)[\Lambda^{-1}]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Corollary \ref{3ecor1} since $\MM(\mu,\b)\subseteq\MM(\wl,\b)$ for some $wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{4aprop} $\Phi$ is an $R(T)$-algebra homomorphism.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof relies heavily on Appendix \ref{app1}. Let $\mu_1,\mu_2\inQ^{\vee}$. We have
\[\Phi(\OO_{\mu_1}\bulletsmall \OO_{\mu_2})= \Phi(\OO_{\mu_1+\mu_2}) = \sum_{i,j\in I} g^{ij}\pgw_{\mu_1+\mu_2}(e_i) (\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_j)\]
where $\pgw$ is defined in Definition \ref{appdef2}. By Proposition \ref{appmain}, the last expression is equal to
\begin{align*}
& \sum_{i,j\in I}\sum_{i',j'\in I}g^{ij} g^{i'j'} \pgw_{\mu_1}\left(e_i,(\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_{i'})\right)\pgw_{\mu_2}(e_{j'}) (\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_j)\\
=~& \sum_{i,j\in I} g^{ij}\pgw_{\mu_1}\left(e_i,\Phi(\OO_{\mu_2})\right) (\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_j).
\end{align*}
Applying Proposition \ref{appmain} again, to the splitting $\mu_1=\mu_1+0$, the last expression is equal to
\begin{align*}
& \sum_{i,j\in I}\sum_{i',j'\in I}g^{ij} g^{i'j'} \pgw_{\mu=0}\left(e_i,\Phi(\OO_{\mu_2}),(\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_{i'})\right)\pgw_{\mu_1}(e_{j'}) (\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_j)\\
=~& \sum_{i,j\in I}g^{ij} \pgw_{\mu=0}\left(e_i,\Phi(\OO_{\mu_2}),\Phi(\OO_{\mu_1}) \right) (\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_j).
\end{align*}
But we have (cf. \cite[Lemma 3.7]{me})
\[ \pgw_{\mu=0}\left(e_i,\Phi(\OO_{\mu_2}),\Phi(\OO_{\mu_1}) \right) = \sum_{\beta\in\Lambda}q^{\beta} \gw^{\beta}(\Phi(\OO_{\mu_1}),\Phi(\OO_{\mu_2}),e_i). \]
Therefore,
\[ \Phi(\OO_{\mu_1}\bulletsmall \OO_{\mu_2})=\Phi(\OO_{\mu_1})\star\Phi(\OO_{\mu_2})\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Step 1 of the computation: reducing to the initial term} \label{4b}
The main result of this subsection is Proposition \ref{4bprop}. Let $wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-$. Recall the map $f_{wt_{\lambda}}:\G_{wt_{\lambda}}\rightarrow \mathcal{G}/\mathcal{G}^0$ defined in Section \ref{3b}. By abuse of notation, we also denote by $f_{wt_{\lambda}}$ the composite
\[ \G_{wt_{\lambda}}\xrightarrow{f_{wt_{\lambda}}} \mathcal{G}/\mathcal{G}^0 \rightarrow L_{sm}G/L_{sm}^0G\xrightarrow{\sim} \Omega_{sm} K\]
where the second arrow is the obvious map and the third is the diffeomorphism in Theorem \ref{2cdiffeo}.
\begin{lemma} $f_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is a $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}$-equivariant resolution of $\overline{\mathcal{B}^{0,-}_{sm}\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}}$. In particular, the image of $f_{wt_{\lambda}}$ lies in $Gr_G=\Omega_{pol}K$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First notice that for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $i=0,\ldots, r$, we have
\[ \mathcal{P}_{\widetilde{\alpha}_i}\cdot Gr^{(n)}(H)\subseteq Gr^{(n+1)}(H).\]
It follows that $f_{wt_{\lambda}}$ lands in $Gr^{(N)}(H)$ for sufficiently large $N$. In particular, $f_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is algebraic. Since $wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-$ and the word defining $\G_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is reduced, there exists a unique point $\gamma\in\G_{wt_{\lambda}}$ such that $f_{wt_{\lambda}}(\gamma)=x_{w(\lambda)}$. Moreover, the orbit $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}\cdot\gamma$ is open and $f_{wt_{\lambda}}|_{\mathcal{B}^{0,-}\cdot\gamma}$ is bijective onto $\mathcal{B}^{0,-}_{sm}\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}$. The rest of the proof is clear.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{4bratsing} $(f_{wt_{\lambda}})_*[\mathcal{O}_{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}] = [\mathcal{O}_{\overline{\mathcal{B}^{0,-}_{sm}\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}}}]=\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}\in K^T(Gr_G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the fact that affine Schubert varieties have rational singularities. A proof can be found in \cite[Theorem 8.2.2]{Kumarbook}. Although our definition of these varieties is a priori different from the one in \textit{loc. cit.}, the arguments there apply well to our case.
\end{proof}
Recall $\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}$ is regarded as an element of the domain of $\Phi$ via \eqref{2cmono}.
\begin{lemma} \label{4bchangebasis} We have
\[ \Phi(\OO_{wt_{\lambda}})=\sum_{i,j\in I} \sum_{\beta\in\beta_{w(\lambda)}+\Lambda} q^{\beta} g^{ij}\chi_{\MM(\wl,\b)}(\ev^*e_i)(\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}(e_j)\]
where $\beta_{w(\lambda)}$ is defined in Definition \ref{3dbwl}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the classical localization formula,
\[ [\mathcal{O}_{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}] = \sum_{\gamma\in \G_{wt_{\lambda}}^T}\frac{1}{\Lambda_{-1}((T_{\gamma}\G_{wt_{\lambda}})^{\vee})} [\mathcal{O}_{\gamma}]\in K^T(\G_{wt_{\lambda}})\]
where $\Lambda_{-1}(V):=\sum_{i\geqslant 0} (-1)^i[\Lambda^i V]\inR(T)$ for any $T$-module $V$. Applying $(f_{wt_{\lambda}})_*$ to both sides of the last equation and using Lemma \ref{4bratsing}, we get
\[ \OO_{wt_{\lambda}} = \sum_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}} \left(\sum_{\gamma\in\G_{wt_{\lambda}}^T\cap f_{wt_{\lambda}}^{-1}(\mu)} \frac{1}{\Lambda_{-1}((T_{\gamma}\G_{wt_{\lambda}})^{\vee})}\right)\OO_{\mu} .\]
The rest follows from a parallel argument used in the proof of \cite[Lemma 3.9]{me} which deals with the case of quantum cohomology. In our case, we need the $K$-theoretic version of virtual localization formula in \cite{GP}. See \cite{Kvirtual} for the explicit formula and its proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{4brmk}
Some care needs to be taken when we apply the virtual localization formula: The proof of this formula given in \cite{Kvirtual} assumes an extra condition which, by \cite[Proposition 5.13]{KS}, is satisfied if our stack admits a $T$-equivariant \'etale atlas of finite type. According to the remark following that proposition, which cites \cite[Theorem 4.3]{AHR}, every separated Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type with a $T$-action admits such an atlas, after possibly reparametrizing $T$. Notice that such reparametrization will not affect the argument in the proof of Lemma \ref{4bchangebasis}. Alternatively, the existence of the required atlas for our particular stack follows from \cite[Corollary 4]{Oprea}.
\end{remark}
Define
\[\varphi:= \sum_{i,j\in I}\sum_{\beta\in\beta_{w(\lambda)}+\Lambda} q^{\beta} g^{ij} \chi_{\MM(\wl,\b)}(\ev^*e_i)e_j.\]
Notice the absence of $(\id+A_{G/P})^{-1}$. Write $\varphi=\varphi_0+\varphi_+$ where $\varphi_0$ (resp. $\varphi_+$) is the expression contributed by $\beta=\beta_{w(\lambda)}$ (resp. $\beta\ne\beta_{w(\lambda)}$).
\begin{proposition}\label{4bprop} $\Phi(\OO_{wt_{\lambda}})=\varphi_0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{4blem1} below, we have $\varphi_+=A_{G/P}(\varphi_0)$, and hence
\[\Phi(\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}) = (\id +A_{G/P})^{-1}(\varphi_0+\varphi_+)= (\id +A_{G/P})^{-1}\circ(\id +A_{G/P})(\varphi_0) = \varphi_0.\]
\end{proof}
Before proving Lemma \ref{4blem1} which is used in the proof of Proposition \ref{4bprop}, we first prove another lemma. Recall morphism \eqref{3eemb}. Its domain is $F_{wt_{\lambda}}\times_{(h_{wt_{\lambda}},\ev_1)}\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})$ if $\beta\ne\beta_{w(\lambda)}$ and $F_{wt_{\lambda}}$ if $\beta=\beta_{w(\lambda)}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{4blem2}
We have
\[\ev_*[\mathcal{O}_{\MM(\wl,\b)}]=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
(\ev'_2)_* [\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}\times_{(h_{wt_{\lambda}},\ev_1)}\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})}] & \beta\ne\beta_{w(\lambda)}\\ [1em]
(h_{wt_{\lambda}})_* [\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}}] & \beta=\beta_{w(\lambda)}
\end{array}\right.\]
where $\ev'_2$ is induced by the evaluation map on $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})$ at the second marked point.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Remark \ref{2abrmk}, it suffices to verify the corresponding equality for their coarse moduli. Let $M$ and $F$ be the coarse moduli of $\MM(\wl,\b)$ and the domain of \eqref{3eemb}. They are projective varieties with only finite quotient singularities. Since $\MM(\wl,\b)$ is irreducible by Corollary \ref{3ecor2} and the canonical morphism $\MM(\wl,\b)\rightarrow M$ is surjective, $M$ is also irreducible. Similarly, $F$ is irreducible. By the definition of coarse moduli, morphism \eqref{3eemb} induces a unique morphism $\iota:F\rightarrow M$ which is equal to \eqref{3eemb} set-theoretically. The uniqueness implies that $\iota$ is $T$-equivariant.
Denote by $M^{sm}$ the smooth locus of $M$. It is easy to see that $\iota^{-1}(M^{sm})\ne\emptyset$ (look at chains of embedded spheres) and $\iota$ maps $\iota^{-1}(M^{sm})$ bijectively onto an attractive component $F'$ of $(M^{sm})^{\CC^{\times}_t}$. Since $\iota^{-1}(M^{sm})$ is reduced, $\iota|_{\iota^{-1}(M^{sm})}$ factors through the inclusion $F'\hookrightarrow M^{sm}$. There exists a non-empty open subscheme $V\subseteq \iota^{-1}(M^{sm})$ such that $\iota|_V$ is smooth over $F'$. Since $\iota$ is injective, $\iota|_V$ is \'etale over $F'$ and hence an isomorphism onto its image.
By Theorem \ref{3ebb}, there exists a $\CC^{\times}_t$-invariant open subscheme $U\subseteq M^{sm}$ containing $F'$ and an affine fibration $U\rightarrow F'$. The latter morphism induces, via the morphism $\iota|_V:V\xrightarrow{\sim}\iota(V)\subseteq F'$, a rational map $\phi:M\dashrightarrow F$. Since $\iota$ is $T$-equivariant, $U$ is unique and the $T$-action commutes with the $\CC^{\times}_t$-action (see Section \ref{3c}(2)(i)), it follows that everything is $T$-equivariant.
By resolving the indeterminacy locus of $\phi$, we obtain a smooth irreducible projective variety $Z$ and morphisms $\nu_M:Z\rightarrow M$ and $\nu_F:Z\rightarrow F$ such that $\nu_M$ is birational and $\phi\circ \nu_M=\nu_F$. Since equivariant resolutions of singularities exist (see e.g. \cite{equivresolution}), we may assume $Z$ has a $T$-action and $\nu_M$, $\nu_F$ are $T$-equivariant. Define $\ev_F:=\ev_2'$ if $\beta\ne\beta_{w(\lambda)}$ and $\ev_F:=h_{wt_{\lambda}}$ otherwise. By the fact that $\ev$ is $\CC^{\times}_t$-invariant, we have $\ev=\ev_F\circ\phi$, and hence $\ev\circ\nu_M=\ev_F\circ \nu_F$, giving
\[ \ev_*(\nu_M)_*[\mathcal{O}_Z] = (\ev_F)_*(\nu_F)_*[\mathcal{O}_Z]\in K_T(G/P).\]
Since $Z$ has only finite quotient singularities and singularities of this kind are rational, by \cite{fqimpliesr}, we have $(\nu_M)_*[\mathcal{O}_Z]=[\mathcal{O}_M]$. To conclude the proof, it suffices to show $(\nu_F)_*[\mathcal{O}_Z]=[\mathcal{O}_F]$. This follows from \cite[Theorem 3.1]{BM}, given the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\nu_F$ is surjective and $T$-equivariant;
\item $Z$ and $F$ are projective with rational singularities; and
\item the general fiber of $\nu_F$ is rational.
\end{enumerate}
Condition (1) is obvious. To verify (2), we use the above cited result \cite{fqimpliesr}. For (3), take a non-empty open subscheme $W\subseteq V$ such that $\nu_F|_{\nu_F^{-1}(W)}$ is smooth. Since $Z$ contains an open dense subscheme $U'$ such that $\nu_F|_{U'}$ is an affine fibration over $W$, it follows that every geometric fiber of $\nu_F|_{\nu_F^{-1}(W)}$ is connected and contains the affine space as an open subscheme, i.e. it is rational.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{4blem1}
$\varphi_+=A_{G/P}(\varphi_0)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By the projection formula,
\[ \varphi_+= \sum_{\beta\in\beta_{w(\lambda)}+(\Lambda\setminus\{0\})}q^{\beta}\ev_*[\mathcal{O}_{\MM(\wl,\b)}]\]
which is equal to $\sum_{\beta\in \beta_{w(\lambda)}+(\Lambda\setminus\{0\})} q^{\beta} (\ev'_2)_*[\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}\times_{(h_{wt_{\lambda}},\ev_1)}\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})}]$ by Lemma \ref{4blem2}.
Denote by $\ev_1$ and $\ev_2$ the evaluation maps on $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})$. Since $\ev_1$ is flat, we have
\begin{equation}\label{4beq}
(\ev'_2)_*[\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}\times_{(h_{wt_{\lambda}},\ev_1)}\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(G/P,\beta-\beta_{w(\lambda)})}] = (\ev_2)_*(\ev_1)^*(h_{wt_{\lambda}})_*[\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}}],
\end{equation}
by the base change formula. Summing up \eqref{4beq} over all $\beta\in\beta_{w(\lambda)}+(\Lambda\setminus\{0\})$, weighted by $q^{\beta}$, we get $\varphi_+=A_{G/P}(q^{\beta_{w(\lambda)}}(h_{wt_{\lambda}})_*[\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}}])$. By Lemma \ref{4blem2} applied to $\beta=\beta_{w(\lambda)}$, we get $\varphi_0=q^{\beta_{w(\lambda)}}(h_{wt_{\lambda}})_*[\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}}]$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Step 2 of the computation: determining the initial term} \label{4c}
By Proposition \ref{4bprop}, it suffices to determine $\varphi_0$. By Lemma \ref{4blem2} applied to $\beta=\beta_{w(\lambda)}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{4ceq1}
\varphi_0 =q^{\beta_{w(\lambda)}}(h_{wt_{\lambda}})_*[\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}}]
\end{equation}
where $F_{wt_{\lambda}}$ and $h_{wt_{\lambda}}$ are defined in Definition \ref{3edef}. Since $\fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}$ is $B^-$-invariant and $f=f_{wt_{\lambda}}|_{\fm{\CC^{\times}_t}{\G_{wt_{\lambda}}}}$ is $B^-$-equivariant, $f$ is birational onto the Schubert variety $\overline{B^-\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}}\subseteq G\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}\simeq G/P_{w(\lambda)}$. Since Schubert varieties have rational singularities (see Lemma \ref{4bratsing}), we have, by the base change formula,
\begin{equation}\label{4ceq2}
(h_{wt_{\lambda}})_*[\mathcal{O}_{F_{wt_{\lambda}}}]=j_*[\mathcal{O}_{\pi^{-1}(\overline{B^-\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}})}].
\end{equation}
\noindent See \eqref{3edia} for the definition of $j$ and $\pi$.
Let us deal with the case $P=B^+$ first. Define $y_w':=wB^+\in G/B^+$ and $B_w:= wBw^{-1}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{4clem2} $~$
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have $y_w'\in\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/B^+}$ and $B_w\subseteq P_{w(\lambda)}$.
\item There exists a $G$-equivariant isomorphism
\[ \Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/B^+}\simeq G/B_w\]
under which $\pi$ and $j$ (see diagram \eqref{3edia}) are identified with the projection $G/B_w\rightarrow G/P_{w(\lambda)}$ and the isomorphism $G/B_w\xrightarrow{\sim} G/B^+: gB_w\mapsto gwB^+$ respectively.
\item $j$ maps $\pi^{-1}(\overline{B^-\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}})$ isomorphically onto $\overline{B^-\cdot y_w'}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) is proved by looking at the weight spaces:
\[ T_{y_w'}(G/B^+)\simeq \bigoplus_{\alpha\in -wR^+}\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}\quad\text{ and }\quad \lie(B_w)=\mathfrak{h}\oplus\bigoplus_{\alpha\in wR^+}\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}.\]
Since $wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-$, $\lambda$ is anti-dominant, and hence $\pm\alpha(w(\lambda))\geqslant 0$ for any $\alpha\in \mp wR^+$.
To prove (2), recall (Lemma \ref{3dtrans}) $P_{w(\lambda)}$ acts transitively on $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/B^+}$. Hence, by (1), we have $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/B^+}\simeq P_{w(\lambda)}/B_w$ so that
\[ \Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/B^+}\simeq \Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}(P_{w(\lambda)}/B_w)\simeq G/B_w.\]
The rest of the proof is clear.
For (3), we use the identifications in (2). Denote by $C$ the dominant Weyl chamber. It suffices to show that $wC$ has the smallest length (with respect to $C$) among other chambers which contain $-w(\lambda)$. It amounts to showing
\begin{equation}\label{4bsmallest}
\alpha(w(\lambda))=0\text{ and }\alpha\in R^+\Longrightarrow w^{-1}\alpha\in R^+.
\end{equation}
This requires the assumption $wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-$. Denote by $\Delta$ the dominant alcove. By definition, the alcove $wt_{\lambda}(\Delta)=w(\lambda)+w(\Delta)$ has the smallest length (with respect to $\Delta$) among other alcoves which contain $w(\lambda)$. If $\alpha(w(\lambda))=0$, then $w(\lambda)+w(\Delta)$ and $\Delta$ lie in the same side with respect to the wall $\{\alpha=0\}$. This proves \eqref{4bsmallest}.
\end{proof}
For general $P$, we have the commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\vspace{.2cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{\x1 = 3; \x2 = 1.5; \x3=3.2;}
\node (A) at (0,0) {$G\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}$} ;
\node (B) at (-\x1,-\x2) {$\Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/B^+}$} ;
\node (C) at (\x1,-\x2) {$\Gt{P_{w(\lambda)}}\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/P}$} ;
\node (D) at (-\x1,-\x3) {$G/B^+$};
\node (E) at (\x1,-\x3) {$G/P$};
\node (F) at (-0.88*\x1,-0.5*\x3-0.55*\x2) {$\simeq$};
\node at (-0.6*\x1, -0.3*\x2) {{\scriptsize $\pi_{G/B^+}$}};
\node at (0.58*\x1, -0.3*\x2) {{\scriptsize $\pi_{G/P}$}};
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(B) edge node[anchor = south]{} (C);
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(D) edge node[anchor = south]{$p$} (E);
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(B) edge node[anchor = south east]{} (A);
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(C) edge node[anchor = south west]{} (A);
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(B) edge node[left]{$j_{G/B^+}$} (D);
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(C) edge node[right]{$j_{G/P}$} (E);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
where the horizontal arrows are some canonical projections. By Lemma \ref{4clem2} and the fact that the upper horizontal arrow has rational fibers, we have
\begin{equation}\label{4ceq3}
(j_{G/P})_*[\mathcal{O}_{(\pi_{G/P})^{-1}(\overline{B^-\cdot x_{w(\lambda)}})}] = p_*[\mathcal{O}_{\overline{B^-\cdot y_w'}}].
\end{equation}
Denote by $\widetilde{w}\in W/W_P$ the minimal length coset representative of $wW_P$. Notice $p(\overline{B^-\cdot y_w'})=\overline{B^-\cdot y_{\widetilde{w}}}$ but the dimension of some fibers of $p|_{\overline{B^-\cdot y_w'}}$ may be positive. Choose Bott-Samelson resolutions $\Gamma'\rightarrow \overline{B^-\cdot y_w'}$ and $\Gamma\rightarrow \overline{B^-\cdot y_{\widetilde{w}}}$ such that there is a map $p':\Gamma'\rightarrow \Gamma$ defined by forgetting last few factors of $\Gamma'$ which fits into the commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{tikzcd}
\Gamma' \arrow{d}[left]{p'} \arrow{r} &[1.0em] \overline{B^-\cdot y_w'} \arrow{d}{p} \\
\Gamma \arrow{r} &[1.0em] \overline{B^-\cdot y_{\widetilde{w}}}
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation}
\noindent By the facts that $p'$ has rational fibers and Schubert varieties have rational singularities, we have
\begin{equation}\label{4ceq4}
p_*[\mathcal{O}_{\overline{B^-\cdot y_w'}}]=[\mathcal{O}_{\overline{B^-\cdot y_{\widetilde{w}}}}].
\end{equation}
\noindent Alternatively, \eqref{4ceq4} follows from \cite[Theorem 3.1]{BM}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}} \label{4d}
We start with summarizing what we have done in the previous subsections. We defined an $R(T)$-linear map $\Phi$ in Definition \ref{4adef} and proved in Proposition \ref{4aprop} that it is an $R(T)$-algebra homomorphism. A priori, $\Phi$ was defined in terms of the localization basis $\{\OO_{\mu}\}_{\mu\inQ^{\vee}}$. But by Lemma \ref{4bchangebasis}, it can also be defined in the same style in terms of the affine Schubert basis $\{\OO_{wt_{\lambda}}\}_{wt_{\lambda}\in W_{af}^-}$. By Proposition \ref{4bprop}, \eqref{4ceq1}, \eqref{4ceq2}, \eqref{4ceq3} and \eqref{4ceq4}, we have
\[ \Phi(\OO_{wt_{\lambda}})= q^{\beta_{w(\lambda)}} [\mathcal{O}_{\overline{B^-\cdot y_{\widetilde{w}}}}].\]
It remains to show that $\beta_{w(\lambda)}$ corresponds to $\lambda+Q^{\vee}_P$ via the dual of isomorphism \eqref{2bisom}. By making use of the canonical projection $G/B^+\rightarrow G/P$, we may assume $P=B^+$. Let $\rho\in (Q^{\vee})^*$. We have to show $\deg(u^*\mathcal{L}_{\rho})=\rho(\lambda)$ for the constant section $u$ of $\fibb{w(\lambda)}$ corresponding to a point of $\fm{\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}}{G/B^+}$. By Lemma \ref{4clem2}, we can take that point to be $y'_w:=wB^+$. Recall $L_{\rho}=\Gt{B^+}\mathbb{C}_{-\rho}$ so that $(L_{\rho})_{y'_w}\simeq \mathbb{C}_{-w\rho}$ as $T$-modules, and hence $(L_{\rho})_{y'_w}\simeq \mathbb{C}_{-\rho(\lambda)}$ as $\CC^{\times}_{w(\lambda)}$-modules. Therefore, $u^*\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\simeq\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(\rho(\lambda))$ as desired. The proof of Theorem \ref{main} is complete.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
{\color{red}
Analysis that seeks to identify causal links among components of dynamic
systems requires models that account for all the relevant processes and
interactions that affect the quantities of interest. The complexity of such
models increases rapidly with the complexity of the underlying system and the
forecasting range. An instructive example is Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a
time series with an extremely complex dependency on many national and
international variables. The current UK Treasury Model used for econometric
forecasting utilizes around 30 main equations and 100 independent input
variables \cite{StatsRef21}. Such complexity is unavoidable when modeling is
aimed at understanding the drivers of the time variation.
A simpler approach, employed when the goal is limited to forecasting without
attempting to uncover causal connections, is to describe the data with
statistical indicators that can be calculated with general purpose,
off-the-shelf software packages without regard to the nature of the phenomenon
under study. Apart from rudimentary statistical indicators such as mean and
variance, useful information about a dataset is obtained from time-series
analysis of its stochastic variability. Such analysis utilizes autoregression
(AR) or moving average (MA) process modeling, or a combination of the two
(ARMA) \cite{StatsRef21, Ivezic14}. The underlying assumption is that the time
series is stationary, meaning that the origin of time does not affect the
properties of the studied process. This assumption implies that prior to the
application of stochastic analysis, all systematic components that have
consistency or recurrence must be removed from the time series. A seasonal
component is removed when the series exhibits regular fluctuations based on the
time of the year. Seasonality is always of a fixed and known period. An
additional type of deterministic recurring variation is usually referred to as
cyclical, corresponding to variations that are periodic but not seasonal, or
regular but not of fixed period. In practice, the difference between the two
categories is one of semantics rather than substance --- both can be removed
with Fourier analysis, with seasonal variations described by a single frequency
while cyclic ones require a finite number ($> 1$) of Fourier components. The
removal of all regularly recurring variations from a time series is possible
because Fourier analysis can describe every variation pattern that displays
periodicity of any kind.
Sufficiently long time series can be averaged over multiple segments, each
having a span longer than the longest regularly recurring variation. When a
monotonic trend exists in the resulting sequence of mean values, it implies a
secular variation that cannot be modeled with a combination of Fourier
components. Instead, removal of such monotonic trend, sometimes called
``detrending,'' is commonly done by differencing, leading to autoregressive
integrated moving average (ARIMA) modeling \cite{StatsRef21, Forecasting21,
Ivezic14}. Differencing $n$ times will remove a monotonic trend that varies as
a power-law with index $n$, thus it can remove all polynomial trends. However,
differencing is ineffective for the exponential growth that typifies the
long-term behavior of, for instance, many nations' GDP and population.
Exponential trends can be handled by switching to the logarithm of the data
points, transforming the time series into one with a linear trend that is then
removed by differencing. But although effective, this technique is only
applicable to growth at a constant rate. In particular, it cannot handle
declining growth rates, which are quite common. Such slowdown of growth is
sometimes described with the logistic function (see \S\ref{sec:logist}), which
serves as the basis for logistic detrending \cite{StatsRef21}. But this is
again a specific function with limited applicability. Even in fields where the
logistic had notable successes, such as diffusion of innovation
\cite{Griliches57}, its symmetric S-shape conflicts with much of the data
\cite{Lekvall73} (see \S\ref{sec:discussion}).
In contrast with the handling of periodic variations, where Fourier analysis
provides the foundation for a universal technique, a general method for the
removal of monotonic long-term trends from time series is not yet available.
The prospects for such a framework now exist thanks to the newly developed
\emph{hindering formalism} to extract the exponential component from a growth
process and describe the remainder with the optimal number of parameters
\cite{EKZ20}.
}%
Based on a general solution of the equation of growth, the method has been used
to analyze the time variation of population and GDP in the US and UK, the
countries with the longest continuous datasets, going back more than 200 years.
The results show that in spite of highly volatile growth rates, the long-term
time variations of both GDP and population in both the US and UK are rather
smooth and regular. The formalism has also been used to model the \hbox{COVID-19}\
pandemic outburst in 89 nations and US states \cite{Elitzur21}. The sizeable
sample enabled a meaningful search for correlations that yielded strong
statistical evidence for the impact of preventive policies on slowing the
pandemic initial growth; a delay of one week in the implementation of the first
policy nearly tripled the size of the infected population, on average.
{\color{red}%
The aim of this paper is to solidify the methodology of the hindering formalism
so that it can become a standard detrending tool in time series analysis. After
deriving the general solution of the equation of growth in \S\ref{sec:growth},
in \S\ref{sec:decelerated} I develop a new general formulation for any function
that describes decelerated growth, including the logistic, and present detailed
analysis and comparisons of these functions. Such meaningful comparison is made
possible thanks to the newly derived unified functional form that uses a common
set of parameters to describe every possible pattern of growth deceleration.
Section \ref{sec:time series} discusses the practical details of implementing
the hindering formalism in data analysis of a time series, and
\S\ref{sec:examples} presents actual examples of such analyses. Accelerated
growth is discussed briefly in \S\ref{sec:accelerated}, which shows that growth
acceleration can only have a limited duration. Section \ref{sec:discussion}
closes with a detailed discussion, including both advantages and limitations of
the formalism presented here and directions for future work.
}
\section{The Equation of Growth and its Solution}
\label{sec:growth}
The growth of quantity $Q\ (> 0)$ with time $t$ is described by the equation of
growth
\eq{\label{eq:growth}
\frac{dQ}{dt} = gQ
}
where $g$ is the growth rate.\footnote{The growth rate is frequently denoted
$r$ rather than $g$. Here I follow the common practice among economists.} For
this equation to be meaningful it must be accompanied by some suitable
constraints on $g$. A growth process is characterized by a monotonically
increasing $Q$, so $g$ must be positive. This also implies that $Q$ is a
single-valued function of time, therefore $g$ can be considered a function of
$Q$, itself a function of $t$. As a linear differential equation, the solution
requires a boundary condition such as the value of $Q$, say $Q_i$, at some
initial time. The initial $Q_i$ can be arbitrarily small (though $> 0$,
otherwise $Q$ will remain 0 at all times). In addition, $g(Q_i)$, too, must be
$> 0$ (to avoid $gQ = 0$) no matter how small $Q_i$. Therefore the limit $g(Q
\to 0)$ must exist and we require it to be finite\footnote{Appendix
\ref{app:Gompertz} shows an example with $g(Q) \to \infty$ when $Q \to 0$. Such
divergence is excluded from our discussion.} and non-vanishing:
\eq{\label{eq:gu}
\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$} \equiv \lim_{Q \to 0} g(Q) > 0.
}
We refer to \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ as the \emph{unhindered growth rate} for reasons that will
become clear below. Now make the transformation from $g(Q)$ to the function
$f(Q)$, defined from
\eq{\label{eq:f}
g(Q) = \frac{\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}}{1 + f(Q)}.
}
This transformation effects a complete separation of the variables $t$ and $Q$
in eq.\ \ref{eq:growth}. While $g$ is rate, with dimensions of inverse time,
$f$ is a dimensionless mathematical function. The requirement $g > 0$ implies
$f(Q) > -1$ for all $Q$, and the condition in eq. \ref{eq:gu} translates into
$f(0) = 0$; other than that, $f$ is arbitrary. Assuming it to be a well behaved
function, $f$ can be expanded in a power series
\eq{\label{eq:f_series}
f(Q) = \sum_{k \ge 1} \hbox{$\alpha_k$} Q^k,
}
with \hbox{$\alpha_k$}\ some expansion coefficients; the condition $f(0) = 0$ dictates
$\alpha_0 = 0$. Inserting this series expansion into the growth equation yields
\eq{\label{eq:solution}
\ln Q + \sum_{k \ge 1} \frac1k\hbox{$\alpha_k$} Q^k = \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$} t + C,
}
where $C$ is a constant determined from the initial condition. This is the
general solution of the equation of growth \cite{EKZ20}. Any growth pattern can
be described by this equation with a suitable choice of the expansion
parameters \hbox{$\alpha_k$}.
In addition to enabling solution of the growth equation, the transformation
from $g$ to $f$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:f}) also provides a useful classification of the
domains of growth. The point $f = -1$ yields a singularity for $g$, separating
contraction ($g < 0$) from expansion ($g > 0$). The solution in eq.\
\ref{eq:solution} cannot be extended across this singularity, it is
inapplicable to declining quantities. Since the constraint in eq.\ \ref{eq:gu}
cannot be met for a decreasing $Q$, a general description of the $g < 0$ domain
would require a different approach. The growth domain, $f > -1$, is further
divided into two distinct regions by the point $f = 0$, which corresponds to a
simple exponential with the constant growth rate \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}. In the region $-1 < f <
0$ the growth rate obeys $g(Q) > \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}$, corresponding to accelerated growth
--- as $Q$ increases so does the growth rate. The domain $f > 0$ corresponds to
decelerated growth --- $g(Q) < \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}$, growth is slowing as $Q$ is increasing. We
discuss first the latter case, which is more common.
\section{Decelerated Growth}
\label{sec:decelerated}
The equation of growth (eq.\ \ref{eq:growth}) contains two independent units of
measurement, one each for $Q$ (e.g., currency, size of population, etc.) and
$t$ (day, year, etc.). As a result, the solution in eq.\ \ref{eq:solution} is
not suitable for a general analysis of growth patterns because every expansion
coefficient \hbox{$\alpha_k$}\ has its own dimension (inverse of the unit for $Q$, raised to
the $k$th power). If $Q$ describes GDP, for example, changing the currency unit
will require each \hbox{$\alpha_k$}\ to be scaled by a different factor, resulting in an
entirely different set of expansion coefficients. For a general classification
of growth patterns, intrinsic scales must be removed so that all quantities are
transformed into dimensionless mathematical variables. Since the growth rate is
measured in units of inverse time, the unhindered growth rate \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ (eq.\
\ref{eq:gu}) defines an intrinsic scale for time. The natural independent
variable of the problem is the dimensionless
\eq{\label{eq:x}
x = \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$} t.
}
\subsection{Hindering}
\label{sec:hindering}
To identify a similar intrinsic scale for $Q$ we start with a simple
illustrative example. Consider a desolate island into which apple seeds are
introduced. Some seeds will sprout, apple trees will produce new seeds and the
tree population will grow. The growth rate of the first generation of trees is
\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ (eq.\ \ref{eq:gu}), determined by the island's climate, ground fertility,
etc. This rate is maintained so long as individual trees do not interfere with
the growth of each other. Once the number of trees has grown to the point that
tree crowding becomes a significant factor, the growth rate begins to decline
from its initial value, an effect termed \emph{hindering} \cite{EKZ20}: the
growing quantity hinders its own growth when it is sufficiently large. The size
of the tree population at the onset of hindering is a characteristic of the
growth process.
For a general discussion we turn to the transformation in eq.\ \ref{eq:f}.
Growth deceleration implies that $g(Q)$ is decreasing with $Q$, therefore its
mathematical transform $f(Q)$ is monotonically \emph{increasing} from its
initial $f(0) = 0$. The increasing $f$ delineates two domains of growth. As
long as $f(Q) \ll 1$ the growth rate is roughly constant, $g(Q) \simeq \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}$,
and $Q$ grows as an unhindered exponential irrespective of the functional form
of $f$. On the other hand, when $f(Q) \gg 1$ the growth rate becomes $g(Q)
\simeq \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}/f(Q)$. This is the \emph{hindered growth} domain: the growth rate
decreases monotonically from the maximal \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ with a time variation controlled
by the specific functional form of $f(Q)$. Varying this form yields growth
patterns that can be very different from exponential.
Introduce the \emph{hindering parameter} \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}, the magnitude of $Q$ at the point
where $f = 1$; that is, \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\ is defined from
\eq{\label{eq:Qh}
f(\hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}) = 1, \quad \text{i.e.,} \quad
g(\hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}) = \hbox{$\tfrac12$}\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}.
}
The hindering parameter is an intrinsic property of the growth process, marking
the transition between unhindered growth at $Q < \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}$ ($f < 1$) and hindered
growth at $Q > \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}$ ($f > 1$). Denote by \hbox{$x_{\rm h}$}\ the magnitude of the independent
variable when $Q = \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}$, {\color{red} namely, \hbox{$x_{\rm h}$}\ is defined from
\eq{\label{eq:xh}
Q(\hbox{$x_{\rm h}$}) = \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\,;
}
the corresponding time is $\th = \hbox{$x_{\rm h}$}/\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}$. The time variation of $Q$ can be
written in terms of a mathematical hindering function $h$ such that
\begin{samepage}
\eq{\label{eq:math}
Q(t) = \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\,h(\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$} t - \hbox{$x_{\rm h}$})
}
where
\[
h(0) = 1, \qquad h'(0) = \hbox{$\tfrac12$}
\]
\end{samepage}%
and where the prime denotes derivative with respect to $x$; the boundary
condition $h'(0) = \hbox{$\tfrac12$}$ arises from the definition of \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\ in eq.\
\ref{eq:Qh}. Inserting this form of $Q$ into the equation of growth (eq.\
\ref{eq:growth}) and following the subsequent steps, the hindering function
$h(x)$ describing the growth process obeys
\begin{samepage}
\eq{\label{eq:h_solution}
\ln h(x) + \sum_{k \ge 1}\frac1k a_k\left[h^k(x) - 1 \right] = x
}
with
\[
\sum_{k \ge 1} a_k = 1,
\]
\end{samepage}%
a constraint that follows directly from the boundary conditions in eq.\
\ref{eq:math}. The numerical constants $a_k$ are weight factors intrinsic to
the growth process; the dimensional expansion coefficients in eq.\
\ref{eq:solution} are $\hbox{$\alpha_k$} = a_k/Q_h^k$. Note that the hindering function
$h(x)$ is the solution of the differential equation
\eq{
\frac{dh}{dx} = \frac{h}{\DS 1 + \sum_{k \ge 1} a_k h^k}
}
with the boundary condition $h(0) = 1$.
We have derived a \emph{universal representation for decelerated growth}. Every
process of decelerated growth can be described with eq.\ \ref{eq:math}. It is
characterized by a mathematical hindering function $h(x)$, defined in eq.\
\ref{eq:h_solution} by its weight coefficients $a_k$, and by the common set of
parameters \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ (eq.\ \ref{eq:gu}), \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\ (eq.\ \ref{eq:Qh}) and \hbox{$x_{\rm h}$}\ (eq.\
\ref{eq:xh}).
}%
The point \hbox{($x$ = 0, $h$ = 1)} marks the transition from unhindered to
hindered growth. The unhindered domain, $x < 0$, is where $h < 1$ ($Q < \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}$)
and the logarithmic term dominates the left-hand side of eq.\
\ref{eq:h_solution}, yielding exponential growth. The hindered domain, $x > 0$,
has $h > 1$ ($Q > \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}$). As a result, the power-law expansion terms dominate
and the logarithm can be neglected. We proceed now to some specific examples of
hindering functions $h(x)$.
\subsection{Single-Term Hindering}
\label{sec:sth}
The simplest hindering functions are obtained when all but one of the hindering
coefficients in eq.\ \ref{eq:h_solution} vanish; from the corresponding
constraint, that coefficient must be unity. Then the growth pattern becomes $h
= \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}(x)$, where the single-term hindering function (sth hereafter) of order
$k\ (\ge 1)$ is defined via
\eq{\label{eq:sth}
\ln\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}(x) + \frac1k\left[\hbox{$h_{\rm k}^k$}(x) - 1\right] = x.
}
This is an implicit analytic definition of \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}. For any given $x$, $\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}(x)$ can
be calculated numerically from this equation with a suitable procedure; the
Newton method proved to be both efficient and reliable. The time variation of
the associated growth rate is
\eq{\label{eq:sth_g}
g(\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}) = \frac{\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}}{1 + \hbox{$h_{\rm k}^k$}(x)}.
}
All sth functions have $\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}(0) = 1$. Leading-order approximation for the
behavior of \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}\ when $x < 0$ ($\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$} < 1$) are obtained by neglecting \hbox{$h_{\rm k}^k$}\ and
retaining only $\ln\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}$ in eq.\ \ref{eq:sth}, with the opposite approximation
when $x
> 0$ ($\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$} > 1$). This yields
\eq{\label{eq:sth_approx}
\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}(x) \simeq \left\{%
\begin{array}{ll}
e^{x + 1/k} &\qquad x \ll 0\\ \\
(1 + kx)^{1/k} &\qquad x \gg 0
\end{array}\right.
}
In the unhindered domain \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}\ increases exponentially for all $k$. In the
hindered domain its asymptotic behavior is $\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$} \propto x^{1/k}$; the larger is
$k$, the slower the growth.
\begin{figure}[ht
\includegraphics[width=\hsize, clip]{mosaic}
\centering \caption{Mathematical hindering functions. (\textbf{a}) Plots of
single-term hindering \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}\ (eq.\ \ref{eq:sth}) for various values of $k$, as
labeled, and of the logistic $\ell$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:logist}). A thin horizontal
line at $h = 1$ marks the boundary between the unhindered ($x < 0,\ h < 1$) and
hindered ($x > 0,\ h > 1$) domains. Also shown is the exponential $e^x$ in
dashed line. (\textbf{b}) The ratio $\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}(x)/\ell(x)$. (\textbf{c}) The
asymmetry measure $a$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:asymmetry}) for \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}\ and $\ell$.
(\textbf{d}) Time derivatives of \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}\ and $\ell$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:h'}). All pass
through the point $\left(0, \hbox{$\tfrac12$}\right)$ (see eq.\ \ref{eq:math}). Except for
$h_1$, every derivative has a peak, marked with a short vertical line.
}
\label{fig:Mosaic}
\end{figure}
Panel (\textbf{a}) of Figure \ref{fig:Mosaic} shows plots of \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}\ for $k =
1,\ldots, 5$. For comparison, the exponential function is also shown, plotted
with a dashed line. The sth functions are defined only for $k \ge 1$ (eq.
\ref{eq:sth}). However, $(z^k - 1)/k \to 0$ when $k \to 0$ for any value of
$z,$\footnote{This is easily verified with L'Hôpital's rule.} therefore we can
formally consider $e^x$ as the 0-th order member of the \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}\ series, consistent
with the $k \to 0$ limit in the definition of \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}.
\subsection{Multi-Term Hindering}
Every sth function increases without a bound when $x \to \infty$, although the
rise flattens with increasing $k$. When the hindering sum in eq.\
\ref{eq:h_solution} is dominated by its $k$th order term, the asymptotic
behavior of $h$ is $\sim x^{1/k}$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:sth_approx}) --- larger values
of $k$ provide flatter growth. Therefore, when the sum contains a finite number
of terms with monotonically decreasing $a_k$, $h$ varies as follows: After an
initial exponential rise, the linear term in the sum starts to dominate when
$a_1h$ \hbox{becomes $> 1$}, and $h$ becomes proportional to $x$ instead of
$e^x$. Once the 2nd-order term starts dominating, the behavior switches to
$h~\propto~x^{1/2}$, then flattens further to $h~\propto x^{1/3}$ and so on.
Finally, when the sum's last term, with $k = k_{\rm max}$, dominates, the time
variation settles into $h~\propto~x^{1/k_{\rm max}}$, unbounded growth that
continues indefinitely. \emph{A finite sum of hindering terms describes
unbounded growth}. In the limit $k_{\rm max} \to \infty$, the $x^{1/k_{\rm
max}}$ behavior approaches a constant that sets an upper limit on $Q$.
\emph{Bounded growth requires hindering series with infinite numbers of terms}.
We now describe one particular example of bounded growth.
\subsection{The Logistic}
\label{sec:logist}
The logistic growth function is employed in many fields, including population
studies \cite{Pearl24, Schacht80, Kingsland82}, diffusion of technology
\cite{Griliches57}, natural selection \cite{Pianka70} and GDP growth
\cite{KWASNICKI13}. Its underlying mathematical function normalized to unity at
$x = 0$ is $h = \ell(x)$, where
\eq{\label{eq:logist}
\ell(x) = \frac{2}{1 + e^{-x}}.
}
At large $x$ the function approaches the limit $\ell(x \to \infty) = 2$, thus a
quantity $Q$ varying as the logistic has the upper bound $K = 2\hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}$ (eq.
\ref{eq:math}), called the \emph{carrying capacity}. The approximate behavior
in the unhindered and hindered domains is
\eq{\label{eq:logist_approx}
\ell(x) \simeq 2\times\left\{%
\begin{array}{ll}
e^x & \qquad x \ll 0 \\ \\
(1 - e^{-x}) & \qquad x \gg 0
\end{array}\right.
}
As with all growth functions, the logistic increases exponentially in the
unhindered domain. In the hindered domain it approaches rapidly the limit of 2;
at $x = 3$, $\ell(x)$ is already within 5\% of its upper bound. The logistic
growth rate is\footnote{Inserting $\ell(x)$ from eq.\ \ref{eq:logist}, the
growth rate as a function of time is $g(x) = \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}/(1 + e^x)$, implying that
$f(x) = e^x$.}
\eq{\label{eq:logist_g}
g(\ell) = \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\left[1 - \hbox{$\tfrac12$}\ell(x)\right].
}
It vanishes as $Q$ reaches the carrying capacity. From eq.\ \ref{eq:f}, the
associated $f$-transform is
\eq{
f(\ell) = \frac{1}{1 - \hbox{$\tfrac12$}\ell(x)} - 1
= \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty} \left(\hbox{$\tfrac12$}\ell\right)^k.
}
As expected for bounded growth, the logistic hindering series (eq.\
\ref{eq:h_solution}) is infinite, with expansion coefficients $a_k = 1/2^k$.
\subsection{Comparison, logistic vs sth}
\label{sec:comparison}
In addition to sth functions, panel (\textbf{a}) of Figure \ref{fig:Mosaic}
shows also a plot of the logistic, which stands out with its distinct S-shape.
As a bounded-growth function, the logistic is overtaken by every sth function,
although $x$ at the overtake point increases with $k$. The differences between
the sth functions and the logistic are accentuated in panel (\textbf{b}), which
shows their ratios. At negative $x$, the ratio $\hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}(x)/\ell(x)$ is
approximately $\hbox{$\tfrac12$} e^{1/k}$ (see equations \ref{eq:sth_approx} and
\ref{eq:logist_approx}). In particular, when $x \ll 0$ and $k = 1$ the ratio
approaches $\hbox{$\tfrac12$} e = 1.36$, while for $k = 2$ it is $\hbox{$\tfrac12$}\sqrt{e} = .824$; as
$k$ increases, the ratio approaches \hbox{$\tfrac12$}. At positive $x$, the ratio increases
without bound.
The logistic S-shape obeys $\ell(x) - 1 = 1 - \ell(-x)$, a reflection symmetry
about $(0, 1)$. There is no similar symmetry relation for the sth functions,
which vary roughly exponentially to the left of this point and as a power to
the right of it (eq.\ \ref{eq:sth_approx}). Panel (\textbf{c}) of Figure
\ref{fig:Mosaic} shows the asymmetry measure of the various hindering
functions, defined as
\eq{\label{eq:asymmetry}
a(x) = \frac{h(x) - 1}{1 - h(-x)} - 1.
}
For the logistic, $a(x)$ is identically 0. For sth, the asymmetry increases
without a bound when $x \ga 1$.
The time derivatives of the sth and logistic functions, shown in panel
(\textbf{d}) of Figure \ref{fig:Mosaic}, are
\eq{\label{eq:h'}
\frac{dh}{dx} = h\times\left\{%
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\DS 1}{\DS1 + h^k} & \qquad \text{sth} \\ \\
(1 - \hbox{$\tfrac12$} h) & \qquad \text{logistic}
\end{array}\right.
}
All functions have $h' \to 0$ when $x \to -\infty$ (i.e., $h \to 0$), and $h'$
also vanishes when $x \to \infty$ for every function except for $k = 1$ sth. As
a result, $h'$ peaks at some finite $x$ for all functions other than $k = 1$
sth, whose derivative increases monotonically toward an upper limit of 1. The
derivative peaks are marked with short vertical lines in panel
(\textbf{d}).\footnote{The logistic peak derivative is $\ell' = \hbox{$\tfrac12$}$ at $x =
0$. The peak derivative of \hbox{$h_{\rm k}$}\ for $k > 1$ is $k^{-1/k}\left(1 -
\frac1k\right)^{1 - 1/k}$ at $x = -\frac1k\left[\ln(k - 1) + \frac{k - 2}{k -
1} \right]$.} The peak of $h'_2$ is \hbox{$\tfrac12$}\ at $x = 0$, same as the logistic.
As $k$ increases, the peak location first moves to the left, then back toward
$x = 0$; the leftmost peak is at $x = -0.441$ when $k = 4$. The peak value of
$h'_k$ is slowly approaching unity as $k \to \infty$.
\section{Handling of Time Series}
\label{sec:time series}
A time series is a sequence of measurements $Q_0, Q_1, \dotso$ taken at
monotonically increasing times $t_0 < t_1 < \dotsc$; without loss of
generality, $t_0$ can be taken as 0. The time intervals are frequently equal to
each other, but this is not a requirement.
The series describes a growth process if it displays an overall trend of
monotonic increase. The key here is long-term behavior --- a time series of
national GDP, for example, may contain segments of decline during occasional
recessions but still maintain an overall trend of growth. The presence, or
absence, of a monotonic trend can be conveniently determined with the
Mann-Kendall trend test (hereafter MK test), commonly employed in studies of
environmental, climatological and hydrological data \cite{Kocsis17}. The test
involves the sum
\eq{
S = \sum_{i}\sum_{j>i} \text{sgn}(Q_j - Q_i),
}
where sgn($x$), the sign function, is 0 if $x = 0$ and $|x|/x$ otherwise. The
test's null hypothesis (H$_0$) is no trend in the time series. In that case the
MK statistic $Z$, obtained from $S$ through normalization by the expected
variance, follows the normal distribution with a zero mean and unity standard
deviation. Positive (negative) $Z$ indicates an increasing (decreasing) trend;
for example, $Z = 3$ is a 3$\sigma$ evidence for a growth trend. This
non-parametric test can detect a monotonic trend in time series of at least 8
members \cite{Blain13} without assuming the data to be distributed according to
any specific rule (in particular, there is no requirement of normal
distribution).
Given a time series, we first determine whether it describes a growth process
by testing the MK null hypothesis against the alternative hypothesis (H$_{\rm
a}$) that there is an increasing monotonic trend ($Z > 0$) in a one-tailed
test. When a long-term growth trend is detected, the next step is to test for
the presence of growth slowdown. For that we compute the time series of growth
rates $g_0, g_1, \dotsc$ from a finite-difference calculation of the pairs
$(Q_0, t_0), (Q_1, t_1)\dotso$ and MK-test this series for a \emph{decreasing}
trend ($Z < 0$). When the dataset does correspond to a growth process with a
decreasing growth rate it can be described by a hindering function with the aid
of eqs.\ \ref{eq:math} and \ref{eq:h_solution}. The shift of independent
variable from the (inherently arbitrary) time origin $x = 0$ is $\hbox{$x_{\rm h}$} =
-h^{-1}(Q_0/\hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$})$, where $h^{-1}$ is the inverse of the pertinent hindering
function. For the functions considered above (\S\S\ref{sec:sth},
\ref{sec:logist}) these shifts are
\eq{
\hbox{$x_{\rm h}$} = \left\{%
\begin{array}{ll}
\ln\hbox{$q_{\rm h}$} + \DS\frac{1}{k}(1 - q_{\rm h}^{-k}) &\qquad \text{sth} \\ \\
\ln(2\hbox{$q_{\rm h}$} - 1) &\qquad \text{logistic}
\end{array}\right.
}
where $\hbox{$q_{\rm h}$} = \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}/Q_0$. When $\hbox{$q_{\rm h}$} > 1$, the logistic reaches hindering before $k
= 1$ sth; as $k$ increases, sth reaches hindering first, with \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\th\
decreasing toward $\ln\hbox{$q_{\rm h}$}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\hsize, clip]{logist_hind}
\centering \caption{Comparison of growth processes $Q$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:math})
that follow the sth (eq.\ \ref{eq:sth}) and logistic (eq.\ \ref{eq:logist})
functions with the same \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}, $Q_0$ and \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\ for various values of $\hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}/Q_0$, as
marked. Solid lines show sth functions, with short vertical marks ($\vert$) at
$Q = \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}$; the logistic is plotted with dashed lines, the hindering marker is
$\times$. Each panel shows sth with a different $k$, as labeled. The logistic
curves are the same in all panels.
}
\label{fig:logist_hind}
\end{figure}
{\color{red}%
Thanks to the unified formulation of decelerated growth functions, we can now
compare different hindered growth patterns described by the same common set of
parameters.
}
Figure \ref{fig:logist_hind} shows plots of $Q$ for sth and logistic functions
that have the same \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}, $Q_0$ and \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}. Each plot is obtained from the
corresponding mathematical function shown in panel (\textbf{a}) of Figure
\ref{fig:Mosaic} by shifting the $x$-axis origin and scaling the $y$-axis as
prescribed in eq.\ \ref{eq:math}. On each plot, the hindering point $Q = \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}$
is marked. To its left is the unhindered growth domain with the universal
$e^{g_ut}$ behavior; the larger is \hbox{$q_{\rm h}$}, the longer the exponential rise. To the
right is the hindered growth domain, displaying the differences between the sth
and logistic functions discussed in \S\ref{sec:comparison}.
\subsection{Fitting procedures}
\label{sec:fitting}
When the members $Q_i$ of a time series display decelerated growth we calculate
model points $\hbox{$\hat Q$}_i = Q(t_i)$ according to equations \ref{eq:math} and
\ref{eq:h_solution}. The best-fitting model parameters are obtained by
minimizing the residual sum of squares (RSS) of the data and model points.
Because of the large dynamic range spanned by typical datasets, we give all
data points equal relative weights ($\sigma_i \propto Q_i$) so that the
minimization is performed on $\text{RSS} = \sum_i\left(\hbox{$\hat Q$}_i/Q_i -
1\right)^{\!2}$. It is important to note that we only seek the minimum of RSS;
its actual magnitude is immaterial (no need to specify the proportionality
constant in $\sigma_i \propto Q_i$).
Equation \ref{eq:h_solution} is the general solution of the equation of growth
and thus can describe any time series of growth process, given a sufficient
number of expansion coefficients. However, adding terms indiscriminately in
search of a smaller error runs the risk of overfitting and chasing structures
that may reflect noise, not fundamental trends. Our aim, instead, is to
identify the long-term trends in the data rather than construct the absolute
best fit. For that we first model the dataset with a single hindering term and
determine the power $k$ that provides the best fit. The logistic is
parameterized by the same set of variables, \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}, \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\ and \hbox{$x_{\rm h}$}, and we determine
the best fit with this function too. Between the two resulting fits, the one
with the smaller RSS error is the best minimal hindering model, containing just
one free parameter more than a pure exponential. When the minimal model is
single-term hindering, we proceed to add another term and search for the pair
of power-law indices that yield the best-fitting two-term model (eq.\
\ref{eq:h_solution}). Since the addition of a term will in itself improve
fitting, we must determine the statistical significance of such improvement.
The single-term model is a restricted form of the two-term model, with the
coefficient of the 2nd term restricted to 0, thus the problem can be handled
with the $F$-test, assuming that the unobserved error is normally distributed
\cite{Econometrics09}.\footnote{The $F$-test is closely related to the
\emph{odds ratio} test in Bayesian statistics. The two become the same if and
only if one assumes scale-invariant Jeffreys’ prior for RSS \cite{Ivezic14}.}
The $F$-test null hypothesis is that the additional term has no effect on the
dependent variable so that its coefficient should be 0. The number of data
points, the ratio of RSS for the two models and their number of free parameters
are combined to form the $F$-statistic (or $F$ ratio); it follows an
$F$-distribution, which arises as the ratio of two normal random variates. The
$F$-statistic is compared with a critical value \hbox{$F_{\rm crit}$}, determined by the degrees
of freedom for each model and an accepted error level $\alpha$. When $F > \hbox{$F_{\rm crit}$}$,
the null hypothesis can be rejected at the confidence level $1 - \alpha$, the
probability of a false rejection is less than $\alpha$. When that is the case,
the improvement from the additional term is statistically meaningful and the
process can be repeated, adding higher terms one-by-one until the improvement
becomes statistically insignificant.
\section{{\color{red} Sample Applications}}
\label{sec:examples}
{\color{red} We now present applications of hindering analysis to actual datasets.
These examples showcase the power and versatility of the new hindering
formalism. While earlier versions of these analyses have already been reported
\cite{EKZ20, Elitzur21}, the formulation in \S\ref{sec:hindering} of a
universal description for decelerated growth provides newly gained insight into
the successes and difficulties of these modeling efforts.}
\subsection{US Population and GDP}
\label{sec:US}
The US and UK are two nations with continuous GDP and population data going
back more than 200 years. Hindering analysis of their data to 2018 was
presented in \cite{EKZ20}. With two more years of data, here we repeat the
analysis of US annual GDP and population data from 1790--2020
\cite{Johnston21}, a total of 231 points for each time series. Although each
dataset contains two additional points, the modeling results, shown in Figure
\ref{fig:US}, are identical to those in \cite{EKZ20}.
\begin{figure}[ht
\includegraphics[width=\hsize, clip]{US}
\centering
\caption{US Population (\textbf{left}) and GDP (\textbf{right}) from 1790 to
2020. The data are shown in dashed-dotted-dotted line; the GDP currency unit is
\$\ = 2020 USD. In both cases, the best-fitting model, shown in solid line, is
$k = 1$ sth with the listed parameters. The top axis shows $x - \hbox{$x_{\rm h}$}$ (cf eqs.\
\ref{eq:x}, \ref{eq:math}). The inset shows the ratio of data to model.
}
\label{fig:US}
\end{figure}
The figure's left panel shows modeling of the population data. The best-fitting
model is $k = 1$ sth (linear hindering) with the listed parameters. The model
finds that the hindered domain was entered in 1914, and predicts a 2050
population of 400 million, growing at 0.65\% per year. The best-fitting
logistic provides a greatly inferior fit, with RSS error that is 6 times larger
than for the displayed model; moreover, it has $K = 311$ million, an upper
limit to the US population that was surpassed already in 2010. {\color{red} The
addition of another hindering term makes a negligible impact on the fit;
single-term hindering yields the optimal fit to the data. The ratio data:model,
plotted in the inset, shows that the model properly captures the long-term
variation of the time series. The fraction of variance unexplained (fvu = $1 -
R^2$, where $R^2$ is the coefficient of determination) is 2.07\cE{-3}.} The
prediction for 2020 of the model based on the data to 2018 is only 2\% off the
actual population. Discarding as much as the final 40\% of the time series, the
truncated series model predictions for 2050 are within 10\% of those for the
full dataset.
The right panel of Figure \ref{fig:US} shows analysis of the US GDP data. The
best-fitting model again is linear hindering with the listed parameters. {\color{red}
The fit has fvu = 3.36\cE{-3}. Adding a second term yields a marginal
improvement to the RSS error, which the F-test rejects as statistically
insignificant.} This time the hindering threshold has not yet been crossed; the
model predicts this to happen only in 2041, when the GDP will reach \$36
trillion. It is also much more difficult now to distinguish the $k = 1$ sth
from the logistic. The two functions provide equally adequate fits --- the RSS
error is 3.95 for the former vs 3.98 for the latter. For the year 2050, the
linear hindering model predicts a GDP of \$42 trillion, growing at 1.76\% per
year. The logistic's prediction is a GDP of \$35 trillion growing annually at
1.02\%, ultimately bounded by an upper limit of \$48 trillion.
\subsection{\hbox{COVID-19}\ Outburst}
\label{sec:covid}
Hindering analysis of the \hbox{COVID-19}\ pandemic first wave was reported for 89 nations
and US states \cite{Elitzur21}. Here we reproduce the results for the \hbox{COVID-19}\
case counts in New York State, one of the hardest hit locations in the pandemic
early days.
\begin{figure}[ht
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize, clip]{NY_covid}
\caption{The \hbox{COVID-19}\ pandemic first wave in New York State. Dots show the data,
dashed and solid lines are best fits with eq.\ \ref{eq:h_solution} for single-
and two-term models, respectively. \textbf{Left}: Cumulative number of reported
cases from the start of the exponential outburst; this phase ended in the
transition to hindering, marked \th. The inset zooms in on the second half of
the data with a linear $y$-axis instead of logarithmic. {\color{red}\textbf{Middle}:
Ratio of model to data for each of the fits in the left panel.} \textbf{Right}:
Daily counts. The model curves involve no fitting, being fully determined from
those for the cumulative counts in the left panel.
}
\label{fig:NY_covid}
\end{figure}
The first wave of New York \hbox{COVID-19}\ cases lasted 170 days, from March 2 to August
18, 2020. Figure \ref{fig:NY_covid} shows the case counts with dots; the left
panel shows the cumulative counts ($Q$), the right one the daily counts
($dQ/dt$). Evident in the left panel is an initial exponential rise followed by
``flattening of the curve,'' corresponding to, respectively, unhindered and
hindered growth. The more moderate growth during the latter phase is better
discerned in the inset, which zooms in on the second half of the dataset with a
linear, instead of logarithmic, $y$-axis.
The best fitting minimal hindering model for the cumulative counts (left panel)
is $k = 2$ sth, shown in dashed blue line; its RSS error is 3 times smaller
than the logistic error. The best-fitting two-term model, shown in solid red
line, has $k = [1, 8]$.\footnote{{\color{red} Thanks to improved handling of
higher-order terms, this model is superior to the one presented in
\cite{Elitzur21}.}} Its RSS error is an improvement by factor 1.67 over the
best-fitting single term; the F-test shows this improvement to be statistically
highly significant, with a p-value of 1.11\cE{-16}. While the two models are
hardly distinguishable from the data and from each other on the logarithmic
scale, their differences are evident in the inset {\color{red} and stand out in the
middle panel, which shows the ratio of model to data}. The right panel shows
the model fits to the daily counts. It is important to note that the curves in
this panel involve no fitting; they are fully derived from the models in the
left-panel.
{\color{red}%
The two-term model provides the optimal fit to the data. An additional term
(the best-fitting 3-term model has $k = [1, 2, 9]$) improves the RSS error by
only 0.32\%; the F-test finds this marginal improvement statistically
insignificant with p = 0.47. As is evident from the middle panel, the two-term
model captures the time series long-term trend rather well, with fvu =
3.79\cE{-4}. After some fluctuations around the trend line during the initial
exponential phase, the mean deviation of model from data during the final 117
days (fully 70\% of the time series) is 0.65\%, the maximum just under 2\%.
\subsection{Data Range}
Of the cases presented here, the US GDP stands out as the time series whose
best fit remains ambiguous --- there is no meaningful way to choose between the
logistic and linear hindering ($k = 1$ sth) fits. The underlying cause of the
problem is the range of the independent variable $x$ (eqs.\ \ref{eq:x},
\ref{eq:math}) sampled by the data. The top axis of the GDP plot (right panel
of Figure \ref{fig:US}) shows this range to be [-9.6, -0.8], entirely within
the unhindered domain. As is evident from the top two panels of Figure
\ref{fig:Mosaic}, the logistic and all sth functions are practically
indistinguishable from each other when $x \la -4$ because they all are
proportional to the exponential in that region (eqs.\ \ref{eq:sth_approx},
\ref{eq:logist_approx}). The ratio $h_1(x)/\ell(x)$ is constant to within 1\%
until 1941 (at that year $x = -3.84$). The two functions become distinguishable
afterward, but separate by more than the data fluctuations only around the year
2000. In other words, the entire power to resolve the two fits comes from the
final 20 years of data, which comprise less than 10\% of the time series.
Another 10 data points will add 50\% to the crucial part of the time series. It
can thus be expected that the next ten years or so will enable a selection
between the logistic and linear hindering.
In contrast with the GDP, the linear hindering model for the US population is
decisive, thanks to the propitious range sampled by the data. From the top axis
of the population plot (right panel of Figure \ref{fig:US}), $x$ covers the
range [-4.2, 3.6]. Although the extent of this range is slightly smaller than
for the GDP, the top panels of Figure \ref{fig:Mosaic} show that its placement
provides a clear, unambiguous separation of the $k = 1$ sth function from the
logistic. The NY \hbox{COVID-19}\ data (Figure \ref{fig:NY_covid}) stand out even further,
with an $x$-range of [-10.7, 70.8], roughly 8 times larger than for the US
population and GDP. This range is so much larger because of the steepness of
the pandemic's initial rise, with \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ = 48.2\% per day. Thanks to its large
range, this time series offers a valuable example of the contribution of more
than one hindering term in eq.\ \ref{eq:h_solution}. It is remarkable that two
terms describe so accurately such a large range of $x$.
This discussion highlights the insight provided by the unified description for
all hindering functions (\S\ref{sec:hindering}). The common set of parameters
enables assessment of the significance of derived models and the confidence in
their fits, and helps in making an informed estimate of the range of data
needed for decisive fits.
}
\section{Accelerated Growth}
\label{sec:accelerated}
Accelerated growth, $dg/dQ > 0$, is prone to runaway instabilities. Consider a
small perturbation $\delta Q$ to a random point \hbox{$\bar Q$}\ in a growth process so
that $Q = \hbox{$\bar Q$} + \delta Q$. Inserting in the equation of growth (eq.\
\ref{eq:growth}) and retaining only terms to 1st order in $\delta Q$, the
perturbation varies according to
\eq{\label{eq:stability}
\frac{d\,\delta Q}{dt} =
\delta Q\times\left(g + Q\frac{dg}{dQ}\right)\Big\rvert_{Q = \bar Q}
}
A small perturbation will decay exponentially when $dg/dQ < -g/Q$ but diverge
exponentially away from the existing pattern whenever $dg/dQ > 0$.
\emph{Accelerated growth is inherently unstable.}
Apart from its inherent instability, the duration of accelerated growth is
limited in general. A simple example of growth acceleration is derived from the
logistic by changing the interaction sign in the growth rate (eq.\
\ref{eq:logist_g}) to give
\eq{
g(Q) = \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\left(1 + \frac{Q}{K} \right),
}
a growth rate that increases linearly with $Q$. Here the parameter $K$ denotes
$g(K) = 2\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}$. With the time origin taken at the point where $Q = K$, the
solution of the growth equation is $Q = Ke^x/(2 - e^x)$. Because of the runaway
singularity at $x = \ln2$, the time span of this accelerated growth is limited
to $t < g_{\rm u}^{-1}\ln2$. Now turn to the transformation in eq.\ \ref{eq:f}
for a general description of accelerated growth with control over
singularities. Accelerated growth occurs when $-1 < f < 0$. The lower limit on
$f$ is the transition from growth ($g > 0$) to contraction ($g < 0$), with a
singularity for $g$ at that boundary. The upper limit marks the transition from
a rising $g\ (> \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$})$ to a declining one. With a finite number of expansion
terms for $f(Q)$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:f_series}), the singularity at $f = -1$ is
avoided when the polynomial $1 + f(Q)$ has only imaginary roots. But it is
impossible to simultaneously keep $f < 0$ and prevent an end to growth
acceleration, as illustrated by the polynomial with just $k$ = 1 and 2 which
yields
\eq{
g(Q) = \frac{\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}}{1
- \frac{Q}{K}
+ \alpha\left(\frac{Q}{K}\right)^{\!\!2}}
}
with $\alpha$ a free parameter. The denominator is the lowest order polynomial
to produce accelerated growth and avoid contraction ($g < 0$); the constraint
$\alpha > \tfrac14$ ensures a positive $g(Q)$ for all $Q$. Growth is
accelerating --- $g(Q)$ increases with $Q$ --- as long as $Q < K/(2\alpha)$.
However, $g(Q)$ reaches a peak of $\alpha\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}/(\alpha - \tfrac14)$ at $Q =
K/(2\alpha)$. Increasing $Q$ further, $g(Q)$ starts to \emph{decrease} ---
growth acceleration turns into deceleration as the quadratic term begins to
dominate. Finally, $g(Q)$ decreases below \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ when $Q > K/\alpha$ and the
growth process becomes practically indistinguishable from $k = 2$ single-term
hindering (\S\ref{sec:sth}).
Similar reasoning applies to higher order polynomials, showing that while the
$f = -1$ singularity is avoidable, the switch from accelerated to decelerated
growth at $f = 0$ is not. Growth acceleration cannot be sustained indefinitely.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
{\color{red}
We developed here a unified scheme for all patterns of decelerated growth
\hbox{(\S\ref{sec:hindering}).} Employing a common set of parameters, this
uniform description enables methodical, systematic selection of the functional
form most suitable for modeling a given dataset. This is especially important
for the handling of growth. While inaccuracies in describing recurring
phenomena are limited by the amplitudes of the variations, there is no bound on
the amount of divergence between different growth trends that are fundamentally
exponential. An instructive example is provided by US population forecasting.
}
In 1924 R. Pearl modeled decadal US census data from 1790--1910 with the
logistic function and concluded that the US population was bounded by an upper
asymptote of 197 million \cite{Pearl24}. In 1966, just 42 years later, this
absolute upper limit was surpassed. Having reached 330 million in 2020, almost
70\% above Pearl's predicted limit, the US population is yet to show signs of
an upper bound. Notably, Pearl's model parameters amounted to \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ = 3.13\% per
year, \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\ = 98.6 million and \th\ corresponding to the year 1914, nearly
identical to the best-fitting model parameters derived from the 1790--2020 data
in \S\ref{sec:US} (see Figure \ref{fig:US}). The problem with Pearl's
prediction was not the parameters but the fitting function. His model predicts
a 2020 population of 191 million. Using his own parameters but with $k = 1$ sth
instead of the logistic, Pearl would have predicted a 2020 population of 317
million. It is remarkable that a 1924 demographer could have predicted the 2020
US population to within 4\% with just a single-parameter modification to the
exponential function.
Although Pearl missed badly on the US population future growth, his conclusion
was inevitable. The hindering boundary (eq.\ \ref{eq:Qh}) was crossed in 1914,
when the growth rate declined to half its initial, unhindered value, setting
that year's population as \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}. Having Committed himself to the logistic, Pearl
had to conclude that the carrying capacity was twice \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\ (\S\ref{sec:logist}),
hence $K$ = 197 million. Adopting the logistic to model hindered growth implies
an upper limit. Although justified in studies of, e.g., life expectancy
\cite{Marchetti96}, there is no reason why an upper limit should be imposed a
priori on every growth process. When an upper limit does exist, the logistic
dictates it to be 2\hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}\ because of its S-shape symmetry (panel \textbf{a},
Figure \ref{fig:Mosaic}). However, even though diffusion of innovation provides
examples of successful logistic fits \cite{Griliches57}, most diffusion curves
actually show \emph{asymmetric} S-shape, usually the upper shank of the ``S''
is more extended \cite{Lekvall73}. Such asymmetry implies positive values for
the parameter $a$ (eq. \ref{eq:asymmetry}), shown in panel (\textbf{c}) of
Figure \ref{fig:Mosaic}. Unlike the logistic, every sth function does display
this type of asymmetry, though positive $a$ values start at increasingly larger
$x$ when $k \ge 3$.
The recognition that the logistic is not a universal modeling function even for
bounded growth led to attempts to generalize it with additional parameters
\cite{Pearl24} or combinations of different logistics \cite{Lekvall73}, but
these attempts were based on ad-hoc assumptions. By contrast, the formalism
presented here does not prescribe a priori any specific form for the modeling
function. Instead, the functional form is determined from the data through a
parametrization of the general solution of the equation of growth (eq.\
\ref{eq:h_solution}). Applicable to both bounded and unbounded growth, this
solution provides a generic description of growing quantities just as the
Fourier series provides a generic description of periodic phenomena. All growth
processes share some general properties. The growth of any quantity $Q$ occurs
within some environment, broadly defined as the collection of all the processes
and system components that affect the growth of $Q$ other than $Q$ itself. As
long as the growing $Q$ is sufficiently small that its impact on the
environment is negligible, its growth rate is determined solely by intrinsic
properties of the environment; this is the unhindered growth rate \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ defined
in eq.\ \ref{eq:gu}. This rate is maintained until $Q$ becomes sufficiently
large that it significantly impacts the environment, at which point it also
affects its own growth rate. In general, this causes the growth rate to
decline, the effect we refer to as hindering --- the growing quantity has
become so large as to hinder its own growth.
One interpretation of hindering is that there is an initial, unconstrained
``natural'' rate of growth, but as $Q$ increases, its rate of growth is
constrained and tends to diminish, consistent with the notion of decreasing
marginal productivity. Based on the logistic, ecological models of population
growth invoke $r$- and $K$-selection \cite{Pianka70, Schacht80}, the respective
equivalents of unhindered and hindered growth. This terminology reflects the
notation for $r$ as the maximal intrinsic rate of natural increase (\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ in our
notation) and $K$ the carrying capacity. The concept of $r$- and $K$-selection
is a restricted application of the general formalism presented here. The
hindering formalism is not limited to the logistic or any other growth
pattern; instead of the carrying capacity $K$, the impact of hindering is
characterized by the hindering parameter \hbox{$Q_{\rm h}$}, whose definition (eq.\
\ref{eq:Qh}) is applicable to all patterns of decelerated growth.
A phenomenological description of data would not be particularly useful if it
involved an unwieldy number of parameters. However, all cases studied to date
required no more than two hindering terms \cite{EKZ20, Elitzur21}, indicating
that the hindering approach did capture essential properties of the growth
process in those cases. The role of successive hindering terms is clearly
visible in the fits of \hbox{COVID-19}\ cases in New York (Figure \ref{fig:NY_covid}). The
US population modeling, too, is instructive. Removing the hindering term from
the best-fitting model (\hbox{\S\ref{sec:US}}) turns it into a simple
exponential function. This exponential is a nearly perfect fit for the first 25
years of data, but applying it to the rest of the time series implies a 2020 US
population of almost 9 billion(!), more than 27 times the actual value. A
single $k = 1$ hindering term transforms this exponential into the model shown
in Figure \ref{fig:US}; the model result for the year 2020 is now 323 million,
within 2\% of the actual population. A successful correction of this magnitude
with just a single parameter is unlikely to be a mere coincidence.
{\color{red}
\subsection{Limitations, challenges, future work}
}
The hindering formalism deals exclusively with long-term trends, ignoring the
fluctuations about trend lines. Its strength is not in reproducing details in
the data but in highlighting patterns of growth through analytic description
with the minimal number of free parameters. The simplicity and persistence of
long-term trends in the growth of US population and GDP uncovered by the
analysis (Figure \ref{fig:US}) is striking, especially in light of the massive
upheavals during the covered period which include two world wars, the Great
Depression and the transformation of the US economy from agrarian to industrial
and then technological. The absence of large fluctuations of the US population
about the fitted model stands out. The 231 data points deviate from the model
an average of just under 2.5\%; there is hardly any evidence for the waves of
immigration and major changes to immigration laws during that time span. This
smooth behavior may be partly attributable to the inherent stability of
hindered growth, which has $dg/dQ < -g/Q$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:stability}): when $Q$
rises above the underlying growth trajectory, the growth rate decreases and $Q$
is driven back toward the growth pattern, with the opposite happening if $Q$
declines below the long-term trend line. The GDP underlying pattern shows great
persistence as well. While the trauma of the Great Depression is clearly
discernible, afterward the GDP time variation reverts to the same simple
function that described earlier epochs. The GDP fluctuations are both large and
frequent, but subsided considerably after World War II: the average deviation
of model from data is 11.3\% before 1950 but only 3.6\% after. It appears that
government action had little effect in modifying the underlying growth pattern
of either US population or GDP but did have a significant impact on dampening
GDP fluctuations in recent years.
{\color{red}
As this brief discussion shows, the hindering formalism is an ideal detrending
tool for time-series analysis when the long-term trend is one of growth. The US
GDP modeling results show that residuals, too, may contain important additional
structure that would require other data analysis methods. Integrating the
hindering formalism into the existing extensive framework of time-series
analysis is a major task for future work.
}
Hindering, the negative impact of a growing $Q$ on its own growth, is not the
only process that can cause growth-rate variations. Such variations can also
arise from changes to the environment in which $Q$ is growing. In the island
example (\S\ref{sec:hindering}), climate change could affect tree growth and
vary the inherent growth rate \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}. The processes driving growth-rate variation
are immaterial to our solution of the equation of growth (eq.\
\ref{eq:solution}). The basic premise of the solution procedure, that $g$ can
be considered a function of $Q$ instead of $t$, hinges on $Q$ being a
single-valued function of $t$, and this holds for every monotonically
increasing $Q$. However, hindering depends inherently on $Q$, reflecting
negative feedback to its environmental impact, while time variation of the
environment is inherently a function of $t$, unrelated to the growing $Q$.
While mathematically justified, expressing in terms of $Q$ a $t$-variation that
is inherently independent of $Q$ can be expected to increase complexity under
most circumstances. The simplicity of the models in Figures \ref{fig:US} and
\ref{fig:NY_covid} therefore suggests that hindering is the more plausible
driver of growth deceleration in these cases. Since the environment is
certainly varying, this indicates that significant changes to the environment
take longer than the hindering time scale, which can be taken as the doubling
time for $Q$,\footnote{Growth is described by the independent variable $x =
t/\hbox{$T_{\rm u}$}$, where $\hbox{$T_{\rm u}$} = 1/\hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}$ is the growth time during the unhindered phase
(eq.\ \ref{eq:x}). The associated doubling time is $\hbox{$T_{\rm u}$}\ln2$, which is 21 years
for the US population, 18 years for the US GDP and 1.44 days(!) for the NY
\hbox{COVID-19}\ outburst.} enabling the growth pattern to adjust smoothly to the changing
environment. By contrast, environmental changes completed over periods shorter
than the doubling time are akin to phase transitions between states of matter
--- the system switches mid-growth to a state with different characteristics.
Preliminary work indicates that such abrupt transitions may be found in some
GDP and population data. This is an important topic for future studies.
The hindering formalism is based on a general mathematical solution of the
equation of growth and thus should be applicable in a wide variety of growth
situations, including, for example, biological and physical systems. Indeed,
the impetus for this work came from the growth of laser and maser
radiation,\footnote{The word laser is acronym for Light Amplification by
Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Similarly, masers involve Microwave instead
of Light. Requiring special conditions on earth, maser amplification occurs
naturally in many astronomical sources; a popular exposition is available in
\cite{Elitzur95}.} where growth equations are derived from first principles of
radiation theory that describe the dynamics of the underlying physical
processes \citep{Elitzur92}. In that case the growth pattern is $k = 1$ sth
(\S\ref{sec:sth}), with parameters derived from coefficients that describe
various aspects of fundamental interactions between matter and radiation.
{\color{red} %
However, the solution is inapplicable when the growth rate becomes negative and
the time-series switches to a long-term trend of contraction instead of
expansion. A prominent example is the population of Japan, which according to
UN
data\footnote{\url{https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/}}
has been in continuous decline since 2009. Declining trends present two
problems. The first is that the studied quantity is no longer a single-valued
function of time, thus the growth rate cannot be considered a function of $Q$
instead of $t$, the crucial first step in the general solution of the growth
equation \hbox{(\S\ref{sec:growth}).} This problem is a mere technicality,
though, and can be solved by dividing the time-series into segments, each with
a single-trend behavior.
The second, more serious problem is that the unhindered growth rate \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}, a
crucial ingredient of the hindering formalism, becomes meaningless for a
decreasing quantity. This ``natural'' growth rate, determined from the $Q \to
0$ limit of $g$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:gu}), is a fundamental property of the system
with an intrinsic, well defined meaning. Invoking again the island example
(\S\ref{sec:hindering}), in principle \hbox{$g_{\rm u}$}\ could be determined even if apple
seeds were never actually introduced into the island. By contrast, a
contracting system does not offer an obvious intrinsic scale that does not
depend on initial conditions. Because of this fundamental difficulty, a general
description of negative growth situations requires a different approach and
remains an important challenge for future work.
}
\acknowledgments{I have greatly benefited from discussions with Joseph
Friedman, Željko Ivezić, Scott Kaplan, Dejan Vinković and David Zilberman.}
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\ell \in [0, \infty)$ and $\sigma \in {\mathbb R}$ be given, define the normalized log-type GCD sums $\Gamma_{\sigma}^{(\ell)}(N)$ as we did in \cite{Daodao}:
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_{\sigma}^{(\ell)}(N):\,= \sup_{|{\mathscr{M}}| = N} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{m, n\in {\mathscr{M}}} \frac{(m,n)^{\sigma}}{[m,n]^{\sigma}}\log^{\ell} \Big(\frac{m}{(m,n)}\Big)\log^{\ell}\Big(\frac{n}{(m,n)}\Big)\,,
\end{equation*}
where the supremum is taken over all subsets ${\mathscr{M}} \subset \mathbb N$ with size $N$. In the above definition, $(m, n)$ denotes the greatest common divisor of $m$ and $n$ and $[m, n]$ denotes the least common multiple of $m$ and $n$.
In \cite{Daodao}, we also proved that $\Gamma^{(\ell)}_1(N) \gg_{\ell} \left(\log\log N\right)^{2+2\ell}$, for $\forall \ell \in (0, \infty)$.
In this note, we establish the upper bounds $\Gamma^{(\ell)}_1(N) \ll_{\ell} \left(\log\log N\right)^{2+2\ell}$ by two different methods. One method is unconditional and for $\forall \ell \in (0, \infty)$. Another method is conditional on the Riemann Hypothesis and for $\forall \ell \in {\mathbb N}.$
We have the following new result for spectral norms, which is a key ingredient for the unconditional method.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:spec} Let $A \in (0, \infty)$ be fixed.
Let $\mathbf{c} = (c(1), c(2), \ldots, c(n), \ldots,) \in \mathbb C^{{\mathbb N}}$ and let ${\mathscr{M}} \subset {\mathbb N}$. Then, for $\alpha = \alpha(N) = 1 - \frac{A}{ \log \left(\log N \cdot \log_3 N \right)}$\,, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\substack{ |{\mathscr{M}}| = N\\ \\ \|\mathbf{c} \|_2 = 1}}\, \sum_{n, m \in {\mathscr{M}}}
\frac{(n, m)^{\alpha}}{[n, m]^{\alpha}} c(n) \overline{c(m)}
\leqslant \left( \frac{\exp\left(2\gamma + 2e^A - 2 \right)}{\zeta(2)} + o(1) \right)
\cdot (\log\log N)^2, \quad as \,\, N \to \infty.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
In this note, we also use the short-hand
notations, $\,\log_2 N :\,= \log\log N,$\, $\log_3 N :\,= \log\log\log N$ and so on.
\end{remark}
An application of Theorem \ref{thm:spec} is to prove the following results concerning upper bounds for a modified version of log-type GCD sums.
\begin{corollary}\label{UncondUpper}
Let $\ell \in (0, \infty)$ be fixed. Let ${\mathscr{M}} \subset {\mathbb N}$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{|{\mathscr{M}}| = N}\, \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n, m \in {\mathscr{M}}} \frac{(n, m)}{[n, m]} \log^{2\ell} \left(\frac{[n, m]}{(n, m)}\right) \leqslant \left( \mathbf a_{\ell} + o(1) \right)\cdot (\log\log N)^{2+2\ell}, \quad as \,\, N \to \infty.
\end{equation*}
where~~ $\mathbf a_{\ell}$ is the positive constant defined as follows
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf a_{\ell}:\, = \min_{A > 0} \frac{\exp\left(2\gamma + 2e^{2\ell A} - 2 \right)}{\zeta(2)A^{2\ell}} \,.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
By the trivial fact $m \leqslant [m , n]$ and $n \leqslant [m , n]$, we immediately get the following unconditional upper bounds for log-type GCD sums.
\begin{corollary}\label{UncondLogGCD}
Let $\ell \in (0, \infty)$ be fixed. Then
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_1^{(\ell)} (N) \leqslant \left( \mathbf a_{\ell} + o(1) \right)\cdot (\log\log N)^{2+2\ell}, \quad as \,\, N \to \infty,
\end{equation*}
where~~ $\mathbf a_{\ell}$ is the positive constant defined as in Corollary \ref{UncondUpper}.
\end{corollary}
Our second method gives the following conditional upper bounds for log-type GCD sums.
\begin{theorem}\label{UpB}
Fix $\epsilon > 0$ and $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$. For all sufficiently large $N \in {\mathbb N}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma^{(\ell)}_1(N) \leqslant \left(\,\frac{{\mathbf D_{\ell} }}{\spadesuit} + \epsilon \, \right)\, \left(\log \log N\right)^{2+2\ell}\,,
\end{equation*}
where $~{\mathbf D_{\ell} }$ and $\spadesuit$ are defined by
\begin{align*}
{\mathbf D_{\ell} }:\;= \limsup_{t \to \infty} \left|\frac{\zeta^{(\ell)}(1+it)}{(\log \log t)^{\ell+1}}\right| ^2
,\quad \quad \quad \quad
\spadesuit:\,= \max_{ 0 < x \leqslant 2 } \frac{e^{-x}}{1+ 2\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} e^{-xn^2} }\,.
\end{align*}
In particular, when assuming the Riemann Hypothesis $($RH\,$)$, we will have $~{\mathbf D_{\ell} } < \infty$ and thus obtain the conditional upper bound $~\Gamma^{(\ell)}_1(N) \ll_{\ell} \left(\log\log N\right)^{2+2\ell}$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{UpB} is a corollary of the following Proposition \ref{MainOne} and \ref{Main}. We will prove Proposition \ref{MainOne} using the resonance methods (see \cite{V, So, Hi, A, BS1, BS2, delaBT}). \begin{proposition}\label{MainOne}
Fix $\epsilon > 0,\,\, \beta \in [0, 1), \,\, \kappa \in (0, 1-\beta)$ and $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$.
Assume that $~{\mathbf c_{\ell}}$ is a positive constant satisfying that there exists an infinite sequence of positive integers $~N_1 < N_2 < \cdots < N_n <\cdots $ such that \begin{equation}\label{asump}
\Gamma^{(\ell)}_1 \left( N_n \right) \geqslant {\mathbf c_{\ell}} \,\left(\log\log N_n \right)^{2+2\ell}\,, \quad \quad \forall n \in {\mathbb N}.
\end{equation}
Then for all sufficiently large $n\in {\mathbb N}$, we can find a real number $t $ with $~N_n^{\beta} \leqslant t^{\kappa} \leqslant N_n ~,$ such that \begin{align*}
\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\left(1+it\right)\right| \geqslant \left(\sqrt {{\mathbf c_{\ell}}\cdot \spadesuit} - \epsilon\right) \left(\log\log t \right)^{\ell+1}\,, \end{align*}
where $~\spadesuit$ is the positive constant defined as in Theorem \ref{UpB}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{Daodao}, we mentioned that we could use our log-type GCD sums to establish lower bounds for maximum of $~\vert\zeta^{(\ell)} \left(1+it\right) \vert$, but without giving such a proof. Instead, in \cite{Daodao} we used a different proposition to establish lower bounds for maximum of $~\vert\zeta^{(\ell)} \left(1+it\right) \vert$ on the shorter interval $[\frac{T}{2}, T]$.
\end{remark}
We will give two different proofs for Proposition \ref{Main}. Moreover, the implied constants are effectively computable. In sections \ref{1stP}, \ref{2ndP}, after the proof, we give examples of computations for the implied constants. In particular, one of methods gives $\left|\zeta^{\prime}\left(1+it\right)\right| \leqslant 4 e^{\gamma} \left(\log \log t\right)^{2} + O\left(\log \log t\right), $ and $\left|\zeta^{\prime \prime}\left(1+it\right)\right| \leqslant 20 e^{\gamma}\left(\log \log t\right)^{3}+ O\left(\left(\log \log t\right)^2\right) $ on RH.
\begin{proposition} \label{Main}
Assume RH. Fix $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$. For large $t \in {\mathbb R}$, we have $\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\left(1+it\right)\right| \ll_{\ell}\;\left(\log \log t\right)^{\ell+1}.$
\end{proposition}
Littlewood’s classical result on RH states that
$ \big|\zeta(1 + it)\big| \leqslant \left(2 e^{\gamma}+o(1)\right) \left(\log\log t \right)$, as $t \to \infty.$ In \cite{LL}, Lamzouri-X. Li-Soundararajan obtained the following result (on RH)
\begin{align}\label{LLS}
\vert \zeta\left(1+it\right)\vert \leqslant 2 e^{\gamma} \left(\log\log t - \log 2 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{\log \log t}\right)\,, \quad \forall t \geqslant 10^{10}\,.
\end{align}
In \cite{Daodao}, the author studied extreme values for $\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\left(\sigma+it\right)\right|$ when $\sigma \in [\frac{1}{2} , 1].$
For related interest, we also consider the conditional bounds for $\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\left(\sigma+it\right)\right|$ when $\sigma \in [\frac{1}{2} , 1)$. The following Proposition \ref{strip} is an easy consequence of the work of Chandee-Soundararajan \cite{CSo} and Carneiro-Chandee \cite{CC}.
\begin{proposition} \label{strip}
Assume RH. Fix $\,\epsilon > 0$, $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\sigma_0 \in (\frac{1}{2} , 1)$. Let $t$ be sufficiently large, then
\text{\emph{(A)}}
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:Half} \left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\left(\frac{1}{2}+it\right)\right| \leqslant \exp \left\{\left(\frac{\log 2}{2}+\epsilon\right)\,\frac{\log t }{\log \log t}\right\}\,,\end{equation*}
\text{\emph{(B)}} \quad \begin{equation*} \label{eq:srtip} \left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\left(\sigma_0+it\right)\right| \leqslant \exp \left\{ \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{2 \sigma_0 -1}{\sigma_0(1-\sigma_0)} + \epsilon \right) \, \frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\, \sigma_0}}{\log \log t} \right\}\,. \end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
In \cite{Daodao}, when $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\sigma \in [\frac{1}{2} , 1)$ are given, we use GCD sums (rather than log-type GCD sums) to produce large values of $\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\left(\sigma+it\right)\right|$ . The reason is that when $\ell$ is fixed, there is no significant difference between GCD sums and log-type GCD sums. One can easily prove the following Proposition \ref{logGCDstrip} according to the work of de la Bret\`eche-Tenenbaum \cite{delaBT} and Aistleitner-Berkes-Seip \cite{ABS}.
\begin{proposition}\label{logGCDstrip}
Fix $\ell \in [0, \infty)$ and $\sigma \in (\frac{1}{2} , 1)$.
\text{\emph{(A)}} As $N \to \infty$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Gamma^{(\ell)}_{\frac{1}{2}}(N) = \exp \Big\{\big(2\sqrt{2} +o(1)\big)\sqrt{\frac{\log N \,\log_3 N}{\log_2 N}}\Big\}\, .
\end{align*}
\text{\emph{(B)}} There exists positive constants $c_{\sigma}$ and $C_{\sigma}$ depending on $\sigma$ such that for sufficiently large $N$, we have \begin{equation*}
\exp \Big\{c_{\sigma}\cdot \frac{(\log N)^{1 - \sigma}}{(\log_2 N)^{\sigma}}\Big\}\leqslant \Gamma^{(\ell)}_{\sigma}(N) \leqslant \exp \Big\{C_{\sigma}\cdot \frac{(\log N)^{1 - \sigma}}{(\log_2 N)^{\sigma}}\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
Let $ \sigma \in (0, 1]$ be given and let ${\mathscr{M}} \subset {\mathbb N}$ be a finite set. The greatest common divisors (GCD) sums $S_{\sigma}({\mathscr{M}})$ of ${\mathscr{M}}$ are defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
S_{\sigma}({\mathscr{M}}):\,=\sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{M}}\frac{(m,n)^{\sigma}}{[m, n]^{\sigma}}\,\,\, . \quad
\end{align*}
The case $\sigma = 1$ was studied by G\'{a}l \cite{G}, who proved that
\begin{align}\label{Gal} (\log\log N)^2 \ll \sup_{|{\mathscr{M}}| = N} \frac{ S_{1}({\mathscr{M}})}{|{\mathscr{M}}|} \ll (\log\log N)^2.\end{align}
The asymptotically sharp constant in \eqref{Gal} was found by Lewko and Radziwi\l\l \,\, in \cite{Lewko}, where they proved that
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{6 e^{2\gamma}}{\pi^{2}}+o(1) \right) \left(\log\log N\right)^2 \leqslant \sup_{|{\mathscr{M}}| = N} \frac{ S_{1}({\mathscr{M}})}{|{\mathscr{M}}|} \leqslant \left(\frac{6 e^{2\gamma}}{\pi^{2}}+o(1) \right) \left(\log\log N\right)^2.
\end{align*}
Given $\sigma \in (\frac{1}{2}, 1),$ Aistleitner, Berkes, and Seip \cite{ABS}
proved the following result for GCD sums $S_{\sigma}({\mathscr{M}})$, where $c_{\sigma}$ and $C_{\sigma}$ are positive constants only depending on $\sigma:$
\begin{align}\label{gcd}
\emph{\emph{exp}} \Big\{c_{\sigma}\cdot \frac{(\log N)^{1 - \sigma}}{(\log_2 N)^{\sigma}}\Big\} \ll \sup_{|{\mathscr{M}}| = N} \frac{ S_{\sigma}({\mathscr{M}})}{|{\mathscr{M}}|} \ll \emph{\emph{exp}} \Big\{C_{\sigma}\cdot \frac{(\log N)^{1 - \sigma}}{(\log_2 N)^{\sigma}}\Big\}.
\end{align}
Based on constructions of \cite{BS, BS1}, de la Bret\`eche and Tenenbaum \cite{delaBT} have proved the following result, improving early results of Bondarenko-Seip\cite{BS, BS1}.
\begin{align}\label{GCD: 1/2}
\sup_{|{\mathscr{M}}| = N} \frac{ S_{\frac{1}{2}}({\mathscr{M}})}{|{\mathscr{M}}|} = \emph{\emph{exp}} \Big\{\big(2\sqrt{2} +o(1)\big)\sqrt{\frac{\log N \,\log_3 N}{\log_2 N}}\Big\}, \quad \text{as}~~ N \to \infty.
\end{align}
\section{The random zeta-function $\zeta(s, {\mathbb X})$ and distributional estimates}
\subsection{The random zeta-function $\zeta(s, {\mathbb X})$}
Let $\{{\mathbb X}(p)\}_p$ be a sequence of independent random variables (one for each prime $p$), uniformly distributed
on the unit circle $\{z:\, |z| = 1 \}$. For an integer $n$, we let
$$
{\mathbb X}(n) :\,= \prod_{p^{\alpha} \| n} {\mathbb X}(p)^{\alpha}.
$$
The random zeta-function $\zeta(s, {\mathbb X})$ is defined as the following:
$$
\zeta(s, {\mathbb X}) :\,= \prod_{p} \Big (1 - \frac{{\mathbb X}(p)}{p^{s}} \Big )^{-1} = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \frac{{\mathbb X}(n)}{n^{s}}.
$$
The product and series both converge almost surely when $\Re(s) > \tfrac 12$ (for instance, see \cite[page 4 and 6]{Sound}).
Note that
$$
\mathbb{E}[X(n)\overline{X(m)}] = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } n = m \\
0 & \text{ if } n \neq m
\end{cases}.
$$
See \cite{Youness, Lewko, Sound} for more information and applications of $\zeta(s, {\mathbb X})$.
\subsection{Distributional estimates}
The lemma below is proved by Lewko-Radziwi\l\l \cite{Lewko}, using ideas from Lamzouri \cite[Lemma 2.1]{Youness}, who proved upper bounds for $\log \mathbb{E} [|\zeta(\alpha, {\mathbb X})|^{2\ell}]$ for fixed $\alpha \in (\frac{1}{2}, 1). $
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 6 of \cite{Lewko}]\label{LzIMRN}
We have the following bound,
$$
\log \mathbb{E} [|\zeta(1, {\mathbb X})|^{2\ell}]
\leqslant
2\ell(\log\log \ell+ \gamma ) + O\left(\frac{\ell}{\log \ell}\right) .
$$
\end{lemma}
The following lemma will be helpful for us to bound error terms when using the prime number theorem.
\begin{lemma}\label{IntegralLimiBound}Let $A \in (0, \infty)$ be fixed. We have the following bound,
\begin{align*}
Int(\alpha; A):\,= \int_2^{\exp\left(\frac{A}{1-\alpha}\right)} \frac{1}{t^{\alpha}}\exp\left(-\sqrt {\log t} \right) dt \ll_A 1 , \quad \forall \alpha \in [\frac{1}{ 2}, 1) \bigcap [1-\frac{A}{\log 2}, \infty)\,.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\exp\left(-\sqrt {\log t} \right) \ll 1/\left( \log t \right)^2\,$ and $\frac{d}{dt}\left(-1/ \log t \right) = 1/\left(t \log^2 t \right) $. So
$$Int(\alpha; A) \ll \int_2^{\exp\left(\frac{A}{1-\alpha}\right)} \frac{t}{t^{\alpha}}\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{-1}{\log t} \right)dt \,.$$
Now integration by parts gives
$$Int(\alpha; A) \ll -\frac{e^A}{A}(1 - \alpha) + \frac{e^A}{\log 2} \ll_A 1 \,.$$
\end{proof}
Our following lemma is a key ingredient for the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spec}.
\begin{lemma}\label{LogExpect}Let $A \in (0, \infty)$ be fixed. We have the following bound,
\begin{align*}
\log \mathbb{E} [|\zeta(\alpha, {\mathbb X})|^{2\ell}]
\leqslant 2\ell(\log\log \ell+ \gamma + e^A - 1 )+ O_A\left(\frac{\ell}{\log \ell}\right)\,, \quad for \quad \alpha = 1 - \frac{A}{\log \ell} \,.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that
$$
\mathbb{E}[|\zeta(\alpha, {\mathbb X})|^{2\ell}] = \prod_{p} E_\ell(p, \alpha)
\text{ with }
E_\ell(p, \alpha) = \mathbb{E} \Big [ \Big | \Big ( 1 - \frac{{\mathbb X}(p)}{p^{\alpha}}
\Big )^{-2\ell} \Big | \Big ].
$$
From the following inequality
$$ \frac{\left(1 - \frac{e^{i\theta}}{p}\right)\left(1 - \frac{e^{-i\theta}}{p}\right)}{\left(1 - \frac{e^{i\theta}}{p^{\alpha}}\right)\left(1 - \frac{e^{-i\theta}}{p^{\alpha}}\right)} \leqslant \left( \frac{1 - \frac{1}{p}}{1-\frac{1}{p^{\alpha}}} \right)^2\,,\quad \forall \alpha \in (0, 1],\, \forall \theta \in [-\pi, \pi]\,,$$
and the inequality $\int_{-\pi}^{ \pi} f(\theta) d\theta /\int_{-\pi}^{ \pi} g(\theta) d\theta \leqslant \sup_{\theta \in [-\pi, \pi]} f(\theta) / g(\theta)$ (which holds for any two positive functions $f$ and $g$), we have
$$ \frac{E_\ell(p, \alpha)}{E_\ell(p, 1)} \leqslant \left( \frac{1 - \frac{1}{p}}{1-\frac{1}{p^{\alpha}}} \right)^{2\ell}\,. $$
As a result, we obtain
$$ \log \frac{E_\ell(p, \alpha)}{E_\ell(p, 1)} \leqslant 2\ell\log \left( \frac{1 - \frac{1}{p}}{1-\frac{1}{p^{\alpha}}} \right) \leqslant 2\ell (1-\alpha) \left( \frac{\log p}{p^{\alpha}} + \frac{\log p}{(p^{\alpha}-1)p^{\alpha}} \right) \,. $$
When $\ell/ p^{2 \alpha} \ll 1$, we have (also see \cite[Lemma 4]{GS})
$$
E_\ell(p, \alpha) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \Big (1 - \frac{e^{i\theta}}{ p^{\alpha}} \Big )^{-\ell} \cdot
\Big (1 - \frac{e^{-i\theta}}{p^{\alpha}} \Big )^{-\ell} d\theta = I_0\left(\frac{2\ell}{p^{\alpha}} \right )
\left(1 + O\left( \frac{\ell}{p^{2\alpha}}\right )\right )\,,
$$
where $I_0(t)$ is the 0-th modified Bessel function defined as
$$I_0(t):\, = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi} e ^{t \cos \theta} d\theta = \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} (t/2)^{2n} / (n!)^2, \quad \forall t \in {\mathbb R}\,.$$ From the expansion of $I_0(t)$, we have
$0 < I_0^{\prime}(t) \ll t$ for $0 < t \leqslant 2$.
Thus when $p \geqslant \ell^{1/\alpha}$, we get
$$ \log I_0\left(\frac{2\ell}{p^{\alpha}}\right) - \log I_0\left(\frac{2\ell}{p}\right) = \int_{\frac{2\ell}{p}}^{\frac{2\ell}{p^{\alpha}}} \frac{I_0^{\prime}(t)}{I_0(t)}dt \ll \int_{\frac{2\ell}{p}}^{\frac{2\ell}{p^{\alpha}}} t dt \ll \frac{\ell}{p^{\alpha}}\left(\frac{\ell}{p^{\alpha}} - \frac{\ell}{p}\right)\ll \ell^2 (1-\alpha)\frac{\log p}{p^{2\alpha}}\,. $$
Combining above bounds gives the following
\begin{align*}
\log\frac{ {\mathbb E}[|\zeta(\alpha, {\mathbb X})|^{2\ell}]}{ {\mathbb E}[|\zeta(1, {\mathbb X})|^{2\ell}]} \leqslant &2\ell (1-\alpha) \sum_{p < \ell^{1/\alpha}} \frac{\log p}{p^{\alpha}} + 2\ell (1-\alpha)\sum_{p < \ell^{1/\alpha}} \frac{\log p}{(p^{\alpha}-1)p^{\alpha}}\\& + O(1) \cdot \sum_{p \geqslant \ell^{1/\alpha}} \ell^2 (1-\alpha)\frac{\log p}{p^{2\alpha}} + O(1) \cdot \sum_{p \geqslant \ell^{1/\alpha}}
\frac{\ell}{p^{2\alpha}}.
\end{align*}
By the prime number theorem and Lemma \ref{IntegralLimiBound}, the first term is bounded by
$$ \leqslant 2\ell (e^A - 1) + O_A\left(\frac{\ell}{\log \ell}\right) \,,$$
and the other three terms are bounded by
$$ \ll_A \frac{\ell}{\log \ell}\,.$$
The proof now follows from Lemma \ref{LzIMRN}.
\end{proof}
\section{Preliminary Results on the Riemann zeta function $\zeta$}
\subsection{Lemmas on RH}
\begin{lemma}[Littlewood, \,Thm 13.13\,\cite{M2}]\label{Mont}
Assume RH. Then
\begin{align*}
\left| \frac{\zeta^{'}}{\zeta}(\sigma +it)\right| \leqslant \sum_{ n \leqslant (\log t)^2} \frac{\Lambda(n)}{n^{\sigma}}+ O\left( (\log t)^{2 - 2\sigma} \right) \,,
\end{align*}
uniformly for $~~\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{\log\log t} \leqslant \sigma \leqslant \frac{3}{2},\,\, |t| \geqslant 10.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Chandee, Soundararajan\,\,\cite{CSo}]\label{CS}
Assume RH. For large real numbers $t$, we have
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:CS} \left|\zeta\left(\frac{1}{2}+it\right)\right| \leqslant \exp \left\{\frac{\log 2}{2}\,\frac{\log t }{\log \log t} +O\left(\frac{\log t \, \log \log \log t }{(\log \log t)^2} \right)\right\}. \end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Carneiro, Chandee \,\cite{CC}]\label{CC}
Let $\alpha = \alpha(t)$ be a real-valued function with $\frac{1}{2} < \alpha \leqslant 1$. Assume RH. For large real numbers $t$, we have
$$
\log |\zeta(\alpha + it)| \leqslant\begin{cases}
\log \left( 1 + (\log t)^{1- 2\alpha}\right) \frac{\log t}{2\log \log t} + O\left( \frac{(\log t)^{2-2\alpha}}{(\log \log t)^2} \right) , & \text{if\, $ (\alpha - \frac{1}{2})\log \log t = O(1);$}\\
\log(\log \log t) + O(1), & \text{if\, $(1- \alpha)\log \log t = O(1);$ }\\
\left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{2\alpha - 1}{\alpha (1 - \alpha)} \right)\frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\alpha}}{\log \log t} + \log (2\log \log t) + O\left(\frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\alpha}}{(1-\alpha)^2(\log \log t)^2}\right), & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Bell polynomials
and Fa\`a di Bruno's formula}
\begin{definition}\cite[page 134]{Comb}
The partial Bell polynomials $~{\mathbf{B}}_{n ,k}\left(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{n -k +1}\right)$ are defined by
\begin{align*}
{\mathbf{B}}_{n ,k}\left(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{n -k +1}\right):\, = \sum \frac{n!}{j_1 ! j_2 ! \cdots j_{n-k+1}!} \left(\frac{x_1}{1!}\right)^{j_1}\left(\frac{x_2}{2!}\right)^{j_2}\cdots \left(\frac{x_{n-k+1}}{(n-k+1)!}\right)^{j_{n-k+1}},
\end{align*}
where the summation takes place over all sequences $j_1, j_2, j_3, \dots, j_{n-k+1}$ of non-negative integers such that the following two conditions are satisfied:
\begin{align}
&j_1+ j_2 + j_3 + \cdots + j_{n-k+1} = k, \label{eq:B1}\\
& j_1+ 2 j_2 + 3 j_3 + \cdots + (n-k+1) j_{n-k+1} = n. \label{eq:B2}
\end{align}
The nth complete exponential Bell polynomial $~{\mathbf{B}}_n$ is defined by the following sum:
\begin{align*}
{\mathbf{B}}_n(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n):\, = \sum_{k=1}^{n}{\mathbf{B}}_{n ,k}\left(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{n -k +1}\right)\,.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
By the definition of Bell polynomials, we can compute ${\mathbf{B}}_1(x_1) = x_1$, ${\mathbf{B}}_2(x_1, x_2) = x_1^2 + x_2$ and ${\mathbf{B}}_3(x_1, x_2, x_3) = x_1^3 + 3 x_1 x_2 + x_3$.
Fa\`a di Bruno's formula \cite[page 137]{Comb} is a chain rule on higher derivatives, which can be expressed in terms of Bell polynomials as follows:
\begin{align*}
\frac{d^n}{dx^n} f\left(g\left(x\right)\right) = \sum_{k=1}^{n}f^{(k)}(g(x)) {\mathbf{B}}_{n, k} \left(g^{\prime}(x), g^{\prime\prime}(x), \cdots, g^{(n-k+1)}(x) \right)\,.
\end{align*}
Applying Fa\`a di Bruno's formula to $f(s) = e^s$ and
$g(s) = \log \zeta(s)$ ( \cite[page 19]{PRZZ}), one can get
\begin{align}\label{FaaDi}
\nonumber &\zeta^{(n)}(s) = \sum_{k=1}^{n}\zeta(s) \, {\mathbf{B}}_{n, k} \left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s),\, \frac{d}{ds}\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s),\, \cdots, \frac{d^{n-k}}{ds^{n-k}}\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s)\right) \,, \\ &\frac{\zeta^{(n)}}{\zeta}\left(s \right) = \sum_{k=1}^{n} \, {\mathbf{B}}_{n, k} \left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s),\, \frac{d}{ds}\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s),\, \cdots, \frac{d^{n-k}}{ds^{n-k}}\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s)\right) = {\mathbf{B}}_{n} \left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s),\, \frac{d}{ds}\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s),\, \cdots, \frac{d^{n-1}}{ds^{n-1}}\frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(s)\right) \,.
\end{align}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spec} and Corollary \ref{UncondUpper}}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:spec} }
We will use the method of Lewko-Radziwi\l\l \cite{Lewko} to prove the Theorem.
\begin{proof}
By \cite[page 287-288]{Lewko}, if $|{\mathscr{M}}| = N$ and $\| \mathbf{c} \|_2^2 = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty}\left|c(n)\right|^2 = 1$, then we have
\begin{equation*}
\zeta(2\alpha) \cdot \sum_{n, m \in {\mathscr{M}}}
\frac{(n, m)^{\alpha}}{[n, m]^{\alpha}} \cdot c(n) \overline{c(m)}
\leqslant
e^{2V} + N \cdot \mathbb{E} [|\zeta(\alpha, {\mathbb X})|^{2\ell + 2}] \cdot e^{-2\ell V}, \quad \forall\, \ell, V > 0\,.
\end{equation*}
In the above inequality, we let
$$
V = \log_3 N + \gamma + e^A - 1 + \frac{2}{\log_3 N} \text{ and }
\ell = \log_3 N \cdot \log N\,,
$$
then
$$
\alpha = 1 - \frac{A}{\log \ell}\,.
$$
With the choice of $\ell$ and $V$, by Lemma \ref{LogExpect} we have
$\mathbb{E} [|\zeta(\alpha, X)|^{2\ell + 2} ] \cdot e^{-2\ell V} \ll N^{-1}\,.$ And it's clear that $\zeta(2\alpha) \to \zeta(2)$ when $N \to \infty$. The claim of the theorem immediately follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{UncondUpper}}
\begin{proof}
By the inequality $\log X \leqslant \frac{1}{\epsilon} X ^{\epsilon}, \,(\forall \epsilon > 0, \forall X \geqslant 1)$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{n, m \in {\mathscr{M}}} \frac{(n, m)}{[n, m]} \log^{2\ell} \left(\frac{[n, m]}{(n, m)}\right) \leqslant \left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)^{2\ell} \sum_{n, m \in {\mathscr{M}}} \frac{(n, m)^{1- 2 \ell \epsilon}}{[n, m]^{1- 2 \ell \epsilon}}\,.
\end{equation*}
Let $|{\mathscr{M}}| = N $. Let $c(n) = 1/\sqrt N $ if $n \in {\mathscr{M}}$, and $c(n) = 0$ if $n \notin {\mathscr{M}}$. Take $\epsilon = A/\log \left(\log N \cdot \log_3 N \right)$\,, where $A$ is a positive number to be chosen later. Then by Theorem \ref{thm:spec}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n, m \in {\mathscr{M}}}
\frac{(n, m)^{1- 2 \ell \epsilon}}{[n, m]^{1- 2 \ell \epsilon}}
\leqslant \Big ( \frac{1}{\zeta(2)} \exp\left(2\gamma + 2e^{2\ell A} - 2 \right) + o(1) \Big )
\cdot (\log\log N)^2, \quad as \,\, N \to \infty.
\end{equation*}
By our choice of $\epsilon$, we have
$$ \left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)^{2\ell} = \left(\frac{1}{A^{2\ell}} + o(1) \right) (\log \log N )^{2 \ell}\,.$$
Combining the above two inequalities and choosing $A$ to minimize the following number, we are done.
$$ \frac{\exp\left(2\gamma + 2e^{2\ell A} - 2 \right)}{\zeta(2)A^{2\ell}} $$
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{MainOne}}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, assume that $ \kappa + 2\epsilon <1 $. Let $N \in \left\{\, N_1\,, N_2\,, \cdots, N_n \,, \cdots \right\}$ and $T = N^{\frac{1}{\kappa}}\,.$ Let ${\mathscr{M}} \subset {\mathbb N}$ with $|{\mathscr{M}}| = N $. We will construct a resonator $R(t)$, following ideas from \cite{A}, \cite{BS1} and \cite{delaBT}.
Define \[\mathcal{M}_u:\,= \Big[(1+\frac{\log T}{T})^u,(1+\frac{\log T}{T})^{u+1}\Big)\bigcap \mathcal{M} \quad (u\geqslant 0).\]
Let ${\mathscr{U}}$ be the set of integers $u$ such that $ \mathcal{M}_u \neq \emptyset$
and let $m_u$ be the minimum of $\mathcal{M}_u$ for $u\in {\mathscr{U}}$. We then set
\[ \mathcal{M}':\, = \big \{ m_u: \ u\in {\mathscr{U}} \big\} \quad
\text{and} \quad r(m_u):\,=\sqrt{ \sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}_u} 1} = \sqrt{|\mathcal{M}_u| } \]
for $m_u \in \mathcal{M}'$. Then the resonator $R(t)$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
R(t):\,=\sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}'}\frac{r(m)}{m^{it}} \,.
\end{equation}
By Cauchy's inequality, one has the following estimates \cite{delaBT}:
$$R(0)^2\leqslant N \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}'} r(m)^2\leqslant N |\mathcal{M}| \,.$$
Let $A$ be a positive number. Let $\Phi(t):\, = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4A\pi}} e^{-\frac{1}{4A} t^2}$ with the Fourier transform $\widehat{\Phi}$ defined by
\[ \widehat{\Phi}(\xi):\,=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \Phi(x) e^{-ix\xi} dx = e^{-A \xi^2}. \]
Define the moments as follows:
\begin{align*}
M_1(R,T):\, & = \int_{T^{\beta}}^{T} \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt,\\ M_2(R,T):\, & = \int_{T^{\beta}}^{T} \left| \zeta^{(\ell)}(1 + it)\right|^2 \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt\,,\\ \widetilde{M_2}(R,T):\, & = \int_{T^{\beta}}^{T} \left| \sum_{k \leqslant T} \frac{(\log k)^{\ell}}{k^{1+i t}}\right|^2 \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt\,.
\end{align*}
By the above definitions, we have
\begin{align}\label{ratio}
\max_{T^{\beta}\leqslant t\leqslant T}\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\Big(1+it\Big)\right|^2 \geqslant \frac{M_2(R, T)}{M_1(R, T)}.
\end{align}
From the proof Lemma 5 of \cite{BS2} (replacing $T$ by $ T/\log T$), one can obtain that
\begin{align}\label{M1}
M_1(R,T) \leqslant \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt \leqslant \left(1+ 2\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \widehat{\Phi}(n)+\epsilon\right)\, \frac{T}{\log T} |{\mathscr{M}}| \,.
\end{align}
Define\begin{align*}
I(R,T):\, = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left| \sum_{k \leqslant T} \frac{(\log k)^{\ell}}{k^{1+i t}}\right|^2 \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt.
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align}\label{IRT}
I(R,T) \nonumber &= \sum_{j, k \leqslant T}\frac{\big(\log j\,\cdot \log k\big)^{\ell}}{j k} \sum_{u, \nu \in {\mathscr{U}}}r(m_u)r(m_{\nu}) \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \big ( \frac{jm_{\nu}}{km_u} \big)^{it} \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt\\
& = \frac{T}{\log T} \sum_{j, k \leqslant T}\frac{\big(\log j\,\cdot \log k\big)^{\ell}}{j k} \sum_{u, \nu \in {\mathscr{U}}}r(m_u)r(m_{\nu}) \widehat{\Phi}\Big(\frac{T}{\log T} \log \frac{k m_u}{j m_{\nu}}\Big).
\end{align}
When $j, k $ are fixed, for any $u, \nu \in {\mathscr{U}}$, one has
\begin{align}\label{diagonal}
\sum_{\substack{ m\in {\mathscr{M}}_u,\, n \in {\mathscr{M}}_{\nu}\\ mk = n j}} 1 \leqslant \min\{|{\mathscr{M}}_u|,\, |{\mathscr{M}}_{\nu}|\} \leqslant r(m_u)r(m_{\nu}).
\end{align}
Note that when $m k = n j$, we have
$\frac{n \, m_u}{m \, m_{\nu}} = \frac{k m_u}{j m_{\nu}}.$
Multiplying by $\widehat{\Phi}\Big(\frac{T}{\log T} \log \frac{k m_u}{j m_{\nu}}\Big)$ in (\ref{diagonal}) and summing index over $u, \nu \in {\mathscr{U}}$ give
\begin{align*}
\sum_{u, \nu \in {\mathscr{U}}}r(m_u)r(m_{\nu}) \widehat{\Phi}\Big(\frac{T}{\log T} \log \frac{k m_u}{j m_{\nu}}\Big) \geqslant \sum_{u, \nu \in {\mathscr{U}}} \sum_{\substack{ m\in {\mathscr{M}}_u,\, n \in {\mathscr{M}}_{\nu}\\ mk = n j}} \widehat{\Phi}\Big(\frac{T}{\log T} \log \frac{n \, m_u}{m \, m_{\nu}}\Big) \geqslant \sum_{\substack{ m, n\in {\mathscr{M}}\\ mk = n j}} \widehat{\Phi}(1)\,,
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from $0 \leqslant \frac{ m }{m_u} - 1 \leqslant \frac{ \log T}{T}$ and $0 \leqslant \frac{n }{m_{\nu} } -1 \leqslant \frac{ \log T}{T}$.
Returning to \eqref{IRT}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
I(R,T)
\geqslant \frac{T}{\log T} \sum_{j,\, k \leqslant T}\frac{\big(\log j\,\cdot \log k\big)^{\ell}}{j k} \sum_{\substack{ m, n\in {\mathscr{M}}\\ mk = n j}} \widehat{\Phi}(1).
\end{align*}
When $j = \frac{ m}{(m, n)}$ and $k = \frac{n}{(m, n)} $, we have $mk= \frac{ m n}{(m, n)} = [m, n ] = nj.$ Thus we further get the following lower bound \begin{align*}
I(R,T) & \geqslant \widehat{\Phi}(1)\,\frac{T}{\log T} \sum_{\substack{\frac{m}{(m, n)}, \,\frac{n}{(m,n)} \leqslant T\\ m,\, n \in {\mathscr{M}}}}\frac{\big(\log \frac{m}{(m, n)} \,\cdot \log \frac{n}{(m,n)}\big)^{\ell}}{\frac{m}{(m,n)} \frac{n}{(m, n)}}
\\& \geqslant \widehat{\Phi}(1)\,\frac{T}{\log T} S({\mathscr{M}}; \ell) - E({\mathscr{M}}; T)\,\,,
\end{align*} where $ S({\mathscr{M}}; \ell)$ and $E({\mathscr{M}}; T)$ are defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
&S({\mathscr{M}}; \ell):\, =\sum_{m, n\in {\mathscr{M}}} \frac{(m,n)}{[m,n]}\log^{\ell} \Big(\frac{m}{(m,n)}\Big)\log^{\ell}\Big(\frac{n}{(m,n)}\Big)\,\,\,\, , \quad\\
&E({\mathscr{M}}; T):\, = 2 \widehat{\Phi}(1)\,\frac{T}{\log T} \sum_{\substack{\frac{n}{(m, n)} > T\\ m,\, n \in {\mathscr{M}}}} \frac{(m,n)}{[m,n]}\log^{\ell} \Big(\frac{m}{(m,n)}\Big)\log^{\ell}\Big(\frac{n}{(m,n)}\Big).
\end{align*}
Using Rankin's trick, the inequality $\log X \ll_{\varepsilon} X^{\varepsilon}$ (which holds for all $X \geqslant 1$) and the upper bound in \eqref{gcd}, we bound $ E({\mathscr{M}}; T)$ by
\begin{align*}
E({\mathscr{M}}; T) &
\ll \frac{T}{\log T} \frac{1}{\sqrt[3]{T}} \sum_{\substack{ m,\, n \in {\mathscr{M}}}} \sqrt[3]{\frac{n}{(m,n)}} \frac{(m,n)}{[m,n]}\log^{\ell} \Big(\frac{m}{(m,n)}\Big)\log^{\ell}\Big(\frac{n}{(m,n)}\Big)\\& \ll \frac{T}{\log T} \frac{1}{\sqrt[3]{T}} S_{\frac{7}{12}}({\mathscr{M}})\\& \ll \frac{T}{\log T} \frac{1}{\sqrt[3]{T}} |{\mathscr{M}}| \exp \left\{ C_{\frac{7}{12}}\frac{(\log T)^{\frac{5}{12}}}{(\log \log T)^{\frac{7}{12}}}\right\} \ll \frac{T}{\log T} \frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{T}} |{\mathscr{M}}|.
\end{align*}
So we have proved that
\begin{align}\label{lowerbound}
I(R,T) \geqslant \widehat{\Phi}(1)\,\frac{T}{\log T} S({\mathscr{M}}; \ell) + O\left( \frac{T}{\log T} \frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{T}} |{\mathscr{M}}|\right).
\end{align}
In the following steps, we will bound $ \left| I(R, T) - \widetilde{M_2}(R,T) \right|$ and $ \left| M_2(R, T) - \widetilde{M_2}(R,T) \right|$.
First, note that\begin{align*}
\int_{|t| \leqslant T^{\beta}} \left| \sum_{n \leqslant T} \frac{(\log n)^{\ell}}{n^{1+i t}}\right|^2 \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt \ll R(0)^2 T^{\beta} \cdot (\log T)^{2 \ell +2} \ll T^{\kappa + \beta} (\log T)^{2 \ell +2} |{\mathscr{M}}|\,.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, by fast decay of $\Phi$, we find that
\begin{align*}
\int_{|t| \geqslant T} \left| \sum_{n \leqslant T} \frac{(\log n)^{\ell}}{n^{1+i t}}\right|^2 \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt \ll T^{\kappa} (\log T)^{2 \ell +2} |{\mathscr{M}}| \int_{|t| \geqslant T} \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt \ll o(1) |{\mathscr{M}}|.
\end{align*}
As a result, we have
\begin{align}\label{IMDifference}
I(R, T) = \widetilde{M_2}(R, T) + O\Big( T^{\kappa + \beta} (\log T)^{2 \ell +2} |{\mathscr{M}}|\Big).
\end{align}
Next, let \begin{equation*}
\quad E_1 = \frac{\ell !}{\epsilon^{\ell}}\frac{T^{\epsilon}}{t}\,, \quad \quad \text{and}
\quad \quad E_2 =\frac{\ell !}{\epsilon^{\ell}} T^{-1+\epsilon}. \end{equation*}
By Hardy-Littlewood's approximation formula (see \cite[Thm 4.11]{T}) for $\zeta(s)$ and Cauchy's integral formula for derivatives, we have \begin{align}\label{derivapprox}
\zeta^{(\ell)}(1+ it) = (-1)^{\ell}\sum_{k \leqslant T} \frac{(\log k)^{\ell}}{k^{1+it}} + O\Big( E_1 \Big) + O\Big( E_2 \Big)\,,\quad T^{\beta} \leqslant t \leqslant T\,.
\end{align}
From \eqref{derivapprox} one can get
\begin{align*}
\left| \left|\zeta^{(\ell)}(1+ it)\right|^2 - \left| \sum_{k \leqslant T} \frac{(\log k)^{\ell}}{k^{1+i t}}\right|^2 \right|\ll E_1^2 + E_2^2 + \left| \sum_{k \leqslant T} \frac{(\log k)^{\ell}}{k^{1+i t}}\right| \cdot (E_1 +E_2)\,,\quad T^{\beta} \leqslant t \leqslant T.
\end{align*}
We will estimate contributions of $E_1$ and $E_2$ in the integrals. \begin{align*}
\int_{T^{\beta}}^{T} \left| E_1\right|^2 \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt \ll T^{2\epsilon} R(0)^2 \int_{T^{\beta}}^{T} \frac{1}{t^2} \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt \ll T^{2\epsilon+\kappa} |{\mathscr{M}}|,
\end{align*}
where the implied constants depend on $\ell$ and $\epsilon$ only.
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and \eqref{M1},
\begin{align*}
&\int_{T^{\beta}}^{T}\left| \sum_{k \leqslant T} \frac{(\log k)^{\ell}}{k^{1+i t}}\right| \cdot \left| E_1\right|\cdot \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt \\ \leqslant & \sqrt{\widetilde{M_2}(R,T)} \sqrt{\int_{T^{\beta}}^{T} \left| E_1\right|^2 \left|R(t)\right|^2 \Phi\big(\frac{t \log T}{T} \big) dt}\\
\ll & (\log T)^{\ell +1} \sqrt{M_1(R,T)} \sqrt{ T^{2\epsilon+\kappa} |{\mathscr{M}}|}\\
\ll & (\log T)^{\ell +\frac{1}{2} } T ^{\frac{1}{2} + \epsilon + \frac{\kappa}{2}} |{\mathscr{M}}|.
\end{align*}
Since $E_2 \ll E_1$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{MMDifference}
\left| M_2(R, T) - \widetilde{M_2}(R,T) \right| \ll T^{2\epsilon+\kappa} |{\mathscr{M}}| + (\log T)^{\ell +\frac{1}{2} } T ^{\frac{1}{2} + \epsilon + \frac{\kappa}{2}} |{\mathscr{M}}|.
\end{align}
\eqref{MMDifference} together with \eqref{lowerbound} and \eqref{IMDifference} give that
\begin{align}\label{M2}
M_2(R,T) \geqslant \widehat{\Phi}(1)\,\frac{T}{\log T} S({\mathscr{M}}; \ell) + o\left( \frac{T}{\log T} |{\mathscr{M}}|\right) .
\end{align}
By the assumption \eqref{asump} and \eqref{ratio}, \eqref{M1}, \eqref{M2}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\max_{T^{\beta}\leqslant t\leqslant T}\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\Big(1+it\Big)\right|^2 \geqslant \frac{M_2(R, T)}{M_1(R, T)}\geqslant {\mathbf c_{\ell}} \frac{\widehat{\Phi}(1)}{1+ 2\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \widehat{\Phi}(n)+2\epsilon} (\log \log T)^{2\ell +2}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{First Proof of Proposition \ref{Main} }\label{1stP}
\begin{proof}
We will use the following identity
\begin{align*}
\log \big|\zeta(\sigma+ it)\big| -\log \big|\zeta(1 + it)\big| = \Re\left(\log\, \zeta(\sigma+ it) - \log\, \zeta(1+ it)\right)= \Re\left(-\int_{\sigma}^1 \frac{\zeta^{'}(\alpha+it)}{\zeta(\alpha+it)}d\alpha\right)\,.
\end{align*}
Let $A$ be a positive number. Consider the case $1 - \frac{A}{\log\log t} \leqslant \sigma \leqslant 1$ first.
By the estimate $ \int_{\sigma}^1 \frac{1}{n^{\alpha}}d\alpha\leqslant (1 - \sigma)\, \frac{1}{n^{\sigma}} $ and Lemma \ref{Mont}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\log \big|\zeta(\sigma+ it)\big| -\log \big|\zeta(1 + it)\big| \bigg| \\
\leqslant &\bigg|\int_{\sigma}^1 \left| \frac{\zeta^{'}(\alpha+it)}{\zeta(\alpha+it)}\right|d\alpha\bigg|\\
\leqslant &\bigg|\int_{\sigma}^1 \left( \sum_{ n \leqslant (\log t)^2} \frac{\Lambda(n)}{n^{\alpha}}+ O\left( (\log t)^{2 - 2\alpha} \right) \right)d\alpha\bigg|\\
\leqslant & \left( 1- \sigma\right) \sum_{ n \leqslant (\log t)^2} \frac{\Lambda(n)}{n^{\sigma}} + O\left(1\right) \int_{\sigma}^1(\log t)^{2 - 2\alpha} d\alpha
\\\leqslant & e^{2A} -1 + O\left(\frac{1}{\log\log t}\right),
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from partial summation and the prime number theorem on the Riemann Hypothesis
$\left(\sum_{n \leqslant x}\Lambda(n) = x + O\left(\sqrt{x}\log^2 x\right)\right)$.
So we have
\begin{align}\label{approx}
\log \big|\zeta(\sigma+ it)\big| \leqslant \log \big|\zeta(1 + it)\big| + e^{2 A} -1 + o(1), \quad \text{if} \quad 1 - \frac{A}{\log\log t} \leqslant \sigma \leqslant 1.
\end{align}
For another case $ 1 \leqslant \sigma \leqslant 1 + \frac{A}{\log\log t}$\,, we use the estimate $ \int_{1}^{\sigma} \frac{1}{n^{\alpha}}d\alpha\leqslant (\sigma - 1)\, \frac{1}{n} $ instead and similarly prove that
\begin{align}\label{approx2}
\log \big|\zeta(\sigma+ it)\big| \leqslant \log \big|\zeta(1 + it)\big| + 2 A + o(1), \quad \text{if} \quad 1 \leqslant \sigma \leqslant 1 + \frac{A}{\log\log t} .
\end{align}
From \eqref{approx} and \eqref{approx2}, we have
\begin{align}
\big|\zeta(\sigma+ it)\big| \leqslant \exp\left( e^{2 A} -1 + o(1)\right) \cdot \big|\zeta(1 + it)\big| , \quad \text{if} \quad \left|\sigma -1 \right|\leqslant \frac{A}{\log\log t} .
\end{align}
Now set $\delta = \frac{A}{\log\log t}$. Note that $\left| (\sigma+ i\widetilde{t})-(1+it)\right|\leqslant \delta$ implies $\left|\sigma -1 \right| \leqslant \delta$ and $ \left|\widetilde{t} - t \right| \leqslant \delta.$
By Cauchy's integral formula for derivatives and Littlewood's classical result on RH, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\Big(1+it\Big)\right| &\leqslant \frac{\ell!}{\delta^{\ell}} \max_{ \substack{ |\sigma -1 | \leqslant \delta\\ |\widetilde{t} - t | \leqslant \delta}}\big|\zeta(\sigma+ i\widetilde{t})\big|\\ &\leqslant \frac{\ell!}{A^{\ell}} \left(\log\log t \right)^{\ell} \exp\left( e^{2 A} -1 + o(1)\right) \cdot \left(2 e^{\gamma}+o(1)\right) \left(\log\log t \right)\\ &\leqslant \exp\left( e^{2 A} + \gamma -1 + o(1)\right)\,\frac{2\ell!}{A^{\ell}} \left(\log\log t \right)^{\ell+1}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Some Examples}
In order to optimize the constant, we let $A$ to be the solution of the equation $2 e^{2x} = \ell x^{-1}$. Then numerical computations give $\left|\zeta^{\prime}\left(1+it\right)\right| \leqslant 15.2 e^{\gamma} \left(\log \log t\right)^{2} $, $\left|\zeta^{\prime \prime}\left(1+it\right)\right| \leqslant 84.6 e^{\gamma}\left(\log \log t\right)^{3}, $ and $\left|\zeta^{(3)}\left(1+it\right)\right| \leqslant 531.5 e^{\gamma} \left(\log \log t\right)^{4} \,.$
\section{Second Proof of Proposition \ref{Main} }\label{2ndP}
\subsection{The proof}\label{proof2ndP}
\begin{proof} Let $x = (\log t)^2,~ t \geqslant 10, ~\sigma \geqslant \sigma_0 > \frac{1}{2}.$
Similar to the first formula in the proof of Lemma 2.6 of \cite{LL}, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{n \leqslant x}\frac{\Lambda(n)}{n^{\sigma + it}}\log\left(\frac{x}{n}\right) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{2 - i \infty}^{2 + i\infty} \left( - \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta} \left(\sigma + it + s\right) \frac{x^s}{s^2} \right)ds.
\end{align*}
Moving the line of integration to the left gives that
\begin{align}\label{afterMove}
\sum_{n \leqslant x}\frac{\Lambda(n)}{n^{\sigma + it}}\log\left(\frac{x}{n}\right) = & - \left(\log x\right) \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}(\sigma + it) -\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{\prime}(\sigma + it)\\\nonumber & - \sum_{\gamma} \frac{x^{\frac{1}{2}-\sigma+ i(\gamma - t)}}{\left(\frac{1}{2}-\sigma+ i(\gamma - t)\right)^2} - \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{x^{-2n-it-\sigma}}{(2n+it+\sigma)^2} + \frac{x^{1- \sigma - it}}{(1- \sigma - it)^2}\,,
\end{align}
where $\gamma$ denotes the imaginary part of nontrivial zeros of $\zeta$ (only in this subsection \ref{proof2ndP}, should not be confused with the Euler constant).
Applying $\frac{d^{\ell}}{d\sigma^{\ell}}$ on both sides of \eqref{afterMove} gives the following
\begin{align}\label{afterDeriv}
\sum_{n \leqslant x}\frac{\left(- \log n\right)^{\ell}\Lambda(n)}{n^{\sigma + it}}\log\left(\frac{x}{n}\right) = & - \left(\log x\right) \left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(\ell)}\left(\sigma + it\right) -\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(\ell+1)}\left(\sigma + it\right) + \widetilde{E} ,
\end{align}
where by Cauchy’s integral formula for derivatives and the estimate $\sum_{\gamma} \frac{1}{b+(\gamma - t)^2} \ll \max\{\frac{1}{b},\, 1\}\, \log t$\, ($\forall b > 0$), we can bound $ \widetilde{E}$ by
\[\widetilde{E} \ll \frac{\ell!}{\epsilon^{\ell}} x^{\frac{1}{2} - \sigma - \epsilon}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{2} - \sigma - \epsilon\right)^2}\log t + \frac{\ell!}{\epsilon^{\ell}} x^{-2 - \sigma - \epsilon} + \frac{\ell!}{\epsilon^{\ell}}\frac{x^{1- \sigma - \epsilon}}{t^2}\,.\]
Now we take $\sigma = 1$ and $ \epsilon = \frac{1}{\log\log t},$ and obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{n \leqslant x}\frac{\left(- \log n\right)^{\ell}\Lambda(n)}{n^{1 + it}}\log\left(\frac{x}{n}\right) = & - \left(\log x\right) \left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(\ell)}\left(1 + it\right) -\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(\ell+1)}\left(1 + it\right) + O_{\ell}\left(\left(\log\log t\right)^{\ell}\right) \,.
\end{align*}
By partial summation and the prime number theorem on RH, we have
\begin{align*}
\left| \sum_{n \leqslant x}\frac{\left(- \log n\right)^{\ell}\Lambda(n)}{n^{1 + it}}\log\left(\frac{x}{n}\right) \right| \leqslant \sum_{n \leqslant x}\frac{\left( \log n\right)^{\ell}\Lambda(n)}{n}\log\left(\frac{x}{n}\right) = \frac{\left( \log x \right)^{\ell + 2}}{\left( \ell + 1 \right)\left( \ell + 2 \right)} + O_{\ell}\left(\log x\right)\,.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, by the triangle inequality, we get
\begin{align}\label{induction}
\left|\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(\ell+1)}\left(1 + it\right)\right| \leqslant 2\left(\log \log t\right) \left| \left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(\ell)}\left(1 + it\right)\right| + \frac{\left( 2 \log \log t \right)^{\ell + 2}}{\left( \ell + 1 \right)\left( \ell + 2 \right)} + O_{\ell}\left(\left(\log\log t\right)^{\ell}\right)\,.
\end{align}
We use the convention that the 0-th derivative of a function is the function itself. By the same estimate $\sum_{\gamma} \frac{1}{b+(\gamma - t)^2} \ll \max\{\frac{1}{b},\, 1\}\, \log t$\, ($\forall b > 0$), one can check that \eqref{induction} also holds for $\ell = 0 $. Moreover, by Lemma \ref{Mont},
\begin{align}\label{Initial}
\left|\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(0)}\left(1 + it\right)\right| = \left| \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\left(1 + it\right)\right| \leqslant 2 \log \log t + O(1)\,.
\end{align}
By induction and \eqref{induction}, \eqref{Initial}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{DerivRatio}
\left|\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(\ell)}\left(1 + it\right)\right| \leqslant \left( 2^{\ell+2} - \frac{2^{\ell+1}}{\ell+1} \right) \left(\log \log t\right)^{\ell+1} + O_{\ell}\left(\left(\log \log t\right)^{\ell}\right)\,.
\end{align}
Let ${\mathbf{B}}_{\ell}$ be the $\ell$th complete exponential Bell polynomial, then \eqref{FaaDi} and the triangle inequality imply
\begin{align}
\left| \frac{\zeta^{(\ell)}}{\zeta} (1+ it) \right| \leqslant {\mathbf{B}}_{\ell}\left( \left| \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\left(1 + it\right)\right|,\, \left|\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{\prime}\left(1 + it\right)\right|,\, \left|\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(2)}\left(1 + it\right)\right|,\, \cdots , \left|\left( \frac{\zeta^{\prime}}{\zeta}\right)^{(\ell-1)}\left(1 + it\right)\right|\right)\,.
\end{align}
By the property \eqref{eq:B2} of Bell polynomials and \eqref{DerivRatio}, we get
\begin{align}\label{ZetaLZeta}
\left| \frac{\zeta^{(\ell)}}{\zeta} (1+ it) \right| \leqslant {\mathbf c({\ell})} \left(\log \log t\right)^{\ell} + O_{\ell}\left(\left(\log \log t\right)^{\ell-1}\right)\,,
\end{align}
where the positive constant ${\mathbf c({\ell})}$ is defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
{\mathbf c({\ell})}: \,= {\mathbf{B}}_{\ell}\left( 2^{2} - \frac{2^{1}}{1}\,,\, 2^{3} - \frac{2^{2}}{2} \,,\, \cdots ,\, 2^{\ell+1} - \frac{2^{\ell}}{\ell}\right)\,.
\end{align*}
Thus \eqref{LLS} and \eqref{ZetaLZeta} give
\begin{align*}
\left| \zeta^{(\ell)} \left(1+ it\right) \right| = \left| \zeta \left(1+ it\right) \right| \cdot \left| \frac{\zeta^{(\ell)}}{\zeta} (1+ it) \right| \leqslant 2 e^{\gamma} \, {\mathbf c({\ell})} \left(\log \log t\right)^{\ell+1} + O_{\ell}\left(\left(\log \log t\right)^{\ell}\right)\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Some Examples}
From ${\mathbf{B}}_1(x_1) = x_1$, ${\mathbf{B}}_2(x_1, x_2) = x_1^2 + x_2$ , ${\mathbf{B}}_3(x_1, x_2, x_3) = x_1^3 + 3 x_1 x_2 + x_3$ and
\[{\mathbf{B}}_1(2) = 2, \quad {\mathbf{B}}_2(2, 6) = 2^2 + 6 = 10, \quad {\mathbf{B}}_3(2, 6, \frac{40}{3}) = 2^3 + 3\times 2 \times 6 + \frac{40}{3} = \frac{172}{3},\]
we obtain $\left|\zeta^{\prime}\left(1+it\right)\right| \leqslant 4 e^{\gamma} \left(\log \log t\right)^{2} + O\left(\log \log t\right), $ $\left|\zeta^{\prime \prime}\left(1+it\right)\right| \leqslant 20 e^{\gamma}\left(\log \log t\right)^{3}+ O\left(\left(\log \log t\right)^2\right) , $ and $\left|\zeta^{(3)}\left(1+it\right)\right| \leqslant \frac{344}{3} e^{\gamma} \left(\log \log t\right)^{4} + O\left(\left(\log \log t\right)^3\right)\,.$
\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{strip}}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{strip} (A)}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a positive number, to be chosen later. By Lemma \ref{CS} and Lemma \ref{CC}, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\zeta(\sigma+it)\right| \leqslant \exp\left\{\frac{\log 2}{2} \,\frac{\log t }{\log \log t} +O\left(\frac{\log t \, \log \log \log t }{(\log \log t)^2} \right) \, \right\}\,, \quad \text{if} \quad 0 \leqslant \sigma-\frac{1}{2} \leqslant \frac{A}{\log\log t}.
\end{align*}
When $\frac{1}{2} - \frac{A}{\log\log t} \leqslant \sigma < \frac{1}{2},$ by the functional equation $\zeta(s) = \chi(s) \zeta(1-s)$ and the asymptotic relation (see \cite[Page 95]{T}) that $\left|\chi(s)\right| \sim \left(\frac{t}{2\pi}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}-\sigma} $, as $t \to \infty$, we have \begin{align*}
\left|\zeta(\sigma+it)\right| &\leqslant \left( 1+o(1) \right) \left(\frac{t}{2\pi}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}-\sigma} \left|\zeta(1- \sigma +it)\right|\\ &\leqslant \exp\left\{\left(\frac{1}{2}-\sigma\right) \log \frac{t}{2\pi} + \frac{\log 2}{2}\,\frac{\log t }{\log \log t} +O\left(\frac{\log t \, \log \log \log t }{(\log \log t)^2} \right) \right\}\\ &\leqslant \exp\left\{\left(A+\frac{\log 2}{2}\right) \,\frac{\log t }{\log \log t} +O\left(\frac{\log t \, \log \log \log t }{(\log \log t)^2} \right) \right\}\,, \quad \text{if} \quad \frac{1}{2} - \frac{A}{\log\log t} \leqslant \sigma < \frac{1}{2}.
\end{align*}
Set $\delta = \frac{A}{\log\log t}$ and let $ A = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon$. By Cauchy's formula we obtain that
\begin{align*}
\left|\zeta^{(\ell)}\Big(\frac{1}{2}+it\Big)\right| &\leqslant \frac{\ell!}{\delta^{\ell}} \max_{ \substack{ |\sigma -\frac{1}{2} | \leqslant \delta\\ |\widetilde{t} - t | \leqslant \delta}}\big|\zeta(\sigma+ i\widetilde{t})\big|\\ &\leqslant \frac{\ell!}{A^{\ell}} \left(\log\log t \right)^{\ell} \exp\left\{\left(A+\frac{\log 2}{2}\right) \,\frac{\log t }{\log \log t} +O\left(\frac{\log t \, \log \log \log t }{(\log \log t)^2} \right) \right\}\\ & \leqslant \exp \left\{\left(\frac{\log 2}{2}+\epsilon\right)\,\frac{\log t }{\log \log t}\right\}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{strip} (B)}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a positive number, to be chosen later. By Lemma \ref{CC}, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\zeta(\sigma+it)\right| \leqslant \exp \left\{ \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{2 \sigma -1}{\sigma(1-\sigma)} \right) \, \frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\, \sigma}}{\log \log t} + O\left(\frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\sigma}}{(1-\sigma)^2(\log \log t)^2}\right)\right\}\,, \text{if}~ \left|\sigma - \sigma_0 \right| \leqslant \frac{A}{\log\log t}.
\end{align*}
Set $\delta = \frac{A}{\log\log t}$. Let $ A = \frac{1}{2} \log \left(1+ \widetilde{\epsilon}\, \right) $ with $ \widetilde{\epsilon}$ satisfying $ \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{2 \sigma_0 -1}{\sigma_0(1-\sigma_0)} \right)\left(1+\widetilde{\epsilon}\,\right) = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{2 \sigma_0 -1}{\sigma_0(1-\sigma_0)} + \frac{1}{2}\epsilon $. By Cauchy's formula we obtain that
\begin{align*}
\left|\zeta(\sigma_0+it)\right| &\leqslant \frac{\ell!}{\delta^{\ell}} \max_{ \substack{ |\sigma -\sigma_0 | \leqslant \delta\\ |\widetilde{t} - t | \leqslant \delta}}\big|\zeta(\sigma+ i\widetilde{t})\big|\\ &\leqslant \frac{\ell!}{A^{\ell}} \left(\log\log t \right)^{\ell} \exp \left\{ \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{2 \sigma_0 -1}{\sigma_0(1-\sigma_0)} \right) \, \frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\, \sigma_0} (\log t)^{2 \delta} }{\log \log t} + O_{\sigma_0}\left(\frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\, \sigma_0} (\log t)^{2 \delta} }{(\log \log t)^2}\right)\right\}\\ & \leqslant \exp \left\{ \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{2 \sigma_0 -1}{\sigma_0(1-\sigma_0)} \right) \, \frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\, \sigma_0} (1+\widetilde{\epsilon}\,) }{\log \log t} + O_{\sigma_0, \,\ell, \, \epsilon}\left(\frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\, \sigma_0} }{(\log \log t)^2}\right)\right\}\,\\ & \leqslant \exp \left\{ \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{2 \sigma_0 -1}{\sigma_0(1-\sigma_0)} + \epsilon \right) \, \frac{(\log t)^{2 - 2\, \sigma_0}}{\log \log t} \right\}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{logGCDstrip} }
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{logGCDstrip} (\text{A})}\label{ProofCentral}
\begin{proof}We first prove the upper bound. Let ${\mathscr{M}} \subset {\mathbb N}$ with $|{\mathscr{M}}| = N.$ Clearly, $m \leqslant [m, n]$ and $n \leqslant [m, n]$. By the inequality $\log^{\,2\ell}X \leqslant (200\,\ell)^{2\ell}\, X^{\frac{1}{100}},\,(\forall X \geqslant 1)$, Rankin's trick and \eqref{GCD: 1/2}, we have the following estimates
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} } \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} }\log^{\ell} \Big(\frac{m}{(m,n)}\Big)\log^{\ell}\Big(\frac{n}{(m,n)}\Big)\\
\leqslant & \sum_{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} } \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} }\log^{\,2\ell} \Big(\frac{[m , n]}{(m,n)}\Big)\\
\leqslant & (200\,\ell)^{2\ell} \sum_{ \substack{ m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ \frac{[m , n]}{(m,n)} \geqslant N^{10} } } \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} } \Big(\frac{[m , n]}{(m,n)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{100}} \,+ \sum_{ \substack{ m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ \frac{[m , n]}{(m,n)} \leqslant N^{10} } } \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} }\log^{\,2\ell} \Big(\frac{[m , n]}{(m,n)}\Big)\\
\leqslant & (200\,\ell)^{2\ell} \sum_{ \substack{ m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} } } \left(N^{10}\right)^{\frac{1}{100}-\frac{1}{2}} \,+ \log^{\,2\ell} \left(N^{10}\right) \sum_{ \substack{ m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} } } \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} }\\
\leqslant & (200\,\ell)^{2\ell} N^{2+0.1-5} + \left(\log^{\,2\ell} \left(N^{10}\right)\right) \, N \,\exp \Big\{\big(2\sqrt{2} +o(1)\big)\sqrt{\frac{\log N \,\log_3 N}{\log_2 N}}\Big\}\\ \leqslant &N \,\exp \Big\{\big(2\sqrt{2} +o(1)\big)\sqrt{\frac{\log N \,\log_3 N}{\log_2 N}}\Big\}\,.
\end{align*}
Now we prove the lower bound.
Let ${\mathscr{M}}$ be defined as in \cite[page 109]{delaBT},
then ${\mathscr{M}}$ is a divisor-closed set with $|{\mathscr{M}}| \leqslant N $ and
\[ \frac{S_{\frac{1}{2}}({\mathscr{M}}) }{|{\mathscr{M}}|} \geqslant \exp \Big\{\big(2\sqrt{2} +o(1)\big)\sqrt{\frac{\log N \,\log_3 N}{\log_2 N}}\Big\}\, .\]
Since ${\mathscr{M}}$ is divisor-closed and $|{\mathscr{M}}| \leqslant N $, by \cite[Lemma 5.1]{delaBT}, we have
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{E}_{\frac{1}{2}}({\mathscr{M}}):\,&= \sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ m = (m, n) \,\text{or}\, n = (m, n) }} \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} }\\ &\leqslant 2 \sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ n = (m, n) }} \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} }= 2 \sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ n | m}} \sqrt{\frac{n}{m} } \leqslant |{\mathscr{M}}| \exp\left\{ \frac{2+o(1)}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{\frac{\log N}{\log_2 N}} \right\}\,.
\end{align*}
We thus have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ \frac{m}{(m, n)} \,, \frac{n}{(m, n)} \geqslant 2}} \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} } \geqslant |{\mathscr{M}}|\, \exp \Big\{\big(2\sqrt{2} +o(1)\big)\sqrt{\frac{\log N \,\log_3 N}{\log_2 N}}\Big\}\,.
\end{align*}
Now we return to the log-type GCD sum and get
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} } \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} }\log^{\ell} \Big(\frac{m}{(m,n)}\Big)\log^{\ell}\Big(\frac{n}{(m,n)}\Big)\\
\geqslant &\sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ \frac{m}{(m, n)} \,, \frac{n}{(m, n)} \geqslant 2}} \sqrt{ \frac{(m, n)}{[m , n]} }\log^{\ell} \Big(\frac{m}{(m,n)}\Big)\log^{\ell}\Big(\frac{n}{(m,n)}\Big)\\ \geqslant &(\log 2)^{2 \ell }\cdot |{\mathscr{M}}|\,\cdot \exp \Big\{\big(2\sqrt{2} +o(1)\big)\sqrt{\frac{\log N \,\log_3 N}{\log_2 N}}\Big\}\\\geqslant & |{\mathscr{M}}| \exp \Big\{\big(2\sqrt{2} +o(1)\big)\sqrt{\frac{\log |{\mathscr{M}}| \,\log_3 |{\mathscr{M}}|}{\log_2 |{\mathscr{M}}|}}\Big\}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{logGCDstrip} (\text{B})}
\begin{proof}
The proof for upper bound is almost the same as subsection \ref{ProofCentral}. The only difference is to use the upper bound in \eqref{gcd} instead of using \eqref{GCD: 1/2}.
Now we consider the proof for lower bound. Without loss of generality, assume that $N$ is a power of 2, i.e., $N = 2 ^k$ for $k\in {\mathbb N}$ (since any positive integer is between two powers of 2, it suffices to prove the statement for this case).
As in \cite[page 1526]{ABS}, let ${\mathscr{M}}$ be the set of all square-free integers composed of the first $k$ primes (following ideas of \cite{G}), then $|{\mathscr{M}}| = 2^k = N$ and
\begin{align}\label{GCD: sigma}
S_{\sigma}({\mathscr{M}})= 2^k \prod_{i = 1}^k \left( 1+ \frac{1}{p_i^{\sigma}} \right) \geqslant N\,\cdot \emph{\emph{exp}} \Big\{\frac{\widetilde{c}}{1-\sigma}\cdot \frac{(\log N)^{1 - \sigma}}{(\log_2 N)^{\sigma}}\Big\}
\end{align}
for some positive constant $\widetilde{c}$,~ by the prime number theorem.
The multiplicative structure of ${\mathscr{M}}$ implies that
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{E}_{\sigma}({\mathscr{M}}):\,= \sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ m = (m, n) \,\text{or}\, n = (m, n) }} \frac{(m, n)^{\sigma}}{[m , n]^{\sigma}} \leqslant 2 \sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ n = (m, n) }} \frac{(m, n)^{\sigma}}{[m , n]^{\sigma}} = 2 \sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ n | m}} \left(\frac{n}{m} \right)^{\sigma} = 2^{k+1}\prod_{i = 1}^{k}\left(1+\frac{1}{2 p_i^{\sigma}}\right)\,.
\end{align*}
By the prime number theorem, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\widetilde{E}_{\sigma}({\mathscr{M}})}{S_{\sigma}({\mathscr{M}})} \leqslant 2 \prod_{i = 1}^{k} \frac{ \left(1+\frac{1}{2 p_i^{\sigma}}\right)}{\left( 1+ \frac{1}{p_i^{\sigma}} \right)} = \exp\left( -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i = 1}^{k}\frac{1}{p_i^{\sigma}} + O\left(\sum_{i = 1}^{k}\frac{1}{p_i^{2\sigma}} \right)\right) \longrightarrow 0, \quad \text{when} \quad k \to \infty.
\end{align*}
From this, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{m,n \in {\mathscr{M}} \\ \frac{m}{(m, n)} \,, \frac{n}{(m, n)} \geqslant 2}} \frac{(m, n)^{\sigma}}{[m , n]^{\sigma}} \geqslant \left(1+o(1)\right) \, N\, \,\emph{\emph{exp}} \Big\{\frac{\widetilde{c}}{1-\sigma}\cdot \frac{(\log N)^{1 - \sigma}}{(\log_2 N)^{\sigma}}\Big\}.
\end{align*}
For next steps, using the same methods in subsection \ref{ProofCentral}, we are done.
\end{proof}
\section{Open problems and Conjectures}
Define $\mathbf M_{\ell}$ and $\mathbf m_{\ell}$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf M_{\ell}&:\,= \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{|{\mathscr{M}}| = N}\, \frac{1}{N (\log\log N)^{2+2\ell}} \sum_{n, m \in {\mathscr{M}}} \frac{(n, m)}{[n, m]} \log^{2\ell} \left(\frac{[n, m]}{(n, m)}\right)\,,\\
\mathbf m_{\ell}&:\,= \limsup_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{ (\log\log N)^{2+2\ell}} \Gamma_1^{(\ell)} (N)\,.
\end{align*}
And recall that ${\mathbf D_{\ell} }\;= \limsup_{t \to \infty} \left|\zeta^{(\ell)}(1+it) / (\log \log t)^{\ell+1}\right| ^2 $.
\begin{problem}
Find the limits~~~ $\limsup_{\ell \to \infty} \mathbf M_{\ell}$, $\limsup_{\ell \to \infty} \mathbf m_{\ell}$, and ~~~$\limsup_{\ell \to \infty} {\mathbf D_{\ell} }$.
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}
Let $\ell \in (0, \infty)$ be given. Can we have $\mathbf M_{\ell} = \mathbf m_{\ell}$?
\end{problem}
We have the following conjecture:
\begin{conjecture}
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{\ell \to \infty} \frac{\log \mathbf m_{\ell}}{ \log {\mathbf D_{\ell} }} = 1.
\end{align*}
\end{conjecture}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I thank Christoph Aistleitner and Kristian Seip for several helpful discussions on my log-type GCD sums. I am grateful to Andr\'{e}s Chirre
for many useful suggestions on conditional upper bounds for derivatives of the Riemann zeta function. I thank Marc Munsch for showing me a short proof of Lemma \ref{IntegralLimiBound}. Part of the work was done when I was visiting the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. I thank the institute for their hospitality. The work was supported by the Austrian Science
Fund (FWF), project W1230.
|
\section{Introduction}
The first observations of the ultraviolet (UV) background were made by \citet{Hayakawa1969} followed by a number of (mostly) spectroscopic observations in the spectral range between 1200 -- 3000 \AA . These early observations have been reviewed by \citet{Bowyer1991} and \citet{Henry1991} and showed that there was a Galactic component increasing toward the Galactic plane and an extragalactic component observable at high Galactic latitudes, where the extinction from interstellar dust is low. The first all-sky observations came with the flight of the {\it GALEX}\ ({\it Galaxy Evolution Explorer}) imaging mission \citep{Martin2005, Morrissey2007} and the {\it SPEAR} (Spectroscopy of Plasma Evolution from Astrophysical Radiation) spectroscopic mission \citep{Edelstein2006, Edelstein2006b}, both of which mapped the diffuse background over the entire sky \citep{Seon2011, Hamden2013, Murthy2014apss, Murthy2014apj}.
The diffuse ultraviolet background is comprised of several components, which are difficult to separate in imaging, or even spectroscopic, observations. These components \citep{Leinert1998,Murthyreview2009} include:
\begin{itemize}
\item Airglow: Emission lines arising in the Earth's atmosphere.
\item Zodiacal light (ZL): Sunlight scattered from interplanetary grains. The zodiacal light is on the same order as the DGL at wavelengths longer than 2000 \AA\ with no contribution at shorter wavelengths.
\item Diffuse Galactic light (DGL): Predominantly starlight scattered by interstellar grains with contributions from molecular hydrogen (H$_{2}$) fluorescence \citep{Hurwitz1994}, emission lines from ionized gas \citep{Jakobsen1981}, or two-photon recombination radiation \citep{Reynolds1990}.
\item Extragalactic background light (EBL): Predominantly due to the integrated light of galaxies \citep{Xu2005,Driver2016} with smaller contributions from the integrated light of QSOs \citep{Madau1992}) and the IGM \citep{Martin1991}).
\end{itemize}
The all-sky nature of the {\it GALEX}\ and the SPEAR observations have allowed us to separate the components based on their distribution over the sky. The foreground emission (airglow and zodiacal light) is dependent on the observation time and date and \citet{Murthy2014apss} has characterized their contribution to the total diffuse background in the {\it GALEX}\ data while \citet{Akshaya2018, Akshaya2019} have mapped the contributions from the Galactic and extragalactic components at high latitudes. Similarly, \citet{Seon2011} and \citet{Jo2017} have mapped the diffuse emission observed by SPEAR, both the continuum dust emission and the molecular hydrogen fluorescence with the advantage over {\it GALEX}\ of spectroscopy but a poorer sensitivity and spatial resolution.
Of all the contributors to the diffuse observations, the only one which might be expected to be time-variable is the airglow, which is a function of the local time of observation \citep{Murthy2014apss}, and it was a surprise when \citet{Akshaya2018} found time-variable variations in the {\it GALEX}\ observations in Virgo, which they attributed to unknown atmospheric sources. {\it GALEX}\ was never intended to probe variability in the DGL and it is difficult now, after the mission has ended, to divine the source of the variability. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the impact of the variability on the diffuse background. We have gone through the {\it GALEX}\ database and found three locations with a sufficient number of observations to check for variability.
\section{Observations and Data Analysis}
The {\it GALEX}\ spacecraft and its mission have been described by \citet{Martin2005} and \citet{Morrissey2007}. {\it GALEX}\ included two photon-counting detectors: the far-ultraviolet (FUV: 1344 -- 1786 \AA\ with an effective wavelength of 1539 \AA) and the near-ultraviolet (NUV: 1771 -- 2831 \AA\ with an effective wavelength of 2316 \AA). The NUV instrument observed the sky for the entire length of the mission from 2003 June 7 until 2013 June 28 while the FUV detector failed permanently in 2009 May, with intermittent interruptions even before that date. The field of view (FOV) of the instrument was $1.25^{\circ}$ with a spatial resolution of 5 -- 10\arcsec.
Most of the sky was observed as part of the All-sky Imaging Survey (AIS) with a typical exposure time of about 100 seconds with a few locations targeted for deeper observations of up to 100,000 seconds. These longer observations were comprised of a series of visits, each of less than 1000 seconds in length, taken during local (spacecraft) night and sometimes, but not always, taken in consecutive orbits. \citet{Murthy2014apj} used the {\it GALEX}\ data to map the diffuse background over the sky at a spatial resolution of $2'$. Because the foreground emission (airglow and zodiacal light) was different for each visit \citep{Murthy2014apss}, they created files of the sky background with the foreground emission subtracted for each visit \footnote{\url{https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/uv-bkgd/}}. We have binned the data in those files into $6'$ bins and used those to study the time dependence of the diffuse UV background.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{{\it GALEX}\ Observations}
\label{tab:ob_count}
\begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrrrr}
Field & Field ID$^{a}$ & $l$ & $b$ & N(NUV)$^{b}$ & N(FUV)$^{b}$ & NUV$^{c}$ & FUV$^{c}$ & $\Delta NUV^{d}$ & $\Delta FUV^{d}$\\
\hline
1. & WDST\_LB\_227 & 176.1 & -24.7 & 872 & 138 & 1910 & 2440 & 50.8 & 40.7 \\
2. & WDST\_LDS\_749B & 54.3 & -34.9 & 1388 & 458 & 850 & 670 & 35.0 & 19.4 \\
3. & Virgo Cluster & 284.7 & 74.4 & 1143 & 12& 670 & 440 & 18.1 & 21.4 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{$^{a}$From {\it GALEX}\ observation identifier.}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{$^{b}$Number of visits.}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{$^{c}$Mean value of DGL in photon units .}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{$^{d}$Mean value of standard deviation of DGL in photon units .}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{Fig6_time_hist.pdf}
\caption{Time history of a single $0.1^{\circ} \times 0.1^{\circ}$ bin with FUV shown in red. The day number is counted from 2003, June 10, approximately when {\it GALEX}\ observations began.}
\label{fig:timehistory}
\end{figure}
Although {\it GALEX}\ observed a significant fraction of the sky, most areas were covered by fewer than 5 visits and there were only 3 regions in which there were more than 100 visits in the NUV (Table \ref{tab:ob_count}). the first two were repeat calibration observations of white dwarfs with the third being a set of deep observations of Virgo \citep{Boissier2015}. For reference, we have given the mean values of the diffuse background in those fields as well as the standard deviation of the values in each bin. It is interesting to note, but out of the scope of this work, that the standard deviations are higher at low Galactic latitudes, perhaps because of the complexity of the ISM near the Galactic Plane.
As discussed above, we broke the sky into $6'$ bins and extracted the diffuse surface brightness in each bin as a function of day number, starting on 2003, June 10 (Julian day 2452800.5). The airglow increases with time from local midnight and we have only used observations which fell two hours of orbital midnight, where the contribution from airglow is less than 5 photon units\ \citep{Murthy2014apss}. Because there was no intention of measuring the time variation of the diffuse background, the data were taken at random intervals over the course of the mission, sometimes in a series of groups (Fig. \ref{fig:timehistory}). It is not readily apparent in this plot but we do see variations both on the scale of a few days and over the entire set of observations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{ebv_means.pdf}
\caption{Time-averaged FUV (red) and NUV surface brightness as a function of the Planck E(B - V).}
\label{fig:ebv_means}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{UV-Reddening Relations}
\label{tab:ebv_means}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
Band & Offset$^{a}$ & Slope$^{b}$\\
\hline
FUV & 190 & 8105 \\
NUV & 405 & 7894 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{$^{a}$photon units .}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{$^{b}$photon units\ mag$^{-1}$ .}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Without loss of generality, we can break up the observed signal in each pixel into a constant component, estimated from the mean of the surface brightness over time, and a time-variable component, given by the deviations from the mean. The mean value for each pixel is representative of the DGL in that location and we have plotted it as a function of the Planck E(B - V) \citep{PlanckDust2016} for each of the three regions in Fig. \ref{fig:ebv_means}. The UV emission arises within a few hundred parsecs of the Earth \citep{Murthy_dustmodel2016} and is linearly correlated (Table \ref{tab:ebv_means}) with the reddening until an E(B - V) of about 0.15, when the UV saturates. The modeling of each region is dependent on local conditions \citep{Murthy_sahnow2004} and we will leave a discussion of the DGL to a future work.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{corr_grid.pdf}
\caption{Correlation between different pixels in the NUV after subtracting the mean. Contours represent 70\% and 95\% of the data points.}
\label{fig:xycorr}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{nuv_file_index.pdf}
\caption{Time variable component of NUV surface brightness per pixel plotted as a function of file index for Field 1 (red), Field 2 (black), and Field 3 (blue) with one point per visit. Note that the time gap between visits is not uniform.}
\label{fig:nuv_final_index}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{fuv_file_index.pdf}
\caption{Time variable component of FUV surface brightness per pixel plotted as a function of file index for Field 1 (red), Field 2 (black), and Field 3 (blue) with one point per visit. There are many fewer points than the NUV because of the intermittent failures of the FUV HVPS.}
\label{fig:fuv_final_index}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{mjd_solar.pdf}
\caption{Variations in the NUV surface brightness as a function of the day number. The y-axis is identical in each plot with the day number (x-axis) in groups of 80 days. The colors are the same as in Fig. \ref{fig:nuv_final_index}. The solid line in each panel shows the variations in the solar irradiance, with an arbitrary scale and offset.}
\label{fig:nuv_mjd}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{fuv_nuv_corr.pdf}
\caption{Variations in the FUV surface brightness plotted against the NUV surface brightness. The line is the best fit: FUV $= 4.5 + 0.27 \times\ NUV$ with a correlation coefficient of 0.5.}
\label{fig:fuv_nuv_corr}
\end{figure}
The deviations from the mean are due to the time-variable part of the diffuse background, whatever its origin may be. As a reminder, a {\it GALEX}\ observation extends over a $1^{\circ}$ field and we found, empirically, that the time variations in each pixel are correlated in a given visit in the NUV (Fig. \ref{fig:xycorr}); ie., the change in the observed signal is due to a general increase in the background over the entirety of the {\it GALEX}\ field. We therefore averaged the surface brightness over a given visit and plotted the values as a function of visit number in Fig. \ref{fig:nuv_final_index} (NUV) and \ref{fig:fuv_final_index} (FUV) for each of the three fields in Table \ref{tab:ob_count}. These visits were spread over a decade but there were several periods where many observations were made over the period of a few months (Fig. \ref{fig:nuv_mjd}). There was much more scatter in the first two fields (Table \ref{tab:ob_count}), which were at moderate galactic latitudes, but the trend of coordinated variability is clear in all three fields. This is particularly striking in Field 3 (Virgo) where the observations cover an area of approximately $5^{\circ} \times 3^{\circ}$. There are not enough FUV observations to discern any long term trends but we do see a mild correlation between the FUV and the NUV (Fig. \ref{fig:fuv_nuv_corr}), with the FUV variations at a significantly lower level. There is a spike in both the NUV and FUV around 13 July, 2008 (day 1860) which is, again, due to a general increase in the background level. We do not have any way of reconstructing what happened on that date and have left those points out of our analysis.
\section{Discussion}
There are several possibilities for the origin of the observed variability. The spatial scale of the variability over three different regions over several square degrees suggests that the source must be local. We will consider the three possibilities below. The first is that there is an increase in the dark current due to an increase in the radiation environment of the spacecraft. We checked for any correlation with the spacecraft position, whether near the South Atlantic Anomaly or at high latitudes (note that the inclination of the orbit was $29^{\circ}$). Moreover, the two detectors are identical, except for the photocathode, and one would expect the count rate to be identical in both detectors. This would manifest as a higher background (in photon units )in the FUV than the NUV, due to the conversion from counts to photon units . Thus, with the exception of the isolated event around 13 July, 2008, the variability is not due to increases in the dark count.
We know that airglow does vary over the course of an observation but \citet{Murthy2014apss} have shown that there is little airglow contribution within two hours of orbital midnight. The primary emission lines in the {\it GALEX}\ bands are the geocoronal O I lines at 1304 and 1356 \AA\ in the FUV and at 2471 \AA\ in the NUV \citep{Morrison1992, feldman_OI_1992} with \citet{kulkarni_fuv_2021} suggesting that continuum two-photon emission from the atmosphere could contribute about 20 photon units\ to the background but all these mechanisms would contribute more to the FUV emission than the NUV, which is not what we see.
In our estimation, the fact that we see a variation in the NUV surface brightness and not in the FUV points to an origin in the zodiacal light \citep{Murthy2014apss}. The zodiacal light is due to scattering of the solar photons by interplanetary dust and variations might be due to either changes in the dust distribution \citep{kelsall_zodi_1998} or to a change in the solar flux. We have plotted the solar irradiance from \citet{Woods_solar_2018} in Fig. \ref{fig:nuv_mjd}, with an arbitrary (but constant) scale and a different offset in each panel. A detailed analysis would involve modeling of the interplanetary dust distribution and is beyond the scope of this work.
\section{Conclusions}
We have found a time-variable component to the diffuse background in the {\it GALEX}\ NUV band with a maximum variation of 100 photon units\ from the mean , with no corresponding variation in the {\it GALEX}\ FUV observations. We believe that the most likely source of this variation is the zodiacal light and the time variability of the solar NUV flux, both of which show a similarity in shape. Unfortunately, the {\it GALEX}\ data are sparse and are irregularly distributed in space and time and we cannot conclusively prove the origin of this component. In practice, we can probably ignore the time-variable component to the diffuse UV background and the FUV data are unaffected.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services. We have used the GnuDataLanguage (http://gnudatalanguage.sourceforge.net/index.php) for the analysis of this data. The data presented in this paper were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST). STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for MAST for non-HST data is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NNX09AF08G and by other grants and contracts.
\section*{Data Availability}
The processed time-series data from the three fields underlying this article will be made available to the reader upon request from the authors.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
A fundamental problem on H-spaces is to find whether or not a given H-space is homotopy commutative. This was intensely studied for finite H-spaces, and a complete answer was given by Hubbuck \cite{H} such that if a connected finite H-space is homotopy commutative, then it is homotopy equivalent to a torus. As for infinite H-spaces, the problem should be studied by fixing a class of infinite H-spaces because there are too many classes of infinite H-spaces, each of which has its own special features.
In \cite{G}, Ganea studied the homotopy nilpotency of complex projective spaces, and in particular, he proved that the loop space of the complex projective space $\C P^n$ is homotopy commutative if and only if $n=3$. Then we continue this work to study the homotopy commutativity of the loop spaces of homogeneous spaces. Recently, Golasi\'{n}ski \cite{Go} showed that the loop spaces of some homogeneous spaces such as complex Grassmannians are homotopy nilpotent. However, their homotopy nilpotency classes are not computed: it is not even proved that they are homotopy commutative or not. In this paper, we study the homotopy commutativity of Hermitian symmetric spaces, which generalizes Ganea's result and makes Golasi\'{n}ski's result more concrete. Recall that every Hermitian symmetric space is a product of irreducible ones in the following table.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|ll}
\hline
AIII&$U(m+n)/U(m)\times U(n)$&$(m,n\ge 1)$\\
BDI&$SO(n+2)/SO(2)\times SO(n)$&$(n\ge 3)$\\
CI&$Sp(n)/U(n)$&$(n\ge 4)$\\
DIII&$SO(2n)/U(n)$&$(n\ge 4)$\\
EIII&$E_6/Spin(10)\cdot T^1$&$(Spin(10)\cap T^1\cong\Z/4)$\\
EVII&$E_7/E_6\cdot T^1$&$(E_6\cap T^1\cong\Z/3)$\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\noindent Then we only need to consider the loop spaces of irreducible Hermitian symmetric spaces. Now we state the main theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{main}
The loop spaces of all irreducible Hermitian symmetric spaces but $\C P^3$ are not homotopy commutative.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{main} will be proved by a case-by-case analysis of irreducible Hermitian symmetric spaces. Our main tools for the analysis are rational homotopy theory (Section \ref{rational homotopy}) and Steenrod operations (Section \ref{Steenrod operation}). The rational homotopy technique also applies to flag manifolds, so that we can prove the following, where the definition of the homotopy nilpotency will be given in Section \ref{rational homotopy}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{main flag}
Let $G$ be a compact connected non-trivial Lie group with maximal torus $T$. Then the loop space of the flag manifold $G/T$ is homotopy nilpotent of class 2.
\end{theorem}
\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
The authors are grateful to Toshiyuki Miyauchi for informing them the result of \={O}shima \cite{O}. The first author were partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 17K05248 and 19K03473 (Kishimoto), JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 21J10117 (Takeda), and JST SPRING Grant Number JPMJSP2110 (Tong).
\section{Rational homotopy}\label{rational homotopy}
In this section, we apply rational homotopy theory to prove that the loop spaces of irreducible Hermitian symmetric spaces of type CI, DIII and EVII are not homotopy commutative. We also consider the homotopy nilpotency of flag manifolds. By \cite[Proposition 13.16]{FHT} and the adjointness of Whitehead products and Samelson products, we have the following criterion for a loop space not being homotopy commutative.
\begin{lemma}
\label{d_2}
Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be the minimal Sullivan model of a simply-connected CW complex of finite type $X$. If there is $x\in V$ such that
\[
dx\not\equiv 0\mod\Lambda^3V,
\]
then $\Omega X$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{lemma}
In order to apply Lemma \ref{d_2}, we will use the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{model}
Let $X,Y$ be simply-connected spaces such that
\[
H^*(X;\Q)=\Q[x_1,\ldots,x_m]\quad\text{and}\quad H^*(Y;\Q)=\Q[y_1,\ldots,y_n].
\]
If a map $f\colon X\to Y$ is injective in rational cohomology, then there is a Sullivan model of the homotopy fiber of $f$ such that
\[
(\Lambda(x_1,\ldots,x_m,z_1,\ldots,z_n),d),\quad dx_i=0,\quad dz_i=f^*(y_i).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the Borel transgression theorem, $H^*(\Omega Y;\Q)=E(z_1,\ldots,z_n)$ such that $\tau(z_i)=y_i$, where $E(z_1,\ldots,z_n)$ denotes the exterior algebra generated by $z_1,\ldots,z_n$ and $\tau$ denotes the transgression. Let $F$ denote the homotopy fiber of the map $f$. Then the sequence
\[
(\Lambda(x_1,\ldots,x_m),0)\xrightarrow{\rm incl}(\Lambda(x_1,\ldots,x_m,z_1,\ldots,z_n),d)\xrightarrow{\rm proj}(\Lambda(z_1,\ldots,z_n),0)
\]
is a model of the principal fibration $\Omega Y\to F\to X$, where $dx_i=0$ and $dz_i=f^*(y_i)$. Thus the statement is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{CD}
The loop spaces of $Sp(n)/U(n)$ and $SO(2n)/U(n)$ are not homotopy commutative.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, we consider $Sp(n)/U(n)$. Recall that the cohomology of $BU(n)$ and $BSp(n)$ are given by
\[
H^*(BU(n);\Z)=\Z[c_1,\ldots,c_n]\quad\text{and}\quad H^*(BSp(n);\Z)=\Z[q_1,\ldots,q_n],
\]
where $c_i$ and $q_i$ are the Chern classes and the symplectic Pontrjagin classes. Then as in \cite[Chapter III, Theorem 5.8]{MT}, the natural map $q\colon BU(n)\to BSp(n)$ satisfies
\[
q^*(q_i)=\sum_{k+l=i}(-1)^{i+k}c_kc_l,
\]
where $c_0=1$ and $c_i=0$ for $i>n$. Then by Lemma \ref{model}, there is a Sullivan model of $Sp(n)/U(n)$ such that
\[
(\Lambda(c_1,\ldots,c_n,r_{1},\ldots r_n),d),\quad dc_i=0,\quad dr_i=\sum_{k+l=2i}(-1)^{i+k}c_kc_l,
\]
where $c_0=1$ and $c_i=0$ for $i>n$. Hence the minimal model of $Sp(n)/U(n)$ is given by
\begin{gather*}
(\Lambda(c_1,c_3,\ldots,c_{2n-2[n/2]-1},r_{[n/2]+1},\ldots r_n),d)\\
dc_i=0,\quad dr_i\equiv\sum_{k+l=i-1}(-1)^{i+1}c_{2k+1}c_{2l+1}\mod(c_1,c_3,\ldots,c_{2n-2[n/2]-1})^4,
\end{gather*}
where $c_0=1$, $c_i=0$ for $i>n$. Thus modulo $(c_1,c_3,\ldots,c_{2n-2[n/2]-1})^4$,
\[
dr_{n-1}\equiv c_{n-1}^2\quad(n\text{ is even}),\quad dr_n\equiv c_n^2\quad(n\text{ is odd}).
\]
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{d_2}, $\Omega(Sp(n)/U(n))$ is not homotopy commutative.
Next, we consider $SO(2n)/U(n)$. The rational cohomology of $BSO(2n)$ is given by
\[
H^*(BSO(2n);\Q)=\Q[p_1,\ldots,p_{n-1},e],
\]
where $p_i$ are the $i$-the Pontrjagin classes and $e$ is the Euler class. By \cite[Lemma 5.15 and Theorem 5.17]{MT}. Then the natural map $r\colon BU(n)\to BSO(n)$ satisfies
\[
r^*(p_i)=\sum_{k+l=2i}(-1)^kc_kc_l\quad\text{and}\quad r^*(e)=c_n,
\]
where $c_0=1$ and $c_i=0$ for $i>n$. Thus arguing as above, we can see that the minimal model of $SO(2n)/U(n)$ coincides with that of $Sp(n-1)/U(n-1)$, implying that $\Omega(SO(2n)/U(n))$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{EVII}
The loop space of $E_7/E_6\cdot T^1$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of \cite[Lemma 2.1]{W}, we have
\begin{align*}
H^*(BE_7;\Q)&=\Q[x_4,x_{12},x_{16},x_{20},x_{24},x_{28},x_{36}]\\
H^*(B(E_6\cdot T^1);\Q)&=\Q[u,v,w,x_4,x_{12},x_{16},x_{24}],
\end{align*}
where $|x_i|=i$, $|u|=2$, $|v|=10$ and $|w|=18$. Moreover, the natural map $j\colon B(E_6\cdot T^1)\to BE_7$ satisfies $j^*(x_i)=x_i$ for $i=4,12,16,24$ and $j^*(x_i)\equiv z_i\mod(x_4,x_{12},x_{16},x_{24})$ for $i=20,28,36$, where
\begin{alignat*}{2}
z_{20}&=v^2-2uv&z_{28}&=-2vw+18u^5w-6u^6v+u^{14}\\
z_{36}&=w^2+20u^4vw-18u^9w+2u^{13}v.\quad
\end{alignat*}
Then by Lemma \ref{model}, there is a Sullivan model of $E_7/E_6\cdot T^1$ such that
\[
(\Lambda(u,v,w,x_4,x_{12},x_{16},x_{24},y_3,y_{11},y_{15},y_{19},y_{23},y_{27},y_{36}),d),
\]
where $du=dv=dw=0$ and $dy_i=x_{i+1}$ for $i=3,11,15,23$ and $dy_i\equiv z_{i+1}\mod(x_4,x_{12},x_{16},x_{24})$. Thus we can easily see that the minimal model of $E_7/E_6\cdot T^1$ is given by $(\Lambda(u,v,w,y_{19},y_{27},y_{36}),d)$ such that $du=dv=dw=0$ and $dy_i=z_{i+1}$ for $i=19,27,36$. Therefore by Lemma \ref{d_2}, $\Omega(E_7/E_6\cdot T^1)$ is not homotopy commutative as stated.
\end{proof}
We consider the homotopy nilpotency of flag manifolds. Let $X$ be an H-group. Let $\gamma\colon X\wedge X\to X$ denote the reduced commutator map, and let $\gamma_n=\gamma\circ(\gamma_{n-1}\wedge 1_X)$ for $n\ge 2$ and $\gamma_1=1_X$. Recall from \cite[Definition 2.6.2]{Z} that $X$ is called \emph{homotopy nilpotent of class $<n$} if $\gamma_n\simeq*$. Let $\honil(X)$ denote the homotopy nilpotency class of $X$. Then $X$ is homotopy commutative if and only if $\honil(X)\le 1$. By \cite[Lemma 2.6.6]{Z}, we have:
\begin{proposition}
\label{nilpotency extension}
Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be an H-map between H-groups with homotopy fiber $F$. Then
\[
\honil(F)\le\honil(X)+1.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}
\label{honil}
Let $G$ be a topological group, and let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$. Then
\[
\honil(\Omega(G/H))\le\honil(H)+1.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The homotopy fiber of the inclusion $H\to G$ is $\Omega(G/H)$, and so by Proposition \ref{nilpotency extension}, the proof is finished.
\end{proof}
Hopkins \cite[Corollary 2.2]{Ho} proved that a connected finite H-group is homotopy nilpotent whenever it is torsion free in homology. Then for a compact connected Lie group $G$ and its closed subgroup $H$, it follows from Corollary \ref{honil} that $\Omega(G/H)$ is homotopy nilpotent whenever $H$ is torsion free in homology (cf. \cite[Proposition 2.2]{Go}). In particular, we obtain that the loop space of the flag manifold $G/T$ is homotopy nilpotent, where $T$ is a maximal torus of $G$. Now we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{main flag}.
\begin{proof}
[Proof of Theorem \ref{main flag}]
Clearly, we may assume $G$ is simply-connected. Since $T$ is homotopy commutative and non-contractible, we have $\honil(T)=1$. Then by Corollary \ref{honil}, $\honil(\Omega(G/T))\le 2$, and so it remains to show that $\Omega(G/T)$ is not homotopy commutative. It is well known that the natural map $H^*(BG;\Q)\to H^*(BT;\Q)^W$ is an isomorphism and
\[
H^*(BT;\Q)^W=\Q[x_1,\ldots,x_n],
\]
where $W$ is the Weyl group of $G$. Since $G$ is simply-connected, $H^*(BG;\Q)=0$ for $*\le 3$ and $H^4(BG;\Q)\ne 0$. Then we may assume $|x_1|=4$. By Lemma \ref{model}, there is a Sullivan model of $G/T$ such that
\[
(\Lambda(t_1,\ldots,t_n,y_1,\ldots,y_n),d),\quad dt_i=0,\quad dy_i=x_i,
\]
where $t_1,\ldots,t_n$ are generators of $H^*(BT;\Q)$ which are of degree 2. Since all $x_i$ are decomposables by degree reasons, this is the minimal model of $G/T$. Moreover, $x_1$ is a quadratic polynomial in $t_1,\ldots,t_n$. Then by Lemma \ref{d_2}, $G/T$ has non-trivial Whitehead product, implying that $\Omega(G/T)$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{proof}
\section{Steenrod operation}\label{Steenrod operation}
In this section, we prove that the loop spaces of the irreducible Hermitian symmetric spaces of type AIII, BDI, EIII by applying the following lemma. The lemma was proved by Kono and \={O}shima \cite{KO} when $A$ and $B$ are spheres and $p$ is odd, and its variants are used in \cite{HK1,HK2,HKMO,HKO,KK,KM,KOT,KT,T}. For an augmented graded algebra $A$, let $QA^n$ denote the module of indecomposables of dimension $n$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{criterion}
Let $X$ be a path-connected space $X$, let $\alpha\colon\Sigma A\to X,\,\beta\colon\Sigma B\to X$ be maps, and let $p$ be a prime. Suppose the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item there are $a,b\in H^*(X;\Z/p)$ such that $\alpha^*(a)\ne 0$, $\beta^*(b)\ne 0$, and
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha^*(b)=0$ or $\beta^*(a)=0$ for $p=2$,
\item $A=B$, $\alpha=\beta$ and $a=b$ for $|a|=|b|$ and $p$ odd;
\end{enumerate}
\item there are $x\in H^*(X;\Z/p)$ and a Steenrod operation $\theta$ such that $\theta(x)$ is decomposable and includes the term $ab\ne 0$;
\item $\dim QH^{*}(X;\Z/p)=1$ for $*=|a|,|b|$;
\item $\theta$ acts trivially on $H^*(\Sigma A\times\Sigma B;\Z/p)$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the Whitehead product $[\alpha,\beta]$ in $X$ is non-trivial.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $[\alpha,\beta]=0$. Then there is a homotopy commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
\Sigma A\vee\Sigma B\ar[r]^(.65){\alpha\vee\beta}\ar[d]_{\rm incl}&X\ar@{=}[d]\\
\Sigma A\times\Sigma B\ar[r]^(.65)\mu&X.
}
\]
By the conditions (1), (2) and (3), the $H^{|a|}(\Sigma A;\Z/p)\otimes H^{|b|}(\Sigma B;\Z/p)$-part of $\mu^*(\theta(x))$ is
\begin{align*}
\mu^*(ab)&=(\alpha^*(a)\times 1+1\times\beta^*(a))(\alpha^*(b)\times 1+1\times\beta^*(b))\\
&=
\begin{cases}
2\alpha^*(a)\times\beta^*(b)&|a|=|b|\text{ and }p\text{ odd}\\
\alpha^*(a)\times\beta^*(b)&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
implying $\mu^*(\theta(x))\ne 0$. By the condition (4), we have $\mu^*(\theta(x))=\theta(\mu^*(x))=0$. Then we obtain a contradiction, implying $[\alpha,\beta]\ne 0$, as stated.
\end{proof}
Let $G_{m,n}=U(m+n)/U(m)\times U(n)$. Since $G_{m,n}\cong G_{n,m}$, we may assume $m\le n$. Let $j\colon G_{m,n}\to BU(m)$ denote the natural map. Then since $m\le n$, the map $j$ is a $(2m+1)$-equivalence. Let $g_i\colon S^{2i}\to BU(m)$ denote a generator of $\pi_{2i}(BU(m))\cong\Z$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. Then since $j$ is a $(2m+1)$-equivalence, there is a map $\bar{g}_i\colon S^{2i}\to G_{m,n}$ such that $j\circ\bar{g}_i=g_i$ for each $i\le m$. Thus
\[
j\circ[\bar{g}_k,\bar{g}_l]=[j\circ\bar{g}_k,j\circ\bar{g}_l]=[g_k,g_l].
\]
So if $[g_k,g_l]\ne 0$, then $[\bar{g}_k,\bar{g}_l]\ne 0$, implying that $\Omega G_{m,n}$ is not homotopy commutative. We can find a non-trivial Whitehead product $[g_k,g_l]$ by using the result of Bott \cite{B}, but here we use Lemma \ref{criterion} instead.
Recall from \cite[Chapter III, Theorem 6.9]{MT} that the cohomology of $G_{m,n}$ is given by
\[
H^*(G_{m,n};\Z)=\Z[c_1,\ldots,c_m,\bar{c}_1,\ldots,\bar{c}_n]/(\sum_{i+j=k}c_i\bar{c}_j\mid k\ge 1)
\]
such that $j^*(c_i)=c_i$ for each $i$, where $c_0=\bar{c}_0=1$, $c_i=0$ for $i>m$, $\bar{c}_j=0$ for $j>n$ and the cohomology of $BU(m)$ is as in the proof of Proposition \ref{CD}. We say that a cohomology class $x\in H^k(X;\Z/p)$ is \emph{mod $p$ spherical} if there is a map $\alpha\colon S^k\to X$ such that $\alpha^*(x)\ne 0$. We denote the mod $p$ reduction of an integral cohomology class by the same symbol $x$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{spherical}
If $p$ is a prime, then $c_i$ is mod $p$ spherical for $i\le p$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Chapter IV, Lemma 5.8]{MT}, $g_i^*(c_i)=\pm(i-1)!u_{2i}$, where $u_{2i}$ is a generator of $H^{2i}(S^{2i};\Z)\cong\Z$. Then the proof is done.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{AIII}
The loop space of $G_{m,n}$ for $m,n\ge 2$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As observed above, it suffices to show $[g_k,g_l]\ne 0$ for some $k,l$. First, we consider the $m=2$ case. By Lemma \ref{spherical}, $c_1,c_2\in H^*(G_{2,n};\Z/2)$ are mod 2 spherical. By the Wu formula, $\mathrm{Sq}^2c_2=c_1c_2\ne 0$ in $H^*(BU(2);\Z/2)$. Then by Lemmas \ref{criterion} and \ref{spherical}, $[g_1,g_2]\ne 0$.
Next, we consider the $m>2$ case. Take any odd prime $p$ with $m/2<p\le m$, where such an odd prime exists by Bertrand's postulate. Let $k=m/2$ for $m$ even and $k=(m+1)/2$ for $m$ odd. By Lemma \ref{spherical}, $c_k$ and $c_{m-k+1}$ are mod $p$ spherical. By the mod $p$ Wu formula proved by Shay \cite{Sh}, $\mathcal{P}^1c_{m-p+2}$ is decomposable and includes the term
\[
-(m+1)c_kc_{m-k+1}
\]
in $H^*(BU(m);\Z/p)$. So if $m+1\not\equiv 0\mod p$, then $[g_k,g_{m-k+1}]\ne 0$. Now we suppose $m+1\equiv 0\mod p$. Then we must have $m=2p-1$. So if there is another prime $q$ in $(m/2,m]$, then $m+1\not\equiv 0\mod q$. So the above argument for the $m+1\not\equiv 0\mod p$ case works, and thus $[g_k,g_{m-k+1}]\ne 0$. Hence we aim to show that there are two primes in $(m/2,m]$. Recall from \cite{So} that the Ramanujan prime $R_n$ is the least integer $k$ such that for each $x\ge k$, there are at least $n$ primes in the interval $(x/2,x]$. It is proved in \cite{So} that $R_n$ exists for each $n$ and $R_2=11$. Then it remains the cases $m=2\cdot 3-1=5$ and $m=2\cdot 5-1=9$, and we have $5/2<3,5\le 5$ and $9/2<5,7\le 9$. Thus there are at least two primes in $(m/2,m]$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
Let $Q_n=SO(n+2)/SO(2)\times SO(n)$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{BDI}
The loop space of $Q_n$ for $n\ge 2$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
There is a homotopy fibration
\begin{equation}
\label{Q fibration}
S^1=SO(2)\to SO(n+2)/SO(n)\xrightarrow{q}Q_n.
\end{equation}
Then the projection $q\colon SO(n+2)/SO(n)\to Q_n$ is injective in $\pi_*$ for $*\ge 2$, and so by the naturality of Whitehead products, it is sufficient to show that there is a non-trivial Whitehead products in $\pi_*(SO(n+2)/SO(n))$ for some $*\ge 2$. Let $\iota\colon S^n=SO(n+1)/SO(n)\to SO(n+2)/SO(n)$ denote the inclusion. Then \={O}shima \cite{O} proved that the Whitehead product $[\iota,\iota]\in\pi_{2n-1}(SO(n+2)/SO(n))$ is non-trivial whenever $n+1$ is not the power of 2. Thus we obtain that $\Omega Q_n$ is not homotopy commutative if $n+1$ is not the power of 2.
Suppose $n=2m-1$. Then as in \cite{I}, the cohomology of $Q_n$ is given by
\[
H^*(Q_n;\Z)=\Z[t,e]/(t^{m}-2e,e^2),\quad\mathrm{Sq}^2e=te,
\]
where $|t|=2$ and $|e|=2m$. Since $Q_n$ is simply-connected, the Hurewicz theorem implies that $t$ is mod 2 spherical. Let $B=S^{n-1}\cup_2e^n$. Then $SO(n+2)/SO(n)=\Sigma B\cup e^{2n+1}$, so that
\[
H^*(SO(n+2)/SO(n);\Z/2)=E(x_n,x_{n+1}),\quad|x_i|=i.
\]
Let $j\colon\Sigma B\to Q_n$ denote the composition of the inclusion $\Sigma B\to SO(n+2)/SO(n)$ and the projection $q\colon SO(n+2)/SO(n)\to Q_n$. Then by the Gysin sequence for the fibration \eqref{Q fibration}, we get $j^*(e)=x_{n+1}$. Thus by Lemma \ref{criterion}, we obtain that $Q_n$ has non-trivial Whitehead product, implying $\Omega Q_n$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{EIII}
The loop space of $E_6/Spin(10)\cdot T^1$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As in \cite{I}, the mod 2 cohomology of $E_6/Spin(10)\cdot T^1$ is given by
\[
H^*(E_6/Spin(10)\cdot T^1;\Z/2)=\Z/2[t,w']/(tw'^2,t^{12}+w'^3),\quad \mathrm{Sq}^2w'=tw',
\]
where $|t|=2$ and $|w'|=8$. Since $E_6/Spin(10)\cdot T^1$ is simply-connected, the Hurewicz theorem implies that $t$ is mod 2 spherical. We can deduce from Conlon's result \cite{C} that $\pi_*(E_6/Spin(10),F_4/Spin(9))=0$ for $*\le 31$. In particular,
\[
H^*(E_6/Spin(10);\Z/2)\cong H^*(F_4/Spin(9);\Z/2)\quad(*\le 30).
\]
Note that $F_4/Spin(9)$ is the Cayley plane $\mathbb{O}P^2$. Then since $\mathbb{O}P^2=S^8\cup e^{16}$, a generator $u\in H^8(F_4/Spin(9);\Z/2)\cong\Z/2$ is mod 2 spherical, and so a generator $v\in H^8(E_6/Spin(10))\cong\Z/2$ is mod 2 spherical too. By the Gysin sequence associated to the fibration $S^1\to E_6/Spin(10)\xrightarrow{q}E_6/Spin(10)\cdot T^1$, we can see that $q^*(w')=v$, implying $w'$ is mod 2 spherical. Thus by Lemma \ref{criterion}, we obtain that $E_6/Spin(10)\cdot T^1$ has a non-trivial Whitehead product, and so $\Omega(E_6/Spin(10)\cdot T^1)$ is not homotopy commutative.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{main}.
\begin{proof}
[Proof of Theorem \ref{main}]
Combine Propositions \ref{CD}, \ref{EVII}, \ref{AIII}, \ref{BDI}, \ref{EIII} and the result of Ganea \cite{G} on the homotopy commutativity of the loop space of $\C P^n$ mentioned in Section \ref{introduction}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The majority of machine learning problems take the form: find a function
$
h_{w_0,...,w_k}
$
in some family of hypothesis functions $\mathcal{H}$ that are parameterized over the $w_0,...,w_k$ which best explains the data,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:data_def}
D = \begin{array}{c|cccccc}
& x_0 & \dots & x_u &
y_0 & \dots & y_v \\
\hline
D_0 & x^{0}_1 & \dots & x_u^{0} &
y_1^{0} & \dots & y_v^{0} \\
D_1 & x^{1}_1 & \dots & x^{1}_u &
y^{1}_1 & \dots & y^{1}_v \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots &
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
D_N & x^{(N)}_1 & \dots & x_u^{(N)} &
y^{(N)}_1 & \dots & y_v^{(N)} \\
\end{array},
\end{equation}
where the $D_i$ are the datapoints, the $x_i$ are the input features, and the $y_i$ are the output features.
If the $ h_{w_0,...,w_k}$ are smoothly parameterized by the $w_0,...,w_k$, then this is usually accomplished by performing gradient descent on the summation of loss functions of the form $l_i(w) = l(h_w(x^{(i)}), y^{(i)})$ to compute
\begin{align}
\min_{w \in \mathcal{W}} \mathcal{L}(D,w) & \overset{\text{def}} {=} \min_{w \in \mathcal{W}} \sum_{D_i}l\left(h_w(x^{(i)}),y^{(i)}
\right) = \nonumber \\\label{eq:min_loss}
& =\min_{w \in \mathcal{W}} \sum_{D_i}l_i\left(w
\right) ;
\end{align}
\textit{i.e., find the $w$ that best fits $D$.}
For example, one of the most common loss functions, $l(f,y)=\frac{1}{2}||f-y||^2$, gives us the mean squared error and the ubiquitous method of least squares.
If the dataset $D$ has many datapoints $D_i$ then the overall computation, or \textit{job}, is distributed as \textit{tasks} amongst \textit{workers}, which model a distributed network of computing devices. This solution creates a new problem; stragglers and other faults can severely impact the performance and overall training time. An emerging technique is to use distributed coded computation to mitigate stragglers and other failures in the network. Many of the current algorithms only encode the data; this paper proposes further encoding the directional derivatives as well in such a way that allows for asynchronous gradient updates using low weight codes.
Furthermore the number of weights usually grow quite large as well\footnote{As a matter of fact it grows proportionately with the number of features or \textit{dimension of the dataset}}, which necessitates a ``2D'' coding scheme which codes both the data and the derivatives.
\subsection{Related Work}
The two algorithms which we use to benchmark our algorithm are Gradient Coding \cite{pmlr-v70-tandon17a} and $K$-Asynchronous Gradient Descent \cite{pmlr-v84-dutta18a, Dutta2021SlowAS}; however, many of the design of our coding scheme is also influenced by the works in \cite{Lee2018a}, \cite{NIPS2017_e6c2dc3d}, and \cite{8765375}.
\subsubsection{Gradient Coding}
In the gradient coding Gradient Coding \cite{pmlr-v70-tandon17a} scheme the main idea is to encode the derivatives with respects to the data partitions $\frac{\partial}{\partial D_i}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:data_def};
since the loss function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:min_loss} splits up into a \emph{sum} of smaller loss functions, $l_i$, in terms of the partitions, $D_i$, linear codes can be efficiently applied to the gradients $\frac{\partial}{\partial D_i}$.
This work has gone on to spawn many works \cite{8635869, charles2018gradient, Ye2018CommunicationComputationEG, 8437467, 8849684,
JMLR:v20:18-148, ozfatura2019gradient, Ozfatura2019DistributedGD, 8849580, 9216021, 8849431, maity2019robust, 8989328, 8682911, NEURIPS2019_3eb2f1a0,
9088154, 9368996, e22050544, Bitar2020StochasticGC, Zhang2021LAGCLA}; gradient coding is currently a vibrant topic of research.
The main improvements of our coding scheme over the state of the art in Gradient Coding is that our code: can perform asynchronous coded updates, allows the backpropagation itself to be coded (which greatly reduces the communication complexity for high dimensional data), our code has 0 encoding and decoding overhead in terms of multiplications, and has an overall reduction in the redundancy of data/memory overhead.
\subsubsection{Asynchronous Gradient Descent}
The main idea in Asynchronous Gradient Descent \cite{Ferdinand2017AnytimeEO, pmlr-v84-dutta18a, Ferdinand2018AnytimeSG,
DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2006-05752, Dutta2021SlowAS} is to simply perform a gradient update when whenever a specified number, $k$, workers have returned.
The name ``asynchronous'' comes from the eponymous concept in distributed computing where communication rounds are not synchronized.
\subsubsection{General Coded Distributed Function Computation Schemes}
The main idea in \cite{Lee2018a}, \cite{NIPS2017_e6c2dc3d}, and \cite{8765375} is that one can distribute large matrix multiplications amongst workers and encode the smaller block matrix operations.
The works initiated much research in distributed coded matrix multiplication \cite{8765375, 8006963, 8437549, 8437852, pmlr-v80-wang18e, pmlr-v97-soto19a, 8758338, 8849395, hong21b}.
Further work has been extended to include batch matrix multiplication as well \cite{pmlr-v89-yu19b, 9149322, 9174239, 9750133}.
The main drawback of these (multi-)linear methods is the non-linear activation functions; in particular, these methods can only encode the linear computations between the layers of a network.
Another interesting approach is to attempt to encode the neural network itself \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1806-01259, 10.1145/3341301.3359654, Kosaian2019ParityMA}; however, this approach suffers from long training times dues to combinatorial explosion of different fault patterns is there are enough stragglers.
\subsection{Contribution}
The main contributions of this paper are to introduce a novel coding scheme for gradient descent that: allows for asynchronous gradient updates, maximizes the amount of information contained by random subsets of vectors, minimizes the weight of the code, compresses the gradient in a manner that scales well with the number of nodes, and achieves a lower a communication complexity and memory (storage) overhead with respect to the state of the art.
Another improvement of our algorithm over the state of the art is to consider the correct information metric; all of the other coding schemes assume that the Hamming distance is the correct metric, which does not consider the natural (differential) geometry of the gradient.
We will show that the correct distance is the one given by the \textit{real projective space}\footnote{$\mathbb{R P}^n$ is defined as the set of all vectors in $\mathbb{R }^{n+1}$ quotiented by the equivalence relation $v \sim w \iff (\exists \lambda)\ v = \lambda w$.} $\mathbb{R P}^n$.
Furthermore, we will show that our coding scheme, \emph{i.e.,} our choice of coefficients, maximizes the amount of information returned by the workers and furthermore has zero decoding overhead (in terms of multiplications) since the master can just directly add and subtract the results returned by the workers without needing to decode the information.
\subsection{Background}\label{subsec:back}
We quickly give some important definitions and background from coding theory, information theory, and geometry.
In coded distributed computing an \emph{erasure code} is a pair of functions $\mathcal{C} = (\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{D})$ where the workers tasks are given by the encoding procedure
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \tilde \theta_0 , ..., \tilde \theta_{n-1}\right\} := \mathcal{E} \left\{ \theta_0 , ..., \theta_{k}\right\}
\end{equation*}
and a decoding procedure for some family of fault-tolerant subsets, $\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{C}$, such that
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \tilde \theta_{i_1} , ..., \tilde \theta_{i_m}\right\} \in \mathcal{F}_\mathcal{C} \implies \mathcal{D}\left\{ \tilde \theta_{i_1} , ..., \tilde \theta_{i_m}\right\} = \left\{ \theta_0 , ...,\theta_{k}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
If $\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{C}$ consists of all the $m$-subsets (for some integer $r$) of $\left\{ \tilde \theta_0 , ..., \tilde \theta_{n-1}\right\}$, then $\mathcal{C}$ can correct any $r:= n-m$ erasures or stragglers; furthermore, if $r = n-k$ then the code is a \emph{maximum distance separable} (MDS) code.
If the encoder $\mathcal{E}$ is given by a generator matrix $\mathcal{G}_\mathcal{C}$, \emph{i.e.,} if
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E} \begin{bmatrix}
\theta_0 & ... & \theta_{k}
\end{bmatrix}^T =
\mathcal{G}_\mathcal{C}\begin{bmatrix}
\theta_0 & ... & \theta_{k}
\end{bmatrix}^T
\end{equation*}
then $\mathcal{C}$ is called a \emph{linear code}. The \emph{weight} of a linear code is the maximum number of 0's in the rows of the matrix $\mathcal{G}_\mathcal{C}$; the importance of the weight metric stems from the fact that it measures the amount of work that the workers do since the rows of $\mathcal{G}_\mathcal{C}$ are the worker tasks $\tilde \theta_i$.
Thus, in order to avoid confusion we will use $t$ to denote the weight of the code as well as the number of \emph{tasks} that each worker does; equivalently $t$ is the number of data partitions on the workers.
To further simplify notation we abuse notation and use $\mathcal{C}$ in place of $\mathcal{G}_\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{E}_\mathcal{C}$ when the context is clear.
A potential point of confusion is that the $\theta$ \emph{need not be} the weights $w$ of the $h_w$. This is because \emph{the derivative of loss function $\mathcal{L}$ also implicitly takes the data $D_i$ as an input;} this is an important insight used in all gradient coding algorithms. One of the key insights of this paper is to allow the coded gradient to be linear combinations of \textit{both} $\frac{\partial}{\partial D_i}$ \textit{and} the $\frac{\partial}{\partial w_i }$.
An important notational convention is that we let the $D_i$ be partitions (or batches) of the data set instead of just datapoints as is common in the gradient coding literature; in particular, $D_0,...,D_{t-1}$ denotes a partitioning of the data-set into $t$ pieces.
The reason for the name ``maximum distance separable code'' is that an MDS maximizes the distances between the codewords $\mathcal{E} \left\{ \theta_0 , ..., \theta_{k}\right\}$ using the Hamming distance;
in particular, maximum distance separable means that the code words $\tilde \theta \in \mathcal{C}$ have achieve the maximum $\max _{\mathcal{C}': \text{code on }\Theta} \min_{\tilde \theta , \tilde \theta ' \in \mathcal{C}'}d(\tilde \theta , \tilde \theta ' )$ where $d$ is the Hamming distance.
There are two problems with this approach: the first is that MDS codes in this context require arbitrarily large amount of work, \emph{i.e.,} they have a large weight, and the second is that the classical \emph{discrete} MDS codes are using the wrong metric. This paper proposes to use the metric given by the projective geometry\footnote{See \cite{kuhnel2006differential} for the case $\mathbb{RP}^2$ and Appx.~3 of \cite{vogtmann2013mathematical} or Thm.~10.2 in ch.~3 of \cite{Suetin1989LinearAA} for the more general case $\mathbb{CP}^n$.} on the space of derivatives.
Here we mean maximum distance separable with respect to the distance function $d(\theta , \theta') = \min\{\arccos \langle \tilde \theta ,
\tilde \theta '\rangle , \arccos \langle - \tilde \theta , \tilde \theta \rangle\}$.
\section{General Overview of the Design Principles}
Consider the case where there are two derivatives and we wish to create two parity tasks using only summation and subtraction in the encoding procedure.
Such a code is given by the following generator matrix
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{C}=\begin{blockarray}{cc}
\ & \matindex{$ \Theta_0 $} \\
\begin{block}{c[c]}
\matindex{$\tilde \Theta_0$} & I \\
\matindex{$ \tilde \Theta_1$} & P \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}=
\begin{blockarray}{ccc}
\ & \matindex{$\theta_{0}$} & \matindex{$ \theta_{1}$} \\
\begin{block}{c[cc]}
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{0}$} & 1 & 0 \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{1}$} & 0 & 1 \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{2}$} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{3}$} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}
\end{equation*}
which adds fault tolerance to the job
I = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
$
with the \textit{parity} tasks
$
P = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\end{bmatrix}.
$
\textit{ This code has the serendipitous property of having negligible decoding complexity and negligible communication complexity!} For example, if the master receives $\nabla$ in the direction $\tilde \theta_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\theta_0+\theta_1)$, then the master can decrease both $ \theta_0$ and $\theta_1$ by the value returned by $\mathcal{W}_2$, \emph{i.e.,} $\tilde \theta _ 2$, if the master receives $\nabla$ in the direction $\tilde \theta_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\theta_0-\theta_1)$, then the master can decrease $ \theta_0$ and increase $\theta_1$ by the value returned by $\mathcal{W}_3$, \emph{i.e.,} $\tilde \theta _ 3$. \textit{The master need only perform 2 additions/subtractions, and more generally (see Eq.~\ref{eq:code}) if there are $t$ ``sub-tasks'' the master only needs to perform $t$ additions/subtractions. The multiplication by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ can be subsumed by the learning rate; thus, our code has zero multiplication overhead.} Furthermore, this information can be communicated using only one float, since the master knows which direction/worker the derivative was computed from.
\subsection{What is the Optimal Choice of Directions?}
Looking at Fig.~\ref{fig:1}, we see that the code $\mathcal{G}$ is
MDS in the sense that it maximizes the independence between the vectors. Equivalently
\footnote{\label{fn:1}Under the assumption that the data $D_i$ are i.i.d.
See \cite{Cover2006ElementsOI} for why maximal entropy maximizes information sent through a message.
}
$\mathcal{G}$ minimizes the confusion between codewords or minimizes the mutual information between codewords; thereby maximizing the entropy or the information content. As we will soon see this has the effect of allowing \textit{lossy low-distortion compression} for larger codes. A second contribution of this paper is to show how to preserve an \textit{approximate} MDS property for larger codes which allows for this form of compression.
In what sense does $\mathcal{C}$ being MDS imply fault tolerance? The following example illustrates one kind of error which the code is immune to:
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{2circles.png}
\caption{The code $\mathcal{C}$ is MDS with respect to the the distance between the codewords.
It is easy to see that $- \tilde \theta_i$ carries the same information as $ \tilde \theta_i$ and it is therefore inefficient to include it since it is a form of replication coding. Likewise we should not include a vector that makes a small angle with $ \tilde \theta_i$ for the same reason.
The geometry of this problem is that of $\mathbb{RP}^ 1$, \textit{i.e., the real protective line.} This is because the directions $\tilde \theta$ and $-\tilde \theta$ are information theoretically equivalent. The second figure displays the relationship between $\tilde \theta$ and $\tilde \theta ' $. As $\tilde \theta ' $ becomes more linearly independent from $\tilde \theta$ it begins to carry more novel information that cannot be inferred from $\tilde \theta$. At the ``greenest'' extremes $\tilde \theta$ and $\tilde \theta ' $ become statistically independent which is the maximum entropy configuration.
Maximum entropy is equivalent (see Fn.~\ref{fn:1}) to maximum information about the $\theta_i$.
}\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
Consider the case where two workers return the derivatives in the directions
$
\tilde \theta = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{pmatrix}^T, \tilde \theta ' = \begin{pmatrix} \cos\left(\frac{5\pi}{4}- \epsilon\right) & \sin\left(\frac{5\pi}{4}- \epsilon\right)\end{pmatrix}^T.
$
By inspecting the second diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}, it is easy to see that
$
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \tilde \theta ' \to - \tilde \theta,
$
so that
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \arccos \left\langle \tilde \theta , \tilde \theta '\right\rangle \to \pi .
We will also show that the error in the derivative can get bigger and bigger as $\epsilon \to 0 $.
If worker one computes $ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta}$, worker two computes $ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta'}$, and
$
\frac{\partial l}{\partial \theta_i} = (-1)^{i}L,
$
then we have that
$
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(L+(-L))=0
$
and that
$
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta'}= \cos\left(\frac{5\pi}{4}- \epsilon\right)L-\sin\left(\frac{5\pi}{4}- \epsilon\right)L= \left(\cos\left(\frac{5\pi}{4}- \epsilon\right)-\sin\left(\frac{5\pi}{4}- \epsilon\right)\right)L.
$
Therefore if both
$
( \epsilon \approx 0) $ and $( L >>1)
$,
then
$
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta} \approx\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta'}\approx 0 ,
$
which is an error; \textit{when the master receives the messages from workers one and two she will think she has arrived at a optimal fit since both $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta} $ and $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta'} $ are very small; \emph{i.e.,} the master may halt the algorithm on a terrible fit.} Furthermore it is easy to see that
$
\max_{\epsilon }\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \tilde \theta'}
$
occurs when $\epsilon= \frac{\pm \pi}{2}$, \emph{i.e.,} when
$
\arccos \left\langle \tilde \theta , \tilde \theta '\right\rangle = \frac{\pi}{2}
$
so that our previous choice is optimal.
\subsection{Motivating Example: Base Case of LWPD Codes}\label{subsec:mot_ex}
The last example did not allow us to show the more general \textit{lossy compression} phenomenon that can occur for more general codes. Also we will soon prove that it is impossible to have MDS codes for large dimensions where the workers perform a small amount of work\footnote{This follows from a general rule of thumb in coding theory which states that a code cannot simultaneously have a sparse matrix and be MDS; however we will prove it rigorously for our case.}. In a sense, $k = 2$ is a very special case. Therefore before showing the general compression phenomenon, let us show how to \textit{compress the derivative} for $k = 4$.
Suppose that we have 8 workers $\tilde \theta_i$, loss function $l(h,y)=\frac{1}{2}||h-y||^2$, $u$ input features $x_i$, and space of hypothesis functions
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{H} = \left\lbrace h_{w} = (y_1,...,y_v) \middle| y_i = \frac{e^{w_i^Tx}}{1 + \sum_j^{w_j^Tx}}\ , \ w_i \in \mathbb{R}^2 \right\rbrace,
\end{equation*}
where $w_j^Tx = w_{j,1}x_1 + ... + w_{j,u}x_u$; \emph{i.e.,} $\mathcal{H}$ is the space of multinomial logistic regression functions (\emph{however, this procedure will work for any feed-forward deep neural network}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:weight_partition}).
Similarly to the previous design we can give the following directions to the workers
\begin{equation}\label{eq:basecode}
\mathcal{C}^{(8,4,2)} = \begin{blockarray}{ccccc}
\ & \matindex{$\theta_{0}$} & \matindex{$ \theta_{1}$} & \matindex{$ \theta_{2}$} & \matindex{$ \theta_{3}$} \\
\begin{block}{c[cccc]}
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{0}$}
& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0& 0 \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{1}$}
& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 &0 \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{2}$}
& 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{3}$}
& 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{4}$}
& 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0\\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{5}$}
& 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &0 \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{6}$}
&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta_{7}$}
&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray};
\end{equation}
however, this time we let $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_0} = $``the derivative of the first half of the output nodes with respect to the first half of the dataset'', $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_1} = $``the derivative of the second half of the output nodes with respect to the first half of the dataset'', $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_2} = $``the derivative of the first half of the output nodes with respect to the second half of the dataset'', and $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_3} = $``the derivative of the second half of the output nodes with respect to the second half of the dataset''.
We can see that ``lossy'' part of the lossy compression is that the 4 workers don't necessarily return the
gradient perfectly, but we will later prove that they return a pretty good approximation of it. However, we had a second further lossy compression step to our code; we give workers 5 and 6 the data partitions $D_2, D_3$ and give workers 7 and 8 the data partitions $D_1, D_4$ instead of giving these workers all of the partitions as the code in Eq.~\ref{eq:basecode} suggests.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.41\textwidth]{ICML_fig_same_color.png}
\caption{The different ways to partition the backpropagation gradient. The first partition shows how to partition the gradient for a simple neural network with no hidden nodes. The two other partition corresponds to a more general deep-neural network with hidden nodes. The last partition shows how to apply the recursive step in Alg.~\ref{alg:grad_part}.}\label{fig:weight_partition}
\end{figure}
\section{General Code Construction}
We first show how to construct what we will denote as a \textit{$[n,k,t]$-projective derivative code}, or $[n,k,t]$-code, for $n=2^m$, $k = 2^l$ and $t=2^p$, \emph{i.e.,} $n,k,t$ are all powers of 2, and then show how to use ``cyclic'' and ``toroidal'' permutations to construct the code for more general $k,n$; however, the $t$ is always chosen to be a power of two for reasons that will soon become clear. The parameter $n$ is the number of workers, $k$ the number of derivatives/features, and $t$ is the number of sub-tasks that each worker will perform; \emph{i.e.,} the number of derivatives per worker.
\subsection{The Characteristic Vectors}
To construct the code we first construct \textit{the characteristic vectors} from the following family of functions
$
\chi_{\alpha} : \mathbb{F}^p_2 \longrightarrow \mathbb{C},
$
defined by the lambda expression
\begin{equation*}
\chi_{\alpha} : \beta \mapsto \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^p}}e^{ \left\langle \alpha , \beta \right\rangle \pi i} = \frac{(-1)^{ \left\langle \alpha , \beta \right\rangle }}{\sqrt{2^p}},
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{F}^p_2$ are defined as binary strings of length $t$ and $ \left\langle \alpha , \beta \right\rangle $ is the \textit{dot product} on $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{F}^p_2$, which is equivalent to taking the \textit{bit-wise }AND\footnote{AND is the \textit{logical conjunction}, denoted by $\land$,
\textit{i.e.,} $a \land b$ = 1 if $a = b = 1$ and $a \land b$ = 0 otherwise. The bit-wise AND of two sequences $\alpha = \alpha_0...\alpha_{p-1},\beta = \beta_0...\beta_{p-1}$ is $\alpha \land \beta = (\alpha_0 \land \beta _0)(\alpha_1 \land \beta _1) ...(\alpha_{p-1} \land \beta_{p-1}) $} of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and then taking the XOR\footnote{\label{fn:2}XOR is the \textit{exclusive or}, denoted by $\oplus$,
\textit{i.e.,} $a \oplus b$ = 1 if $a \neq b$ and $a \oplus b$ = 0 if $a = b$.} of the result. In particular, $ \left\langle \alpha , \beta \right\rangle $ is defined as
$
\left\langle \alpha , \beta \right\rangle = (\alpha _0 \land \beta _0) \oplus (\alpha_1 \land \beta _1) \oplus \dots\oplus (\alpha _{p-1} \land \beta _{p-1}),
$ where $\oplus$ is as defined in fn.~\ref{fn:2}.
It is an elementary fact of representation theory that the vectors, $\sqrt{2^p}\chi_\alpha$ correspond to the \textit{irreducible representations} of $\mathbb{F}^p_2$ in $\mathbb{C}$ and are therefore an orthogonal basis see Thm.~6 of \cite{scott2012linear} or Thm.~2.12 of \cite{fulton1991representation}. One can also prove this fact by direct computation using discrete Fourier analysis see ch.~4 of \cite{tao2006additive}. These functions are well-studied in discrete mathematics and usually referred to as the (additive) characters of $\mathbb{F}^p_2$.
Let us construct these vectors for $p= 2$ and verify the veracity of these statements for that case. The binary strings of length $2$ are $ \alpha \in \{00,01,10,11\} $ and this corresponds to the functions
\begin{equation*}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{$
X^{4}
= \!\!\! \begin{blockarray}{ccccc}
\ & \matindex{$\theta_0$} & \matindex{$\theta_1$} & \matindex{$\theta_2$} & \matindex{$\theta_3$} \\
\begin{block}{c@{\hspace{5.6pt}}[c@{\hspace{5.6pt}}c@{\hspace{5.6pt}}c@{\hspace{5.6pt}}c]}
\matindex{$\chi_{00}$}
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 00 , 00 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 00 , 01 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 00 , 10 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 00 , 11 \right\rangle }\\
\matindex{$\chi_{01}$}
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 01 , 00 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 01 , 01 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 01 , 10 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 01 , 11 \right\rangle }\\
\matindex{$\chi_{10}$}
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 10 , 00 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 10 , 01 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 10 , 10 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 10 , 11 \right\rangle }\\
\matindex{$\chi_{11}$}
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 11 , 00 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 11 , 01 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 11 , 10 \right\rangle }
& (-2)^{\frac{-p}{2} \left\langle 11 , 11 \right\rangle }\\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}\!
$}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
=\!\!\! \begin{blockarray}{ccccc}
\ & \matindex{$\theta_0$} & \matindex{$\theta_1$} & \matindex{$\theta_2$} & \matindex{$\theta_3$} \\
\begin{block}{c@{\hspace{5.6pt}}[c@{\hspace{5.6pt}}c@{\hspace{5.6pt}}c@{\hspace{5.6pt}}c]}
\matindex{$\chi_{00}$}
& 1/2 & 1/2 & 1/2 &1/2\\
\matindex{$\chi_{01}$}
& 1/2 & -1/2 & 1/2 & -1/2\\
\matindex{$\chi_{10}$}
& 1/2 & 1/2 & -1/2 & -1/2 \\
\matindex{$\chi_{11}$}
& 1/2 & -1/2 & -1/2 & 1/2 \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray},
\end{equation*}
and it is straightforward to see that all of the vectors $\chi_{00}$, $\chi_{01}$, $\chi_{10}$, and $\chi_{11}$ are orthonormal.
\subsection{Construction for Powers of Two}\label{subsec:pow_two_con}
If we identify the binary strings $\alpha,\beta$ with the integers that they represent and let $X^{(t)}$ be the matrix defined coordinate-wise by the equation
\begin{equation*}
X^{(t)}_{\alpha,\beta} = \chi_\alpha(\beta) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}e^{ \left\langle \alpha , \beta \right\rangle \pi i},
\end{equation*}
where $p = \log(t)$ and $ \chi_{\alpha} : \mathbb{F}^p_2 \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and let $L^{(t)}$ and $R^{(t)}$ be the matrices defined by the equation
\begin{equation*}
L^{(2t)} = \begin{bmatrix}
0^{\left(t \right)} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}X^{\left( t \right)} \\
0^{\left(t \right)} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}X^{\left( t \right)} \\
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \
R^{(2t)} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}X^{\left( t \right)} & 0^{\left(t \right)} \\
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}X^{\left( t \right)} & 0^{\left(t \right)} \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation*}
then we can define $\mathcal{C}^{(2k,k,t)} $, the generator for the $[2k,k,t]$-code, as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:code}
\begin{blockarray}{ccccccc}
\ & \matindex{$ \theta^{(t)}_0$}
& \matindex{$\theta^{(t)}_1$}
& \matindex{$\theta^{(t)}_2$}
& \dots
& \matindex{$\theta^{(t)}_{s-2}$}
& \matindex{$\theta^{(t)}_{s-1}$}\\
\begin{block}{c[cccccc]}
\matindex{$\tilde \theta^{(t)}_0$}
& X^{(t)} & 0 & 0 & \hdots & 0 & 0 \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta^{(t)}_1$}
& 0 & X^{(t)} & 0 & \hdots & 0 & 0 \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta^{(t)}_2$}
& 0 & 0 & X^{(t)} & \hdots &\hdots &0 \\
\matindex{$ \vdots$}
& \vdots & \vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \vdots&\vdots \\
\matindex{$ \tilde \theta^{(t)}_{s-2} $}
& 0 & 0 & 0 &\hdots &X^{(t)}&0 \\
\matindex{$ \tilde \theta^{(t)}_{s-1}$}
& 0 & 0 & 0 &\hdots &0 &X^{(t)} \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta^{(t)}_{s}$}
& L^{(t)} & R^{(t)} & 0 & \hdots & 0 &0 \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta^{(t)}_{s+1}$}
& 0 & L^{(t)} & R^{(t)} & \hdots &0 &0 \\
\matindex{$ \vdots$}
& \vdots & \vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \vdots& \vdots \\
\matindex{$ \tilde\theta^{(t)}_{2s-2} $}
& 0 & 0 & 0 &\hdots &L^{(t)}&R^{(t)} \\
\matindex{$\tilde \theta^{(t)}_{2s-1}$}
& R^{(t)} & 0 & 0 &\hdots &0 &L^{(t)} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray},
\end{equation}
where\footnote{Equivalently, we can write these definitions as $s = \frac{k}{t}$ and $ \theta^{(t)}_{i} = \theta_{it}\theta_{it+1} ... \theta_{(i+1)t-1} $} $s$ is the ratio of tasks to sub-tasks, $ \theta^{(t)}_{i} $ is the sequence of sub-tasks $\theta_{it}$ through $\theta_{(i+1)t-1}$, and $ \tilde \theta^{(t)}_{i}$ is similarly defined as a sequence of $t$ consecutive workers. Equivalently if we define the ```rectangles'' $\mathcal{R}^{(t)}_{u,v}$ as
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R}_{u,v}^{(t)} = \{(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2 \ | \ ut \leq i < (u+1)t , \ vt \leq j < (v+1)t \},
\end{equation*}
then we can define $\mathcal{C}^{(2k,k,t)} $ coordinate -wise as
\begin{equation*}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{$
\mathcal{C}^{(2k,k,t)}_{\theta _i , \tilde \theta _j} =
\begin{cases}
X^{(t)}_{i \% t,j\% t } & \text{if } i < k \text{ and } ( i,j) \in \mathcal{R}_{\left\lfloor\frac{i}{t} \right\rfloor,\left\lfloor\frac{i}{t} \right\rfloor}^{(t)} \\
L^{(t)}_{i \% t,j\% t } & \text{if } k\leq i \text{ and }( i,j) \in \mathcal{R}_{\left\lfloor\frac{i}{t} \right\rfloor+\frac{k}{t},\left\lfloor\frac{i}{t} \right\rfloor}^{(t)} \\
R^{(t)}_{i \% t,j\% t } & \text{if }( i,j) \in \mathcal{R}_{\frac{2k}{t}-1,0}^{(t)} \text{ or } k\leq i \\
& \text{ and }t\leq j \text{ and }( i,j) \in \mathcal{R}_{\left\lfloor\frac{i}{t} \right\rfloor+\frac{k}{t},\left\lfloor\frac{i}{t} \right\rfloor}^{(t)} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}. \\
\end{cases}
$}
\end{equation*}
It is straightforward to prove the following beautiful property
\begin{lemma}\normalfont\label{lem:tensor}
The matrices $X^{(t)}$ satisfy the following recursion relation $X^{(2t)} = X^{(2)} \otimes X^{(t)} $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is a direct consequence of Thm.~10 in \cite{scott2012linear}.
\end{proof}
An alternative is the weaker statement\footnote{Although a weaker statement it suffices to to prove the claim of optimally,\emph{i.e.,} Thm.~\ref{thm:opt}.} ``$X^{(2)}$ is a Hadamard matrix and the tensor product of two Hadamard matrices is a Hadamard matrix'' whose proof can be found in \cite{2003fundamentals}.
\subsubsection{Data-\&-Gradient-Partition for Powers of Two}
Similar to the example given in Sec.~\ref{subsec:mot_ex} we give the workers $\tilde \theta_i $ the data partition given by Alg.~\ref{alg:data_part}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Data\_Partition\_Assignment}
\label{alg:data_part}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} \texttt{data }$D$,
\texttt{code\_parameters} $(n,k,t)$
\STATE Partition the data $D$ into $D_0, .., D_{k-1}$
\STATE Set $\mathcal{C} := \mathcal{C} ^{(n,k,t)}$
\FOR{$i \leq n$}
\STATE \texttt{Data}$[ \tilde \theta_i] :=\emptyset$
\FOR{$j \leq k$}
\IF{$\mathcal{C}_{i,j} \neq 0 $}
\STATE Set \texttt{Data}$[ \tilde \theta_i]:=\texttt{Data}[\tilde \theta_i]\cup D_j$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The idea behind Alg.~\ref{alg:data_part} is simple; we give the first worker \texttt{Data}$[ \tilde \theta_0]= D_0,...,D_{t-1}$, and the second worker \texttt{Data}$[ \tilde \theta_1]= D_t,...,D_{2t-1}$, and so on up to worker $k$, at which point we give the workers $k,...,n$ a cyclic shift of the previous assignment, \emph{e.g,} worker $k$ gets \texttt{Data}$[ \tilde \theta_k]= D_{\frac{t}{2}},...,D_{t+\frac{t}{2}}$.
The procedure for partitioning and encoding the gradients, Alg.~\ref{alg:grad_part}, is slightly more involved; however, the main idea is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:weight_partition}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Gradient\_Partition\_Assignment}
\label{alg:grad_part}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} \texttt{network} $x,z^0,...,z^m,y$, \texttt{code\_parameters} $(n,k,t)$
\STATE Set $\mathcal{C} := \mathcal{C} ^{(n,k,t)}$
\STATE Partition $y$ into $t $ groups $y^{(i)}$
\STATE where $y^{(0)}=(y_0,...,y_{t-1});\dots ; y^{(t)}=(y_{v-t},...,y_{v})$
\FOR{$i \leq n$}
\STATE Encode \texttt{grad}$[\tilde \theta_i]$ according to row $i$ in $\mathcal{C}$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig:weight_partition}
\ENDFOR
\IF{\texttt{network} == $x,y$} \comment{Base Case}
\STATE End Procedure
\ELSE \comment{Induction Step}
\FOR{$i \leq m$}
\STATE Recursively call ``Gradient\_Partition\_Assignment'' on the network $x,z^0,...,z^m$ parameters $(n,k,t)$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig:weight_partition} to encode \texttt{grad}$[\tilde \theta_i]$ according to row $i$ in $\mathcal{C}$ by repeatedly splitting the (non-zero-)row by $t$
\ENDFOR
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The main intuition behind Alg.~\ref{alg:grad_part} is to encode the gradient in the \emph{manner in which backpropagation occurs;} this allows for the iterative decoding/gradient update at the master node, which in turn allows for asynchronous gradient updating.
\subsection{Construction for General Parameters}
Given some general $(n,k,t) $ we construct the matrix $\mathcal{C}^{(n',k',t)} $, where $n'$ and $k'$ are the next nearest powers of 2 (repeating rows if necessary) and use a ``2-D'' permutation algorithm similar to \cite{9213028} to distribute the sub-tasks in each round; however our algorithm uses more general (prime number) step-sizes chosen in each round and the permutations now occur in ``higher dimensions\footnote{\emph{I.e.,} our algorithm permutes more than one index; in particular, it permutes the subtask, worker, and output indices in order to create ``3-D'' permutations. The step-sizes are more general because they must be co-prime to one another to ensure every blue rectangle (see Eq.~\ref{eq:spin}) is visited.}.''
In particular; we now use a similar procedure to permute tasks amongst workers if $n$ and $k$ are not powers of 2.
For example if we have $n=6$ workers and $k=3$ tasks we can add extra virtual tasks $\theta_3 = \theta_0,$ $\theta_4 = \theta_1,$ $\dots,$ $\theta_{x} = \theta_{x\%3}$ and perform the following toroidal permutations on $\mathcal{C}^{(5,3,2)}$
\begin{figure*}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:spin}\begin{gathered}
\begin{blockarray}{cccccccccc}
\ & & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{0}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \vartheta_{1}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{2}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{3}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{4}$} & & & \\
\ & & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{0}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \theta_{1}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{2}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{3}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{4}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \theta_{5}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{6}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{7}$}\\
\begin{block}{c@{\hspace{3pt}}c[@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c]}
\matindex{$t_{0}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{0}$}
& \color{blue}1 & \color{blue} 1 & \color{blue}0& \color{blue}0&\color{blue}0&0&1& -1\\
\matindex{$t_{1}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{1}$}
& \color{blue}1 & \color{blue}-1 & \color{blue}0 &\color{blue}0&\color{blue}1&1&0&0 \\
\matindex{$t_{2}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{2}$}
& \color{blue}0 & \color{blue}0 & \color{blue}1 &\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1&-1&0&0 \\
& \matindex{$\theta_{3}$}
& 0 & 0 & 1 &-1&0&0&1&1 \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray} \Rightarrow \begin{blockarray}{cccccccccc}
\ & &\matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{3}$} &\matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{4}$} & & & &\matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{0}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \vartheta_{1}$}& \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{2}$} \\
\ & & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{0}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \theta_{1}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{2}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{3}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{4}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \theta_{5}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{6}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{7}$}\\
\begin{block}{c@{\hspace{3pt}}c[@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c]}
& \matindex{$\theta_{0}$}
& 1 &1 &0& 0&0& 0&1& -1\\
\matindex{$t_{0}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{1}$}
& \color{blue}1 & \color{blue}-1 &0 &0&1& \color{blue}1&\color{blue}0&\color{blue}0 \\
\matindex{$t_{1}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{2}$}
& \color{blue} 0 & \color{blue}0 & 1 &1&1&\color{blue}-1&\color{blue}0&\color{blue}0 \\
\matindex{$t_{2}$} & \matindex{$\theta_{3}$}
& \color{blue} 0 &\color{blue}0 &1 &-1&0& \color{blue}0&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1 \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray} .
\\
\begin{blockarray}{cccccccccc}
\ & & & & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{0}$} &\matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{1}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{2}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \vartheta_{3}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \vartheta_{4}$}& \\
\ & & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{0}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \theta_{1}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{2}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{3}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{4}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \theta_{5}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{6}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{7}$}\\
\begin{block}{c@{\hspace{3pt}}c[@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c]}
\matindex{$t_{2}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{4}$}
& 1 & 1 & \color{blue} 0& 0&\color{blue}0&\color{blue}0&\color{blue}1& -1\\
& \matindex{$\theta_{1}$}
& 1 & -1 & 0 &0&1&1&0&0 \\
\matindex{$t_{0}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{2}$}
& 0 & 0 & \color{blue} 1 &1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}-1&\color{blue}0&0 \\
\matindex{$t_{1}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{3}$}
& 0 & 0 & \color{blue}1 &-1&\color{blue}0&\color{blue}0&\color{blue}1&1 \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray} \Rightarrow \begin{blockarray}{cccccccccc}
\ & & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{1}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{2}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{3}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \vartheta_{4}$} & & & & \matindex{$ \tilde \vartheta_{0}$} \\
\ & & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{0}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \theta_{1}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{2}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{3}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{4}$} & \matindex{$ \tilde \theta_{5}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{6}$} & \matindex{$\tilde \theta_{7}$}\\
\begin{block}{c@{\hspace{3pt}}c[@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c@{\hspace{3pt}}c]}
\matindex{$t_{1}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{4}$}
& \color{blue}1 &\color{blue}1 & \color{blue}0& \color{blue}0&0&0&1& \color{blue} -1\\
\matindex{$t_{2}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{5}$}
& \color{blue} 1 &\color{blue} -1 & \color{blue}0 &\color{blue}0&1&1&0&\color{blue}0 \\
& \matindex{$\theta_{2}$}
&0 & 0 & 1 &1&1&-1&0&0 \\
\matindex{$t_{0}$}& \matindex{$\theta_{3}$}
& \color{blue} 0 & \color{blue} 0 & \color{blue}1 &\color{blue}-1&0& 0& \color{blue} 1& \color{blue} 1 \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray} .\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
\end{figure*}
so that at round $r$ worker $i$ performs task $\theta_{i + 5r \% n'}$ and similarly at round $r$ we have $t_i = \theta_{i+r \% k}$.
More generally we find a displacement $d$ equal to an (odd) prime number that is co-prime\footnote{Although it is notoriously hard to find a prime divisor of number, it is surprisingly easy to find a prime \textit{non}-divisor. This easy to see since one can just test divisibility by 2,3,5,... and since the product of the first primes less than 100 is approximately equal to $2^{120}$ this will halt \textit{very} quickly, i.e. it will halt in less than 25 steps for $k< 2^{120}$ since there are only 25 primes less than $100$.} to $k$ and we let worker $i$ performs task $\theta_{i + dr \% n'}$ at round $r$ and let $t_i = \theta_{i+r \% k}$ at round $r$. This allows gives the following statistical uniformity lemma:
\begin{lemma}\normalfont\label{lem:spin}
If the displacement, $d$, is equal to an (odd) prime number that is co-prime to $k$ then the blue rectangle in (the general form of) Eq.~\ref{eq:spin} will visit every entry in the matrix with every possible pattern of $X^{(t)}$ and every cyclic permutation of the $t_i$ contained inside of the blue rectangle.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The leftmost point of the blue rectangle is equal to $ (i,i)+r(1,d) \equiv (i + r ,i+dr ) \text{ mod }\mathbb{Z }/n'\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z }/k\mathbb{Z} $. By the Chinese remainder theorem (see \cite{ireland1982classical} or \cite{dummit2003abstract}) $(1,d)$ is a generator of $\text{ mod }\mathbb{Z }/n'\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z }/k\mathbb{Z}$ since $d$ is coprime to $1,$ $k,$ and $n'.$
\end{proof}
\section{Analysis and Evaluation }
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Comparison of main algorithms.}
\label{tab:compare}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
Code & Encoding & Communication & Decoding & Weight & Asynchronous & Parameter \\
Scheme & Complexity & Complexity & Complexity & Range & ? & Compression? \\
\midrule
LWPD & 0 & $\mathcal{O}(\frac{k}{t}) $ & 0 & $t \in [2,\frac{n}{4}]$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ \\
GC & $\mathcal{O}(nk)$ & $\mathcal{O}(k)$ & $\mathcal{O}(k^{\omega}) \leq \mathcal{O}(k^{2.38}) $ & $t = n-k+1$ & $\times$ & $\times$ \\
$K$-AC & 0 & $\mathcal{O}(k) $ & 0 & $t\in [1,n]$ &
$\surd $
& $\times $ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ICML_testingloss_n9_lr_001_nout_4.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ICML_testingloss_n17_lr_001_nout_4.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ICML_testingloss_n33_lr_001_nout_4_npart_4.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Experiments with 8, 16, and 32 workers.}
\label{fig:exp_fig1}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Theoretical Analysis}
In this section we give a theoretical comparison of the algorithms, see Table~\ref{tab:compare}, and we prove theorems regarding the existence and non-existence of codes with certain properties. The following theorem, \emph{i.e.,} Thm.~\ref{thm:no_mds}, shows that Hamming-distance MDS coding schemes must have the workers do an arbitrarily large amount of work. We then later show that our codes are approximately MDS with respects to the projective geometry metric which maximize the amount of information sent back by the workers\footnote{This is because large angles gives us large conditional entropy.} while keeping the amount of work done by the workers as low as possible; \emph{i.e.,} there are approximately projective-MDS that have weights $t=2,...,n$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:no_mds}\normalfont
If the parameters $(n,k,t)$ satisfy
$t \leq n-k$ then there is no Hamming-distance MDS $(n,k)$-code for the derivatives.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $A(\mathcal{C})_i=$``number of rows of weight $i$'', then Theorem 7.4.1 in \cite{2003fundamentals} gives us that an MDS will have $A(\mathcal{C})_i=0$ for $i \leq n-k$.
\end{proof}
In particular; the proof of Thm.~\ref{thm:no_mds} can be strengthened to say that:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:must_work} In an MDS $(n,k)$-coding scheme $A(\mathcal{C})_i=0$, for $i \leq n-k$, where $A(\mathcal{C})_i=0$ is the weight distribution of a code.
\end{corollary}
The importance of Cor.~\ref{cor:must_work} is made clear through the following interpretation:
\begin{corollary}
In an MDS $(n,k)$-coding scheme all of the workers must do at least $n-k$ amount of work.
\end{corollary}
However a simple observation of the construction given in Sec.~\ref{subsec:pow_two_con} gives us that:
\begin{theorem}\normalfont
There exists $(n,k,t)$-LWPD codes for any $t \geq 2$.
\end{theorem}
The next theorem proves that under the projective distance we have that our code achieves approximately maximal distance.
\begin{theorem}\normalfont\label{thm:opt}
The family $(n,k,t)$-code are approximately MDS $(n,k)$-code for the derivatives in the projective-distance for $n \leq 2k$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lem.~\ref{lem:spin} it suffices to prove this for powers of two.
The distance between any vectors is $\arccos \frac{1}{2}= \frac{\pi}{3}$ and this only happens for $t$ out of $n$ choices for any vector; the distance is equal to the maximum $\frac{\pi}{2}$ for all other vectors.
\end{proof}
The proof of Thm.~\ref{thm:opt} gives us that the distance between any two codewords $\tilde \theta, \tilde \theta$ is bounded above by
$
d(\mathcal{C}) = \min_{\tilde \theta, \tilde \theta \in \mathcal{C}} d( \tilde \theta, \tilde \theta) = \frac{\pi}{3}
$
and thus in term of percentages of the optimal $\frac{\pi}{2}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:per_mds}
\frac{ \frac{\pi}{2} - d(\mathcal{C}) }{\frac{\pi}{2} } = \frac{1}{6} \approx 16 \%
\end{equation}
of the ``theoretical'' optimal distance; however there can be no code that achieves the ``theoretical'' optimal distance:
\begin{theorem}
The percentage in Eq.~\ref{eq:per_mds} cannot be made 100\%; \emph{i.e.,} there are no projective MDS codes for $n>k$ which achieve distance $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If this statement was false there would be $n+1$ linearly independent vectors in $n$-dimensional space, $\mathbb{F}^n$.
\end{proof}
An interesting fact about the bound given by Thm.~\ref{thm:opt} is that is a constant independent of the dimension of the code and thus it scales well for larger and larger number of workers.
\subsection{Experimental Results}
The experiments were run on AWS Spot Instances; the workers are AWS EC2 c5a.large instances (compute optimized) and master is an AWS EC2 r3.large instance (Memory Optimized).
The experimental procedure was written using Mpi4py \cite{d1, d2} in Python. We used a modification of the code in \cite{Rashish2017} written by the first author of \cite{pmlr-v70-tandon17a} to implement Gradient Coding (GC) as well as the random data generation; the implementation only supported logistic regression and we generalized it to support multinomial logistic regression (\emph{i.e.,} more than one class). The software in \cite{Rashish2017} used a Gaussian mixture model of two distributions to create input features for the logistic model; we generalized it to allow for an arbitrary number of Gaussian distributions in the mixture to create a robust data set.
To be as fair as possible in our comparison with $K$-Asynchronous Gradient descent ($K$-AC) \cite{pmlr-v84-dutta18a} we made setup for $K$-AC nearly identical with the exception of the coding scheme; \emph{i.e.,} $K$-AC and LWPD used the exact same data partitions and same number of $k$ workers in the $k$-asynchronous batches.
We ran experiments with 8 workers, 16 workers, and 32 workers (see Fig.~\ref{fig:exp_fig1}). The testing error (\emph{i.e.,} the workers do not train on the test data) is plotted against the time.
In all of the experiments we ran LWPD codes converged far faster; however, it often overfitted and sometimes the other algorithms would eventually get a lower test error.
There are two possible explanations for this: either LWPD converges so much faster than the other algorithms that they never get a chance to overfit or the noise that initially helps LWPD find a very quick solution eventually causes it to stay some distance from the optimal solution.
There is evidence for both of these possibilities because there are experiments were the other algorithms do not catch up to LWPD; see Sec.~\ref{app:exp} for more results.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ICML_testingloss_n9_lr_0005_nc_4_s2000_f100_hn64_noGC.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ICML_testingloss_n17_lr_0005_nc_4_s2000_f100_hn64_noGC.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ICML_testingloss_n33_lr_001_nc_4_s8000_f100_hn64_noGC.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Further experiments with 8, 16, and 32 workers.}
\label{fig:exp_fig2}
\end{figure*}
We have modified and re-ran our experiments to allow for deep neural networks (see Fig.~\ref{fig:exp_fig2}).
The new architecture had ReLU activations at the hidden nodes, Softmax at the output nodes, and cross entropy as the loss function.
The experiments were run using Mpi4py on AWS Spot Instances with AWS EC2 c5a.large for the workers and AWS EC2 r3.large for the master.
The original authors' implementation of Gradient Coding did not support deep neural networks and thus we simply compared with $K$-Asynchronous Gradient descent for these experiments.
Both the updated and original experiments contained stragglers and highlighted the asynchronous nature of the algorithm, since we used Amazon Spot instances, which are the most unreliable but cost-efficient machines that Amazon AWS can offer.
In our experimental setup, all workers compute training loss individually. These plots should not be considered a centralized measure of model performance because the data set is \emph{de}centralized. Thus, plotting training metrics does not make as much sense as, for example, visualizing the testing/validation set error or loss. Furthermore, we were guided by the intuition that the validation error is the more important measure, since it measures how well the algorithm or model can perform on data it has not seen.
The experimental data plots show \emph{test loss} ($y$-axis) versus the \emph{time elapsed} ($x$-axis).
The test loss refers to the error on the validation set (which the model is not trained on) and thus overfitting occurs when the training loss continues to decrease, but the generalization error stops decreasing and eventually begins to grow.
In our experiments, we observed that other methods reach similar convergence point much later in terms of number of iterations. One hypothesis is that our gradient coding approach offers faster training. A second possible explanation comes from the lossy compression of our algorithm. We trade off error for runtime. Our hypothesis is that the noise coming from the trade-off is beneficial in that it prevents us from being stuck in any potential saddle point.
\section{Conclusion and Open Problems}
We propose LWPD codes which allow for asynchronous gradient updates by maximizing the amount of information contained by random subsets of vectors and minimizing the weight of the code.
Our code compresses the gradient in a manner that scales well with the number of nodes (and the dimension of the data) and achieves a lower a communication complexity and memory overhead with respect to the state of the art.
Another improvement of our algorithm over the state of the art is our discovery of the correct information metric; all of the other coding schemes assume that the Hamming distance is the correct metric, which does not consider the natural (differential) geometry of the gradient.
Furthermore, we showed that our code was very efficient since the master can just directly add and subtract the results returned by the workers without needing to decode the information.
We proved many of the complexity guarantees theoretically and also provided much empirical evidence for the performance.
For future work we would like to strengthen the theoretical results by proving stronger complexity bounds as well as further investigating the effect of noise (or lossy compression) on the performance; it seems that at first the lossy compression is a great help but eventually it causes over fitting.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. CCF-2101388.
|
\section{Introduction}
During the last few decades, elastomers have shown to be extremely advantageous in a number of structural applications across multiple industries. During their service life, elastomers undergo a variety of chemical and mechanical changes that degrade their structural capacity. In particular, exposure to thermal loads (i.e., thermo-chemical aging) causes elastomers to degenerate into weaker materials that can break with minimal mechanical impact. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate how elastomers respond to thermal degradation to better meet structural demands.
Exposure of elastomers to elevated temperatures in the presence of oxygen (i.e., thermo-oxidation) directly affects their mechanical properties. Oxygen acts as a catalyst for the chemical aging of elastomers leading to a progressive alteration of their chemical composition through two main competitive mechanisms: chain scission and crosslink formation (e.g., \cite{Blum1951,GILLEN1995149,COLIN2004309,SHAW20052758,COLIN2007886,Budzien2008,petrikova2011influence,spreckels2012investigations,COQUILLAT20071326,Wineman2009}). The relative rate of chain-scission and crosslink formation is essentially what determines whether the material becomes more ductile or more brittle \citep{celina2013review}. The literature agrees that in most elastomers, rubber chains tend to crosslink under thermo-oxidative conditions, leading to an increase in the modulus and the hardening with embrittlement \citep{WISE1995403,WISE19971929,WISE1997565,CELINA1998493,hamed1999tensile,Celina2000,CELINA2000171,SHAW20052758,celina2013review,JOHLITZ2014138}.
Since the presence of oxygen plays a crucial role in the degradation of elastomeric materials, it is worth distinguishing between two mechanisms in which oxygen can affect material network: \textit{i}) chemical diffusion for samples that are sufficiently thick, or \textit{ii}) through homogeneous distribution for samples with a thickness of approximately 1~$mm$ or smaller \citep{Blum1951}. In applications where test specimens are sufficiently thin, there is enough oxygen available and its distribution is homogeneous such that the aging process is not limited by diffusion \citep{LION20121227}. In this study, we assume sufficiently thin samples for which oxygen is homogeneously distributed and adopt the term thermo-chemical aging instead of "thermo-oxidation" to distinguish between the two scenarios mentioned above. See \cite{SHAW20052758} and \cite{steinke2011numerical} for examples when specimen thickness is large enough such that oxygen diffusion becomes the limiting factor and its implementation must be considered.
Several researchers have developed analytical and numerical methods to predict the responses of thermo-chemically aged elastomers considering chemical reactions and mechanical coupling (e.g., \citep{achenbach2003finite,SHAW20052758,pochiraju2006modeling,GIGLIOTTI2011431,steinke2011numerical,johlitz2011chemical,Johlitz2013,JOHLITZ2014138,SHAKIBA20144260,SHAKIBA201653,Lejeunes2018constitutive,KONICA2020103858}). Time-temperature equivalence principles based on the Arrhenius relationship have been extensively used to predict the mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of thermo-chemically aged elastomers (e.g., \cite{WISE1995403,GILLEN200325,hassine2014time}). Moreover, phenomenological and thermodynamic-based frameworks were proposed to combine diffusion and reaction expressions to link the mechanical responses to chemical kinetics (e.g., \cite{WISE19971929,WISE1997565,LION20121227,WinemanShaw2019,KONICA2021104347}). Furthermore, micro-mechanical constitutive equations based on statistical mechanics of polymer structure have been introduced (e.g., \cite{MOHAMMADI2020109108,MOHAMMADI20191,Beurle2020,KONICA2021104347}). Recently, \cite{shakiba2021physicsbased} proposed a self-contained constitutive relationship to predict the stiffening response of thermo-oxidatively aged elastomers based solely on the evolution of the macromolecular network characterized by the change in the crosslink density. A similar approach was employed in the work of \cite{najmeddine2021physics} who proposed a stand-alone constitutive framework to capture the mechanical response of photo-oxidatively aged semi-crystalline polymers based on the change in the polymer's crystallinity and mass loss.
Most of the works listed above lacked the important consideration of predicting failure of elastomers during thermo-chemical aging. To take fracture into account, \cite{dal2009micro} proposed a micro-mechanical model based on a series of Langevin-type springs and a bond potential representing the inter-atomic bond energy acting on the chain. The authors used a micro-sphere description for scale transition and predicted the fracture in oxidized rubbers under biaxial loading. \cite{volokh2007,volokh2010modeling,volokh2017loss} introduced the energy limiter concept to limit the stored energy in aged elastomers when subjected to mechanical loading, and therefore, described the stress drop and the entire stress-strain response. Researchers also proposed an approach based on the intrinsic defect concept to predict the ultimate stresses and strains when thermo-oxidative aging is involved \citep{nait2012j,hassine2014time,sadeg2017large,abdelaziz2019new,rezig2020thermo}. \cite{abdelaziz2019new} (and more recently \cite{kadri2022unified}) used the stress limiter approach (and energy limiter approach) to predict the aging effects on stresses and strains at fracture for rubbers based on changes in molar mass (and concentration of elastically active chains and swelling ratio). However, the authors correlated the involved stiffness and fracture material properties to the evolution of their proposed degradation indicators simply through a fitting procedure. Doing so constrains the constitutive framework and renders it a simple fitting algorithm that is only suitable for the particular scenario upon which fitting was calibrated. Moreover, robust coupling of degradation and mechanical responses using continuum damage mechanics or fracture mechanics approaches is missing. It is therefore imperative to develop efficient, robust, and self-contained constitutive frameworks that can simulate and predict the fracture response of thermo-chemically aged elastomers without the need for fitting parameters.
The phase-field approach, which was first introduced in \cite{francfort1998revisiting}, has attracted increasingly more interest thanks to its capability to simulate complex quasi-brittle material responses. In its mathematical description, the method is based on a variational approach wherein crack initiation and propagation are the direct results of the minimization of an energy potential functional describing the Griffith competition between the bulk elastic energy and the surface fracture energy of the elastomer. An alternative description of the phase-field approach considers the method to fall inherently within the general realm of continuum damage theories wherein damage is measured by a scalar field, i.e., the phase-field, giving rise to a definition of cracks as small zones of high gradients of rigidity and strength, analogous to what is commonly done in continuum damage based formulations. In fact, some researches have argued that the phase-field approach to fracture may be regarded as a legitimate continuum gradient damage theory that can be used to describe crack propagation in elastic solids \citep{spatschek2011phase,duda2015phase}.
Since its first proposal, numerous efforts have been made to model brittle as well as quasi-brittle fracture using the phase-field method \citep{Ambati2015review}. More specifically researchers utilized phase-field to simulate rate-independent crack propagation in rubbery polymers at large strains \citep{MIEHE201493,TALAMINI2018434,MaoAnand18,LI2020193}. \citet{kumar2018fracture,kumar2018config} adopted the phase-field formulation to describe the nucleation and propagation of fracture and healing in elastomers undergoing arbitrarily large quasi-static deformations. Integration of the phase-field approach with multi-physics conditions has also been investigated. \cite{MIEHE2015449} proposed continuum phase-field models for brittle fracture towards fully coupled thermo-mechanical and multi-physics problems at large strains. \citet{KONICA2021104347} employed the theory of transient networks, which was advanced by Vernerey and co-authors \citep{vernerey2017statistically,vernerey2018transient,vernerey2018statistical}, to simulate reaction induced chain-scission and crosslinking and coupled it with phase-field to simulate macroscale damage initiation and propagation in aged polymers under mechanical stress. However, while being extremely advantageous in predicting failure responses of aged polymers, \citet{KONICA2021104347}'s framework contained highly complex mathematical considerations which inevitably gave rise to numerous fitting parameters that lacked any physical meaning.
The phase-field formulation takes as inputs two main variables: the critical energy release rate describing nucleation of fracture from large pre-existing cracks, and an intrinsic length-scale variable which acts as regularization parameter dictating the width of a smeared crack. Discussion of the physical interpretation of the length-scale has lately been a subject for debate. A few works have sought to leverage the relationship between material strength and the length-scale \citep{pham2011gradient,pham2011issues}. For the simple case of single-deformation states such as uniaxial tension, the phase-field can be regarded as a gradient-damage model where the length-scale becomes a constitutive material property related to the strength of the material (e.g., material tensile strength) \citep{tanne2018crack,marigo2016overview,amor2009regularized}. Moreover, through proper treatment of select features in the phase-field formulation, other fracture criteria can be formulated. One such approach is the strain-based criterion for crack nucleation \citep{MIEHE201493}. A natural byproduct of the strain-based criterion is the establishment of a direct relationship between the length-scale, the strain at fracture, the material stiffness, and the critical energy release rate. The interconnection between the length-scale and the other constitutive material properties makes it possible to examine its evolution during thermo-chemical aging as an intrinsic material property.
In this work, we aim to describe the mechanical responses of thermo-chemically aged elastomers and predict their brittle failure using a thermodynamically consistent framework coupled with the phase-field approach to fracture. This is achieved by recognizing that thermo-chemical aging affects the response of elastomers in the following manner. First, when an elastomer is subjected to thermo-chemical processes, crosslinking is activated and the elastomer becomes more brittle. Embrittlement induces microscopic cracks on the surface of elastomers leading to their brittle fracture when stretched to a certain level of mechanical deformation. The induced micro-cracks propagate within the elastomer by virtue of a competition between two mechanical quantities: \textit{i}) the elastic energy stored in the bulk; and \textit{ii}) the surface energy dissipated through fracture and the creation of new surfaces. We examine these quantities in detail and incorporate the effects of thermo-chemical aging on their evolution -- which is manifested in the change of the crosslink density -- as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item The effect on the energy stored in the bulk is captured through proper modification of rubber stiffness as a function of crosslink density in the large-strain network-based constitutive theory describing hyperelastic materials.
\item The effect on the surface energy dissipated through fracture is captured through modification of the well-known Lake-Thomas derivation of the critical energy release rate as a function of evolving crosslink density.
\item Crack initiation is captured by establishing a strain-based criterion for fracture. The strain at fracture is expressed in terms of the crosslink density and is therefore considered to be known a priori.
\item The length-scale is considered as an intrinsic material property and is determined by solving the analytical one-dimensional (1D) formulation of the strong forms. The resulting algebraic equation to be solved will be written in terms of the material stiffness, the critical energy release rate, and the strain at fracture (which are all given in terms of the crosslink density).
\end{itemize}
Hence, the developed framework connects the evolution of the material properties in the constitutive equations to the physio-chemical changes in the rubber network. This connection eliminates the need to conduct mechanical testing on aged elastomers and bypasses the need for extra fitting parameters. This work therefore constitutes a clear contribution to the missing relationship between the macromolecular changes and the mechanical and fracture responses of thermo-chemically aged elastomers.
This manuscript is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec: preliminaries} summarizes the mathematical notations ascribed to kinematic quantities and establishes the fundamental formulation of the problem upon which subsequent derivations are based. Section~\ref{sec: cont model development} describes the developed constitutive framework incorporating the effects of thermo-chemical aging on the coupled hyperelastic-phase-field response of elastomers. The solution of the developed framework for the case of homogeneous one-dimensional bar under uniform tension is explained in Section~\ref{sec: 1D bar}. Validation versus experimental data from the literature are presented in Section~\ref{sec: validation}. Then in Section~\ref{sec: parametric studies}, we discuss our results and present a few parametric studies on a single notch sample aged for varying aging times. Finally, Section~\ref{sec: Conclusions} concludes with some important remarks and ideas for subsequent future investigations.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec: preliminaries}
Tensorial notation is used in this work. Bold letters indicate a vector or a tensor. The inner product is represented by "$\cdot$" and for any two tensors, $\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{B}$, the summation is over the components of the right tensor (e.g., the inner product of two second-order tensors is $\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{B} =tr(\mathbf{A}^T \mathbf{B})$, and for any two vectors, the product is $\mathbf{a} \cdot \mathbf{b}=\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}^T$ where the superscript $^T$ indicates tensor or vector transpose). The time rate of change of a quantity in the material configuration (i.e., Lagrangian configuration) is known as a material derivative ($D/{Dt}$) and is indicated by a superimposed dot, whereas the time rate of change of a quantity in the spatial configuration (i.e., Eulerian configuration) is known as the spatial derivative ($\partial/\partial{t}$) and is indicated by a prime sign. Additionally, $\Div$ and $\mdiv$ represent the material and spatial divergence operators, respectively. Finally, ${\nabla _\mathbf{X}}(.)=\frac{{\partial (.)}}{{\partial \mathbf{X}}}$ and ${\nabla _\mathbf{x}}(.)={\nabla}(.)=\frac{{\partial (.)}}{{\partial \mathbf{x}}}$ are the material and spatial gradient operators, respectively.
The problem solved in this work is formulated as follows. Consider an elastomeric body $\Omega_0$ identified with the region of space it occupies within a fixed reference configuration. Denote by $\mathbf{X}$ the location of an arbitrary point in $\Omega_0$ and by $\Gamma_0$ the boundary region of the body with the outward unit normal vector denoted by $\mathbf{m}$. A smooth one-to-one motion mapping can subsequently be defined as $\mathbf{x} = \chi (\mathbf{X},t)$ giving the position of the point at the current configuration for a given time $t \in \mathbb{R}_+$ representing the temporal location. The deformation gradient can then be determined as $\mathbf{F^s} = \nabla \chi (\mathbf{X},t)$. We also define the displacement field $\mathbf{u(X,t)}$ as the difference of the position vector in the reference configuration from the position vector at the current configuration: $\mathbf{u(X,t)} = \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{X}$. Essential displacement boundary conditions are prescribed on ${\Gamma_0}_u$ whereas natural displacement boundary conditions are prescribed on ${\Gamma_0}_t$ such that ${\Gamma_0}_u \bigcap {\Gamma_0}_t = \varnothing $ and ${\Gamma_0}_u \bigcup {\Gamma_0}_t = \Gamma_0 $.
Additionally, consider that the body $\Omega_0$ contains a sharp crack $\mathcal{S}$ that is smeared over a localization band $\mathcal{B} \subseteq \Omega_0$ with a corresponding outward unit normal vector $\mathbf{m_{d}}$ in which the damage field (or phase-field) $d(\mathbf{X},t)$ localizes. The damage field takes real values between $[0,1]$ in accordance with classical continuum damage mechanics principles where $d(\mathbf{X},t) = 0$ refers to an intact material with no damage and $d(\mathbf{X},t) = 1$ refers to complete fracture. The corresponding essential and natural boundary conditions are prescribed on ${\Gamma_0}_{du}$ and ${\Gamma_0}_{dt}$, respectively.
\section{Constitutive framework coupling thermo-chemical hyperelasticity and phase-field } \label{sec: cont model development}
In this section, we present a detailed description of the proposed constitutive framework governing the response of thermo-chemically aged elastomers within the context of large deformation solid mechanics coupled with phase-field. Section~\ref{sec: gov diff eq} summarizes the governing differential equations for the problem (i.e., strong form) and highlights the constitutive equations describing hyperelasticity and phase-field. Section~\ref{sec: material properties} presents the proposed approach to incorporate the changes in the macromolecular network due to thermo-chemical aging into the constitutive framework.
\subsection{Governing differential equations and constitutive description} \label{sec: gov diff eq}
The set of governing partial differential equations to be solved for the solid medium with evolving damage are
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_solid_balance ref config in manuscript}
\Div \left( {\mathbf{P} ^s} \right) + {\rho_0} \left( {\mathbf{f}_0 - {\pmb{\gamma}_0 ^s}} \right) = 0\,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\Omega_0 \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad {{\mathbf{P}^s}^T} \mathbf{m} = {\mathbf{t}_0^s}\,\,{\rm{on}}\,\,{\Gamma_0}_{t}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_damage_balance ref config in manuscript}
\Div \left( \mathbf{H} \right) -B = \rho_0 \ddot d \,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\mathcal{B} \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathbf{m_d}= 0 \,\,{\rm{on}}\,\,{\Gamma_0}_{dt}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{P}^s$ is the first Piola-Kirchoff stress tensor of the solid, $\mathbf{f}_0$ is the macroscopic body force vector, ${\pmb{\gamma}_0^s}$ is the acceleration vector, $\mathbf{t}_0^s$ is the macroscopic surface traction, and ${\rho_0}$ is the density of the solid medium. $B$ and $\mathbf{H}$ are the two non-classical quantities representing the internal work of damage (dual to $d$) and the flux vector of internal work of damage (dual to $\nabla d$), respectively \citep{FREMOND19961083}. It should be mentioned that the higher-order micro-traction at the evolving boundaries of the damaged regions are neglected. The reader is referred to Appendix~\ref{AppendixB virtual power} for a detailed derivation of the governing equations based on the principle of virtual power.
Next, the constitutive equation stating the relationship between the stress and the strain quantities and the one stating the relationship between the internal work of damage and its flux vector to the damage variable must be stipulated. The stress-strain relationship can be given by either one of the many expressions of Helmholtz free energy functionals which describe the large deformation behavior of rubber materials \citep{rivlin1948large,ogden1972large,ArrudaBoyce93,gent1996new,ogden1997non}. The Arruda-Boyce (AB) constitutive description \citep{ArrudaBoyce93} - which will be covered in detail in Section~\ref{sec: hyperelasticity} - will be used in this work. The relationship between the internal work of damage and its flux vector to the damage variable is determined based on a thermodynamic analysis for a solid medium with evolving phase-field. For detailed derivation of the constitutive equations, the reader is referred to Appendix~\ref{AppendixC thermodynamic}. The set of equations to be solved then becomes
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_solid_balance in manuscript}
\Div \left( \mathbf{P}^s \right) + {\rho_0} \left( {\mathbf{f}_0 - {\pmb{\gamma}_0^s}} \right) = 0\,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\Omega_0 \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad {\mathbf{P}^s}^T\mathbf{m} = {\mathbf{t}_0^s}\,\,{\rm{on}}\,\,{\Gamma_0}_t
\end{equation}
\begin{align} \label{Eq_damage_balances in manuscript}
\frac{2l_c G_c}{c_{\alpha}} \Delta d - \rho_0 \omega^{\prime}_{(d)} \frac{\partial \Psi }{\partial \omega } - \frac{G_c \alpha^{\prime}_{(d)}}{l_c c_{\alpha}} = \rho_0 \ddot d \,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\mathcal{B} \quad {\rm{and}} \quad \frac{2l_c G_c}{c_{\alpha}} \nabla d \cdot \mathbf{m_d} = \mathbf{0} \,\,{\rm{on}}\,\,{\Gamma_0}_{dt}
\end{align}
where $\omega_{(d)}$ and $\alpha_{(d)}$ are two characteristic functions in terms of the phase-field variable denoting the degradation and geometric crack functions, respectively, $G_c$ and $l_c$ are the critical energy release rate and the length-scale, respectively, $\mathbf{P}^s= 2 \partial \Psi_{(\mathbf{C},d)} / \partial \mathbf{C}$ where $\Psi_{(\mathbf{C},d)}=\omega_{(d)} \Psi_{(\mathbf{C})}$ is the damaged Helmholtz free energy, ${\mathbf{C}}$ is the right Cauchy-Green strain tensor, and $c_{\alpha} = 4 \int_0^1 \sqrt{\alpha_{(\beta)}} d\beta$. Note that the Cauchy stress tensor $\mathbf{T}^s$ can be calculated as $J^{s^{-1}}\mathbf{P}^s\mathbf{F}^{s^T}$ where $J^s$ is the determinant of $\mathbf{F}^s$.
Various versions of the phase-field approach exist in the literature depending on the choice of $\omega_{(d)}$ and $\alpha_{(d)}$. The more common version corresponds to the case for which $\omega_{(d)}=(1-d)^2$ and $\alpha_{(d)} = d^2$ \citep{bourdin2000numerical,bourdin2008variational,miehe2010phase,ambrosio1990approximation}. In this version, damage begins to evolve at the onset of load application, disallowing the material to develop within the elastic stage. Variations of $\omega_{(d)}$ and $\alpha_{(d)}$ have since been proposed with the aim of introducing further applicability of the model. An alternative version of the phase-field -- which shall be used in this work -- corresponds to the case for which $\omega_{(d)}$ remains unchanged (i.e., $\omega_{(d)}=(1-d)^2$) but $\alpha_{(d)}$ is linear instead of being parabolic (i.e., $\alpha_{(d)} = d$) \citep{pham2011gradient}. This version of phase-field allows the material to develop elastically up to a certain critical strain level upon which fracture initiates. This means that damage is not allowed to commence until the material has reached a critical energy state wherein enough load bearing chains have been broken causing nucleation of fracture. Such a response is characteristic to the behavior of common unaged elastomers (e.g., natural rubber (NR), styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), etc.) when loaded under uniaxial tension as they show a purely nonlinear elastic response up until rupture. In fact, under severe chemical aging scenarios which cause embrittlement, even aged elastomers show an almost linear elastic response in uniaxial tension until they reach the critical level where they cannot sustain any more loads and fracture nucleates due to bond breakage. Therefore, the use of phase-field approaches with linear crack geometric functions is well-suited as it allows the definition of strain-based criteria which can be employed for accurate prediction of fracture initiation for simple cases of deformation such as uniaxial tension.
In the subsequent sections, we present the conjectured forms of the quantities required to solve the system of Eqs.~(\ref{Eq_solid_balance in manuscript}) and (\ref{Eq_damage_balances in manuscript}) for a particular aging state. These quantities are: the AB hyperelastic free energy (which will be shown to depend on two micromechanically-motivated material properties), the critical energy release rate, the strain at fracture, and the length scale. We show that the evolution of all of these physical properties during thermo-chemical aging can be captured simply through evolving crosslink density.
\subsection{Material properties for thermo-chemically aged elastomer} \label{sec: material properties}
In this section, we strive to connect the macromolecular network alterations to the macroscopic properties and provide appropriate evolution functions for the material parameters involved in the constitutive framework during thermo-chemical aging. We begin by discussing the changes occurring in the material bulk hyperelastic energy, then we present our proposed approach to incorporate the evolution of the chain network in the description of the critical energy release rate and the strain at fracture. We also discuss the role that the length-scale variable plays in capturing fracture initiation.
\subsubsection{Bulk hyperelastic energy} \label{sec: hyperelasticity}
In a previous work by the authors \citep{shakiba2021physicsbased}, it was confirmed that the crosslinking events in an elastomer induced by thermo-chemical aging contribute significantly to the changes manifested in the free energy. The authors adopted the AB hyperelastic free energy and concluded that thermo-chemical aging causes the number of Kuhn monomers per chain in the AB description to decrease. On the other hand, the formation of crosslinks between the newly formed short-chains induces more stiffness as the deformation of short chains in a highly crosslinked material is more difficult. The authors were able to predict changes in the stiffness due to thermo-chemical aging by incorporating the evolution of the crosslink density in the material's constitutive law. In this work, we elect to follow the same principle.
The AB constitutive equation accounts for the non-Gaussian nature of the molecular chain stretch and provides an accurate representation of the large deformation behavior of rubber-like materials under different states of loading. An attractive feature of the AB description (besides being micro-mechanically motivated) is that it only requires two physics-based material properties, i.e., the network chain density (or equivalently the rubber shear modulus), and the number of Kuhn monomers to simulate elastomer behavior under various deformation states (i.e., uniaxial, shear, and biaxial). Assuming a near-incompressible configuration, the AB Helmholtz free energy can be expressed as
\begin{equation} \label{eq: Helmholtz function for Arruda full form}
\Psi_{\left(\mathbf{C}\right)} = \Psi_{AB} \left(\mathbf{C}\right) = \mu_0 N_0\Bigg[ \frac{\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{\sqrt{N_0}} \mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{\sqrt{N_0}}\Big) + \rm{ln}\frac{\mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{\sqrt{N_0}}\Big)}{\rm{sinh}(\mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{\sqrt{N_0}}\Big))} \Bigg]
\end{equation}
where $\mu_0=n_0 K_B \Theta$ is the rubber shear modulus; $n_0$, $K_B$, and $\Theta$ are the number of chains per unit volume, the Boltzmann constant, and the absolute temperature; $N_0$ is the number of Kuhn monomers per chain, $\mathcal{L}(\cdot) = \rm{coth}(\cdot) - \frac{1}{(\cdot)}$ is the Langevin function whose inverse $\mathcal{L}^{-1}$ is given by several approximations in the literature and is equal to $\mathcal{L}^{-1}(x) = x \frac{3-x^2}{1-x^2}$ according to the Pade approximation for some $x \in \mathbb{R}$, and $\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}} = \sqrt{\frac{I_{1_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{3}}$ is the relative macro-stretch written as a function of the first invariant of the right Cauchy-Green strain tensor $I_{1_{(\mathbf{C})}}=tr(\mathbf{F^s}^T\mathbf{F^s})$. The effect of thermo-chemical aging on the Helmholtz free energy can be accounted for by describing appropriate evolution functions for the rubber modulus and the number of Kuhn monomers with respect to the change in crosslink density.
\cite{shakiba2021physicsbased} showed that the evolution of the rubber modulus during thermo-chemical aging can be given by the following micro-mechanically motivated expression
\begin{align} \label{eq: evolution of mu - eq1}
\begin{split}
\mu_{(t_a)} & = n_{0} K_B \Theta + \big(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)} - \rho^{cr}_0\big)R \Theta \\
& = \mu_0 + \big(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)} - \rho^{cr}_0\big)R \Theta
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\rho^{cr}_0$ and $\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}$ are the crosslink densities of the unaged material (at aging time $t_a=0$) and the aged material (at some later aging time $t_a$), respectively, and $R$ is the natural gas constant. In deriving Eq.~(\ref{eq: evolution of mu - eq1}), it is considered that the increase in the number of the newly formed crosslinks per volume due to aging directly affects the rubber modulus of the material at the corresponding aging state. Note that in Eq.~(\ref{eq: evolution of mu - eq1}), the term $(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)} - \rho^{cr}_0)$ gives the change in the crosslink density between the primary network configuration and the newly formed network configuration corresponding to some aging time $t_a$. A stiffness-like component is introduced by multiplying the change in the crosslink density which has units of moles per volume by $R$ and $\Theta$.
Next, the total number of crosslinks per volume times the number of Kuhn segments per chain must remain constant in order to satisfy the conservation of mass principle. Therefore, the number of Kuhn monomers per chain at the current state of aging, $N_{(t_a)}$, can be obtained according to \citep{shakiba2021physicsbased}
\begin{align} \label{eq: Chain conservation}
N_{(t_a)} \rho^{cr}_{(t_a)} = N_0 \rho^{cr}_0
\end{align}
As a result of the modifications considered above, the final form of the AB hyperelastic constitutive equation taking into account the effect of thermo-chemical aging can be written as a function of the stretch and the current state of aging time as follows
\begin{equation} \label{eq: final Arruda-Boyce}
\Psi_{AB} \left(\mathbf{C},t_a\right) = \mu_{(t_a)} N_{(t_a)} \Bigg[ \frac{\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{\sqrt{N_{(t_a)}}} \mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{\sqrt{N_{(t_a)}}}\Big) + \rm{ln}\frac{\mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{\sqrt{N_{(t_a)}}}\Big)}{\rm{sinh}(\mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{\rm{chain}_{(\mathbf{C})}}}{\sqrt{N_{(t_a)}}}\Big))} \Bigg]
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{(t_a)}$ and $N_{(t_a)}$ are given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq: evolution of mu - eq1}) and~(\ref{eq: Chain conservation}), respectively. Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq: final Arruda-Boyce}) can also be thought of as being a function of the crosslink density $\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}$ since $\mu_{(t_a)}$ and $N_{(t_a)}$ are both implicit functions of $\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}$.
\subsubsection{Critical energy release rate}
In this section, we focus on the development of an important parameter that shows in the phase-field formulation: the critical energy release rate $G_c$. We present an approach to predict its evolution due to thermo-chemical aging by incorporating the change in the material crosslink density.
Treatment of $G_c$ as an intrinsic material property in rubbers dates back to the work of \cite{lake1967strength}. \cite{lake1967strength} calculated the critical energy release rate in terms of the molecular structure of the elastomer. Their calculation was based on the statistical mechanics framework governing rubber elasticity. The theory is based on the dissociation energy of a single bond in a monomer unit in a perfectly uniform network, $U$. A perfect network is defined as a network where all chains contain the same number of monomer units, $N$, and have the same displacement length as the mean end-to-end distance corresponding to a real network. In such a network, the critical energy release rate can be obtained by multiplying the energy required to rupture a chain, $N U$, by the number of chains crossing a unit area, $\frac{1}{2}\bar r n$, such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq: fracture toughness 1}
G_c = \frac{1}{2} \bar r n N U, \quad \text{where} \quad \bar r = \sqrt{\frac{8 N}{3 \pi}} l
\end{equation}
where $\bar r$ is the mean end-to-end distance of an ideal chain containing $N$ monomer units each of length $l$, and $n$ is the number of chains per unit volume. The presented mean end-to-end distance can be calculated from the theory of rubber elasticity assuming Gaussian statistics for the probability density per unit volume of a randomly jointed chain \citep{lake1967strength}.
Substituting $\bar r$ into Eq.~(\ref{eq: fracture toughness 1})$_a$ yields
\begin{equation} \label{eq: fracture toughness 3}
G_c = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3\pi}} n l N^{\frac{2}{3}} U
\end{equation}
which is the final form of a micromechanically motivated Griffith-type criterion.
Note that the expression of $G_c$ derived herein is written as a function of the number of monomer units $N$. In the AB description, this parameter corresponds to the number of Kuhn monomers, which was derived earlier as a function of the crosslink density (Eq.~(\ref{eq: Chain conservation})). Additionally, the number of chains per unit volume can also be conveniently written as a function of the crosslink density using the expression $n\big(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}\big) = \rho^{cr}_{(t_a)} \mathcal{N}_A$ where $\mathcal{N}_A$ is Avogadro's number. We eventually arrive at an expression of $G_c$ written entirely in terms of the crosslink density $\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}$, the bond dissociation energy of a single bond $U$, and the length of a monomer unit $l$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{eq: fracture toughness 2}
G_c \big(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}\big) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3\pi}} \mathcal{N}_A l U \rho^{cr}_{(t_a)} \big(N_{(t_a)}\big)\big)^{\frac{2}{3}}
\end{equation}
The expression derived above for $G_c$ can be thought of as an evolution function for the critical energy release rate given in terms of the crosslink density achieved at a certain aging state during thermo-chemical aging.
\subsubsection{Length-scale} \label{sec: length-scale}
Proper and self-contained identification methods for the length-scale $l_c$ are lacking in the literature. More so, to the best of the authors' knowledge, there exists currently no study which aimed to characterize the evolution of the length-scale parameter when the material is subject to chemical changes. The reason is because most existing phase-field modeling efforts do not consider the length-scale to be an intrinsic material property, but rather a mere regularization parameter which must be small enough to accurately describe crack front propagation. In fact, much debate exists in the literature concerning whether the length-scale parameter could be treated as an independent material parameter. In this work, we confirm that for the special case of uniaxial tension, a physical meaning could be imparted on to the length-scale variable, provided that a strain-based criterion for fracture is utilized. This is accomplished through the realization that if the strain at fracture is known a priori (which we later propose can be given as a function of the crosslink density state of the aged material), then Eq.~(\ref{Eq_damage_balances in manuscript}) can be solved for the strain at fracture by setting $d=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq_damage_balances in manuscript}), and the length-scale $l_c$ can be subsequently tuned to determine the value that will recover the known strain at fracture.
\subsection{Strain-based criterion for fracture of thermo-chemically aged elastomers } \label{sec: strain-based criterion}
In this work, we propose to employ a strain-based criterion for fracture nucleation in smooth specimen (i.e., elastomers containing no large pre-cracks). Fracture can nucleate in a number of ways inside elastomers. As demonstrated through many experimental results, macroscopic crack nucleation can result from either one or all of the following fashions: $i)$ nucleation in the bulk, $ii)$ nucleation from large pre-existing cracks, or $iii)$ nucleation from the boundary and small pre-existing cracks \citep{kumar2018fracture,kumar2018config}. Fracture nucleation from large pre-existing cracks is well-captured by standard phase-field formulations; however, because such formulations lack the important consideration of material strength, they fail to describe crack nucleation in the bulk of smooth elastomers. This limitation restricts their use for fracture problems dealing with uncut samples or sample with no pre-existing cracks. Nevertheless, in this work, we show that instead of explicitly considering material strength, we can establish a strain-based criterion for fracture that will allow us to conveniently describe crack nucleation in smooth elastomers. Our approach is motivated by the physical understanding that like all materials, elastomers are never perfect and contain inherent microscopic defects; thus when a smooth elastomer is stretched monotonically, fracture will nucleate at a given critical value of the applied stretch from one or more of these pre-existing defects.
The version of the phase-field approach adopted in this work allows for an elastic regime up to the onset of crack nucleation. Such a formulation is attractive as it provides the ability to construct criteria with thresholds for fracture initiation and nucleation. Particularly, it allows us to construct an energetic criterion with threshold based on the limiting strain, i.e., the strain at fracture. Therefore, with the strain at fracture known, a strain-based criterion can be formulated. In this work, the strain at fracture is computed as a function of the crosslink density of the aged material.
The assumption that the strain at fracture can be explicitly formulated as a function of the crosslink density is motivated by the work of \cite{rezig2020thermo} who verified that the strain at fracture can be expressed linearly as a function of the square root of the molar mass between two crosslinks. Since the molar mass between two crosslinks is related to the crosslink density through an inverse proportionality, a relationship between the strain at fracture and the crosslink density can easily be constructed. As such, we propose the following self-contained equation relating the true strain at fracture to the crosslink density at a given aging time:
\begin{align} \label{eq: true failure strain}
\begin{split}
\varepsilon^{tr}_{b_{(t_a)}} & = \sqrt{ \Bigg[ \frac{ \frac{1}{\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}} - \frac{1}{\rho^{cr}_{max}} }{\frac{1}{\rho^{cr}_0} - \frac{1}{\rho^{cr}_{max}}} \Bigg]} \varepsilon^{tr}_{b0}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the superscript $^{tr}$ is in reference to the true configuration, $\varepsilon^{tr}_{b0}$ is the true strain at fracture corresponding to the unaged state, and $\rho^{cr}_{max}$ is the maximum crosslink density that the material can achieve (it is equivalent to the crosslink density at some maximum aging time $t_{a_{max}}$, i.e., $\rho^{cr}_{(t_{a_{max}})}$. It follows that the associated engineering strain at fracture can be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq: true failure strain}) as:
\begin{align} \label{eq: engineering failure strain}
\begin{split}
\varepsilon^{eng}_{b_{(t_a)}} = exp \Bigg( \sqrt{ \bigg[ \frac{\rho^{cr}_0 (\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}-\rho^{cr}_{max})}{\rho^{cr} (\rho^{cr}_0 - \rho^{cr}_{max})} \bigg] }\varepsilon^{tr}_{b0} \Bigg) - 1
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that the stretch at fracture can be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq: engineering failure strain}) through the simple relationship $\lambda_{b} {(t_a)} = \varepsilon^{eng}_{b_{(t_a)}} + 1$.
A summary of the procedure followed to validate the general framework and obtain the material properties involved in this work is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig: flowchart}. We demonstrate this procedure for the case of homogeneous deformation of a bar under uniform tension in the proceeding section.
\begin{figure*}[h!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.57]{Flowchart.pdf}
\caption{Procedural flowchart for the identification of the material properties and the prediction and validation of the constitutive framework.}
\label{fig: flowchart}
\end{figure*}
\section{Homogeneous case of bar under uniform tension} \label{sec: 1D bar}
In this section, we present the analytical derivation of the proposed framework for the case of a homogeneous bar involving a near-incompressible hyperelastic solid. The bar is assumed to be thermo-chemically aged for varying periods of time and subsequently loaded under uniaxial tension. The present derivation serves to highlight the various steps involved in arriving at the complete stress-strain response of an aged sample from the onset of load application to complete fracture.
Consider an incompressible elastomeric bar subjected to a monotonically increasing tensile stretch. In this case, the deformation gradient is expressed as a function of the applied uniaxial stretch $\lambda$ as follows
\begin{equation}
\textbf{F}^s(\lambda) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda & 0 & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
The left Cauchy-Green strain tensor can subsequently be written as
\begin{equation}
\textbf{C}(\lambda) = \textbf{F}^s(\lambda)^T \textbf{F}^s(\lambda) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda^2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\lambda} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\lambda}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
whose first invariant is given by: $I_{1_{(\lambda)}} = tr(\textbf{C}) = \frac{2}{\lambda} + \lambda^2$
Eq.~(\ref{eq: final Arruda-Boyce}) can be written in polynomial form using the first five terms of the inverse Langevin function as
\begin{align} \label{eq: example AB}
\Psi_{AB} (\mathbf{C},t_a) = \mu_{(t_a)} \mathlarger{\sum}_{i=1}^5 c_i \frac{1}{N_{(t_a)}^{2i-2}} \left( I_{1\mathbf{C}}^i -3^i \right)
\end{align}
where the constants $c_i$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq: example AB}) are equal to $c_1=\tfrac{1}{2}, c_2= \tfrac{1}{20}, c_3= \tfrac{11}{1050}, c_4= \tfrac{19}{7000}, c_5= \tfrac{519}{673750}$, and $\mu_{(t_a)}$ and $N_{(t_a)}$ are given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq: evolution of mu - eq1}) and (\ref{eq: Chain conservation}), respectively.
In the case of uniaxial tension, Eq.~(\ref{eq: example AB}) can be expressed as a function of the applied stretch as
\begin{align} \label{eq: example AB UT}
\Psi_{AB} (\lambda,t_a) = \mu(t_a) \mathlarger{\sum}_{i=1}^5 c_i \frac{1}{N(t_a)^{2i-2}} \left( I_1(\lambda)^i -3^i \right)
\end{align}
Therefore, the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress in uniaxial tension $P^s$ can be computed as
\begin{align} \label{stress}
P^s(\lambda,t_a) = \frac{\partial\Psi_{AB} (\lambda,t_a)}{\partial\lambda}
\end{align}
For the case of homogeneous damage state, $\Delta d = 0$ (i.e. damage is uniform in the bar) and $\ddot d=0$. Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{Eq_damage_balances in manuscript})a becomes
\begin{align} \label{Eq_damage_balances_example}
\rho_0 \omega^{\prime}_{(d)} \frac{\partial \Psi(\lambda,d) }{\partial \omega } + \frac{G_c {\alpha^{\prime}_{(d)}}}{l_c c_{\alpha}} = 0 \,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\mathcal{B}
\end{align}
where $\frac{\partial \Psi(\lambda,d)}{\partial \omega } = \frac{\partial (\omega_{(d)} \Psi_{AB}(\lambda,t_a))}{\partial \omega } = \Psi_{AB}(\lambda,t_a)$ is the undamaged AB Helmholtz free energy. Note that for the version of the phase-field employed in this work, the first derivatives of the degradation and the crack geometric functions with respect to the phase-field variable are given by $\omega^{\prime}_{(d)} = 2(d-1) $ and $\alpha^{\prime}_{(d)} = 1$, respectively, while $c_{\alpha}$ is given by $c_{\alpha}=4 \int_0^1 \sqrt{\alpha_{(\beta)}} d\beta = \frac{8}{3}$.
Eq.~(\ref{Eq_damage_balances_example}) is the balance equation for the phase-field variable governing the evolution of the damage field inside the body $\mathcal{B}$. The phase-field variable can be solved either analytically or numerically provided that all necessary inputs are known. These inputs are: the crosslink density $\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}$ for a given aging time $t_a$, the critical energy release rate $G_c \big(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}\big)$ corresponding to said crosslink density, and the length-scale $l_c$. The length-scale depends on the material stiffness and its fracture resistance, thus also implicitly on the crosslink density, as shown through Eq.~(\ref{Eq_damage_balances_example}).
The length-scale is determined following the procedure described in section~\ref{sec: length-scale}. To see how this is accomplished, let us simplify Eq.~(\ref{Eq_damage_balances_example}) by substituting the corresponding terms. We obtain
\begin{align} \label{damage_balances_simplified}
\Psi_{AB}(\lambda_{b},t_a) - \frac{3G_c \big(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}\big)}{8l_c} = 0 \,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\mathcal{B}
\end{align}
where $\lambda_{b}$ is the critical stretch (stretch at failure). Note that the value $d=0$ was substituted for the phase-field variable since fracture will nucleate when $d$ ceases to be identically 0. Thus, for a particular value of the crosslink density, $\Psi_{AB}(\rho,\lambda_{b})$ and $G_c \big(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}\big)$ can be determined using Eq.~(\ref{eq: example AB UT}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq: fracture toughness 2}), respectively. Therefore, the length-scale can be tuned such that the resulting value for the critical stretch $\lambda_{b}$ from Eq.~(\ref{damage_balances_simplified}) matches the one obtained through the critical strain in Eq.~(\ref{eq: engineering failure strain}). Figure~\ref{fig: flowchart} illustrates a procedural flowchart for the identification of the material properties and the prediction and validation of the proposed constitutive framework. In the section that follows, we present validations of the proposed constitutive framework applied to the case of an elastomer aged for varying periods of time.
\section{Validation of the developed constitutive framework} \label{sec: validation}
\subsection{Homogeneous solution}
\cite{rezig2020thermo} conducted a series of experimental studies on the thermo-chemical aging effects in filled SBR. The authors determined the crosslink densities corresponding to various aging times ranging from 0 to 60 days for a series of temperatures. In this paper, we validate the proposed framework versus the case for which aging was performed at $\SI{100} {\celsius}$.
First, we need to determine the maximum value of the crosslink density required for Eq.~(\ref{eq: engineering failure strain}). A linear extrapolation procedure was employed and the value corresponding to $t_{a_{max}} = 120$ days, i.e., $ \rho^{cr}_{max} = \rho^{cr}_{(t_{a_{max}})}$ was selected. Figure~\ref{fig: crosslink_density} presents the evolution of the crosslink density as a function of aging time $t_a \in [0,{t_a}_{max}]$. As an example, let us consider the case for which the material is thermally aged for a period of $t_a = 45 $ days under $\SI{100} {\celsius}$.
Substituting $t_a = 45$ in the expression for $G_c \big(\rho^{cr}_{(t_a)}\big)$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq: fracture toughness 2})) and in the expression for $\Psi_{AB}(\lambda_{b},t_a)$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq: example AB UT})), we can solve for $l_c$ in Eq.~(\ref{damage_balances_simplified}) with $\lambda_{b} = \varepsilon_b^{eng}(t_a) + 1$. For this example, the obtained $l_c$ value was $0.114~mm$.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{CrosslinkDensity.pdf}
\label{fig: crosslink_density}
}%
\hspace{0.5cm}
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{LengthScale.pdf}
\label{fig: length_scale}
}%
\caption{a) Evolution of the crosslink density as a function of aging time in an SBR sample thermally aged under $\SI{100} {\celsius}$ \citep{rezig2020thermo}. The values in the [60,120]-day range have been extrapolated linearly based on the available data. b) Evolution of the length-scale $l_c$ as a function of the crosslink density for varying aging times. }
\label{}
\end{figure*}
The procedure can be extended to the remaining aging times and the $l_c$ corresponding to each aging state can be calculated in a similar fashion. Table~\ref{tb: material properties} summarizes the values for the material properties obtained for the various aging times considered. Note that the dissociation energy $U$ was taken to be the average dissociation energy of the C-C bonds in a monomer unit. For a single monomer, $U$ can be obtained by dividing the molar dissociation energy (which is given in unis of (energy/moles)) by Avogadro’s number. For the problem in hand, a value of $U = 5.779 \times 10^{-9} joule$ was calculated. Additionally, the length of monomer units $l$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq: fracture toughness 2}) was assumed to be constant for all aging times and was therefore calculated based on the response of the unaged configuration.
The resulting $l_c$ values are plotted as a function of the crosslink density in Figure~\ref{fig: length_scale} for $t_a \in [0,60]$ days. Interestingly, $l_c$ is shown to evolve linearly with respect to the crosslink density. This linear relationship suggests that the length-scale, similarly to the crosslink density, should also evolve in a sigmoidal manner with respect to aging time. This finding is crucial as it sheds light on the evolution of an important parameter in the phase-field characterization of damage in thermo-chemically aged elastomers.
\begin{table}[h!bt]
\centering
\small
\caption{Material properties obtained using the developed framework for the various aging times considered in \cite{rezig2020thermo} for an SBR sample thermally aged under $\SI{100} {\celsius}$.}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\thead{Aging time \\ $t_a$ (days)}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Material properties} \\ \cmidrule{2-5}
{} & \multirow{3}{*}{\thead{Rubber modulus \\ $\mu$ (MPa) \\ (Eq.~(\ref{eq: evolution of mu - eq1})) }} & \multirow{3}{*}{\thead{Number of \\ Kuhn monomers $N$ \\ (Eq.~(\ref{eq: Chain conservation})) }} & \multirow{3}{*}{\thead{Critical energy \\ release rate $G_c$ ($N/mm$) \\ (Eq.~(\ref{eq: fracture toughness 2})) }} & \multirow{3}{*}{\thead{length-scale \\ $l_c$ ($mm$) \\ (Eq.~(\ref{damage_balances_simplified})) }} \\ \\ \\
\hline
0 & 0.8 & 70 & 9 & 0.027 \\
7 & 0.91 & 58.9 & 8.27 & 0.037 \\
14 & 1.21 & 41.7 & 6.96 & 0.061 \\
21 & 1.45 & 33.5 & 6.23 & 0.078 \\
28 & 1.64 & 29.1 & 5.81 & 0.089 \\
35 & 1.84 & 25.5 & 5.44 & 0.101 \\
45 & 2.06 & 22.6 & 5.11 & 0.114 \\
60 & 2.95 & 15.2 & 4.20 & 0.178 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tb: material properties}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{StressStrain1DAll.pdf}
\label{fig: full}
}
\hspace{-0.1cm}
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{StressStrain1DAllZoom.pdf}
\label{fig: zoom}
}
\caption{Predictions of the developed constitutive framework using the 1D analytical derivations for the case of uniaxial tension verified against the experimental results for an SBR material aged at $\SI{100} {\celsius}$. Experimental data are reported in \cite{rezig2020thermo}; a) full-range stress-strain responses, b) enlarged-picture of the low-range stress-strain responses }
\label{fig: prediction_exp_ann}
\end{figure*}
Once the length-scale is determined, the engineering stress-strain response corresponding to each particular aging time can be analytically derived for the homogeneous case of a bar under uniform tension. Figure~\ref{fig: prediction_exp_ann} shows the predictive capability of the developed framework. A very good match between the experimental results and the stress-strain curves calculated using the present approach is achieved.
\subsection{Finite element solution}
In this section, we discuss the finite element (FE) solution of the thermo-chemical aging response of a dumbbell-shaped sample axially loaded in tension by a prescribed deformation $u$ (Figure~\ref{fig: geometry}). We focus on the case for which the material was aged for 45 days under $\SI{100} {\celsius}$. Details of the finite element (FE) implementation of the present constitutive framework are attached in Appendix~\ref{Apdx: FE implementation}. The FE simulations were performed on the FE software Abaqus \citep{abaqus2011dassault} via a user-element subroutine (UEL) within a two-dimensional (2D) context. In all simulations, the element size was taken to be $l_c/4$ and plain strain quadrilateral elements were used. The system of governing differential equations was solved using the staggered solution algorithm proposed by \cite{Miehe2010}. To minimize the computational cost associated with the FE simulation, only a quarter of the geometry was used and symmetric boundary conditions were applied on the left and bottom edges as shown in Figure~\ref{fig: geometry}. The material properties for the case $t_a = 45$ days which are presented in Table~\ref{tb: material properties} were used to run the simulations.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{DumbbellGeometry.pdf}
\label{fig: geometry}
}%
\hspace{1.5cm}
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.89]{PhaseFieldDumbbellContour.pdf}
\label{fig: damage_contour}
}%
\caption{a) Sample geometry used in the finite element simulations. All dimensions are given in $mm$ unit. For the sake of minimizing the computational cost, only the quarter geometry was used and symmetric boundary conditions were applied on the left and bottom edges; b) contour plot for the phase-field damage variable for an SBR material thermally aged for 45 days at $\SI{100} {\celsius}$. }
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig: damage_contour} illustrates the contour plot for the damage variable highlighting the critical region which experiences extreme damage. Note that the width of the diffuse damage band is governed by the value of $l_c$. Recall that for the present case, i.e., 45 days of aging time, $l_c$ was found to be $0.114~mm$. This is approximately 0.15\% of the specimen dimension. As pointed out in \cite{mandal2019length}, when the length-scale is considered as a material constant (which is the case for the present study) and is small with respect to the dimensions of the sample, both the peak load as well as the damage contour can be very well captured using the phase-field approach adopted here. In this work, we have shown that the obtained $l_c$ values for the varying aging times increases linearly with respect to the crosslink density, and thus in a sigmoidal manner with respect to aging time. It is thus expected that the length-scale would reach a plateau at some maximum aging time. It remains to evaluate whether damage patterns would provide any meaningful conclusions for cases where $l_c$ approaches such limit.
Figure~\ref{fig: stress_strain_45} demonstrates the comparison between the stress-strain responses using the present framework (obtained both analytically and numerically) and the corresponding experimental response. Additionally, to solidify our argument, we also present in Figure~\ref{fig: stress_strain_60} a similar comparison for the case when $t_a = 60$ days. It can be seen that the framework can predict the responses of both aging times with very high accuracy. Particularly, the increased stiffness due to thermo-chemical aging, the peak stress reached within the aged material, and the strain at fracture linked to the change in the crosslink density are all shown to match highly accurately with the experimental response for both aging states. In fact, treating the length-scale as intrinsic material property and relating the changes in the critical energy release rate and the strain at fracture to the evolution of the crosslink density has proved vastly efficient in capturing the full stress-strain response of the thermo-chemically aged elastomers. The highly predictive capability of the proposed constitutive framework makes the present effort especially attractive as it combines our understanding of how thermo-chemical aging affects the macromolecular structure of the network and the adaptability of phase-field approach to simulate brittle fracture.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Stress_Strain_45days.pdf}
\label{fig: stress_strain_45}
\hspace{0.0cm}
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Stress_Strain_60days.pdf}
\label{fig: stress_strain_60}
}%
\caption{Comparison between the stress-strain responses using the present framework (obtained both analytically and numerically) and the experimental stress-strain curve for an SBR thermally aged for a) 45 days and b) 60 days at $\SI{100} {\celsius}$ \citep{rezig2020thermo}.}
\label{fig: stress_strain_dumbbell}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion and parametric studies} \label{sec: parametric studies}
In this section, we discuss the effects of aged material properties on the response of specimens containing pre-existing cracks. In particular, we investigate the case of a thermo-chemically aged single-notched specimen loaded under uniaxial tension as shown in Figure~\ref{fig: BCSNUT}. We assume that the specimen underwent the exact same aging procedure reported in the work of \cite{rezig2020thermo} and therefore the evolution of the crosslink density yields the exact same material properties highlighted in Table~\ref{tb: material properties}. We ran three simulations corresponding to three different aging states: 45, 60, and 85 days. The 45-day and 60-day simulations serve to demonstrate the effect of the material properties determined in Section~\ref{sec: validation}. The 85-day simulation serves as a parametric case designed to highlight the predictive capability of the proposed constitutive framework. Note that the crosslink density associated with the 85-day case was obtained through the linear extrapolation discussed above (see Figure~\ref{fig: crosslink_density}); the corresponding material properties were therefore determined based on the evolution functions established earlier.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{SingleNotchBoundaryCondition.pdf}
\label{fig: BCSNUT}
}
\hspace{-0.0cm}
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{CauchyStressT22.pdf}
\label{fig: SN_UT_60_S22}
}%
\\
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{PhaseFieldSingleNotch.pdf}
\label{fig: SN_UT_60_Ctr}
}%
\hspace{0.2cm}
\subfloat[]{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{SingleNotchStressStrain.pdf}
\label{fig: SN_UT_60_LD}
\caption{a) Sample geometry and boundary conditions for the single notch sample loaded in tension by a prescribed displacement $u$ (dimension are given in $mm$ unit), b) Cauchy stress $T_{22}^s$ contour at the point of maximum load for the sample that has been aged for 60 days, c) corresponding phase-field contours at various points during the simulation, and d) load-displacement curve.}
\label{fig: SingleNotch_UniaxialTension}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig: SN_UT_60_S22} shows the crack-tip stress field contour (i.e., $T_{22}^s$) at the point of maximum load for the sample that has been aged for 60 days. The constitutive framework captures the stress concentration at the crack-tip correctly as it is typically known for the stress to localize at points of discontinuity. Figure~\ref{fig: SN_UT_60_Ctr} shows the evolution of the corresponding phase-field contour at select points along the load-displacement curve (Figure~\ref{fig: SN_UT_60_LD}). The effect of the length-scale as a material parameter is clearly demonstrated through the width of the crack band as it evolves during the simulation. Due to the increased length-scale for the present case, the width of the smeared crack appears to be rather large compared to the specimen's dimensions. Therefore, with the version of the phase-field employed in this work, physical interpretation of the size of the crack band (or equivalently the damage pattern) is to be approached with care when the length-scale is large with respect to the specimen's dimensions. Again, this observation has been pointed out in the work of \cite{mandal2019length} who confirmed that when the present phase-field version is employed, damage patterns only provide meaningful insight when the length scale is small with respect to the specimen's dimensions. Nonetheless, the load-displacement curve (Figure~\ref{fig: SN_UT_60_LD} correctly highlights the sudden drop and brittle fracture response that is typically observed for the single-notch example when loaded under uniaxial tension.
Figure~\ref{fig: load_disp_SN_UT} shows the load-displacement curves corresponding to the three aging states plotted together (i.e., 45, 60, and 85 days). At first glance, the figure demonstrates that the developed framework can predict the response of the 85-day aging time accurately as the associated load-displacement curve falls below that corresponding to the two other lower aging times as one would correctly predict.
In a more in-depth analysis, it is clear that both the maximum load as well as the displacement at failure decrease with an increase in aging time. However, the stiffness increases with increasing aging time. The observed behavior for the three aging times is expected. Specifically, the decrease in maximum load and displacement at failure is governed by the evolution of the critical energy release rate which was shown to decrease with respect to aging time according to Eq.~(\ref{eq: fracture toughness 2}). The decrease in the critical energy release rate is itself due primarily to the fact that the number of Kuhn monomers decrease over aging time. Therefore, the premature fracture of thermo-chemically aged elastomers is directly linked to the decrease in the monomer density per chain. This observation implies that in the aged elastomer, a newly formed network containing shorter chains (albeit more rigid) compared to the original unaged network is continuously formed. On the other hand, the rise in stiffness is expected since the newly formed network contains a denser and a more crosslinked chain coil. In other words, while the chains in the aged elastomer are smaller and contribute to premature failure, the increase in crosslink density affect the stiffness and causes the material to undergo embrittlement.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.62]{LoadDisplacementAllThree.pdf}
\caption{Load-displacement curves corresponding to three aging states (i.e., 45, 60, and 85 days) for a single-notch sample loaded in uniaxial tension.}
\label{fig: load_disp_SN_UT}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec: Conclusions}
A physics and chemistry-based and thermodynamically consistent constitutive framework for the responses of thermo-chemically aged elastomers coupled with the phase-field approach to fracture has been proposed. The constitutive framework combines our understanding of how thermo-chemical aging affects the macromolecular structure of the rubber network and the adaptability of phase-field approach to simulate brittle fracture. The effect of thermally-driven crosslinking processes in modifying the bulk hyperelastic energy and the dissipated energy through fracture was considered. The framework was shown to be self-contained as it required the identification of only four material properties whose evolution during thermo-chemical aging was characterized entirely by the change in the crosslink density. Specifically, we showed that the evolution of the AB hyperelastic free energy (which is characterized by two micromechanically-motivated material properties: rubber modulus and number of Kuhn monomers), the critical energy release rate, the strain at fracture, and the length scale can be predicted entirely in terms of a single physio-chemical quantity: crosslink density.
The interconnection between relevant material properties was discussed analytically for the case of 1D uniaxial tension. In particular, it was shown that the length-scale variable characterizing phase-field based damage models can be treated as an intrinsic constitutive material property and fracture nucleation in thermo-chemically aged elastomers can be captured conveniently through a strain-based criterion for crack initiation. The framework was subsequently implemented numerically through a user-element subroutine (UEL) on the FE software Abaqus to simulate more complicated geometries within a 2D context. The proposed framework was shown to predict the mechanical responses of thermo-chemically aged elastomers independently of any mechanical tests on the aged samples with very high accuracy. Such development is unprecedented in the literature particularly as the proposed framework is fairly simple and requires very few model parameters whose evolution during thermo-chemical aging can be connected directly to the evolving chain network characterized by the crosslink density.
A possible window for future development is to consider diffusion of chemical species such as oxygen inside the material and connect chemical gradients to the spatial variation of the material properties. Another window for improvement is to revisit fracture nucleation in such highly aged materials when loaded under complex deformation states especially for cases where test specimens are smooth (i.e., with no pre-existing cracks). Such important considerations are topics of on-going work.
\begin{appendices}
\section{Phase-field approximation of crack discontinuities}
The phase-field approach was developed based on the diffuse representation of the localized discontinuity to simulate a fracture \citep{francfort1998revisiting,Ambati2015review,Miehe2010}. The principal idea governing the phase-field approach is that discontinuity is approximated by a smeared damage field. In this method, the crack surface is approximated with a variable, $d \in [0,1] \in \mathbb{R}$. If the phase-field is 0, the domain is intact or not-damaged, while if its value reaches 1, the crack is emerged, and the material has lost all of its resistance.
A regularized crack surface functional, which measures a spatially regularized total crack surface, is defined in this approach as
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_fracture surface density}
\Gamma \left(d \right) = \int _{\Omega_0} \gamma_{\left(d, \nabla d \right)} dd
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_0$ is the reference configuration of a material body, and $\gamma_{\left(d, \nabla d \right)}$ is the crack surface density functional expressed as:
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_crack surface density function}
\gamma_{\left(d, \nabla d \right)} = \frac{1}{c_{\alpha}} \left[ \frac{1}{l_c} \alpha_{(d)} + l_c \nabla d \cdot \nabla d \right]
\quad\text{with}\quad
c_{\alpha} = 4 \int_0^1 \sqrt{\alpha_{(\beta)}} d\beta
\end{equation}
where $l_c$ is an incorporated length-scale for regularization and $\alpha_{(d)} \in [0,1]$ is a monotonically increasing crack geometric function satisfying the properties $\alpha(0)=0$ and $\alpha(1)=1$. The length-scale $l_c$ controls the diffuse damage field. In the limit of $l_c \to 0$, the original Griffith theory for fracture is recovered.
\section{Principle of virtual power for a solid medium with phase-field} \label{AppendixB virtual power}
According to the principle of virtual power, the external expenditure of virtual power should be balanced by the internal expenditure of virtual power
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_Principle_virtual_power}
\delta {\mathcal{P}_{int}}\left( {{\Omega _0}} \right) - \delta {\mathcal{P}_{ext}}\left( {{\Omega _0}} \right) =0
\end{equation}
In this study, the thermodynamic framework of \cite{Gurtin200347} along with the consideration of damage internal state variables are used to express the internal and external expenditures of power. Although the definition of the internal and external power is thought to be fixed, \citet{FREMOND19961083} and \citet{Fremond2002} demonstrated that it needs some modification to account for the effects of damage. A similar approach is used in this study to derive constitutive relationships that couple damage response of a solid.
The internal expenditure of power which takes into account the microscopic
movements in the reference configuration, $\Omega_0$, of the solid can be characterized as \citep{FREMOND19961083}
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_internal_power}
{\mathcal{P}_{{\mathop{\rm int}} }} = \int\limits_{{\Omega _0}} {\left( {\mathbf{P} ^s} \cdot \dot {\mathbf{F}^s} + B \dot d + \mathbf{H} \cdot \nabla \dot d \right) d{\Omega _0}}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{P}^s$ is the first Piola-Kirchoff stress tensor in the solid phase, $\mathbf{F}^s$ is the deformation gradient tensor of solid. The two non-classical quantities; $B$, is the internal work of damage (dual to $d$) and $\mathbf{H}$, is the flux vector of internal work of damage (dual to $\nabla d$).
\textbf{Note}. A generalized thermodynamic force conjugate to temperature can be included within internal power. However, this generalized thermodynamic force must be zero unless there exists a mechanism absorbing energy like micro-damage healing. Since micro-damage healing is not considered in the current study, the authors did not include this generalized thermodynamic force in the definition of internal power. It should be emphasized that the heat terms are incorporated in the formulation through the definition of the Clausius-Duhem inequality presented in the next sub-section.
External expenditure of power is defined in terms of the macroscopic body force vector, $\mathbf{f}_0$, macroscopic surface traction on solid skeleton, $\mathbf{t}_0^s$ as follows \citep{FREMOND19961083}
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_external_power}
\begin{array}{l}
{\mathcal{P}_{ext}} = {\mathcal{P}_{def}} = \int\limits_{{\Omega_0}} { {{\rho_0} \mathbf{f}_0 \cdot {\mathbf{v}_0^s} } d{\Omega_0}}
+ \int\limits_{{\Gamma_0}} { {\mathbf{t}_0^s} \cdot {\mathbf{v}_0^s} d{\Gamma_0}} + \int\limits_{{\Omega_0}} { {{\rho_0} A \dot d } d{\Omega_0}}
+ \int\limits_{{\Gamma_0}} { b \dot d d{\Gamma_0}} \\
- \int\limits_{{\Omega_0}} { {{\rho_0} {\pmb{\gamma}_0^s} \cdot {\mathbf{v}_0^s} } d{\Omega_0}} - \int\limits_{{\Omega_0}} { {\rho_0 \ddot d \cdot \dot d} \: d{\Omega_0}}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where ${\rho_0}$ is the solid phase density, ${\mathbf{v}_0^s}$ is the velocity vectors of the solid, and ${\pmb{\gamma}_0^s}$ is the acceleration vectors of the solid. $A$ and $b$ are respectively the volumetric and surface external sources of damage work. A source of damage work $A$ or $b$ can be produced by chemical (or in some cases electrical) actions which break the links inside a material without macroscopic deformations. The quantity $\rho_0 \ddot d$ stands for the acceleration forces of the microscopic links. It should be mentioned that in this equation, the higher-order micro-traction at the evolving boundaries of the damaged regions are neglected. Moreover, $A$, and $b$ are considered to be zero here. First, this appendix section develops the framework for a solid medium with phase-field damage due to mechanical load, and diffusion terms and energies are not incorporated. Second, in this work, we focus on the cases of thermo-chemically aged elastomers, where diffusion and degradation have taken place in a different timescale, and their effects are implicitly taken into account according to Section~\ref{sec: cont model development}.
Then, the virtual expenditure of internal power, $\delta \mathcal{P}_{{\mathop{\rm int}} }$, and external power, $\delta \mathcal{P}_{{\mathop{\rm ext}} }$, can be defined when virtual prescribed fields replace the prescribed fields. According to the principle of virtual power, the external expenditure of virtual power should be balanced by the internal expenditure of virtual power ($\delta \mathcal{P}_{int} = \delta \mathcal {P}_{ext}$). Substituting the prescribed fields with virtual prescribed fields, equalizing the internal and external virtual power, using the divergence theorem and knowing that the virtual prescribed fields may be arbitrary, the balance equations are obtained as
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_solid_balance ref config}
\Div \left( {\mathbf{P} ^s} \right) + {\rho_0} \left( {\mathbf{f}_0 - {\pmb{\gamma}_0 ^s}} \right) = 0\,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\Omega_0 \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad {\mathbf{t}_0^s} = {\mathbf{P} ^s}\mathbf{m}\,\,{\rm{on}}\,\,\Gamma_0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_damage_balance ref config}
\Div \left( \mathbf{H} \right) -B = \rho_0 \ddot d \,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\Omega_0 \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad 0 = \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathbf{m}\,\,{\rm{on}}\,\,\Gamma_0
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{m}$ is the unit normal vector to the reference configuration. Eqs.~(\ref{Eq_solid_balance ref config}) expresses the local stress equilibrium equation or the macro-force balance for solid and the macroscopic boundary traction for solid as the density of the surface forces introduced. Eq.~(\ref{Eq_damage_balance ref config}) defines mechanical damage micro-force balance, which was first introduced by \cite{FREMOND19961083}, is used in this work to derive the phase-field nucleation and growth conditions. In the numerical simulations presented later, we neglect all inertial effects and body forces.
\section{Thermodynamic laws for a solid medium with phase-field} \label{AppendixC thermodynamic}
The first law of thermodynamics for a solid medium in the Lagrangian configuration considering the phase-field damage is
\begin{equation} \label{Eq_First_thermo_final_Lag_localize_phaseField}
\rho_0 \dot E = \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{S} \cdot \dot{\mathbf{C}} + B \dot d + \mathbf{H} \cdot \nabla \dot d + {\rho _0}R - \Div \left( {{\mathbf{Q}}} \right)
\end{equation}
where $E$ is Lagrangian specific internal energy, $\mathbf{S}$ is the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor, ${\mathbf{C}}$ is the Right Cauchy-Green strain tensor, ${\mathbf{Q}}$ is Lagrangian heat flux, and $R$ is the specific Lagrangian heat production of the media.
The entropy inequality or the second law of thermodynamic is
\begin{equation} \label{eq: second law}
\rho_0 \dot Z \geq \frac{\rho R_0}{T} - \Div (\frac{\mathbf{Q}}{T})
\end{equation}
where $Z$ and $T$ are the specific entropy and temperature of the media.
Substituting the first law into the second law, the Clausius-Duhem inequality can be obtained as
\begin{equation} \label{eq: CD}
\rho_0 \dot Z T + \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{S} \cdot \dot{ {\mathbf{C}}} + B \dot d + \mathbf{H} \cdot \nabla \dot d - \rho_0 \dot E - \frac{\mathbf{Q} \cdot \nabla T}{T} \geq 0
\end{equation}
Knowing that the specific Helmholtz free energy is $\Psi = E - TZ$, and substituting it into Eq.~(\ref{eq: CD}) gives
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CD_PF}
\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{S} \cdot \dot{{\mathbf{C}}} + B \dot d + \mathbf{H} \cdot \nabla \dot d - \rho_0 \dot \Psi - \rho_0 \dot T Z - \frac{\mathbf{Q} \cdot \nabla T}{T} \geq 0
\end{equation}
In developing the thermodynamic-based constitutive relationships, it is assumed that the state of material is characterized by suitable internal state variables. These variables implicitly describe important microstructural mechanisms that affect the macroscopic behavior of the material under specific loading and (initial) boundary conditions. The Helmholtz free energy is considered as the thermodynamic state potential depending on the internal state variables. In this study, we assume
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Helmholtz function_PF}
\Psi = \Psi \left( { {\mathbf{C}}}, d, \nabla d, T \right)
\end{equation}
Using the chain rule to take derivative of the Helmholtz free energy and substitute it in Eq. (\ref{eq:CD_PF}) provides
\begin{equation} \label{eq: Helmholtz in CD}
\left(\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{S} - \rho_0 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial {\mathbf{C}} } \right) \cdot \dot{{\mathbf{C}}} + \left( B - \rho_0 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial d} \right) \dot d + \left( \mathbf{H} - \rho_o \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \nabla d} \right)\cdot {\nabla \dot d} - \rho_0 \left( \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial T} + Z \right) \dot T - \frac{\mathbf{Q} \cdot \nabla T}{T} \geq 0
\end{equation}
All processes and physical reactions should satisfy the Clausius–Duhem inequality as an accepted thermodynamic requirement. Thereafter, the internal energy should be conjectured properly to comply with the energy dissipation inequality and obtain the constitutive laws. \citet{zieglerIntroduction} stated that the correct estimation of energy dissipation requires decomposition of conjugate forces into energetic (or quasi-conservative, or non-dissipative) and dissipative components.
Ziegler’s decomposition of conjugate forces into the energetic and dissipative components is used in this study to obtain the constitutive relationships. Heat transfer equation can also be obtained by assuming proper forms for Helmholtz free energy and the rate of energy dissipation without decomposing the conjugate forces since their governing equations depend on advection and potential gradient and not time.
In order to obtain non-zero dissipation resulting from the solid dissipative processes, the following energetic and dissipative thermodynamic conjugate forces are defined from Eq.~(\ref{eq: Helmholtz in CD})
\begin{equation} \label{eq: sigma_energetic}
\mathbf{S}^{ene} = 2 \rho_0 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial {\mathbf{C}} }, \quad \text{and} \quad \mathbf{S}^{dis} = \mathbf{S} - \mathbf{S}^{ene}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:B-energetic}
B^{ene} = \rho_0 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial d }, \quad \text{and} \quad B^{dis} = B - B^{ene}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:H-energetic}
\mathbf{H}^{ene} = \rho_0 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \nabla d }, \quad \text{and} \quad \mathbf{H}^{dis} = \mathbf{H} - \mathbf{H}^{ene}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq: entropy}
Z= -\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial T}
\end{equation}
Assuming that the solid state of material is hyperelastic and the Helmholtz free energy take the form of \citep{MIEHE201493}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Helmholtz}
\Psi \left( \mathbf{C}, d\right) = \omega \left(d\right) \Psi \left( \mathbf{C}\right)
\end{equation}
there will be no dissipation due to hyperelastic deformation (i.e., $\mathbf{S}^{dis} =0$), and the total dissipated energy become
\begin{equation} \label{eq: Helmholtz in CD_disConjForces}
\Pi = B^{dis} \dot{d} +\mathbf{H}^{dis} \cdot \nabla \dot{d} - \frac{\mathbf{Q} \cdot \nabla T}{T} \geq 0
\end{equation}
Here, we will use \textbf{the maximization of rate of energy dissipation criterion}, which states that over all possible different material responses, the naturally happening one is the one that maximizes the energy dissipation rate. \citet{zieglerIntroduction} elaborated on the validity and range of applicability of the maximum rate of energy dissipation in describing the natural behavior of materials. Although the maximum rate of energy dissipation is not a fundamental principle--and there are other methodologies depending upon the process--it has been used extensively in the literature to explicate various types of material behavior. In this study, the rate of energy dissipation maximization criterion is used. Thus, first, the energy dissipation in Eq.~(\ref{eq: Helmholtz in CD_disConjForces}) can be decomposed into the dissipation due to damage and thermal.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Dissipation_decomposition_elasticDam}
\Pi = \Pi^{d} + \Pi^{th} \geq 0
\end{equation}
Now, the constraint conditions should be applied to maximize the components of rate of energy dissipation functions such that
\begin{gather} \label{eq:Dissipation_constraints_elasticDam2}
D^d = \Pi^{d} - \left( B^{dis} \dot{d} +\mathbf{H}^{dis} \cdot \nabla \dot{d} \right) = 0 \\
D^{th} = \Pi^{th} + \frac{\mathbf{Q} \cdot \nabla T}{T} = 0
\end{gather}
We use Lagrange multiplier method to the objective function $\Omega^i = \Pi^i - l^i D^i$ ($i=d$, and $th$), where $l^i$ are associated Lagrange multipliers. Then, applying the necessary condition for maximizing the objective functions yield
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Dissipation_Lagrange_Dam}
B^{dis} = \left(1-\frac{1}{\lambda^d} \right)\frac{\partial \Pi^d}{\partial \dot d} \\
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Dissipation_Lagrange_gradDam}
\mathbf{H}^{dis} = \left(1-\frac{1}{\lambda^d} \right)\frac{\partial \Pi^{d}}{\partial \nabla \dot d}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Dissipation_Lagrange_Temp}
\nabla T = - \left(1-\frac{1}{\lambda^{th}} \right)\frac{\partial \Pi^{th}}{\partial \frac{\mathbf{Q} }{T}}
\end{equation}
Substituting Eq.~(\ref{eq:Dissipation_Lagrange_Dam}) into $\Pi^d=B^{dis} \dot d + \mathbf{H}^{dis} \cdot \nabla \dot d$ gives $\lambda^d$ which is a constant, and similarly for the thermal Lagrange multiplier.
\section{Constitutive equations of a solid medium with phase-field}
The presented thermodynamic framework is used at this point to derive the constitutive equations governing the responses of a hyperelastic material under mechanical damage. To obtain the constitutive equations, accurate Helmholtz free energy and rate of energy dissipation functions need to be speculated. The AB hyperelastic Helmholtz free energy \citep{ArrudaBoyce93} and the phase-field degradation function \citep{MIEHE201493} are given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:HelmholtzArruda}
\begin{aligned}
\Psi \left(\mathbf{C}\right) = \mu_0 N_0\Bigg[ \frac{\lambda_{chain}(\mathbf{C})}{\sqrt{N_0}} \mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{chain}(\mathbf{C})}{\sqrt{N_0}}\Big) + ln\frac{\mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{chain}(\mathbf{C})}{\sqrt{N_0}}\Big)}{\rm{sinh}(\mathcal{L}^{-1}\Big(\frac{\lambda_{chain}(\mathbf{C})}{\sqrt{N_0}}\Big))} \Bigg]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Omega_d}
\omega \left(d\right) = (1-d)^2
\end{equation}
The next step is to assume the form of energy dissipation. Based on the phase-field theory, the rate of energy dissipation is equal to the critical energy release rate, $G_c$, times the rate of the crack surface density function \citep{Miehe2010}. Therefore, we write
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Dissipation}
\Pi \left(d, \nabla d \right) = G_c \dot \gamma \left(d, \nabla d \right)
\end{equation}
Taking the derivative of Eq.~(\ref{Eq_crack surface density function}) and substituting it into Eq.~(\ref{eq:Dissipation}) gives
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DissipationPhaseField}
\Pi \left(d, \nabla d \right) = G_c \frac{1}{c_{\alpha}} \left[ \frac{1}{l_c} {\alpha \prime}_{(d)} \dot d + 2 l_c \nabla d \cdot \nabla \dot d \right]
\end{equation}
Substituting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:HelmholtzArruda}) and (\ref{eq:Omega_d}) into (\ref{eq: sigma_energetic}) gives the Second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor based on the AB model and the damage function $\omega \left( d \right)$. In addition, substituting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:HelmholtzArruda})-(\ref{eq:Omega_d}) and (\ref{eq:DissipationPhaseField}) into Eqs.~(\ref{eq:B-energetic})-(\ref{eq:H-energetic}) and (\ref{eq:Dissipation_Lagrange_Dam})-(\ref{eq:Dissipation_Lagrange_gradDam}) generates the energetic and dissipative conjugate forces of $B$ and $\mathbf{H}$ as
\begin{align} \label{eq:B-energetic_sub}
B^{ene} = \rho_0 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial d }= \rho_0 \omega \prime _{(d)} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \omega }
\end{align}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Dissipation_Lagrange_Dam_sub}
B^{dis} = \left(1-\frac{1}{\lambda^d} \right)\frac{\partial \Pi^d}{\partial \dot d}= \left(1-\frac{1}{\lambda^d} \right) \frac{G_c {\alpha \prime}_{(d)}}{l_c c_{\alpha}}
\end{equation}
\begin{align} \label{eq:H-energetic-sub}
\mathbf{H}^{ene} = \rho_0 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \nabla d }=0
\end{align}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:H-dis-sub}
\mathbf{H}^{dis} = \left(1-\frac{1}{\lambda^d} \right)\frac{\partial \Pi^{\nabla d}}{\partial \nabla \dot d} = \left(1-\frac{1}{\lambda^d} \right) \frac{2l_c G_c}{c_{\alpha}} \nabla d
\end{equation}
Therefore, according to the second part of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:B-energetic})-(\ref{eq:H-energetic})
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Btotal}
B = \rho_0 \omega \prime _{(d)} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \omega } + \frac{G_c {\alpha \prime}_{(d)}}{l_c c_{\alpha}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Htotal}
\mathbf{H} = \frac{2l_c G_c}{c_{\alpha}} \nabla d
\end{equation}
Notice that since $\lambda^d$ is a constant, it can be integrated into the other constants. Now, substituting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Btotal}) and (\ref{eq:Htotal}) into the damage balance equation (i.e., Eq.~(\ref{Eq_damage_balance ref config})) gives
\begin{align} \label{Eq_damage_balances}
\frac{2l_c G_c}{c_{\alpha}} \Delta d - \rho \omega \prime _{(d)} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \omega } - \frac{G_c {\alpha \prime}_{(d)}}{l_c c_{\alpha}} = \rho \ddot d \,\,{\rm{in}}\,\,\mathcal{B} \quad {\rm{and}} \quad \mathbf{0}= \frac{2l_c G_c}{c_{\alpha}} \nabla d \cdot \mathbf{n}\,\,{\rm{on}}\,\,{\Gamma_0}_{dt}
\end{align}
which is similar to the damage balance equation used in other works such as \citep{wu2017unified,MANDAL2020107196,wu2020variationally}. It has been shown here that the phase-field equations can be obtained systematically within the \cite{FREMOND19961083} framework. Moreover, assuming the form of thermal dissipative energy to be $\Pi^{th}=K \mathbf{Q} \cdot \mathbf{Q}$, where $K$ is the thermal conductivity, generates Fourier heat conduction law. It also must be emphasized again that in this work, we neglected the energies due to oxygen diffusion because of the difference in the mass diffusion time frame and the mechanical damage response. However, the equations can be easily modified to include the stored and dissipative energies due to mass diffusion. For a detailed derivation of such problem please refer to the previous work of the author \citep{SHAKIBA201653}.
\section{Finite element implementation} \label{Apdx: FE implementation}
In this section, the finite element (FE) implementation of the proposed phase-field model approach is described. We begin by establishing the weak-forms associated with coupled displacment-damage problem. Then the finite-element discretization and piecewise approximation corresponding to the displacement and damage fields are established and the resulting discrete equations are provided.
\subsection{Weak forms}
In accordance with standard practice, by considering an arbitrary vector field $\mathbf{w_u}$ whose components vanish at the corresponding essential boundary segments, the weak form corresponding to the displacement field can be written as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{weak_form_displacement}
\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\Omega_u}_0} \mathbf{w_u} \cdot \rho (\mathbf{f}_0 - {\pmb{\gamma}_0 ^s}) dV + \int_{{\Omega_u}_0} \bar{\mathbf{F}}_u : \mathbf{P}^s dV = \int_{{\Gamma_d}_0} \mathbf{w_u} \cdot \mathbf{t}_0^s dA \\
\forall \mathbf{w_u} \ \ \rm{with} \ \ \mathbf{w_u} = \mathbf{0} \ \rm{on} \ {{\Gamma_u}_0}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where we define $\bar{\mathbf{F}}_u = \frac{\partial \mathbf{w_u}}{\partial \mathbf{X}} $, i.e., the partial derivative of the arbitrary vector field $\mathbf{w_u}$ with respect to the reference coordinates $X$.
Equivalently, by considering an arbitrary vector field $\mathbf{w_d}$ whose components vanish at the corresponding essential boundary segments, the weak form corresponding to the damage field can be expressed as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{weak_form_damage}
\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\Omega_d}_0} \mathbf{w_d} \cdot \mathbf{B} dV + \int_{{\Omega_d}_0} \bar{\mathbf{F}}_d \cdot \mathbf{H} dV + \int_{{\Omega_d}_0} \mathbf{w_d} \cdot \rho \ddot{d} dV = 0 \\
\rm{or \ after \ substitution} \\
\int_{{\Omega_d}_0} \mathbf{w_d} \cdot (\rho \omega \prime _{(d)} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \omega } + \frac{G_c {\alpha \prime}_{(d)}}{l_c c_{\alpha}} ) dV + \int_{{\Omega_d}_0} \bar{\mathbf{F}}_d \cdot (\frac{2l_c G_c}{c_{\alpha}} \nabla d ) dV + \int_{{\Omega_d}_0} \mathbf{w_d} \cdot \rho \ddot{d} dV = 0 \\
\forall \mathbf{w_d} \ \ \rm{with} \ \ \mathbf{w_d} = \mathbf{0} \ \rm{on} \ {{\Gamma_d}_0}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where similarly $\bar{\mathbf{F}}_d = \frac{\partial \mathbf{w_d}}{\partial \mathbf{X}} $, i.e., the partial derivative of the arbitrary vector field $\mathbf{w_d}$ with respect to the reference coordinates $X$.
\subsection{Finite element discretization}
The weak forms~\ref{weak_form_displacement} and ~\ref{weak_form_damage} are usually discretized using multi-field finite elements. Without loss of generality, in what follows, we consider the case of 2D problems, with the assumption that the 3D formulation extends in a straightforward manner. For such problems, the 2D domain $\Omega_o$ is discretized into subdomains called elements and each element consists of nodes. For 2D problems, the standard and most commonly employed element shapes, i.e., the three-node triangular element and the four-node quadrilateral element are used. For the coupled displacement-phase-field problem in hand, each element node has three nodal degrees of freedom: two for the displacement field and one for the damage field.
The displacement field $\textbf{\textit{u}(X)}$ and damage field $d(\textbf{X})$ are approximated using the nodal displacement and damage vectors, $u_i$ and $d_j$ through their corresponding shape functions, where $i \in [1,$ndof$_u]$ and $j \in [1,$ndof$_u]$ wherein ndof$_u$ and ndof$_d$ denote the number of degrees of freedom associated with the displacement and damage fields, respectively. The shape functions are established as functions of the Lagrangian coordinates \{$\mathbf{X_o}$\}. As such, the displacement and damage fields can be written as follows
\begin{align} \label{nodal_vectors}
\mathbf{u(X)} = \sum_k^{nnode} \mathbf{N}_k\mathbf{u_k} \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad \mathbf{d(X)} = \sum_k^{nnode} \mathbf{N}_k\mathbf{d_k}
\end{align}
where $nnode$ is the number of nodes in the element. Similarly, we use the same shape functions to approximate the arbitrary vector fields $\mathbf{w_u}$ and $\mathbf{w_d}$ and write:
\begin{align} \label{weight_nodal_vectors}
\mathbf{w_u(X)} = \sum_k^{nnode} \mathbf{N}_k\mathbf{{w_u}_k} \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad \mathbf{w_d(X)} = \sum_k^{nnode} \mathbf{N}_k\mathbf{{w_d}_k}
\end{align}
\begin{comment}
Furthermore, the gradient of the displacement field (i.e., strain field) and the gradient of the phase-field in the reference configuration can be expressed as follows
\begin{align} \label{gradient_nodal_fields}
\nabla\mathbf{u(X)} = \sum_i^{n_s} \mathbf{B}_i\mathbf{u_i} \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad \nabla\mathbf{d(X)} = \sum_j^{n_s} \mathbf{B}_j\mathbf{d_j}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{B} = [\mathbf{B_i}]$ is the standard displacement-strain matrix and $\bar{\mathbf{B}} = [\mathbf{\bar{B}_j}]$ is the damage-gradient matrix. In a 2D setting, it follows that:
\begin{align} \label{gradient_nodal_fields}
\mathbf{B_i(X)} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{X_1} N_i & 0 \\
0 & \partial_{X_2} N_i \\
\partial_{X_2} N_i & \partial_{X_1} N_i
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
\mathbf{\bar{B}_j(X)} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{X_1} N_j \\
\partial_{X_2} N_j \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
\end{comment}
Substituting Eqs.(~\ref{nodal_vectors}) and (\ref{weight_nodal_vectors}) in Eqs.(~\ref{weak_form_displacement}) and (\ref{weak_form_damage}) yield the following element-level system of equations:
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\Omega_0}^e} \bigg(\mathbf{P^s} \frac{\partial N_k}{\partial \mathbf{X}} \bigg) dV = \int_{{{\Gamma_u}_0}^e} N_k \mathbf{t_0^s} dA \\
\int_{{\Omega_0}^e} \bigg(\mathbf{H} \cdot \frac{\partial N_k}{\partial \mathbf{X}} \bigg) dV + \int_{{\Omega_0}^e} \bigg(N_k \mathbf{B} \bigg) dV = 0
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{H} = \frac{2l_c G_c}{c_{\alpha}} \nabla d $ and $\mathbf{B} = \rho \omega \prime _{(d)} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \omega } + \frac{G_c {\alpha \prime}_{(d)}}{l_c c_{\alpha}} $.
This system of coupled equations is solved iteratively using an appropriate numerical procedure by the defining the following element-level residuals for the displacement and phase-field
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\mathbf{R^e_u} = - \int_{{\Omega_0}^e} \bigg(\mathbf{P^s} \frac{\partial N_k}{\partial \mathbf{X}} \bigg) dV + \int_{{{\Gamma_u}_0}^e} N_k \mathbf{t_0^s} dA \\
\mathbf{R^e_d} = \int_{{\Omega_0}^e} \bigg(\mathbf{H} \cdot \frac{\partial N_k}{\partial \mathbf{X}} \bigg) dV + \int_{{\Omega_0}^e} \bigg(N_k \mathbf{B} \bigg) dV
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
and using the corresponding tangents
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\mathbf{K^e_{uu}} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{R^e_u}}{\partial \mathbf{u}} \ , \ \mathbf{K^e_{dd}} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{R^e_d}}{\partial \mathbf{d}}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
In this work, the staggered scheme of \cite{Miehe2010} is used and the following system is solved iteratively using a Newton Raphson algorithm
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{K^e_{uu}} & 0 \\
0 & \mathbf{K^e_{dd}} \\
\end{bmatrix}_n
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{u} \\
d \\
\end{bmatrix}_{n+1} = -
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{R^e_u} \\
\mathbf{R^e_d} \\
\end{bmatrix}_n
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where the subscript $n$ refers to the converged step and $n+1$ denotes the next unknown step.
\end{appendices}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the National Science Foundation under the award number CMMI-1914565, and the Air-Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) Young Investigator Program (YIP) award \#FA9550-20-1-0281. The authors also acknowledge Advanced Research Computing at Virginia Tech for providing computational resources and technical support that have contributed to the results reported within this paper. URL: https://arc.vt.edu/
|
\section{Introduction}
In the past decade, social media research has primarily focused on large platforms like Twitter or Facebook to analyze social phenomena. This has lead to over-studied platforms in which challenges of generalizability are well-known \cite{Ruths2014}. In contrast, studying unique, small online communities can provide new insights into the breadth of human behavior. In particular, it can offer the opportunity to examine less publicly discussed aspects of human experience, such as drug\footnote{We refer to 'drug' as a term for the wide range of unapproved recreational, steroidal, performance enhancing, sedative, or other bio-active chemical technologies and the disapproved use of approved pharmacological agents of any variety.} consumption.
Around the world, the consumption of drugs and the number of available substances has risen dramatically over the last decade and since 2005, around 950 new psychoactive substances have been identified worldwide \cite{world_drug_report_2020}. The great complexity of the world's drug landscape poses new challenges for social workers, governmental institutions, medical personnel, and drug consumers themselves \cite{arillotta_2020,dagnone_2015,schifano_2020}. It is important to detect adverse reactions to substances, understand under which circumstances they arise and implement meaningful harm reduction approaches, as well as to identify positive effects of specific drugs and understand their therapeutic potential. To achieve these goals, information is needed about why, when and in which context certain drugs are used and which effects they produce in different settings.
One website providing such information is Erowid.org. For more than 25 years, the site has been collecting and curating information about (often illicit) drugs, serving people who use these substances, as well as family members, clinicians, educators, policy makers, and the curious general public. Of particular interest are the Experience Reports published on Erowid: in more than 36,000 reports, users\footnote{We refer to (Erowid) users as term for people, who submit Experience Reports to Erowid.} described what happened when they consumed one or more of over 800 different substances. Analyzing these reports gives a unique opportunity to study drug use from the consumer's perspective.
In cooperation with the Erowid staff members, we investigate the subjective experiences of drug consumers in a large-scale, quantitative manner. We first give a description of the dataset (Section 3) and the user base (Section 4). We then identify how various drugs and user variables are linked to characteristics of the drug experience (Section 5). Furthermore, we test whether the subjective outcome of a drug experience is predictable, using information about the drug, consumer and situational factors (Section 6). Based on a dataset of 36,711 user Experience Reports we find that:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength\itemsep{0.08 em}
\item { \textbf{Age plays a significant role in the motivation for and evaluation of drug consumption.} Younger people report more about bad and difficult experiences with drugs, while older people report more about using drugs for medical purposes.}
\item {\textbf{Males and females differ in their drug experiences.} Females report more about using drugs for medical purposes, while at the same time report more about health problems and addiction associated with drugs.}
\item {\textbf{The outcomes of reported drug experiences are linked to the substances consumed.} LSD is associated with negative experiences, while MDMA is associated with positive experiences.}
\item {\textbf{Reported health problems and addiction are linked to specific substances.} The data revealed understudied patterns, such as an association between DXM and addiction, which may have clinical relevance.}
\item {\textbf{Although drugs and situational factors are correlated to the outcome of an experience, they do not yield enough information to predict whether an experience will be positive, negative, or associated with addiction.}}
\end{itemize}
We then discuss the benefits and limitations of using subjective drug Experience Reports found online. Our research presents new approaches for psychopharmacological research and can help to obtain a deeper sociological understanding of drug consumption.
\section{Background and Related Work}
\subsection{Analysis of Drug Consumption}
The criminalization of substance abuse makes it difficult to accurately study drug consumption. Researchers often rely on surveys of focus groups \cite{nsdhu_2018,eu_drug_report_2020}, which suggests a high risk of reporting bias: respondents may not feel comfortable expressing their opinion about drug use and may conceal information about behavior which is illegal or not socially accepted. While collections of anonymous, self-reported experiences with drug usage are by no means a representative sample and in fact are likely a highly biased sample, we assume that their content is relatively free of self-reporting bias. Therefore, we use information substance consumers have voluntarily revealed in online communities to contribute new knowledge about drug consumption.
\subsection{Online Drug Communities}
Erowid.org was founded in 1995, early in Web history, but it is not the only drug-related Internet community. There are other communities that allow users to discuss substance related topics,\footnote{https://drugs-forum.com/}, exchange recipes and recommendations for substance use,\footnote{https://bluelight.org/} and publish information about the assumed contents of substances they have received.\footnote{https://pillreports.net/}
Many of these forums have the aim to offer accurate information about substances, share experiences of both positive and negative effects, give advice or warnings about dosages, and provide support for users experiencing negative reactions \cite{soussan_2014, rolando_2019}. By reading such information, users try to gain new knowledge about substances and to minimize their risk of experiencing adverse effects \cite{norman_2014, duxbury_2018,bilgrei_2019,berning_2016}.
The analysis of such communities has been used for detecting new trends on the drug market \cite{arillotta_2020, schifano_2020, rhumorbarbe_2019}, finding common drug-drug combinations \cite{chary_2018}, and understanding the use of specific substances \cite{andersson_slippery_2017, bonson_1996}.
\subsection{Erowid.org}
The website Erowid.org has become a valuable resource for researchers seeking to gain information about the compounds, dosages, classification and effects of drugs, especially for substances with no or little medical documentation \cite{karila_2016, stanciu2016}. The organization Erowid Center has used the website to recruit participants for surveys on visitor demographics and experiences with certain substances\footnote{https://www.erowid.org/general/survey/} as well as for surveys on specific drugs conducted in collaboration with academic researchers \cite{pal_2013,baggott_2011,baggott_2010,gamma_2005}.
The experience reports published on Erowid have been qualitatively analyzed to gain an understanding of the use of synthetic cannabinoids and Kratom \cite{swogger_2015, newman_2016}. Furthermore, these reports have been used for anthropological case studies, in which the authors visualized patterns, such as substance co-use, common dosages of specific drugs or wordpair-substance relationships \cite{krieg_2016, krieg_2017}. However, there still exist many more use cases on which such data could be applied. The aim of this paper is to understand the potential of subjective drug consumption reports to provide information about the characteristic experiences of these drugs.
\subsection{Ethical Considerations}
We are conducting research on open (though anonymous or pseudonymous) admissions of sometimes illegal behavior, and we have a responsibility to not put together data in such a way that it would deanonymize individuals and potentially put them at risk.
When submitting reports, users explicitly grant permission to use their reports for scientific research. Therefore, care is already taken in the writing and editing process to omit or obscure identifiable details.
Our data contains no personal identifiable information (PII). Nothing in our models tries to fill in or infer information from individual reports that could help identify the authors.
Second, the manufacture, distribution, possession and/or consumption of many of the substances described in Erowid Experience Reports are illegal in many or most jurisdictions. By studying these reports in a nonjudgmental way, we risk abetting and condoning behavior that could be illegal and that many consider immoral. However, there is a long precedent in sociology and anthropology of studying such behavior; for drugs specifically, we work within the educational and \textit{harm reduction} frameworks \cite{marlatt1996} supported by Erowid and by many biomedical researchers, social workers, and medical practitioners.
Harm reduction is an evidence-based approach built on more than three decades of empirical research \cite{stone2018}, and it prioritizes providing accurate, judgement-free information, safe environments for drug consumption, addiction treatment, and decriminalization of drug usage and markets, all of which lead to less harm from drug consumption.
The current study obtained the explicit consent of Erowid Center before downloading reports off their website. Furthermore, we recognize the labor and expertise of the Erowid staff members through co-authorship.
\section{Data}
\subsection{Erowid}
Erowid is viewed by advocates of drug policy reform and harm reduction as one of the most important resources on drugs \cite{jarnow_2016}. It describes itself as
\begin{quote}``a member-supported organization providing access to reliable, non-judgmental information about psychoactive plants, chemicals, and related issues. We work with academic, medical, and experiential experts to develop and publish new resources, as well as to improve and increase access to already existing resources. We also strive to ensure that these resources are maintained and preserved as a historical record for the future.'' \footnote{https://www.erowid.org/general/about/about.shtml} \end{quote}
Much of the site is devoted to psychoactive substance `vaults', subsections containing extensive information about various psychoactive drugs. The `experience vaults',\footnote{\label{experience_vault}https://erowid.org/experiences/} a collection of narratives about consuming psychoactive substances (and/or practicing psychoactive methods, such as fasting or meditation), largely submitted by site readers (with additional Experience Reports republished and compiled from other sources), is particularly fascinating.
Over a hundred thousand experience reports have been submitted to Erowid, about 35\% of which have been published. Reports pass through a review process, with each report being reviewed by two out of a few dozen trained volunteers who read and rate the submissions and pass them on to senior reviewers for a possible publication \cite{erowid_30,witt_2015,erowid_10}. During the review process, each report is tagged with `primary' categories (= type of experience, such as `Bad Trip') and `secondary' categories (= situational factors, such as `Nature/Outdoors') \cite{erowid_30}. The standardized format of Experience Reports, with fields where users input substance name, dosage, and form of consumption (pill, smoked, etc.), as well as the quality control through Erowid reviewers make them particularly valuable compared to similar sites.
\subsection{Data Collection}
Following the rules of spidering given on the Erowid site,\footnote{https://erowid.org/general/about/about\_archives1.shtml} we contacted Erowid and received permission to crawl the site. We then collected 36,778 html pages between 2021-02-16 and 2021-04-07. As 65 of these pages did not follow the formatting standards of Experience Reports, they were omitted, leaving a dataset of 36,713 reports. Each report generally consisted of an identification number, title, text, publication date, author information, such as pseudonym, age,\footnote{The age field was included in 2009.} gender and weight, substance information, dosage information, number of views, year of experience, and category labels assigned by the Erowid team.
\subsection{Data Cleaning}
\label{section:data_clean}
\subsubsection{User and Report Information.}
We cleaned and regularized the data extensively. We manually inspected all reports with an unusual author age under 13 or over 70. In cases where the report showed indications that the age information was wrong (eg. the age being four-digit, or the activities not matching the age, such as a 12-year-old being the driver of a car), we replaced the age with a missing value.
We converted the user weight information, which was given in pounds (lb), kilograms (kg), or stones (st), into pounds. We replaced unrealistic low (\textless 70 lb) and high (\textgreater 500 lb) weights with a missing value. The inspection of reports with unrealistic weights revealed two reports about a cat and a dog, which had unintentionally consumed drugs. These reports were excluded from the dataset, resulting in a set of 36,711 reports. Reports on Erowid were not assigned with a unique user ID, but only with a pseudonym. Each user could have multiple pseudonyms and one pseudonym could be assigned to multiple users. Hence, it is not possible to evaluate the exact number of users and their submission history. When assessing user demographics, we counted each report as one user to obtain an upper estimation of demographics.
\subsubsection{Categories and Context.}
To assess the characteristic experience of a report, we stored all `primary' categories, which were assigned to a report by Erowid reviewers.
To assess the context and location of a drug experience, we used `secondary' category labels and context labels which were also assigned to reports by Erowid reviewers: We created the feature `Party', which is 1 if a report contains the label `Large Party', `Club/Bar', `Rave/Dance Event' or `Festival/Large Crowd'. We constructed the feature `Therapeutic', which is 1 if the report contains the label `Therapeutic Intent or Outcome' or `Therapeutic Session'. We furthermore added binary features based on the labels `Workplace', `School', `Public Space', `Nature/Outdoors', `Guides/Sitters', `Alone' and `Multi-Day Experience'.
\subsubsection{Substance Information.}
For each report, we used the dosage field as the source of substance information, as this provided additional information about dosage amount and consumption method. The distribution of the top 100 drugs in our dataset can be found in section A of an appendix we published online.\footnote{\label{foot:appendix}https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1639245} The dataset comprises reports of about 845 distinct substances (674 when grouped into larger classes). However, only 44\% of these substances were included in more than ten reports. We decided for all analyses, where the drug was an independent variable (see Section 4.2, 5.2, 6), to focus only on reports about the ten most popular drugs. The ten most reported substances were `Cannabis', `MDMA', `Salvia Divinorum', `LSD', `Mushrooms', `Alcohol -- Beer/Wine', `Tobacco -- Cigarettes', `DMT', `DXM' and `Ketamine'. As `Mushrooms' is a superclass for a great variety of psychedelic mushrooms, we decided to focus instead on the more specific class `Mushrooms - p. cubensis', which was the 15th most reported substance. Since both `Alcohol - Beer Wine' and `Tobacco - Cigarettes' were used in more than 90\% of cases in combination with other drugs, we decided not to include them among examined categories. Instead, we considered the 11th and 12th most reported substances, `cocaine', and `amphetamines'. As amphetamines is again a superclass, we included the most common amphetamine `methamphetamine' (ranked 20 of the most reported substances).
We then stored for each report whether it would contain one or more of our top ten drugs: We created one indicator feature for each drug (e.g. `mdma'). Each feature was assigned 1 if the respective report contained the drug and 0 otherwise. Furthermore, we constructed one indicator feature for each combination of drugs (e.g. `mdma-dxm' or `mdma-dxm-dmt'). As there were 10 drugs, we had 1024 possible combinations, although many combinations did not appear in the data set. From including only combinations with at least one report, our dataset yielded 142 drug and drug combination features.
Table \ref{table:topten} shows the resulting single substances, the number of reports per substance and the percentage of all reports in the dataset. In our data, 15,861 reports include at least one of these top ten drugs, which accounts for 43\% of our dataset.
\begin{table
\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll|ll}
Drug & Reports & Drug & Reports \\
\hline
Cannabis & 7,274 (20\%) & DXM & 843 (2\%) \\
MDMA & 2,406 (7\%) & Ketamine & 780 (2\%) \\
Salvia Div. & 2,319 (6\%) & Cocaine & 776 (2\%) \\
LSD & 2,263 (6\%) & P. cubensis & 657 (2\%) \\
DMT & 943 (3\%) & Meth. & 553 (2\%)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Top Ten Drugs used for the current study with number of reports and their percentage in the dataset. Reports describing the use of multiple substances were counted once for each drug.}
\label{table:topten}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Dosage Information.}
After extracting the substance information for each report, we were also interested in the dosage amount. However, extracting dosages proved to be a challenging task for several reasons. First, inconsistent and incommensurable measures were used: grams and ounces, but also `tablets', `bowls', `shots', `lines', `cookies', `drops' and more. Since the same volume or weight can have different concentrations of an active substance, even with domain expertise the standardization of these dosage amounts would not be possible. Second, the dosage was often described in approximations such as `multiple' or `some' [unit]. Third, there were numerous methods to consume a certain drug (e.g. smoking, drinking,...) and it was not always possible to generate rules about how a dosage with one consumption method can be converted in a dosage with another consumption method. Fourth, there were numerous forms of substances per drug with varying levels of the active constituent and therefore the dosage amount had to be adapted to the substance form. Finally, there was a huge amount of missing data for dosages. For example, more than 60\% of cocaine reports did not include dosage information.
To gain at least a rough estimation of dosages, we selected for each of our top ten drugs a reference consumption method, unit, and substance form. Using the information about common doses given on various websites,\footnote{https://www.erowid.org/, https://www.trippingly.net/, \\
\phantom{}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ https://drugs.tripsit.me, https://dancesafe.org} we created a set of heuristics per drug about how to convert dosages of other units, consumption methods or substance forms. For smoked drugs, we generally converted a `bowl' to the height of one common dose and estimated a `hit' to be one third of a bowl. All data, for which we could not infer any rules about either unit, consumption method or substance form, was set to a missing value and ignored for all dosage analyses. The heuristics and an overview of the most common terminologies used can be found in section B in the online appendix.\footnotemark[11] Table \ref{table:dosagedis} shows for each drug the percentage of reports where dosage information was given and the distribution of dosages in these reports. It should be noted that the maximum dosage values can be quite high, as some users reported the amount of drugs they had taken over several days or together with other consumers.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
Drug &Perc& Dosage distribution\\
\hline
Cannabis & 35\% & 15.0 - 142k (M=486, SD=3,029)\\
MDMA & 76\% & 0.50 - 160k (M=284, SD=3,810)\\
Sal. Div. & 75\% & 0.03 - 500k (M=1,932, SD=12,246)\\
LSD & 87\% & 10.0 - 5k (M=250, SD=279)\\
DMT & 68\% & 0.08 - 1k (M=51, SD=67)\\
DXM & 80\% & 0.60 - 510k (M=18,971, SD=67,538)\\
Ketamine & 45\% & 0.16 - 260k (M=986, SD=13,929)\\
Cocaine & 14\% & 0.12 - 11k (M=1,350, SD=1,568)\\
P. cub. & 81\% & 1.75 - 170k (M=4,015, SD=7,707)\\
Meth. & 20\% & 5.00 - 25k (M=668, SD=2,719)\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Top Ten Drugs used for the current study with percentage of reports where dosage information was given and distribution of dosage information. LSD is reported in ug, all other drugs in mg.}
\label{table:dosagedis}
\end{table}
\subsection{Dataset Overview}
Table \ref{table:summary} gives an overview of the dataset, regarding the number of reports and substances, distribution of number of substances used per report, as well as distribution of report views, drug experience year, user age, weight and gender.
\begin{table}[h]
\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
Variable & Statistics \\
\hline
Reports & 36,711 \\
Substances & 845 \\
Drugs p. r. & 1-13 (M=1.62, SD=1, P=100\%) \\
Views & 74-777k (M=15,711, SD = 25k, P=100\%)\\
Year & 1848 - 2021 (M=2,007, SD=6, P=99\%) \\
Age & 7-80 (M = 25, SD=9, P=33\%) \\
Weight & 70-500 (M=162, SD=37, P=93\%)\\
Gender & Male=29,052, Fem.=5,449, Not Spec.= 2,210\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Dataset Overview. P stands for the percentage of reports containing that information.}
\label{table:summary}
\end{table}
\section{Trends on Erowid}
\label{section: Trends on Erowid}
In this section, we analyze the whole dataset of 36,711 reports to identify 1) which drug trends are prevalent on Erowid and 2) what kind of users report to Erowid. Following \citeauthor{paul_2016}'s (\citeyear{paul_2016}) work on drugs-forum.com, we compare these trends to national and international estimations of drug usage to obtain a basic understanding of the data source and the group of Erowid contributors.
\subsection{Drug Popularity}
Table \ref{table:topten} shows the 10 most common substances (as defined in section 3.3) and their distribution in the dataset.
First, we find that \textit{Erowid contributors show a higher interest in substances outside the most commonly used drugs}. On a global level, the estimated distribution of substance use is quite skewed towards cannabis: According to the UN's estimations, 71\% of past-year ‘drug’ users, have consumed cannabis, which makes it by far the most consumed substance worldwide, excluding alcohol and tobacco. Other commonly used substances are MDMA/ecstasy (21\%), amphetamine and methamphetamine (10\%) as well as cocaine (7\%) \cite{world_drug_report_2020}.
We find that the most common drugs are also popular on Erowid, although the distribution of drugs seems to be more balanced in our data: Comprising 20\% of reports, cannabis is the most prevalent drug on Erowid and also MDMA (7\%), methamphetamine (2\%) and cocaine show a comparatively high prevalence (2\%). The fact that these percentages are not higher indicates that the Erowid users also show a high interest in other substances, which are likely less prevalent on a global level.
Second, we find that \textit{this interest is especially strong regarding psychedelic substances}. Seven of the top ten reported drugs, namely MDMA, \textit{Salvia divinorum}, LSD, DMT, DXM, ketamine and \textit{Psilocybe cubensis} are substances which are categorized as hallucinogens by the North American National Survey on Drug Use and Health \cite{nsdhu_codebook_2018}. While in the USA the prevalence of hallucinogens is quite low (1\% of all past month substance use) in comparison to alcohol (85\%), marijuana (17\%) and cocaine (1\%) \cite{nsdhu_2018}, this is not the case among Erowid Experience Reports: 25\% of reports contain at least one of these seven hallucinogens. Therefore, the group of Erowid contributors likely does not correspond to global or even North American drug consumption but rather to consumption by a population with a strong interest in psychedelic experiences.
\subsection{Demographic Trends}
Figure \ref{fig:trend_agesex} shows the age and gender distribution over all reports. Note that `gender' is coded only as `male', `female', or `not specified'; if users select the option "non-binary/other", "prefer not to answer" or remain with the default option ("- - -") when asked for their gender, this will be displayed as ‘not specified’ in the downloaded dataset.
First, we find that \textit{users on Erowid seem to have very similar age trends as estimated for global drug consumption}.
Surveys conducted worldwide show that drug consumption is more popular among younger people, with peak levels between 18 and 25 years \cite{world_drug_report_2018}. This trend is also prevalent in our data. Among the third of reports that contained a valid self-report of age, at the time of experience users were on average 25 years old, with 54\% of users being between 18 and 25 years old (min$=7$, max$=80$, MD$=22$, IQA$=19-29$). The distribution rises between ages 17 and 18, as the number of reports from 18 years olds is twice as high as the number from 17 years olds. Possible explanations are consumption differences, as drugs may be less accessible or interesting for minors, reporting bias, as users may feel more confident to report their age when over 18, reviewer bias, as some reviewers are less inclined to publish reports written by minors or quality-of-report bias, as writing quality or data content may be lower with juvenile authors, making reports by these authors less likely to be published.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{trend_agesex_stacked_cb.pdf}
\caption{Stacked bar chart representing the age and gender distribution over all reports.}
\label{fig:trend_agesex}
\end{figure}
Second, we find that \textit{the group of Erowid contributors is highly skewed towards males}.
Both in North America\footnote{Data from https://www.datafiles.samhsa.gov/} and the European Union \cite{eu_drug_report_2020}, drug consumption is reported more frequently by men than women, with around 60\% of those reporting drug use in the EU being male and around 40\% being female. The `gender' imbalance on Erowid is even greater: of all reports where gender is specified, 84\% are reported as `male'. Potentially, males are more interested in or willing to write about their own drug experiences or find the website more interesting than females.
\section{Characteristic Drug Experiences}
In this section, we 1) analyze which characteristics of a drug experience are described by categories given on Erowid and 2) identify associations between these characteristics and individual drugs as well as user variables.
\subsection{Category Overview}
\label{section:cat_des}
Here we analyze which characteristics of a drug experience are expressed within a certain category. We first give a short description of each category and their distribution over all 36,711 reports. We then analyze the sentiments expressed in each category as well as category co-occurrence.
\subsubsection{Description.}
During the review process conducted by Erowid, each report is assigned by the Erowid team one or more of 15 primary category labels.
Figure \ref{fig:category_dis} presents the distribution of each category in the dataset.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{category_dis.pdf}
\caption{Number and percentage of reports per category in the dataset.}
\label{fig:category_dis}
\end{figure}
The labels \textit{`Bad Trips'}, \textit{`Train Wrecks/Trip Disasters'} and \textit{`Difficult Experiences'} were assigned to reports about complicated, not entirely positive experiences during drug consumption, often caused by pharmacological reactions.
In contrast, the label \textit{`Glowing Experiences'} was assigned to joyful experiences with drugs and the category \textit{`Mystical Experiences'} was dedicated to reports about psychoactive substance induced transcendent encounters.
The label \textit{`Medical Use'} was attached to reports on the consumption of substances for medical reasons, while the label \textit{`Health Problems'} was assigned to reports about medical issues in general. In both sections, users often reported adverse drug effects. In contrast, the \textit{`Health Benefits'} label was assigned to user experiences in which a substance helped to overcome certain health issues. The label \textit{`Addiction/Habituation'} was assigned to reports about drug dependence, and many of these reports were not about a specific event, but rather a longer period of time. The label \textit{`Retrospective/Summary'} was assigned to reports written in hindsight or over a longer period of time. The category \textit{`What was in that?'} was used for reports in which users suspected a discrepancy between the ingredients they thought their drug would include and the real composition of the drug.
\textit{`General'} was a cumulative category and had no specific meaning. The label \textit{`First Times'} was assigned to reports about a person's first experience with a substance, and the label \textit{`Combinations'} was assigned when the consumption of more than one substance was the main topic of the report. The category \textit{`Preparation/Recipes'} was assigned to reports with a strong focus on the form of consumption. When reading the Experience Reports, it became evident that users on Erowid often reveal a high curiosity and experiment with new ways of consuming substances. The category \textit{`Families'} was assigned to a great variety of reports, with the common factor of family members being involved. This included reports about persons consuming drugs in the presence of or together with family members, about users thinking of family during the drug experience, about facing drug addiction with the help of family members, and more.
\subsubsection{Sentiments Expressed per Category.}
To assess the sentiments described in a category, we used VADER \cite{Revision_Hutto2014}, a Python package which allows the calculation of sentiments expressed in a text and even includes the presence of negations, degree modifiers and more. We excluded the words `like', `ecstasy' and `funny' from the Vader dictionary, as they had different connotations in a drug specific context. We then lower cased the texts, calculated the Vader compound sentiment score (-1=fully negative, 1=fully positive) for each sentence in a report and stored the average compound score per report. Figure \ref{fig:category_sents} illustrates the distribution of sentiment scores per category.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{category_sents.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of sentiments per category. Lines mark the minimum, mean and maximum value. Color corresponds to the average sentiment score.}
\label{fig:category_sents}
\end{figure}
First, we find that \textit{labels assigned by the Erowid team correspond to the sentiments expressed in the categories}. As expected, reports in categories about negative drug experiences, such as `Bad Trips', `Train Wrecks/Trip Disasters' and `Difficult Experiences', show on average rather negative sentiments, while reports in the category `Glowing experiences' show on average rather positive sentiments. Moreover, the category `Health Problems' has a rather negative average sentiment score, while `Health Benefits' has a slightly positive average sentiment score. These results can be seen as a validation of Erowid's labelling process.
Second, we find that \textit{much positivity is expressed in categories about new and mystical drug experiences}. The categories `Mystical Experiences', `Preparation/Recipes', `Combinations' and `First Times' show on average positive sentiments. Research on similar platforms suggests that online community members sometimes show characteristics of so called `psychonauts': Their drug consumption is mainly motivated by curiosity about new substances and their possible applications, as well as the goal to gain knowledge about the inner self and the mysteries of life \cite{rolando_2019}. The fact that reports in these four categories show a high amount of positive sentiments supports the hypothesis that Erowid contributors are also often interested in learning about new substances, combinations and their preparation, and value the knowledge gained by spiritual experiences.
\subsubsection{Category Co-ocurrence.}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{category_coocurrence.pdf}
\caption{Category co-occurrences. The color in a cell $(i,j)$ represents the proportion of reports in category $j$, which are also assigned with category $i$ (i.e., co-occurrence frequencies are row-normalized). }
\label{fig:category_coocurrence}
\end{figure}
To analyze category similarity we calculated the label co-occurrence in all reports, which is shown in Fig \ref{fig:category_coocurrence}. First, we find that \textit{categories, which we would expect to have a high topical overlap, show a high co-occurrence}. For example, there is a considerable co-occurrence between the categories `Difficult Experiences', `Bad Trips', `Health Problems' and `Train Wrecks/Trip Disasters'. Moreover, there is a considerable overlap between `Addiction/Habituation', `Health Benefits' and `Medical Use' with the category `Retrospective/Summary'. A qualitative inspection of these reports showed that many reports in the first three categories were not written about a specific event, but rather a longer period of time. Furthermore, the genre `What was in that?' often occurs in combination with `Difficult Experiences', which is not surprising, as unexpected drug effects may indeed lead to troublesome drug experiences.
Second, we find that \textit{new and mystical experiences co-occur with joyful experiences}. There is a rather high overlap between `Mystical' and `Glowing' experiences. In line with the results of the sentiment scores, this suggests that Erowid contributors interpret transcendent encounters often as positive, valuable and/or joyful experiences. Moreover, we find a rather high co-occurrence between `First Times' and `Glowing Experiences'. Possible reasons for this are that Erowid users may find it joyful to experiment with new substances (corresponding to the description of psychonauts), that there may be a selection effect in that people who have positive initial experiences are more likely to submit reports about it to Erowid, and/or that there may be a causal relationship in that first experiences indeed are more frequently positive.
In summary, we have shown that categories on Erowid describe a great variety of characteristic experiences. Categories range from positive drug experiences (e.g. `Glowing Experiences') to negative experiences (e.g. `Bad Trips') and even include special topics (e.g. `Addiction/Habituation'). These results provide us with a better understanding of categories and help to interpret associations between categories and drugs or user variables.
\subsection{Drug-Category Associations}
In this section, we analyze the associations between categories and the top ten substances in our dataset to determine whether characteristic drug experiences are linked to specific substances.
\subsubsection{Methods.}
To examine the correlation between drug and category, we measured the chi-square distance, which is the difference between the observed cell frequency and the expected cell frequency under an independence hypothesis (the product of the row and column marginals), normalized by expected cell frequency. We limited this analysis to only the 15,861 reports which contained at least one of the top ten substances.
\subsubsection{Results.}
There was a significant association between drug and category ($\chi^2(135, N=32,796)=5,924, p< 0.01$). Figure \ref{fig:cat_drug_residuals} shows the chi-square distance for each drug-category pair. The exact chi-square distances and contributions can be found in section C of the online appendix.\footnotemark[11
First, we find that the \textit{subjective outcomes of drug experiences are linked to the substance consumed}. Key Findings (=findings with very high or low chi-square distances in comparison to values in the same row and column) include:
\begin{itemize}
\item LSD correlates with negative experiences (`Bad Trips', `Train Wrecks/Trip Disasters').
\item MDMA correlates with positive experiences (`Glowing Experiences').
\item DMT, \textit{Salvia divinorum} and \textit{Psilocybe cubensis} correlate with `Mystical Experiences'.
\end{itemize}
The type of experience may be induced by the pharmacological effects of the drug. For example, LSD often produces effects of paranoia and anxiety, MDMA often leads to euphoria, and DMT, \textit{Salvia divinorum} and \textit{Psilocybe cubensis} are known to produce hallucinogenic experiences. However, it is surprising that such correlations can be found in the data, as all of these substances also produce other pharmacological effects, which could lead to both positive and negative experiences. Furthermore, the effects of a psychoactive substance may also be influenced by the dosage, consumer variables, and the setting. Therefore we suggest that not only the biological effects play a role, but also the drug consumers expectations of these effects. For example, when users read that MDMA leads to `Glowing Experiences', they may expect to have a positive experience with MDMA, and put themselves in a position to enjoy such a positive experience (e.g. by meeting friends, dancing,..). This could then in turn positively influence the possibility of having a positive experience and interpreting it as positive.
Second, we find that \textit{reported health problems and addiction are linked to substances}. Key Findings include:
\begin{itemize}
\item Methamphetamine and cocaine correlate with `Addiction/Habituation'.
\item \textit{Salvia divinorum}, cannabis and LSD negatively correlate with `Addiction/Habituation'.
\item DXM correlates with `Health Problems' and weakly with `Addiction/Habituation'.
\end{itemize}
The first two relations are in line with existing research, as both methamphetamine and cocaine are known to have a high potential for addiction, while for \textit{Salvia divinorum}, cannabis and LSD only weak to no withdrawal symptoms are known. Therefore, the Erowid data might help to compare drugs regarding their addiction potential or even detect worrisome relationships between certain substances and medical issues. For example, our data suggests that DXM may be related to health problems and addiction, which should be investigated through further research (see Section \ref{section:impl}). Such an approach could be especially beneficial for new substances, with not much clinical data available.
Third, we find that \textit{specific usage patterns are linked to substances}. Key Findings include:
\begin{itemize}
\item Methamphetamine and cocaine correlate with `Retrospective/Summary'.
\item MDMA correlates with `What was in that?'.
\end{itemize}
The first relation suggests that users write more often about methamphetamine and cocaine in retrospect, than they do with other drugs. This can be explained by the high addiction potential of these drugs and the tendency to use these substances repeatedly over a period of time, which may lead consumers to write about this period instead of a specific recent event. In addition, there are certainly reasons for the second relation: MDMA is the active substance in most ecstasy tablets, which vary in content and concentrations. Consequently, users often under- or overestimate the MDMA concentrations or fail to detect dangerous additional substances \cite{vrolijk_2017}. While this particular connection is already known to users and medical professionals, it illustrates a real-world trend reflected in aggregate patterns within Erowid Experience Reports.
In summary, our data reveals that the subjective outcomes of drug experiences, reported health problems and drug usage patterns are linked to specific substances. From a sociological perspective, this can help us better understand the motivations, expectations and usage patterns that drug consumers have with certain substances. From a medical perspective, these results reveal understudied patterns, such as the association between DXM and addiction, which may have clinical importance.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{category_drug_assoc.pdf}
\caption{Chi-square distances of drug-category pairs. Positive cell values (blue) represent a positive correlation and negative cell values (red) a negative correlation between the given drug and the given category. The colors and circle sizes are proportional to the chi-squared distance; for example, the Addiction/Meth. pair has a distance of 33, Combinations/Salvia Div. of -12 and Bad Trips/Cocaine of -3.
}
\label{fig:cat_drug_residuals}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Associations between Category and User Variables}
In this section, we analyze the associations between categories and user variables to find out whether characteristic drug experiences are linked to consumers' age and gender.
\subsubsection{Methods.}
To examine the relation between age and category, we selected all reports with age information given ($n=11,993$), assigned an age group to each report (`Under 18', `18-25', `26-40', `Over 40') and performed a chi-square test of independence. Furthermore, again using chi-square distance, we analyzed the relationship between gender and category on all reports where gender information was specified ($n=34,501$).
As there is a bias towards young, male users among Erowid contributors, the report numbers per group differ (`Under 18': 1,245, `18-25': 6,488, `26-40': 3,374, `Over 40': 886, Male: 2,9052, Female: 5,449). However, as the chi-square test compares the observed cell frequencies with the expected cell frequencies and the expected cell frequency is not below 5 in more than 20\% of cases, the differences in group size do not limit the significance of our results.
\subsubsection{Results.}
Figure \ref{fig:cat_agesex_residuals} shows the chi-square distance for each age-category pair. There was a significant relationship between age group and category ($\chi^2(45, N=20,758)=689, p<0.01$). The exact chi-square distances and contributions can be found in section C of the online appendix.\footnotemark[11
First, we find that \textit{older people share more long time experiences}. It is not surprising that people above 25 have positive correlations to `Retrospective/Summary' and `Preparation/Recipes' as well as a weak positive correlation to the category `Addiction/Habituation'. Due to a higher age they had more years in which they could have experienced drug consumption; therefore, they should be able to share more drug consumption insights and to write more retrospective reports than younger people. Furthermore, they have a higher probability of having experienced an addiction and are therefore more able to report about it.
Second, we find that \textit{older people report more about using drugs for medical purposes}. The two older groups showed positive correlations with `Medical Use', while the two younger groups showed negative correlations with it. One explanation for this is, that older people likely experience more medical issues than younger people. Another is, that they might be more motivated to contribute data about the medical use of certain substances (rather than writing entertaining stories of recreational use).
Third, we find that \textit{younger people report more about negative experiences}. The two younger groups showed positive correlations with `Bad Trips' and `Difficult Experiences', and people below 18 also had more reports in the category `Train Wrecks/Trip Disasters' than expected under an independence null hypothesis. There are several potential explanations for this: First, younger people may have less experience with taking psychoactive drugs than older drug consumers. Therefore, they probably know less about their own limits, may take higher doses than appropriate, have a lower tolerance to drugs, take these substances in less ideal settings, and are more likely to be overwhelmed by the pharmacological effects of drugs. In addition, younger people may have different motivations for (reporting) drug consumption than older people, and therefore choose a different kind of context, substance, and dosage, which may lead to a higher chance of having a negative experience.
Furthermore, there was a significant association between gender and category ($\chi^2(15, N=59,109)= 794, p<0.01 $). We find that \textit{females report more about using drugs for medical purposes, while at the same time report more about health problems and addiction in relation to drugs}. One possible explanation for this is that females may focus on the harm reduction approach and submit reports to warn others about the addictive potential and health consequences of (medical) substances. However, the percentage of females is lower in our data than in other studies; therefore, it is also possible that only a certain kind of female drug consumer, namely women interested in health related issues, report to Erowid. Another explanation could be that males and females might differ in their motivations for drug consumption, such that women more often take drugs for medical reasons or because of drug dependence. This is in line with existing research suggesting females report using psychoactive drugs to help with anxiety or to feel better more often than males \cite{kettner_2019}.
In summary, our data reveals gender and age play a significant role in the motivation for and interpretation of drug consumption. While younger people report more about negative drug experiences, older people and females report more about health related aspects like medical use and addiction.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{category_sex_age_assoc.pdf}
\caption{Chi-square distances of age group-category pairs and gender-category pairs. Legend and circle dimensions correspond to figure \ref{fig:cat_drug_residuals}.
}
\label{fig:cat_agesex_residuals}
\end{figure}
\section{Predictability of Drug Experience Outcome}
Drug use is a complex interplay of pharmacological and psychological processes. The substances consumed as well as the dosage, the consumers psychological and physical status, the location and many more factors may affect the outcome of a drug experience. While consumers may take precautions to increase their probability of having a positive drug experience and avoid having a negative experience or becoming addicted, their success seems to be unpredictable.
Surprisingly, we found regularities with all these different drug experiences: For example, LSD seems to be comparatively highly associated with negative drug experiences, while MDMA seems to be comparatively highly associated with positive ones. Furthermore, there are many variables, like dosages or settings, which we have not analyzed yet and which may reveal further patterns. Are these regularities strong enough to predict the outcome of a drug experience?
In this section we use information about the substances a user has consumed, the dosage amount, user demographics, context, and location during the experience to classify whether or not an experience will be 1) `glowing' (=positive), 2) `difficult' (=negative) and 3) related to addiction. The goal here is not `prediction' per se, but `predictability' \cite{martin2016}. In other words, we want to use predictive performance as a goodness-of-fit measure to see the maximum amount of variance an explanatory model might aspire to explain. This helps to gain deeper insights into the level of complexity drug use encompasses: If the outcomes are predictable, this would show that there are specific patterns leading to a positive, negative or addiction experience and that users therefore can influence the outcome of their drug experience by making specific choices about the substance and setting.
\subsection{Models}
\subsubsection{Labels.}
We created three classification tasks:
For the first task, we chose the variable `Glowing Experience' (0/1) as label. We treated this label as a marker for whether a report was about a positive experience, as this category had the highest average sentiment score. For the second task, we chose `Difficult Experiences' (0/1) as label. We treated this label as a marker for whether a report was about a rather negative experience, as this was one of the four most negative categories as evaluated by the sentiment analysis and had more than twice as many reports than the other three most negative categories. For the third task, we chose `Addiction/Habituation' (0/1) as label. While this category is not the same as a clinical diagnosis of addiction, exploring this label provides valuable information about experiences that domain experts classify as being about dependency issues.
\subsubsection{Data.}
For each classification task, we excluded all reports which were not about at least one of the top ten substances or which had no consumer weight or gender information included. For the experience tasks, we excluded all reports which were about one of the top ten drugs, but had no information about the dosage of this drug. This drastically decreased the dataset. Table \ref{table:feats} shows the dataset sizes for all models. The datasets were moderately unbalanced for the experience tasks (1=19\%,0=81\%) and highly unbalanced for the addiction model (1=5\%, 0=95\%).
\begin{table*}[ht]
\footnotesize
\center
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.5cm}|p{4.5cm}|p{4.5cm}|p{4.5cm}|}
\hline
Label & Glowing or Not & Difficult or Not & Addiction or Not \\
\hline
Dataset &
7,414 Reports \newline (1=19\%,0=81\%) &
7,414 Reports \newline (1=19\%, 0=81\%) &
14,113 Reports \newline (1=5\%, 0=95\%) \\
\hline
Features&
- Drugs \& drug combinations (142)\newline
- Context/location (9)\newline
- Author gender (1)\newline
- Author weight (1)\newline
- Drug dosages (10) &
- Drugs \& drug combinations (142)\newline
- Context/location (9)\newline
- Author gender (1)\newline
- Author Weight (1)\newline
- Drug dosages (10) &
- Drugs \& drug combinations (142)\newline
- Context/location (9)\newline
- Author gender (1)\newline
- Author Weight (1) \\
\hline
Feat. Sel. Model&
Lasso ($\alpha$=0.001)&
Lasso ($\alpha$=0.991)&
Lasso ($\alpha$=0.001)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Size of dataset, with balance of positive and negative reports in parentheses, features and feature selection model for the three classification tasks.}
\label{table:feats}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\center
\begin{tabular}{|C{1.4cm}|C{1.83cm}|C{1.83cm}|C{1.83cm}|C{1.83cm}|C{1.83cm}|C{1.83cm}|C{1.83cm}|}
\hline
Model &
\makecell{ Majority \\ Vote} &
\makecell{ Random \\ Forest} &
\makecell{ Logistic \\ Regression} &
\makecell{ Linear Disc. \\ Analysis} &
\makecell{ K-Neighbors\\ Classifier} &
\makecell{ Decision\\ Tree} &
\makecell{ Gaussian\\ NB} \\
\hline
\makecell{Glowing \\ or Not} &
\makecell{0.0 \\ (0.81, 0.0)} &
\makecell{0.38 \\ (0.76, 0.156)} &
\makecell{0.13 \\ (0.81, 0.017)} &
\makecell{\textbf{0.31} \\ \textbf{(0.81, 0.101)}} &
\makecell{0.28 \\ (0.76, 0.087)} &
\makecell{0.38 \\ (0.74, 0.16)} &
\makecell{0.38 \\ (0.31, 0.885)} \\
\hline
\makecell{Difficult \\ or Not} &
\makecell{0.0 \\ (0.81, 0.0)} &
\makecell{\textbf{0.06} \\ \textbf{(0.81, 0.004)}} &
\makecell{0.0 \\ (0.81, 0.0)} &
\makecell{\textbf{0.06} \\ \textbf{(0.81, 0.004)}} &
\makecell{0.0 \\ (0.81, 0.0)} &
\makecell{0.0 \\ (0.81, 0.0)} &
\makecell{0.18 \\ (0.8, 0.033)} \\
\hline
\makecell{Addiction \\ or Not} &
\makecell{0.0 \\ (0.95, 0.0)} &
\makecell{0.41 \\ (0.94, 0.174)} &
\makecell{0.19 \\ (0.95, 0.038)} &
\makecell{0.7 \\ (0.93, 0.515)} &
\makecell{0.32 \\ (0.93, 0.106)} &
\makecell{\textbf{0.37} \\ \textbf{(0.95, 0.136)}} &
\makecell{0.7 \\ (0.55, 0.917)} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{GMean for each classification task and model, with accuracy and sensitivity in parentheses. The best performing model (highest GMean with same accuracy as majority vote model) for each classification task is bolded.}
\label{table:class_results}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Features and Feature Selection.}
Table \ref{table:feats} shows the feature sets we used for each model. The construction of each feature is described in section \ref{section:data_clean}. As described in section \ref{section:cat_des}, reports about addiction were often written as summaries of a longer time period and therefore included no dosage information. Consequently, we did not include dosage amount as a feature for the addiction model.
From these sets of features, we chose all variables which had the strongest relationship with the target variable using Lasso regression. For each model, we split the dataset into a training set and a test set with a ratio of 4:1. We then assessed the optimal regularization parameter $\alpha$ for the lasso regression using Pythons LassoCV\footnote{\label{foot:scikit}https://scikit-learn.org/stable/} on the training set. We chose 10-fold cross validation with $\alpha$ values from 0.001 to 10 with a 0.01 step size. We then included Lasso regression with the particular alpha as a feature selection part in a scikit pipeline.\footnotemark[14] The selected alpha values are shown in table \ref{table:feats}; the resulting features for each model can be found in section D in the online appendix.\footnotemark[11
\subsubsection{Classifiers.}
We used six different linear and nonlinear classifiers: A random forest; logistic regression, with `liblinear' as a solver; Linear Discriminant Analysis; $k$-nearest-neighbors; scikit's decision tree, an optimized classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm; and a Gaussian Naive Bayes.\footnotemark[14]
Each model was included as a classifier in a scikitlearn pipeline as second element after the feature selection part, and evaluated using the standard parameters given in scikit-learn (version 0.23.2).\footnotemark[14]
\subsection{Model Evaluation}
We compared each model to the majority vote model. As the datasets were highly imbalanced, accuracy alone would be not informative for assessing the models performance. Therefore, we used the Geometric Mean (GMean), which is defined as $\sqrt{sensitvity*specitivity}$. The GMean is low, when either the prediction performance for the majority class or the prediction performance for the minority class (or both) is low. We were searching for a model, which would at least preserve the accuracy of the majority vote model, but had a better performance regarding the GMean.
\subsection{Results}
Table \ref{table:class_results} presents the GMean, as well as the accuracy and sensitivity for each classification task and model.
We find that given our data and models \textit{the outcome of a drug experience is not predictable}. For each classification task, the best performing model reached a GMean less than 0.5. These low GMean values were caused by a low sensitivity: Only 10\% of reports, which were about a `glowing' experience, could be detect as such by our model. The same held for difficult experiences (sensitivity of 0.4\%) and addiction experiences (sensitivity of 14\%).
The results indicate that the relationship between drug consumption and subjective outcome is highly complex and has a low degree of predictability. Hence consumers cannot simply choose a specific drug, dosage and setting, in order to ensure a positive experience and to prevent a difficult or addiction experience. These findings emphasize the danger in drug consumption: We have seen that specific drug experiences are associated with the drugs themselves, age groups and gender. Consumers can therefore assess their vulnerability and even influence their probability of having a specific experience by choosing a particular drug. But in the end, the outcome of drug consumption is still somewhat unpredictable and therefore remains a risk.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
The Erowid Experience Report collection gave us the unique possibility to get a consumer perspective on drug consumption. We have shown that this data can reveal valuable information about the relationship between drug consumption variables and the characteristics of a drug experience.
Our research shed light on the subjective evaluation of drug experiences. We found that negative drug experiences are more prevalent for younger people and LSD users, while positive experiences occur more often with MDMA or first time consumption. Moreover, we gained deeper insights into health consequences of drug use: We found that reported health problems and addiction are linked to specific substances and that females report more often about these topics. Finally, our research highlighted the risk of drug consumption: Even when consumers could control the substance, dosage and situational factors, it is unpredictable, whether their experience will be joyful, difficult or associated with addiction.
\subsection{Limitations}
Although subjective experience reports can reveal fascinating patterns, they should be analyzed with care. First, we do not know how the sample of drug consumers, whose experiences are published on Erowid, compares to larger populations of drug consumers. As we have shown, a higher percentage of Erowid contributors are male and focus more on psychedelic drugs than drug consumers identified by national studies. They are also likely more engaged in systematic exploration with and reflection on psychoactive substances. In addition, there might be a selection bias in the data, e.g. as reviewers might favour reports about unusual substances, and/or a reporting bias, e.g. as contributors may only write about topics, substances and effects which they define as interesting.
Second, our synthesized metadata may contain errors, especially the drug dosages. Standardizing drug dosages is a challenging task which requires extensive domain knowledge. Even if users reported dosages in standardized ways, it remains unclear whether this information is correct, as users are not always aware of the specific content and composition of the substance consumed. For example, Vrolijk et. al (\citeyear{vrolijk_2017}) compared user-generated online information on ecstasy tablets to information from the validated Dutch Drugs Information and Monitoring System (DIMS) Database, and found that users tend to overestimate MDMA concentration and, in 15.3\% of cases, provided dangerously wrong information. The existence of the `What was in that?' category confirms information gaps among Erowid users as well.
Third, the prediction results are bound to the data, classifiers and parameters used. Although we tried a wide range of models, further research may find others which reveal better results and may show other factors, with which consumers could control the outcome of their drug experience.
Fourth, it should be emphasized that Erowid has collected Experience Reports for more than 25 years and even extracted some older reports from books and journals, dating back as early as 1848. Over this time span the substance availability, drug composition and drug consumption patterns have certainly changed, which may impact our results. Further research could study temporal trends on Erowid to gain more information on the history of drug consumption.
\subsection{Implications and Future Work}
\label{section:impl}
The increasing complexity of the world's drug landscape has brought new challenges for drug consumers, medical personnel, social workers, institutions and researchers \cite{arillotta_2020,dagnone_2015,schifano_2020}. Quantitatively analyzing experience reports can help to shed light on drug-category associations, which need to be more in the focus of research. In our study for example, we found a positive association between `Addiction/Habituation' and dextromethorphan (DXM), a substance which is legally available over-the-counter in the United States.\footnote{\label{drugchart}https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/commonly-used-drugs-charts} While the withdrawal symptoms of DXM are largely unknown,\footnotemark[15] there have been sporadic clinical reports about patients suffering from DXM dependence \cite{miller_2005,mutschler_2010}. Further research could investigate more deeply the relationships we have found, for example by manually inspecting the reports and conducting psychopharmacological studies. Moreover, the chi-square approach we used in this paper can be applied to other substances and topics, and help to generate new hypotheses for research.
In addition, studying Erowid Experience Reports can help to obtain a deeper sociological understanding of drug use. Our results indicate age and gender play a significant role in the motivation for and interpretation of drug consumption. This should allow further research to investigate whether there are also demographic differences in the choices drug consumers make, for example regarding the strength of drug dosages or the setting for drug consumption.
Finally, Erowid's labeling and categorization process allows the analysis of a great variety of topics, which were beyond the scope of this paper.
Many of the categories described, such as `Families' or `Mystical Experiences', show a great potential for further research, as they can provide new insights into how people experience drug consumption.
\fontsize{9.0pt}{10.0pt} \selectfont
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
Liquid crystals (LCs) are a state of matter that is intermediate between liquids and crystals as they manifest partial orientational and/or translational order \cite{Stephen_1974,deGennes_1995,Singh_2000,Priestly_2012,Andrienko_2018}.
The LC {\it mesophases} emerge in response to changes in temperature or concentration. {\it Thermotropic} LCs are usually pure compounds of anisotropic organic molecules which exhibit phase changes by variation of temperature. Depending on their structure, the molecular shape can be rod like (calamitic), disc like (discotic) or banana shaped (bent-core). {\it Lyotropic} LCs are often mixtures of mesogens in a solvent and exhibit phase changes as the concentration of one of the components is varied. Amongst these different types, calamitic LCs are the most well studied due to their simplicity and wide applicability. At high temperatures, they exhibit an {\it isotropic} (I) phase where the rod-shaped molecules are randomly oriented. At low temperatures, the molecules align statistically parallel along a locally preferred axis to yield the {\it nematic} (Nm) phase with purely orientational order. This I-Nm phase transition is first order. If the Nm phase is {\it uniaxial}, it is described by a sign-invariant unit vector known as the {\it director} $\boldsymbol{n}$.
As the temperature is further reduced, some LCs exhibit another transition to the smectic (Sm) phase characterized by partial translational order due to emergence of stacks of layers in addition to the lamellar order along $\boldsymbol{n}$. \textcolor{black}{The Sm nomenclature depends on the ordering in the layers. In the smectic A (SmA) phase, the layers are fluid-like. SmB has local order in the layers: e.g., SmB-H has a six-fold or {\it hexatic} bond-orientational-order (BOO) within the layers and SmB-C has long-ranged translational or {\it crystalline} order in the layers. These smectic phases have been observed experimentally in various LC compounds, either singly or together \cite{Pindak_1979,Goodby_1981,Pindak_1981,Davey_1984,Voronov_2020}. Depending on the coupling between the Nm and the Sm order parameters, the Nm-Sm transitions could be either first order or second order \cite{McMillan_1971,Kralj_2007}.} Several commercially used LCs such as the n-alkyl cyanobiphenyl (nCB) compounds indeed exhibit these twin transitions for $\text{n} \geq 8$, as revealed by light scattering and differential scanning calorimetry experiments \cite{Coles_1979,Chaban_2020}.
LCs are an important topic of research not only because of their enormous variety of applications, but also because they provide a platform for addressing a variety of fundamental problems in physics. The Nm phase is extensively used in liquid crystal displays, and the search for newer LCs with improved sensitivity and stability remains an ongoing activity \cite{Chen_2018}. The SmA mesophase provides a general template for {\it striped} systems such as biological membranes and flexible polymer crystallization \cite{Li_2003}. It also shares symmetries with certain types of self-assembled block copolymer films which have applications in photolithography \cite{Harrison_2000,Harrison_2002,Ruiz_2007,Stoykovich_2007}. \textcolor{black}{In recent years, there has been considerable interest in the study of the {\it hexatic} phase which was first predicted as an intermediate state between a crystal and a liquid in the theory of two-dimensional ($2d$) melting \cite{Halperin_1978}. The SmB-H phase provides the 3$d$ analog for the 2$d$ hexatic phase \cite{Davey_1984,Voronov_2020}} Furthermore, LCs are experimentally accessible continuous symmetry systems. They have provided the framework for development of the theory of topological defects \cite{Kleman_2008}. The latter are relevant for a wide range of fields encompassing condensed matter physics, cosmology and biology \cite{Chuang_1991,Pargellis_1991,Lavrentovich_2001,Wang_2016,Kim_2018,Sandford_2020}.
Experimental measurements to probe various equilibrium and non-equilibrium responses, especially in LC mesophases with lower symmetry, remain a challenge because length scales ($\sim$ nm) of morphologies and timescales ($\sim$ ns) of evolution are often too small to be accessible. Consequently, computer simulations have emerged as a powerful tool for these investigations. In this context, the most important ingredient is the {\it inter-particle potential} which takes into account the anisotropy in the shape of the LC molecules as well as the attractive forces between them. The form proposed by Gay and Berne in 1981, based on the Gaussian overlap model of Berne and Pechukas \cite{Pechukas_1972}, is one of the most popular pair potentials for anisotropic entities \cite{Gay_1981}. The Gay-Berne (GB) model takes into account the aspect ratio $\kappa$ of the mesogens and their energy anisotropy $\kappa^{\prime}$. The latter is defined as the ratio of the potential energies when a pair of mesogens are placed side-by-side (ss) and end-to-end (ee), see Fig.~\ref{figure_1}. Further, the model exhibits I, Nm and Sm phases, and the computed quantities agree well with the corresponding experimental measurements \cite{Luckhurst_1993,Berardi_1993,Bates_1999,Emerson_1994,Cacerez_2014}. The GB model has therefore become a prototype for investigations of LC systems \cite{Adams_1987,Luckhurst_1990,Miguel_1991,Hashim_1995,Satoh_1996,Penna_1996,Cleaver_1996,Neal_1997,Miguel_2002,Zannoni_2001,Haya_2007}.
Laboratory experiments generally require application of external fields that drive the system out-of-equilibrium. The system re-equilibrates, and the approach to equilibrium critically depends on the complexity of the free energy landscape. An important non-equilibrium study in this context is the kinetics of domain growth or {\it coarsening}, initiated by a sudden quench of the system from the disordered phase to the ordered phase \cite{Bray_2002,Puri_2004,Puri_2009}. The domains grow in size via annihilation of defects. The subsequent domain growth, characterized by a growing length scale $L(t)$, is monitored with time. The growth law depends upon several factors such as symmetry of the order parameter, conservation laws, hydrodynamics, etc. It also provides important insights on the barriers to coarsening and relaxation time-scales. Phase ordering in the $d=3$ Nm LCs is well studied using coarse-grained free energy models \cite{Bray_1993,Wickam_1997} and lattice models \cite{Blundell_1992,Zhang_1993_PRE,Bradac_2011,Birdi_2020}. The domain growth obeys the Lifshitz-Allen-Cahn (LAC) law, $L(t) \sim t^{1/2}$ \cite{Allen_1979}, with strings as the dominant defects. However, work in the context of this important non-equilibrium phenomenon for the smectic mesophases remains limited. There have been few experimental \cite{Harrison_2002} and computational \cite{Nasser_2008} studies on coarsening in the $d=2$ SmA phase. They indicated that the orientational correlation length obeys an unusual $L(t)\sim t^{1/4}$ law. Similar growth law, with speculations about logarithmic corrections, has been predicted for the $d=3$ SmA phase using coarse-grained free energy models \cite{Liarte_2015}. Surprisingly, none of these studies address the significant role of the energy anisotropy that is a key feature of calamitic LCs.
Motivated to augment the above studies, we undertake large-scale simulations of the $d=3$ GB model to understand the consequences of the energy anisotropy on equilibrium and non-equilibrium properties. There are two significant aspects of our study. Firstly, using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, we identify the phase transition temperatures $T_c^1$ (I$\rightarrow$Nm) and $T_c^2$ (Nm$\rightarrow$Sm) for a range of $\kappa^\prime$ values. These estimates equip us to perform temperature quenches in the Nm and Sm mesophases for the second part of our study. Subsequent to the quench, we study phase ordering kinetics via molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, which are better suited to monitor the systemic evolution as compared to MC simulations. The main results of our paper are as follows:\\
a) The Nm and Sm phases are observed for all values of $\kappa^\prime$. The Nm phase shrinks with increasing values of $\kappa^\prime$ due to a (substantial) decrease in $T_c^1$ and a (marginal) increase in $T_c^2$. \\
(b) When quenched from the I$\rightarrow$Nm phase, domains with orientational order or {\it nematicity} emerge and grow with time. The correlation function $C(r,t)$ vs. $r$ exhibits dynamical scaling indicating the presence of a unique length scale. The scaling function is {\it universal} for different values of $\kappa^\prime$. \\
(c) The tail of the structure factor obeys the generalized Porod law, $S(k,t)\sim k^{-5}$ indicating scattering off {\it string defects.} The growth law in the Nm phase is the usual LAC law, $L(t) \sim t^{1/2}$ characteristic of systems with non-conserved dynamics.\\
(d) {\color{black} For the quenches $T>T_c^1\rightarrow T<T_c^2$, we access the SmB-H phase. The coarsening in this phase is a two stage process: first there is emergence of nematicity, followed by the layering of mesogens or {\it smecticity} along with the development of hexatic order within the layers.} The latter is enhanced by increasing values of $\kappa^\prime$. \\
(e) The correlation function $C(r,t)$ exhibits dynamical scaling. However the scaling functions show small variations at short distances in the two regimes. These are reflected in the tails of the structure factor: $S(k,t)\sim k^{-5}$ (early time nematicity) indicating scattering off {\it strings}; $S(k,t)\sim k^{-4}$ (late time smecticity) implying scattering off {\it interfaces}. The mechanism of domain growth is thus distinct in the two regimes. The growth law exhibits a previously unreported {\it cross-over} from $t^{1/2}$ to $t^{1/4}$ as time evolves.\\
Our paper is organized as follows. Sec.~\ref{model} provides a detailed discussion of the Gay-Berne (GB) model. In Sec.~\ref{montecarlo}, we present the numerical details and results from our MC simulations for the equilibrium phase diagram of the system for a range of energy anisotropy values. Sec.~\ref{moleculardynamics} presents numerical details and results from our MD simulations for the phase ordering kinetics of the system. The various tools for analyzing the coarsening morphologies are also discussed. In Sec.~\ref{summary}, we conclude with a summary and discussion of our results.
\section{Gay-Berne Model}
\label{model}
The Gay-Berne (GB) model is specially developed to mimic the interactions between ellipsoidal LC molecules, which are of equal size \cite{Gay_1981}. Besides Lennard-Jones (LJ) potential with attractive and repulsive parts which decrease with the intermolecular separation $r$ as $r^{-6}$ and ${r^{-12}}$ respectively, the GB potential includes terms with additional dependence on the orientations of the LC molecules. The potential is anisotropic, and can model the orientational order observed in systems with anisotropic constituents.
Let us consider two uniaxial LC molecules $i$ and $j$, with orientations defined by the unit vectors ${\boldsymbol{u}_i}$ and ${\boldsymbol{u}_j}$, and centers separated by ${\boldsymbol{r}}$. The GB potential for this prototypical pair is defined by \cite{Gay_1981}:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_1}
E_{ij}({\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{u}_j,\boldsymbol{r}}) = 4\epsilon({\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{u}_j,\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}}) \left\{\left[\frac{\sigma_0}{r-\sigma({\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{u}_j,\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}})+\sigma_0}\right]^{12} - \left[\frac{\sigma_0}{r-\sigma({\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{u}_j,\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}})+\sigma_0}\right]^6\right\},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_0$ scales the distance and ${\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}}$ is the unit vector along ${\boldsymbol{r}}$. The other terms in Eq.~(\ref{equation_1}) are as follows:\\
(a) The orientation-dependent range parameter $\sigma({\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{u}_j,\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}})$ contains information about the shape of the LC molecules and is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_2}
\sigma({\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{u}_j,\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}}) = \sigma_0\left\{ 1 - \frac{\chi}{2} \left[ \frac{({\boldsymbol{u}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}+\boldsymbol{u}_j\cdot\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}})^2}{1+\chi({\boldsymbol{u}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_j})}+\frac{({\boldsymbol {u}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}-\boldsymbol{u}_j\cdot\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}})^2}{1-\chi({\boldsymbol{u}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_j})}\right]\right\}^{-1/2} .
\end{equation}
The shape anisotropy parameter $\chi$ determines the system's capability to form an orientationally ordered phase and is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_3}
\chi = \frac{\kappa^2-1}{\kappa^2+1},
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is the aspect ratio of the LC molecules. If $\sigma_e$ and $\sigma_s$ are the length and breadth of the molecule, then $\kappa\equiv\sigma_e/\sigma_s$. More precisely, $\sigma_e$ and $\sigma_s$ are the contact distances or intermolecular separations at which the attractive and the repulsive terms in the potential cancel out each other when the LC molecules are in the end-to-end (ee) and the side-by-side (ss) configurations.\\
(b) The energy term $\epsilon({\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{u}_j,\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}})$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_4}
\epsilon({\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{u}_j,\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}}) = \epsilon_0\epsilon_1^{\mu}\epsilon_2^{\nu},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_0$ scales the energy. The parameters $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ are defined follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{equation_5}
\epsilon_1 &=& 1 - \frac{\chi^\prime}{2} \left\{ \frac{({\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_i+\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_j})^2}{1+\chi^\prime({\boldsymbol{u}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_j})}+\frac{({\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}.\boldsymbol{u}_i-\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_j})^2}{1-\chi^\prime({\boldsymbol{u}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_j})}\right\},\\
\label{equation_6}
\epsilon_2 &=& \left[1-\chi^2\left({\boldsymbol{u}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_j}\right)^2\right]^{-1/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The energy anisotropy parameter $\chi^\prime$, analogous to Eq.~(\ref{equation_3}), is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_7}
\chi^\prime = \frac{\kappa^{\prime1/\mu}-1}{\kappa^{\prime1/\mu}+1},
\end{equation}
where $\kappa^{\prime}$ is the energy anisotropy which if greater than 1 promotes orientational order characteristic of LCs. If $\epsilon_e$ and $\epsilon_s$ are the well depths for the ee and the ss configurations, $\kappa^{\prime}\equiv\epsilon_s/\epsilon_e$. The parameters $\mu$ and $\nu$ modify the well depths of the potential, and hence their impact on the nematicity and smecticity is very subtle. For instance in the ee configuration, $\kappa=3.0$ and $\kappa^\prime=5.0$ yields $\epsilon/\epsilon_0=1/3$ for $\mu=2$, $\nu=1$, and 25/27 for $\mu=1$, $\nu=3$. Similarly in the ss configuration, $\epsilon/\epsilon_0=5/3$ for $\mu=2$, $\nu=1$, and 125/27 for $\mu=1$, $\nu=3$. Fig.~\ref{figure_1} shows variation of the GB potential $E_{ij}/\epsilon_0$ vs. $r_{ij}/\sigma_0$ in the ee configuration for different values of (a) the energy anisotropy $\kappa^\prime$ and (b) the exponents $\mu$, $\nu$. The corresponding variation in the ss configuration is shown in the insets. From the inset of Fig.~\ref{figure_1}(a), it is clear that the ss configuration is energetically favorable for all values of $\kappa^\prime$ {\color{black}(the curves for different values of $\kappa^\prime$ are coincident as the energy in the ss configuration depends only on $\kappa$ and $\nu$).}
Summing up, the GB model contains four essential parameters: $\kappa$, $\kappa^\prime$, $\mu$ and $\nu$. Clearly, there is a large variety of GB homologues which differ from each other in terms of the values chosen for the four parameters \textcolor{black}{\cite{Gay_1981,Berardi_1993,Bates_1999,Zannoni_2001}}. A frequently employed choice of GB parameters is $\kappa=3$, $\kappa^\prime=5$, $\mu=1$ and $\nu=3$ due to Berardi {\it et al.} \cite{Berardi_1993}. The choice of $\kappa=3.0$ is elementary as for real LC systems, the length-to-breadth ratio of the constituent molecules must be equal to or greater than about 3:1. The parameters used by Berardi {\it et al.} have two important features. Firstly, they provides diverse phases, {\it viz.} isotropic, nematic and smectic. \textcolor{black}{The nematic phase is observed over a wide range of temperatures unlike the narrow region observed with the original GB parameterization: $\kappa=3$, $\kappa^\prime=5$, $\mu=2$ and $\nu=1$ \cite{Gay_1981}.} Secondly, the simulation results exhibit convergence with experiments. For instance, the computed temperature variation of the orientational order parameter is in agreement with the experimental data in many real systems \cite{Berardi_1993}. Consequently, the parameters $\kappa=3$, $\kappa^\prime=5$, $\mu=1$ and $\nu=3$ are frequently chosen for simulations of the GB model. \textcolor{black}{We use this set of values in our present work and plan to do a comparative study with other choices of parameters at a later stage.}
\section{Equilibrium studies using Monte Carlo simulations}
\label{montecarlo}
\subsection{Simulation Details}
Prior to investigating the phase ordering kinetics, we first visit the problem of equilibrium phase transitions in the GB model to precisely identify the quench temperatures for the Nm and the Sm regimes. To sample the available phase space, MC simulations are performed in the canonical ($NVT$) ensemble. We use the simulation program DL\_MONTE \cite{Purton_2013,Brukhno_2019} for this purpose. DL\_MONTE is a general-purpose MC program which supports a wide range of MC simulation techniques and interatomic potentials. However, prior to this work it was not applicable to particles with implicit orientations and anisotropic interaction potentials, for instance the GB particles. Our work is a step in that direction since it involved extending DL\_MONTE to make it suitable for such systems. The latest version of DL\_MONTE which includes our improvements is available at \cite{DL_Monte}. This code is a beneficial resource for the research community to study uniaxial GB systems with a number of MC simulation techniques, including grand-canonical and constant-$NPT$ ensembles \cite{Frenkel_2002}. In this work, we only present results using MC in the $NVT$ ensemble. Our DL\_MONTE input files with all the necessary commands, parameters and comments are provided in the Supplementary Material for interested readers together with further details regarding the improvements we have made to DL\_MONTE to treat
the GB and similar models.
We consider a system of $N$ ellipsoidal particles interacting via the GB potential specified in Eq.~(\ref{equation_1}) and use $\kappa=3.0$, $\kappa^{\prime}=5.0$, $\mu=1.0$ and $\nu=3.0$ unless specified. It is convenient to define scaled variables $E^\ast=E/\epsilon_0= \sum_{i,j;i<j}^N (E_{ij}/\epsilon_0$), $E_1^\ast = E^\ast/N$, $T^\ast=k_BT/\epsilon_0$, $r^\ast=r/\sigma_0$ and $\rho^\ast=N\sigma_0^3/V$. Simulations have been performed on cubic lattices with $N=512$ and $1000$ particles using periodic boundary conditions and $\rho^\ast$ is set to 0.30. The initial configuration is a perfectly aligned state. The MC moves are performed according to the Metropolis algorithm \cite{Frenkel_2002}. In these moves, a randomly selected LC molecule is either translated or rotated with translations and rotations attempted in each move with equal probability. The maximum angle to rotate an LC molecule is kept as $15^\circ$. In order to compute the energy efficiently, a spherical cutoff of $r_c=4.0\sigma_0$ is employed in conjunction with the Verlet neighbor list scheme \cite{Frenkel_2002}. The simulations are performed for $10^6$ MC cycles (one MC cycle corresponds to $N$ MC moves). The initial $5\times10^5$ cycles are necessary for equilibration. The remaining $5\times10^5$ cycles are used for thermal (block) averaging of various thermodynamic quantities of interest and the ensemble averaging is performed over 500 configurations.
\subsection{Phase Diagram}
The GB phase diagram is obtained by studying the average energy per particle $\langle E_1^\ast \rangle$ vs. $T^\ast$ for values of the energy anisotropy $\kappa^\prime$ = 1.25, 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 and 20.0. For each value, the transition temperatures $T_c^1$ (I$\rightarrow$Nm transition) and $T_c^2$ (Nm$\rightarrow$Sm transition) are identified from the discontinuity in $\langle E_1^\ast\rangle$. It is pertinent to point out here that for our coarsening experiments, we only need approximate boundaries as we consider the quenches far away from these. The I and Nm phases are confirmed by evaluation of the orientational order parameter, $\mathcal{S}$ given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_8}
\mathcal{S} = \langle P_2\left(\cos\theta_{i}\right)\rangle = \left\langle \frac{3\cos^2\theta_{i}-1}{2}\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\cos\theta_i = \boldsymbol{u}_i\cdot \boldsymbol{n}$ and the angular brackets $\langle\cdot\cdot\cdot\rangle$ indicate an ensemble average. $\mathcal{S}=0$ in the I phase, while $\mathcal{S}=1$ in the perfectly aligned Nm phase. \textcolor{black}{The defects correspond to regions with $\mathcal{S} \simeq 0$, even if the defect cores are biaxial \cite{Pelcovits_2006}.}
\textcolor{black}{The smectic (layered) phases can be distinguished from the I and Nm phases by evaluating the translational order parameter \cite{Bates_1999}:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_9}
\mathcal{T}=\lvert\langle\tau(\boldsymbol{r_i})\rangle\rvert=\lvert\left\langle\exp(2i\pi\boldsymbol{r_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{n}/d_l)\right\rangle\rvert,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{r_i}$ is the position vector of the LC molecule $i$ and $d_l$ is the layer spacing. In simulations, $\mathcal{T}$ is determined by first separately performing the ensemble averaging of the real and imaginary terms: $\cos(2i\pi\boldsymbol{r_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{n}/d_l)$ and $\sin(2i\pi\boldsymbol{r_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{n}/d_l)$, followed by calculation of the modulus for the ensemble average and further maximizing it with respect to $d_l$ \cite{Bates_1999}. In the I phase, $\mathcal{T}$ $\rightarrow$ 0 as the layers are not well defined. On the other hand, $\mathcal{T}$ $\rightarrow$ 1 in a perfectly layered structure.}
\textcolor{black}{A clear distinction between the SmA and SmB phases can be made by evaluating the hexatic bond-orientational order parameter given by \cite{Bates_1999}:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_10}
\mathcal{C}_6=\lvert\langle\psi_6(\boldsymbol{r_i})\rangle\rvert=\left\lvert\left\langle\left(\frac{\sum_kw(r_{ik}^\ast)\exp(6i\phi_{ik}))}{\sum_kw(r_{ik}^\ast)}\right)\right\rangle\right\rvert,
\end{equation}
where the summation is over the nearest neighbours (nn) $k$ of the LC molecule $i$, $\phi_{ik}$ is the angle between the vector ($\boldsymbol{r_i}-\boldsymbol{r_k}$) projected onto the plane normal to the director and a fixed reference axis ($x$ axis say) and $w(r_{ik}^\ast)$ is a cutoff function to select the nn for evaluation of $\psi_6(\boldsymbol{r_i})$. (Like $\mathcal{T}$, for $\mathcal{C}_6$ also first the ensemble averaging is done separately for the real and imaginary terms followed by calculation of the modulus for the average.) It is important to use the cutoff function as the number of nn might not be 6 and could be 7, 5 or 4 when the local translational order is imperfect. In our work, we used the procedure in reference \cite{Bates_1999} to evaluate this cutoff function: $w(r_{ik}^\ast)$ is unity for $r_{ik}^\ast$ below 1.4, zero for $r_{ik}^\ast$ above 1.8 and with a linear interpolation in between these two extremes. If there is hexatic order, $\mathcal{C}_6$ has an appreciable non-zero value and also the ensemble average for the cutoff function, $\left \langle w(r_{ik}^\ast) \right \rangle \rightarrow 6$. In it's absence, $\mathcal{C}_6$ vanishes and $\left \langle w(r_{ik}^\ast) \right \rangle < 6$.}
The radial distribution function $g(r)$ is routinely obtained in scattering experiments, and measures the probability of finding two molecules separated by distance $r$ relative to that in an ideal gas \cite{Frenkel_2002}. It is a useful tool to distinguish between the local order in the \textcolor{black}{different phases \cite{Bates_1999}, and is given by:}
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_11}
g(r^\ast) = \frac{\langle \overline{\rho(r^\ast)}\rangle}{\rho_0},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_0=N/V$ is the density of the ideal gas and $\overline{\rho(r^\ast)}$ is the average density of the system around $r^\ast$. The numerical evaluation is facilitated by the following formula \cite{Frenkel_2002,Billeter_1998}:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_12}
g(r^\ast)=\frac{1}{N\rho_0}\bigg\langle\sum_{\stackrel{i,j}{i\neq j}}^N\frac{\delta(r^\ast-r_{ij}^\ast)}{(4/3)\pi[(r^\ast+\Delta r^\ast)^3-(r^\ast)^3]}\bigg\rangle.
\end{equation}
The $\delta$ function is unity if $r_{ij}^\ast$ falls within the shell centered on $r^\ast$ and is zero otherwise. The division by $N$ is done to normalize $g(r^\ast)$ to a per-molecule function. By construction, $g(r^\ast)=1$ for an ideal gas and any deviation implies correlations between the particles due to the intermolecular interactions. In the Nm phase, it has a noticeable maximum for small-$r^\ast$ and is 1 for large-$r^\ast$ indicating short-range order. \textcolor{black}{In the SmA phase, $g(r^\ast)$ exhibits a large nn peak and small oscillations thereafter with periodicity $\sim d_l$ due to the layering. In the SmB-H phase on the other hand, $g(r^\ast)$ shows an oscillatory behaviour with many sharp peaks separated by $r^*\simeq 1$ and a split-peak at $r^*\simeq 2$ characteristic of {\it hexatic} order within the layers. In the case of SmB-C order, the peak intensities do not decay till large distances.}
We now proceed to evaluate the phase diagram in $(T^\ast,\kappa^\prime)$-space for $\kappa^\prime$ = 1.25, 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 and 20.0. In Fig.~\ref{figure_2}(a), we show the variation of the per-particle equilibrium energy $\langle E_1^\ast\rangle$ vs. $T^\ast$ for $N=512$ (open up triangles) and $N=1000$ (open down triangles) at $\kappa^\prime=5.0$. (For brevity, we do not show the data sets for other values of $\kappa^\prime$.) The angular brackets indicate thermal averages. The simulation data coincide, indicating that the average energies are independent of the system size. We also plot the corresponding benchmarking results of Berardi {\it et al.} for $N=512$ (white circles) and $N=1000$ during heating (white up triangles) and cooling (white down triangles) protocols \cite{Berardi_1993}. There is an excellent agreement with our simulation results obtained using DL\_MONTE, even though the initial conditions in the two sets of simulation experiments are quite distinct. Furthermore, the effects of system size on the average energy are negligible (except near the transition in some cases). The left and right edges of the Nm region (in green) provide the scaled transition temperatures $T^{\ast 2}_c$ and $T^{\ast 1}_c$ as indicated. Both the transitions are discontinuous (first-order).
\textcolor{black}{To confirm the phase corresponding to each data point, we have also evaluated for the $N=1000$ system, the temperature variation of the average order parameters $\langle \mathcal{S}\rangle$, $\langle \mathcal{T}\rangle$ and $\langle \mathcal{C}_6\rangle$, or $g(r^\ast)$ vs. $r^\ast$ as appropriate. Fig.~\ref{figure_2}(b) shows the typical behaviour of the order parameters in various phases. Note the rise in $\langle \mathcal{S}\rangle$ as the temperature crosses $T^{\ast 1}_{c}$ from above, indicating the onset of nematic order. Similarly, note the rise in translational order parameter $\langle \mathcal{T}\rangle$ as the temperature crosses $T^{\ast 2}_{c}$ indicating the development of SmA order (while evaluating $\mathcal{T}$, we have observed that the layer spacing $d_l$ which maximizes $\mathcal{T}$ is less than the aspect-ratio $\kappa=3.0$ due to interdigitation of the layers \cite{Bates_1999}). At slightly lower values of $T$, the hexatic order parameter $\langle \mathcal{C}_6\rangle$ becomes significant suggesting that the phase is SmB-H.
Accurate determination of the phase boundaries will require careful evaluations. We refrain from going in this direction as the focus of the present study is on coarsening and approximate phase boundaries are sufficient for this purpose. (We wish to mention here that though the equilibrated configurations, their energies in various phases and the order parameter $\langle \mathcal{S}\rangle$ were obtained using DL\_MONTE, the codes for evaluation of the order parameters $\mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{C}_6$ were written separately.)}
\textcolor{black}{To evaluate $g(r^\ast)$, we have used a set of $745$ bins with a separation cut-off of $r^\ast=7.45$} which yields $\Delta r^\ast=0.01$ (see Supplementary Material for details regarding specification of parameters for DL\_MONTE). Fig.~\ref{figure_2}(c) shows the $g(r^\ast)$ vs. $r^\ast$ behaviour for the \textcolor{black}{Nm phase (green line, $T^\ast=2.5$) and the Sm phase (blue line, $T^\ast=1.0$). It is characterized by multiple sharp peaks with a split peak at $r^\ast\simeq2$, characteristic of the SmB-H order. Further, it can be seen that $g(r^\ast)$ decays as $r^\ast$ increases, implying that the translational order is lost at larger distances and hence the SmB phase is not of crystal type.}
Fig.~\ref{figure_2}(d) depicts the variation of $T^{\ast 1}_c$ (white up triangles) and $T^{\ast 2}_c$ (white down triangles) for a range of $\kappa^\prime$ values. To be noted here is that $T^{\ast 1}_c$ decreases considerably with increasing $\kappa^\prime$ thereby shrinking the Nm phase. On the other hand, $T^{\ast 2}_c$ increases only slightly. \textcolor{black}{With the original GB parameterization, de Miguel {\it et al.} also reported similar observations \cite{Miguel_1996}.}
\section{Kinetic properties from Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
\label{moleculardynamics}
\subsection{Methodology}
\label{methodology}
We now turn to a study of domain growth kinetics in the $d=3$ GB model via MD simulations. To the best of our knowledge, they have not been addressed. There have been some coarsening studies for the Nm phase of the GB model in $d=3$. A relevant contribution in this context is by Billeter {\it et al.} \cite{Billeter_1999}. They observed the usual defect structures (e.g. disclinations and monopoles), but could not extract a reliable growth law due to the small system size considered ($\sim$60000 particles). Using large systems ($\sim$260000 particles), we perform deep quenches from the I phase to the Nm and the \textcolor{black}{Sm} phases [shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_2}(d)] and allow the system to evolve for long times. Our main interest is to determine the novel defects and growth laws in the \textcolor{black}{Sm} phase, and the impact of the energy anisotropy $\kappa^\prime$ on ordering. We also undertake analogous studies for the Nm phase to complement previous works \cite{Billeter_1999}.
All our MD simulations have been performed in the $NVT$ ensemble using the LAMMPS software package \cite{Plimpton_1995,Lammps}. The details regarding implementation of the model into LAMMPS \footnote{Note that LAMMPS technically implements the generalized Gay-Berne model \cite{Berardi_1995} in which interactions of the ellipsoidal particles are characterized via a (diagonal) shape matrix $S=$ diag($\sigma_a,\sigma_b,\sigma_c$) and a (diagonal) energy matrix $E=$ diag($\epsilon_a,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c$), where $\sigma_a,\sigma_b,\sigma_c$ are the lengths and $\epsilon_a,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c$ are the relative well depths of interaction along the three semi-axes of an ellipsoid. The GB model discussed in Sec.~\ref{model} and employed in Sec.~\ref{montecarlo} was the potential originally presented for ellipsoidal particles of equal size. The generalized GB model was developed to represent dissimilar biaxial ellipsoids \cite{Berardi_1995}. It reduces to the GB model described in Sec.~\ref{model} when the molecules become uniaxial. Hence, for our study, we work with the generalized GB model in the uniaxial limit.} and also the analytical expressions for the forces and torques, have been described in \cite{Brown_2009}.
We consider $N=262144$ uniaxial ellipsoidal particles confined in a cubic box of linear size $L_s\sigma_0$ with periodic boundary conditions in all three coordinate directions. Hence the volume $V=$ ($L_s\sigma_0$)$^3$ = ($95.6033\sigma_0$)$^3$ such that $\rho^\ast\simeq 0.3$. The parameters in the GB potential of Eq.~(\ref{equation_1}) are those employed by Berardi {\it et al.} \cite{Berardi_1993}. We also study the effects of varying the energy anisotropy parameter $\kappa^\prime$. The MD runs are carried out using the standard velocity Verlet algorithm. In LAMMPS, the dimensionless MD time unit $t_0=\sqrt{m_0\sigma_0^2/\epsilon_0}=1.0$. We choose the reduced MD integration time step $\Delta t^\ast=\Delta t/t_0 = 0.001$. The temperature $T^\ast$ is controlled and maintained constant via the Nos\'e-Hoover thermostat, which is known to preserve hydrodynamics \cite{Frenkel_2002,Nose_1984,Binder_2004}. The homogeneous initial configurations are prepared by equilibrating the system at a high temperature ($T=6.0$) for about $10^5$ MD steps. To initiate the coarsening process ($t=0$), the system is quenched to the indicated temperatures in Fig.~\ref{figure_2}(b). The evolution of the system is then monitored. All statistical quantities of interest are averaged over $19$ independent initial conditions. Our input files and parameters used in LAMMPS are provided in the Supplementary Material.
\subsection{Characterization Tools}
\label{cztools}
For a translationally invariant system, the usual probe to characterize configurational morphologies is the equal-time correlation function \cite{Puri_2009}:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_13}
C(\vec{r},t)=\langle\psi(\vec{r_1},t)\psi(\vec{r_2},t)\rangle-\langle\psi(\vec{r_1},t)\rangle\langle\psi(\vec{r_2},t)\rangle ,
\end{equation}
where $\psi(\vec{r},t)$ is a suitable order parameter, $\vec{r}=\vec{r_2}-\vec{r_1}$ and $\langle \cdot\cdot\cdot \rangle$ represents the ensemble average. Small-angle scattering experiments yield the structure factor:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_14}
S(\vec{k},t) = \int d\vec{r}~e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{r}}~C(\vec{r},t),
\end{equation}
where $\vec{k}$ is the wave-vector of the scattered beam. A characteristic length scale $L(t)$ is usually defined as the distance at which $C(\vec{r},t)$ decays to, say, $0.2$ times its maximum value. If the domain growth is characterized by a unique length scale $L(t)$, then $C(\vec{r},t)$ and $S(\vec{k},t)$ show the dynamical scaling property \cite{Puri_2004,Puri_2009}: $C(\vec{r},t) = g(r/L)$; $S(\vec{k},t) = L^d f(kL)$. The asymptotic (large-$k$) tail of $S(\vec{k},t)$ contains information about the defects in the system. Continuous $O(n)$ spin models exhibit the {\it generalized Porod law}, with the asymptotic form: $S(k,t) \sim k^{-(d+n)}$ \cite{Porod_1982,Yono_1988,Bray_1991}. For $n=1$, the defects are interfaces, and the corresponding scattering function exhibits the usual {\it Porod law}: $S(k,t) \sim k^{-(d+1)}$. For $n>1$, the different topological defects are vortices ($n=2,\ d=2$), strings ($n=2,\ d=3$), and monopoles or hedgehogs ($n=3,\ d=3$). So in $d=3$, $S(k,t)\sim k^{-5}$ or $\sim k^{-6}$ depending on whether strings or monopoles dominate in the defect dynamics.
In LC mesophases such as the Sm phase, an appropriate measure of the orientational and translational order is provided by the longitudinal pair correlation function $g_{\parallel}(r_{\parallel})$ (parallel to the long axis of the LC molecules) and the transverse pair correlation function $g_{\perp}(r_\perp)$ (perpendicular to the long axis of the LC molecules) \cite{Richter_2006}. Evaluation of $g_{\parallel}(r_{\parallel})$ employs a cylindrical volume to probe the LC molecules aligned in the ee configuration and is given by \cite{Richter_2006,Guzman_2014}:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_15}
g_\parallel(r_\parallel)=\bigg\langle\sum_{i\neq j}^N\frac{\delta(r_\parallel-r_{ij,\parallel_i}) \theta(\sigma_0-r_{ij,\perp_i}) \theta(\sigma_0-r_{ij,\perp_j})}{N\rho^\ast\pi(\sigma_0/2)^2h}\bigg\rangle.
\end{equation}
The Heaviside step function $\theta(x)=1$ when $x\geq0$ and $\theta(x)=0$ otherwise, $\langle\cdot\rangle$ indicates an ensemble averaging over different initial (independent) conditions, $h$ is the cylinder height used to discretize the volume, $r_{ij,\parallel_i}=|\boldsymbol{r}_{ij,\parallel_i}|=|\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\cdot\boldsymbol{u}_i|$ is the center-of-mass separation along the director of molecule $i$ (the director for molecule $j$ of the pair could also be considered in this $\delta$-function evaluation as the value remains almost the same in the ee configuration).
$r_{ij,\perp_{i}}=|\boldsymbol{r}_{ij,\perp_{i}}|=|\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}-\boldsymbol{r}_{ij,\parallel_{i}}|$ and $r_{ij,\perp_{j}}=|\boldsymbol{r}_{ij,\perp_{j}}|=|\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}-\boldsymbol{r}_{ij,\parallel_{j}}|$ are the corresponding transverse separations from $\boldsymbol{u}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{u}_j$. The quantity $g_\parallel(r_\parallel)$ probes the average orientation of the LC molecules and the layering or smecticity in the system.
Evaluation of $g_\perp(r_\perp)$ employs hollow, concentric cylinders to probe LC molecules aligned in the ss configuration and is given by \cite{Richter_2006,Guzman_2014}:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation_16}
g_\perp(r_\perp)=\bigg\langle\sum_{i\neq j}^N\frac{\delta(r_\perp-r_{ij,\perp_i}) \theta(\delta L_\perp/2-r_{ij,\parallel_i}) \theta(\delta L_\perp/2-r_{ij,\parallel_j})}{N\rho^\ast\pi((r_\perp+\delta L_\perp)^2-r_\perp^2)h}\bigg\rangle.
\end{equation}
In the above equation, $\delta L_\perp$ represents the thickness of the hollow cylinder and as for the $g_\parallel(r_\parallel)$ case, we can use the director for molecule $j$ of the pair in the $\delta$-function evaluation since the value remains almost the same in the ss configuration. The quantity $g_\perp(r_\perp)$ probes the translational structure about the LC molecules and their arrangement within layers.
\subsection{Morphologies, Textures and Growth Laws}
\label{growthlaws}
Let us first discuss the kinetics of domain growth following a quench from the I phase to a temperature $T^\ast=2.5$ in the Nm phase. The left panel of Fig.~\ref{figure_3}, shows representative snapshots from the time evolution of the configurational structure for (a) $\kappa^\prime=5.0$, $t = 8192$; (b) $\kappa^\prime=5.0$, $t=53248$; and (c) $\kappa^\prime=10.0$, $t=53248$. For clarity, we have shown only a $20^3$ corner of the entire box. These corners on average consist of about $N=2400$ particles. The right panel shows the corresponding top surface ($d=2$ cross-sections). There is emergence and growth of orientational Nm order, and the energy anisotropy does not affect the coarsening phenomenon. We characterize the morphologies and their texture by evaluating the correlation function and the structure factor. These are obtained by a coarse-graining procedure in which the system is divided into non-overlapping sub-boxes of size ($3.0\sigma_0$)$^3$. The sub-box size is carefully chosen to ensure that each one contains about 8 to 10 particles. The continuum LC configurations are thus mapped onto a simple cubic lattice of size ($32\sigma_0$)$^3$. The relevant order parameter is the orientational order parameter defined in Eq.~(\ref{equation_8}), i.e., $\overline{P_2(\cos\theta_i)}$. Here $\theta_i$ is the angle made by a molecule located in the $i$-th box with the global director $\boldsymbol{n}$ of the system (determined by taking average of orientations for all the $N$ particles present in the system), and the overline implies an average over all the particles in the sub-box.
Fig.~\ref{figure_4}(a) shows the scaled correlation function, $C(r,t)$ vs. $r/L(t)$ at $t$ = 8192, 16384 and 32768 for $\kappa^\prime$ = 5.0 and at $t=32768$ for $\kappa^\prime$ = 2.5 and 10.0. The data exhibits {\it dynamical scaling} as well as {\it super-universality} with respect to the energy anisotropy $\kappa^\prime$. The dynamical scaling property demonstrates that the coarsening patterns are statistically self-similar in time. The property of super-universality indicates that the morphologies in the Nm phase are independent of the energy anisotropy. \textcolor{black}{This is expected because the GB energy between a pair of ellipsoids in the ss arrangement depends only on $\kappa$ and $\nu$.} A log-log plot of the corresponding scaled structure factors, $S(k,t)L(t)^{-3}$ vs. $kL(t)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_4}(b). In the asymptotic large-$k$ limit, the structure factor follows the generalized Porod law: $S(k,t)\sim k^{-5}$, indicating scattering off string defects \cite{Bray_1993,Birdi_2020}. Next, we study the time-dependence of the domain size. Fig.~\ref{figure_4}(c) shows the variation of $L(t)$ vs. $t$ on a log-log scale for $\kappa^\prime$ = 2.5, 5.0 and 10.0 respectively. It can be clearly observed that after an initial transient, the evolving systems are consistent with the $t^{1/2}$ growth regime (LAC law) characteristic of systems with non-conserved order parameter.
The system size and time scales of our simulation are sufficient to establish the LAC domain growth law for the Nm phase of the GB model although there is onset of finite-size effects at late times.
We now come to the primary focus of our paper: kinetics of domain growth in the Sm mesophase. The coarsening is initiated by a quench from $T^\ast=6.0$ (I phase) to $T^\ast = 1.0$ (Sm phase). Fig.~\ref{figure_5} shows the prototypical evolution morphologies for: (a) $\kappa^\prime=5.0$, $t = 4096$; (b) $\kappa^\prime=5.0$, $t=98304$; and (c) $\kappa^\prime=10.0$, $t=98304$. As in Fig.~\ref{figure_3}, we have shown only a $20^3$ corner of the entire box, consisting of about 2400 particles on average. The frames on the right show the corresponding top surface. It is interesting to note the initial onset of nematicity at the earlier time ($t=4096$) followed by the development of smecticity at later time ($t=98304$). Additionally, as observed in Fig.~\ref{figure_5}(c), the smecticity is significantly enhanced for $\kappa^\prime=10.0$.
To characterize the Sm order, Fig.~\ref{figure_6} shows for the specified values of $t$ and $\kappa^\prime$: (a) the longitudinal pair correlation function $g_\parallel(r_\parallel/\sigma_0)$ vs. $r_\parallel/\sigma_0$ evaluated using Eq.~(\ref{equation_11}) and (b) the transversal pair correlation function $g_\perp(r_\perp/\sigma_0)$ vs. $r_\perp/\sigma_0$ evaluated using Eq.~(\ref{equation_12}). Notice that in Fig.~\ref{figure_6}(a), the early-time behaviour at $t=4096$ predominantly exhibits a single peak at $3\sigma_0$ - the length of the LC molecule. It is characteristic of Nm order with molecular alignment along an average direction or the director. As time evolves, there is emergence of newer peaks at approximately $6\sigma_0$, $9\sigma_0$, etc. as the system coarsens. This signifies development of long-range longitudinal order or layers with an inter-layer spacing of $\sim3\sigma_0$. \textcolor{black}{(The average separation between the peaks can be an approximate measure of the inter-layer spacing $d_l$. In Fig.~\ref{figure_6}(a), $d_l\approx 2.5\sigma_0$ due to interdigitation of the neighbouring layers.)}
Notice that increase in $\kappa^\prime$ reduces the intensity variation between the first and second peaks implying enhancement of smecticity. (Recall that perfect translational order is characterized by peaks of equal intensity in the pair distribution function). On the other hand, $g_\perp(r_\perp/\sigma_0)$ vs. $r_\perp/\sigma_0$ in Fig.~\ref{figure_6}(b) exhibits peaks around multiples of $\sigma_0$ - the width of the ellipsoidal LC molecule.
\textcolor{black}{The splitting of the peak at $r_\perp\simeq 2.0\sigma_0$, a signature of BOO within the layers, is clearly seen at later times. Further, the translational order within the layers is not long-ranged as consecutive peaks have decreasing intensity. These characteristics, along with the non-zero value of the hexatic order parameter $\langle \mathcal{C}_6\rangle$ in Fig.~\ref{figure_2}(b), confirm the presence of the SmB-H phase. The intra-layer BOO is not affected by $\kappa^\prime$.}
The observations from Fig.~\ref{figure_6} suggest the following scenario for coarsening of the \textcolor{black}{SmB-H} phase: it is a {\it two-timescale} process, with the onset of Nm order followed by \textcolor{black}{SmB-H} order. \textcolor{black}{To confirm this, we have also performed a similar study for the Nm$\rightarrow$SmB-H quenches and evaluated these distribution functions. Except for the emergence of multiple peaks at earlier time in the longitudinal pair correlation function (it's now a one-timescale process as Nm order is already present and hence with time, the system exhibits only layering with BOO), the behavior of the correlation functions is qualitatively similar to that observed in Fig.~\ref{figure_6} and hence we do not present them separately. Quantitatively, the peaks in both the functions have much higher intensity compared to the corresponding peaks in Fig.~\ref{figure_6}, indicating {\it faster} layering as well as development of BOO. We do not present these data sets to prevent repetition. The {\it two-time-scale} process is the most significant outcome from our study of the GB model. It is further reiterated by the growth laws which will be discussed shortly.}
We next focus on the scaling functions that describe the time-dependent morphologies. To evaluate them, we follow the same coarse-graining approach, but now the system is divided into non-overlapping sub-boxes of size ($6.0\sigma_0$)$^3$, which maps the system onto a simple cubic lattice of size ($16.0\sigma_0$)$^3$. This procedure gives us a continuous order parameter field and eliminates any molecular-level anisotropies. We have changed the system size to ensure that even at later times, the sub-boxes contain about 60 to 70 particles. In Fig.~\ref{figure_7}(a), we plot $C(r,t)$ vs. $r/L(t)$ for three specified values of $t$ and $\kappa^\prime$. The typical scalar nematic order parameter $\overline{P_2(\cos\theta_i,t)}$ is determined at each site $i$ of this discretized lattice (as for the nematic regime earlier) and subsequently the standard probes are evaluated. The data sets for $\kappa^\prime=5.0$ at different times neatly collapse onto a single master function, showing that the scaling regime has been reached. This data collapse indicates the existence of dynamical scaling. Furthermore, the excellent data collapse for different $\kappa^\prime$ values at time $t=98304$ suggests that the scaling functions are robust with respect to the anisotropy in energy. Fig.~\ref{figure_7}(d) shows the corresponding scaled structure factor, $S(k,t)L(t)^{-3}$ vs. $kL(t)$ for a range of $t$ and $\kappa^\prime$ values. There is an excellent data collapse, confirming both dynamical scaling and super-universality. The tail decays as $S(k,t)\sim k^{-5}$ due to the presence of string defects.
It is also possible to determine the correlation between the Sm layers by evaluating the translational correlation function $C_l(r,t)$. This can be done by evaluating the translational order parameter, ${\lvert\overline{\tau(\boldsymbol{r_i},t)}\rvert}={\lvert\overline{\exp(2i\pi\boldsymbol{r_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{n}/d_l)}\rvert}$. Here, $\boldsymbol{r_i}$ is the position vector of the LC molecule (located in the sub-box with index $i$), $\boldsymbol{n}$ is the global director of the system and the layer spacing $d_l$ is evaluated from the average separation between the peaks in the longitudinal pair correlation function at a given $t$. The overline implies an average over all the particles located in the sub-box with index $i$. Fig.~\ref{figure_7}(b) shows the scaled translational correlation function $C_l(r,t)$ vs. $r/L_l(t)$ for the specified values of $t$ and $\kappa^\prime$. The corresponding structure factors $S_l(k,t)L_l(t)^{-3}$ vs. $kL_l(t)$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_7}(e). The high quality of the data collapse again confirms dynamical scaling and super-universality of the scaling functions. The structure factor tail exhibits the Porod decay, $S_l(k,t)\sim k^{-4}$, characteristic of scattering off sharp interfaces arising between the Sm layers.
\textcolor{black}{ We have also determined the correlation function $C_H(r,t)$ using the bond-orientational order parameter ${\lvert\overline{\psi_6(\boldsymbol{r_i},t)}\rvert}$. Here, $\boldsymbol{r_i}$ is the position vector of the LC molecule located in the sub-box with index $i$, and the overline implies an average over all the particles located in the sub-box with index $i$. Fig.~\ref{figure_7}(c) shows the scaled correlation function $C_H(r,t)$ vs. $r/L_H(t)$ for the specified values of $t$ and $\kappa^\prime$. The corresponding structure factors $S_H(k,t)L_H(t)^{-3}$ vs. $kL_H(t)$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_7}(f). The good data collapse re-confirms dynamical scaling and super-universality of the scaling functions.}
Finally, we study the domain growth laws for the SmB-H mesophase. Fig.~\ref{figure_8}(a) shows $L(t)$ vs. $t$\textcolor{black}{, Fig.~\ref{figure_8}(b) shows $L_l(t)$ vs. $t$ and Fig.~\ref{figure_8}(c) shows $L_H(t)$ vs. $t$} on a log-log scale for the three typical values of $\kappa^\prime$. (There are small differences in the pre-factors of the data sets, but they are not evident on the log-log scale.) The data sets exhibit an initial LAC growth regime $\sim t^{1/2}$ characteristic of the Nm phase and then a crossover to a slower $t^{1/4}$ growth regime. The dashed lines have been shown for reference. (Larger system sizes and longer simulation times will be required to remove the finite size effects observed at late times.) These observations emphasize the two-time-scale scenario identified in Fig.~\ref{figure_6}, and are the second novel aspect of our study.
\section{Summary and Discussion}
\label{summary}
We conclude with a summary and discussion of our results. We have undertaken a comprehensive numerical investigation of the equilibrium and non-equilibrium phenomena in the $d=3$ Gay-Berne model. This model is known to exhibit isotropic (I), nematic (Nm), and smectic (Sm) phases and yields satisfactory comparisons with experimental observations in liquid crystal systems. There are two important parameters in this model: (i) the shape anisotropy parameter $\kappa$ which is the length-to-breadth ratio of the ellipsoidal molecules; and (ii) the energy anisotropy parameter $\kappa^\prime$ which is the ratio of energies when molecules are in the side-by-side (ss) and in the end-to-end (ee) configurations, see Fig.~\ref{figure_1}. In all our studies, we make a standard choice of $\kappa=3.0$ and vary $\kappa^\prime$ over a wide range of values from 1.25 to 20. The primary focus of our work is to understand domain growth in the Sm mesophase. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such study.
Equilibrium studies have been performed using canonical ($NVT$) ensemble {\it Monte Carlo} (MC) simulations on systems with 512 and 1000 particles. Equilibration was achieved in approximately $5\times10^5$ MC cycles and the observations were made in the window of $5\times10^5-10^6$ MC cycles. We confirmed the presence of I, Nm and Sm phases, and two distinct phase transitions: (i) I$\rightarrow$Nm at $T_c^{\ast 1}$ and (ii) Nm$\rightarrow$Sm at $T_c^{\ast 2}<T_c^{\ast 1}$. Our numerics indicate that $T_c^{\ast 1}$ decreases substantially as $\kappa^\prime$ increases, but $T_c^{\ast 2}$ increases only slightly.
We studied the non-equilibrium phenomenon of coarsening via MD simulations of the Gay-Berne model with $\sim$260000 particles in the $NVT$ ensemble. An initially disordered and homogeneous state was rapidly quenched from (a) I$\rightarrow$Nm and (b) I$\rightarrow$Sm phases, see Fig.~\ref{figure_2}(d). The system was then allowed to evolve till late times, and we identified the morphology textures and growth laws through this evolution. \\
(a) Our results for the nematic quench (I$\rightarrow$Nm) are as follows: the equal-time spatial correlation function $C(r,t)$ exhibits dynamical scaling and is robust with respect to $\kappa^\prime$. Coarsening is due to annihilation of the string defects [$S(k,t)\sim k^{-5}$], and the domain growth obeys the {\it Lifshitz-Allen-Cahn} (LAC) law: $L(t)\sim t^{1/2}$. Earlier results in the literature were inconclusive due to small system sizes used in simulations \cite{Billeter_1999}. \\
(b) In our I$\rightarrow$Sm quenches, the low temperature phase has a Sm B hexatic (SmB-H) order. With regard to our novel results on coarsening in this phase, the domain growth exhibits a two-time-scale scenario: With the onset of coarsening, the LC molecules align and develop orientational order (nematicity). \textcolor{black}{The arrangement in layers (smecticity) with hexatic bond-orientational-order (BOO) within the layers follows thereafter. Consequently, the growth follows the LAC law, $L(t)\sim t^{1/2}$ at early times and then a crossover to a slower growth at later times. Interestingly, the correlation functions and corresponding structure factors show dynamical scaling in both the regimes with universal scaling functions. These are also robust with respect to $\kappa^\prime$, and the smecticity and BOO are pronounced at larger values.} Furthermore, the early-time dynamics is governed by string defects [$S(k,t)\sim k^{-5}$], while the late-time evolution is dictated by interfacial defects [$S_l(k,t)\sim k^{-4}$ \textcolor{black}{and $S_H(k,t)\sim k^{-4}$}]. We believe these results to be valid for other classes of the Sm phase as well.
In conclusion, we believe that the novel results presented in this paper reveal many unusual aspects of ordering in the Sm phase. Although of consequence in the LC arena, it has received little attention due to experimental and computational difficulties. The methodology presented in this work to study equilibrium and non-equilibrium phenomena in calamitic LCs could also be applied to study the mesophases that occur in discotic and bent-core LC systems. Another significant aspect of our work has been incorporation of the Gay-Berne potential in the general-purpose MC program, DL\_MONTE \cite{DL_Monte}. This new functionality should prove useful for future MC studies of uniaxial as well as biaxial and bent core LC systems.
\acknowledgments{NB acknowledges UGC, India for a senior research fellowship. VB acknowledges DST, India for a core research grant. NB, TU, NBW and VB also acknowledge DST-UKIERI for a research grant which has facilitated this collaboration. NB and TU acknowledge Prof. Steve Parker at the University of Bath (UK) for the kind hospitality provided during the developmental stages of this work. NB and VB gratefully acknowledge the High Performance Computing (HPC) facility at IIT Delhi for computational resources.}
\section{Improvements to DL\_MONTE}
In DL\_MONTE the centers of interaction in the system are termed \emph{atoms}. Atoms in DL\_MONTE can interact with one another in a number of ways, though the
most significant is through pair potentials. Note, however, that before this work only \emph{isotropic} pair potentials were supported in DL\_MONTE.
DL\_MONTE allows for the possibility to construct \emph{molecules} comprised of two or more atoms, whose relative positions within
the molecule are constrained, and to treat the positions and orientations of the molecules as the degrees of freedom of the system instead
of the atoms' positions. By doing this, a number of well studied liquid-crystal system models, models in which the particles have orientational
degrees of freedom and \emph{anisotropic} interactions between particles, can be accommodated in DL\_MONTE. For instance, in the rigid linear fused hard-sphere chain
model \cite{Jaffer_1999} each particle is comprised of $n$ overlapping hard spheres of radius $\sigma$ residing on a line in space, spaced at length $d<\sigma$ apart from
one another. This model could be realized in DL\_MONTE by constructing a system of molecules comprised of $n$ atoms per molecule, with the
positions of the atoms in each molecule conforming to the constraints just described, and specifying that all atoms interact with atoms in other molecules via a hard-sphere potential with radius $\sigma$.
However, there exist many models pertinent to liquid crystals which cannot be treated in this way. To elaborate, the aforementioned approach of building molecules from atoms to create anisotropic particles only
works for models in which the interactions between particles can be expressed as a \emph{sum of isotropic pair potentials} emanating from one or more
`atoms' within the particles. For instance, the GB model cannot be treated this way, since in the GB model each particle has only one centre of
interaction, i.e. one atom, and the strength of the interaction between two particles $i$ and $j$ depends not only on the separation vector between the
atoms $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$, but also on implicit orientations $\mathbf{u}_i$ and $\mathbf{u}_j$ associated with the atoms.
To enable DL\_MONTE to accommodate GB model, as well as other models which describe systems of \emph{linear} particles (e.g. hard ellipsoid, hard
spherocylinder), for which the form of the potential between two particles is $V_{ij}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{u}_j)$, we made the following
fundamental modifications to the code.
Firstly, we extended the atom data type to include an orientational degree of freedom analogous to $\mathbf{u}_i$ or $\mathbf{u}_j$ above. Secondly, we generalized the underlying form of the pair potential between two atoms from $V_{ij}(\mathbf{r}_{ij})$ to
$V_{ij}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{u}_j)$. Thus atoms could represent \emph{linear} particles interacting with orientation-dependent pair potentials.
Finally, we introduced a new MC move into DL\_MONTE for modifying an atom's orientation -- something necessary for
sampling the orientational degrees of freedom in a system. This MC move uses quaternions to rotate the orientation $\mathbf{u}_i$ of an atom $i$, chosen at random,
about a
randomly chosen axis by an angle drawn uniformly from within the range $[-\theta_{\text{max}},\theta_{\text{max}}]$, where $\theta_{\text{max}}$ is the
maximum possible angle of rotation \cite{Frenkel_2002}. Moreover, for the convenience of users, we also added functionality to enable DL\_MONTE to optimize
$\theta_{\text{max}}$ during a simulation to yield a desired acceptance rate. (Similar functionality exists in DL\_MONTE for other MC move types).
These fundamental changes to DL\_MONTE were accompanied by further additions to the code geared towards studying the GB system specifically. One obvious
change was to implement the GB potential. Another was to enable DL\_MONTE to calculate and output the scalar nematic order
parameters $\langle P_2(\mathbf{u}_i\cdot\mathbf{n})\rangle$ and $\langle P_4(\mathbf{u}_i\cdot\mathbf{n})\rangle$ periodically during the simulation,
where $P_n$ denotes the $n$th Legendre polynomial, $\mathbf{n}$ is the director of the system, and $\langle\rangle$ denotes an
ensemble average.
We exploited this feature during this work to characterize the phase of the system at various
thermodynamic parameters -- as described in the main text.
These improvements make DL\_MONTE a versatile tool for studying off-lattice liquid crystal models with MC simulation.
\section{Input Files for MC simulations using DL\_MONTE}
\label{dlmonte}
The program DL$\textunderscore$MONTE requires three necessary input files for any simulation, namely CONTROL, CONFIG and FIELD. These three files should always be present in the directory where the simulation is run.\\
(i) The CONTROL file provides the general input parameters for a simulation run, which are required to instruct DL$\textunderscore$MONTE on how to undertake the calculations. These parameters contain information about the thermodynamic conditions and statistical ensembles in which the simulations are performed, thermal averaging, sampling schemes, output frequencies, format of output files in which the simulation data is to be stored, etc.\\
(ii) The CONFIG file provides the starting configuration for the simulation. It contains detailed specifications for the simulation cell (box) such as its dimensions and geometry, and the initial microscopic state in terms of the position coordinates for all the particles. For particles interacting with the recently incorporated GB potential, the initial state is specified with their respective orientations in addition to positions.\\
(iii) The FIELD file provides the atomic and/or the molecular species specifications. These include information about their general topology i.e. intramolecular bonds, angles, etc. and the force fields (interaction potentials).\\
Below we provide these three files with all the commands and parameters (with necessary comments after the \# symbol), for MC simulation of the $\kappa=3.0$, $\kappa^\prime=5.0$, $\mu=1.0$ and $\nu=3.0$ GB system with $N=1000$ at $T=1.0$ respectively. Note that we have numbered all the commands only for a clear and better understanding of the reader, the numbering is not required in the actual input files.
Further information regarding DL\_MONTE, including the input files and how to install the program, can be found elsewhere \cite{Brukhno_2019,DL_Monte}.\\
\textbf{CONTROL file}\\
(1) NVT simulation of GB potential \# simulation title (must be within 80 characters)\\
(2) use ortho \# `use' section begins; `ortho' means to use orthogonal PBC, applicable for cubic and orthorhombic cells\\
(3) finish \# keyword to close the `use' section\\
(4) seeds 30 4 19 94 \# enter any 4 `seed' numbers required for random number generation\\
(5) nbrlist auto \# update the neighbourlist (nl) using `auto' mode \\
(6) maxnonbondnbrs 1000 \# maximum number of non-bonded neighbors in nl set to 1000 \\
(7) temperature 1.0 \# set the system temperature to 1.0\\
(8) steps 1000000000 \# specify total number of MC moves in the simulation\\
(9) equilibration 0 \# set the equilibration period to 0 (we select the period once the simulation is over)\\
(10) print 1000000 \# print data to the OUTPUT file after the specified no. of moves \\
(11) revconformat vtk \# `vtk' format for the REVCON output file \\
(12) archiveformat vtk \# `vtk' format for the trajectory file \\
(13) sample coords 100000000 \# archive snapshots in trajectory file after the specified no. of moves\\
(14) sample rdf 745 7.45 1000000 \# compute $g(r^\ast)$ with 500 bins, upto $r^\ast=5.0$, collecting data after every $10^6$ moves\\
(15) maxatmrot 15 \# maximum angle (in degrees) to rotate a LC molecule during the MC move\\
(16) acceptatmrotupdate 1000000010 \# frequency of updating the maximum angle to rotate a LC molecule: we set a value so that the update does not happen as it's not required in our simulation\\
(17) acceptatmrotratio 0.5 \# target acceptance ratio set to 0.5\\
(18) move atom 1 100 \# attempt translating atoms of type `1' (all GB particles) at frequency of `100' (i.e. 100\% of the time) during the simulation \\
(19) GB spin \# translate atom of name `GB' and type `spin' during the simulation\\
(20) yamldata scalarop2 \# output $\langle P_2 \rangle$ order parameter to the YAMLDATA output file\\
(21) yamldata scalarop4 \# output $\langle P_4 \rangle$ order parameter to the YAMLDATA output file \\
(22) yamldata 10000 \# print data to the YAMLDATA output file after the specified no. of moves\\
(23) stat 1000000000 \# print statistics to the PTFILE after the specified no. of moves\\
(24) move rotateatom 1 100 \# attempt rotating atoms of type `1' at frequency `100' during the simulation \\
(25) GB spin \# rotate atom of name `GB' and type `spin' during the simulation\\
(26) start \# this command indicates that all the required inputs have been given and now `start' the simulation\\
\textbf{CONFIG file:}\\
(1) GB Potential for Nematic LC in NVT ensemble \# configuration title \\
(2) 0 0 \# The first integer here is set to 0 as for all the particles, only the position coordinates are specified in the file (non-zero integer values indicate that in addition to their position coordinates, velocities and/or forces on particles are to be specified). The second integer indicates that the particle positions are stored in {\it fractional} coordinates and not Cartesian coordinates (`1' for cubic, `2' for orthorhombic and `3' for parallelepiped). These are then followed by specification of the cell matrix in the next lines.\\
\# The next 3 lines indicate the $x$, $y$ and $z$ components for the 3 simulation cell vectors:
(3) 14.938 0.0 0.0\\
(4) 0.0 14.938 0.0\\
(5) 0.0 0.0 14.938\\
(6) NUMMOL 1 1 \# specifies the no. of types of molecules followed by no. of each type: in our case, only 1 type of molecule is present in the simulation\\
(7) MOLECULE gb 1000 1000 \# 1 molecule of type `gb': the molecule has 1000 particles initially and is limited to a maximum number of 1000\\
\# Now for all the 1000 particles (atoms), their name `GB' and type `spin' (first line), 3 fractional position coordinates (second line) and 3 orientation components (third line) are to be specified successively for all the particles.\\
(8) GB spin\# particles (atoms) have name `GB' and type `spin'\\
(9) 0 0 0 \# fractional position coordinates for the first atom \\
(10) 0.577350269 0.577350269 0.577350269 \# orientation components for the first atom \\
(11) GB spin\\
(12) 0 0 0.1 \# fractional position coordinates for the second atom \\
(13) 0.577350269 0.577350269 0.577350269 \# orientation components for the second atom \\
(14) GB spin\\
(15) 0 0 0.2 \# fractional position coordinates for the third atom \\
(16) 0.577350269 0.577350269 0.577350269 \# orientation components for the third atom \\
(17) GB spin\\
(18) 0 0 0.3 \# fractional position coordinates for the fourth atom \\
(19 )0.577350269 0.577350269 0.577350269 \# orientation components for the fourth atom \\
..... \# and so on for all the atoms\\
\textbf{FIELD file:}\\
(1) Gay-Berne, 4\*sigma\_s cut-off, sigma\_s = 1 Angstrom, epsilon\_0 = 1 K \# force-field title \\
(2) CUTOFF 4 \# shortrange cut-off radius for interactions\\
(3) UNITS K \# energy unit for input and output: `K'$\equiv k_BT$ units\\
(4) NCONFIGS 1 \# number of configuration boxes (replicas) in the CONFIG file set to 1\\
(5) ATOM TYPES 1 \# only 1 type of atoms are present in our simulation (which are the GB types)\\
(6) GB spin 1.0 0.0 \# atom name is `GB' (user defined name) with new type `spin' introduced in DL\_MONTE (meaning particles with orientations), mass set to 1.0 and charge set to 0 (these atoms are contained within a single structureless molecule called `gb')\\
(7) MOLECULE TYPES 1 \# only 1 type of molecules present in our simulation\\
(8) gb \# molecule name is `gb' (user defined name)\\
(9) MAXATOM 1000 \# maximum number of atoms for this type of molecule (the number is set to the total number of particles in our simulation $N$)\\
(10) FINISH \# close the molecule specification section\\
(11) VDW 1 \# non-bonded VdW section starts with the number of participating atom type pairs, which is only 1 in our case \\
(12) GB spin GB spin gb 1.0 5.0 1.0 3 1 3 \# The 2 interacting atoms have name `GB', type `spin' and they interact through the `gb' (Gay-Berne) interaction with parameters specified in the given order: $\epsilon_0=1.0$, $\kappa^\prime=5.0$, $\sigma_0=1.0$, $\kappa=3.0$, $\mu=1.0$ and $\nu=3.0$.\\
(13) CLOSE \# close the FIELD file after all the necessary inputs have been given\\
\section{Input Files for MD simulations using LAMMPS}
\label{lammps}
Unlike DL\_MONTE, for LAMMPS we require only a single input file with all the necessary commands. Our input files (with necessary comments) to prepare the initial homogeneous disordered state and then quench the system to the nematic state, are presented below separately. Again we have numbered all the commands only for a clear and better understanding of the reader, the numbering is not required in the actual input files.\\
\textbf{Lammps input file to prepare the homogeneous disordered system:}\\
\# Initialization \\
(1) units lj \# style of units used in this simulation is `lj' in which all the quantities are unitless\\
(2) newton on \# turn Newton's third law `on' for pairwise and bonded interactions\\
(3) dimension 3 \# dimensionality of the simulation is set to 3\\
(4) processors 4 4 4 \# 4 processors in each dimension of the 3d grid overlaying the simulation domain, hence total 4x4x4=64 processors used in this simulation (command needed for parallel and efficient computing)\\
(5) boundary p p p \# set the style of boundaries for the global simulation box in each dimension as `periodic' (p)\\
\# Setup the Simulation Box and the Atoms \\
(6) atom\_style ellipsoid \# set the style of atoms used in this simulation as `ellipsoid'\\
(7) lattice sc 0.3 \# define a lattice which is of style `simple cubic' (sc), reduced density of the system is set to 0.3\\
(8) region my\_box block 0.0 64.0 0.0 64.0 0.0 64.0 \# total number of particles in the system is 64x64x64, 'my\_box' is the user-assigned name for the `block' style region\\
(9) create\_box 1 my\_box \# create a simulation box based on the region specified with the user-defined name, only 1 type of particles are present in this simulation\\
(10) create\_atoms 1 box \# creates atoms on the lattice defined earlier\\
(11) set type 1 mass 1.0 \# set the mass of all the atoms to unity\\
(12) set type 1 shape 1.0 1.0 3.0 \# set the 3 diameters of the ellipsoids to 1.0, 1.0 and 3.0\\
(13) set type 1 quat 0.5773502692 0.5773502692 0.5773502692 45 \# set the quaternions which represent orientation of ellipsoids: the first 3 numbers are for the unit vector to rotate the ellipsoid around via the right-hand rule and the last number is for the rotation angle (in degrees)\\
(14)velocity all create 6.0 250964 mom yes rot yes loop geom \# set velocities for the atoms by generating an ensemble of velocities using a random number generator with the specified seed number (i.e. 250964) at the specified temperature (i.e. 6.0), `mom yes' sets the linear momentum of the ensemble to zero, `rot yes' sets the angular momentum of the ensemble to zero, and `loop geom' is a command for parallelization using which each processor loops over only its atoms.\\
\# Force fields (Potential) \\
(15) pair\_style gayberne 1.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 \# set the formula used for pairwise interactions which is the GB model in our case, followed by the required parameters: shift for potential minimum (set to 1.0), exponent $\nu$ (set to 3.0), exponent $\mu$ (set to 1.0) and the global cut-off for interactions (set to 4.0)\\
(16) pair\_coeff 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.2 4.0 \# set the model parameters in the following order: the first two numbers indicate the types of the interacting atoms between which the potential is to be computed, the third number is the well depth (in energy units), the fourth number is the minimum effective particle radii (in distance units), the next three numbers indicate the relative well depth for the side-to-side, face-to-face and end-to-end interactions of the first particle followed by the relative well depth for same interactions of the second particle and the last number is the cut-off\\
(17) comm\_style brick \# the `brick' style domain decomposition is used during parallelization\\
(18) comm\_modify mode single vel yes\# during domain decomposition, atoms are communicated within a single cut-off distances and velocity information is also communicated\\
(19) neighbor 1.0 bin \# set parameters to build the pairwise neighbor lists; all the atom pairs within a neighbor cut-off distance equal to their force cut-off plus the skin distance (set to 1.0 here) are stored in the list created using the `bin' style where binning scales linearly with the number of atoms per processor\\
(20) neigh\_modify every 1 delay 0 check yes \# set parameters that affect the building and use of pairwise neighbor lists: `every 1' means build the list after every step, `delay 0' means delay building until 0 steps since the last build and `check yes' means to build only if some atom has moved half the skin distance or more\\
\# Output Settings \\
(21) thermo 100 \# output the thermodynamics after every 100 time-steps\\
(22) timestep 0.001 \# set the MD timestep size to 0.001\\
(23) compute q all property/atom quatw quati quatj quatk \# compute the 4 components of quaternions representing orientations of the atoms\\
(24) compute sh all property/atom shapex shapey shapez \# compute the 3 shape parameters (diameters of the ellipsoids) for all the atoms\\
(25) dump 1 all custom 50000 dump.GayBerne id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3] \# store the system configuration in a dump file after every `50000' time-steps, where the position coordinates, velocity coordinates, quaternion components for orientations and the 3 shape parameters are specified for all the atoms at a given timestep\\
(26) group uniaxial type 1 \# make a group with name `uniaxial' consisting of all the type 1 particles\\
(27) variable dof equal count(uniaxial) \# `dof' is a variable with value equal to the number of particles in the `uniaxial' group\\
(28) fix 1 all nvt/asphere temp 6.0 6.0 0.1 \# perform constant $NVT$ integration to update the position, velocity, orientation and angular velocity at every timestep for the ellipsoidal particles using a Nos\'e-Hoover temperature thermostat and hence create a system trajectory consistent with the canonical ensemble, the three numbers are external temperature at start of the run, external temperature at end of the run and temperature damping parameter (in time units) which determines how rapidly the temperature is relaxed\\
(29) compute\_modify 1\_temp extra/dof \${dof} \# subtract dof degrees-of-freedom as a normalizing factor in a temperature computation\\
(30) thermo\_style custom step temp press c\_1\_temp evdwl epair pe ke etotal vol density lx ly lz nbuild ndanger \# set the style and content for printing thermodynamic data to the screen and log file, the output thermodynamic data in our case includes the following: temperature, pressure, potential energy, kinetic energy, total energy, volume, density, simulation box dimensions and number of neighbor list builds\\
(31) restart 50000 GB.dat \# write a restart file after every `50000' time-steps, `GB.dat' is the filename to which data at a given timestep is appended\\
(32) run\_style verlet \# the standard velocity-Verlet integrator is used\\
(33) run 1000000 \# run dynamics for the specified number of time-steps\\
\textbf{Input file to quench the system from high temperature disordered state to the nematic state:} (for same commands, we do not put comments again)\\
(1) processors 4 4 4\\
(2) read\_restart GB.dat.100000 \# read the given restart file which contains the initial high temperature configuration\\
\# Force fields (Potential)\\
(3) pair\_style gayberne 1.0 3.0 1.0 4.0\\
(4) pair\_coeff 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.2 4.0\\
(5) comm\_style brick\\
(6) comm\_modify mode single vel yes\\
(7) neighbor 1.0 bin\\
(8) neigh\_modify every 1 delay 0 check yes\\
\# Output Settings \\
(9) timestep 0.001\\
(10) reset\_timestep 0 \# set the timestep counter to the specified value\\
(11) compute q all property/atom quatw quati quatj quatk\\
(12) compute sh all property/atom shapex shapey shapez\\
\# NVT Run\\
(13) group uniaxial type 1\\
(14) variable dof equal count(uniaxial)\\
(15) fix 1 all nvt/asphere temp 2.5 2.5 0.1\\
(16) compute\_modify 1\_temp extra/dof \${dof}\\
(17) thermo\_style custom step temp press c\_1\_temp evdwl epair pe ke etotal vol density lx ly lz nbuild ndanger\\
(18) restart 100000 GB.dat\\
(19) run\_style verlet\\
(20) thermo 4\\
(21) dump 1 all custom 4 dump.GayBerne\_1 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(22) run 32 upto\\
(23) undump 1\\
(24) thermo 8\\
(25) dump 2 all custom 8 dump.GayBerne\_2 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(26) run 96 upto\\
(27) undump 2\\
(28) dump 3 all custom 16 dump.GayBerne\_3 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(29) run 224 upto\\
(30) undump 3\\
(31) dump 4 all custom 32 dump.GayBerne\_4 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(32) run 512 upto\\
(33) undump 4\\
(34) dump 5 all custom 64 dump.GayBerne\_5 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]
(35) run 1024 upto
(36) undump 5\\
(37) dump 6 all custom 128 dump.GayBerne\_6 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(38) run 2048 upto\\
(39) undump 6\\
(40) dump 7 all custom 256 dump.GayBerne\_7 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(41) run 4096 upto\\
(42) undump 7\\
(43) dump 8 all custom 512 dump.GayBerne\_8 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(44) run 8192 upto\\
(45) undump 8\\
(46) dump 9 all custom 1024 dump.GayBerne\_9 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(47) run 16834 upto\\
(48) undump 9\\
(49) dump 10 all custom 2048 dump.GayBerne\_10 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(50) run 32768 upto\\
(51) undump 10\\
(52) dump 11 all custom 4096 dump.GayBerne\_11 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(53) run 65536 upto\\
(54) undump 11\\
(55) dump 12 all custom 8192 dump.GayBerne\_12 id type x y z vx vy vz c\_q[1] c\_q[2] c\_q[3] c\_q[4] c\_sh[1] c\_sh[2] c\_sh[3]\\
(56) run 98304 upto\\
(57) undump 12\\
(58) thermo 100\\
(59) run 100000 upto\\
|
\section{Introduction and a summary of main results}
Convex hull of a set $K \subset \mathbb{R}^{d}$ is defined as
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{conv}(K) = \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^{m} \lambda_{j}x_{j}, \, x_{j} \in K, \, \sum_{j=1}^{m} \lambda_{j}=1, \, \lambda_{j} \geq 0,\, j=1, \ldots, m\; \text{for all}\; m\geq 1\right\}.
\end{align*}
Describing the convex hull of a given set $K$ is a basic problem in mathematics. By imposing additional geometric structures on $K$ one may hope to give a {\em simpler} description of $\mathrm{conv}(K)$. Perhaps a good starting point is when $K$ is a space curve which is the topic of our paper.
Let $[a,b]$ be an interval in $\mathbb{R}$, and let $\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1}(t)$ be real valued functions on $[a,b]$. We start with two main questions which are ultimately related to each other.
\begin{question}\label{que2} Describe the boundary of the convex hull of $\gamma([a,b])$, where
$$
\gamma(t)=(\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1}(t)), \quad t \in [a,b].
$$
\end{question}
The next question, known as the {\em general moment problem} \cite{Kem1968, Karlin1, krn}, is a certain probabilistic reformulation of Question~\ref{que2}.
\begin{question}\label{que1} Find
\begin{align}
M^{\mathrm{sup}}(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n}) &\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} \sup \; \{ \mathbb{E}\gamma_{n+1}(Y) \, :\, \mathbb{E}\gamma_{1}(Y)=x_{1}, \ldots , \mathbb{E} \gamma_{n}(Y)=x_{n}\}, \label{sup1}\\
M^{\mathrm{inf}}(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n}) &\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} \inf \; \{ \mathbb{E}\gamma_{n+1}(Y) \, :\, \mathbb{E}\gamma_{1}(Y)=x_{1}, \ldots , \mathbb{E} \gamma_{n}(Y)=x_{n}\}, \label{inf1}
\end{align}
where supremum or infimum is taken over all random variables $Y$ with values in $[a,b]$ such that $\gamma_{j}(Y)$ are measurable for all $j$, $1\leq j \leq n+1$.
\end{question}
The answers to both of these questions are given in terms of {\em lower and upper principal representations} in two remarkable monographs \cite{krn, Karlin1} (see also a brief survey \cite{pin01}) under the assumption (A1) which says that the sequences $(1, \gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t))$ and $(1, \gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1}(t))$ are $T_{+}$-systems on $[a,b]$, we refer the reader to Subsection~\ref{markovs} for more details.
In this paper we give a new self-contained geometric approach to both of these questions for a subclass of (A1), curves with so called {\em totally positive torsion}.
\begin{definition}
A curve $\gamma \in C^{n+1}((a,b), \mathbb{R}^{n+1}) \cap C([a,b], \mathbb{R}^{n+1})$ is said to have totally positive torsion if all the leading principal minors of the matrix
\begin{align}\label{mm22}
(\gamma'(t), \gamma''(t), \ldots, \gamma^{(n+1)}(t))
\end{align}
are positive for all $t \in (a,b)$.
\end{definition}
Perhaps an instructive example to keep in mind is $\gamma(t)=(t, t^{2}, \ldots, t^{n}, \gamma_{n+1}(t))$ where the total positivity of the torsion on $(a,b)$ is the same as $\gamma_{n+1}^{(n+1)}(t)>0$ on $(a,b)$.
In fact the only property that will be needed from the principal minors of the matrix (\ref{mm22}) is that they are non-vanishing. Indeed, we can consider an invertible linear image of $\gamma$, namely a new curve $t \mapsto (\varepsilon_{1}\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \varepsilon_{n+1} \gamma_{n+1}(t))$ with an appropriate choice of signs $\varepsilon_{j} = \pm 1$ and reduce the study of the convex hulls to the curves with totally positive torsion (an invertible linear transformation $T$ maps convex hull of a set $K$ to the convex hull of the image $T(K)$).
In Section~\ref{istoria} we provide an overview of the literature on results related to Questions 1 and 2. Section~\ref{glavnaya} is devoted to the statements of main results of the paper, and Section ~\ref{damtkiceba} contains the proofs. Here we give a short summary of the theorems that we recover in this paper and that were previously known in \cite{krn, Karlin1}. The results we state hold in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ for all $n\geq 1$, and all space curves $\gamma : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ with totally positive torsion. Set $\bar{\gamma}(t) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} (\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t))$, and let us denote by $\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))$ the convex hull of the image of $[a,b]$ under the map $\gamma$.
\subsection*{Summary of the results:}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] Boundary of the convex hull of $\gamma([a,b])$ will be given in a parametric form.
\item[(2)] Explicit diffeomorphism will be constructed between the interior of simplicies and the interior of the convex hull of $\gamma([a,b])$
\item[(3)] Formulas for the surface area of the boundary of the convex hull of $\gamma([a,b])$ will be obtained, Corollary~\ref{area1}, and different formulas for the volume of the convex hull will be presented, Corollary~\ref{provolume}.
\item[(4)] Any single affine hyperplane intersects the space curve $\gamma :[a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ in at most $n+1$ points. Minimal number $k$ points required to represent any point $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))$ as a convex combination of $k$ points of $\gamma([a,b])$ is at most $\lfloor \frac{n+3}{2}\rfloor$. Moreover, $k = \lfloor \frac{n+3}{2}\rfloor$ for any interior point of $\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))$.
\item[(5)]
Parametric representations will be given for functions $M^{\sup}$ and $M^{\inf}$. The obtained parametric forms change depending on whether $n$ is even or odd.
\textup{(i)} If $n$ is even then
\begin{align*}
&M^{\sup}\left(\lambda_{0} \bar{\gamma}(b)+\sum_{j=1}^{\frac{n}{2}} \lambda_{j} \bar{\gamma}(x_{j}) \right) = \lambda_{0} \gamma_{n+1}(b)+\sum_{j=1}^{\frac{n}{2}}\lambda_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(x_{j}),\\
&M^{\inf}\left(\lambda_{0} \bar{\gamma}(a)+\sum_{j=1}^{\frac{n}{2}} \lambda_{j} \bar{\gamma}(x_{j}) \right) = \lambda_{0} \gamma_{n+1}(a)+\sum_{j=1}^{\frac{n}{2}}\lambda_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(y_{j}),
\end{align*}
for all $\lambda_{0}, \lambda_{j} \in [0,1], x_{j} \in [a,b]$, $j=1, \ldots, \frac{n}{2}$ with $\sum_{0\leq k \leq \frac{n}{2}} \lambda_{k}=1$.
\textup{(ii)} If $n$ is odd then
\begin{align*}
&M^{\sup}\left(\lambda_{0}\bar{\gamma}(a)+\lambda_{1}\bar{\gamma}(b)+\sum_{j=2}^{\frac{n+1}{2}} \lambda_{j} \bar{\gamma}(x_{j}) \right) = \lambda_{0} \gamma_{n+1}(a)+\lambda_{1} \gamma_{n+1}(b)+\sum_{j=2}^{\frac{n+1}{2}}\lambda_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(x_{j}), \\
&M^{\inf}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\frac{n+1}{2}} \beta_{j} \bar{\gamma}(x_{j}) \right) = \sum_{j=1}^{\frac{n+1}{2}}\beta_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(x_{j}),
\end{align*}
for all $\lambda_{0}, \lambda_{j}, \beta_{j} \in [0,1], x_{j} \in [a,b]$, $j=1, \ldots, \frac{n+1}{2}$ with $\sum_{0\leq j \leq \frac{n+1}{2}} \lambda_{j}=\sum_{1\leq j \leq \frac{n+1}{2}}\beta_{j}=1$.
\item[(6)] Explicit random variables $Y$ will be constructed which attain supremum and infimum correspondingly in (\ref{sup1}) and (\ref{inf1}) for each given $x = (x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n})$ from the domain of definition of $M^{\sup}$ and $M^{\inf}$.
\end{itemize}
We will also see that
\begin{align*}
\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))=\{(x,M^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\} \cup \{(x,M^{\mathrm{inf}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\},
\end{align*}
i.e., the {\em upper hull} of $\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))$ coincides with the graph of $M^{\sup}$, and the lower hull with the graph of $M^{\inf}$. Besides this summary, we also recover several results previously known to Karlin--Sharpley \cite{Karlin2} for {\em moment curves} using our techniques (see Corollary~\ref{nobel2}). In Proposition~\ref{sensitive}, we also show that the results obtained in this paper are sensitive to the assumption on a curve having totally positive torsion.
\subsection{What is known about Questions 1 and 2? } \label{istoria}
In what follows we set $x \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n}) \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, and $\mathbb{E} \bar{\gamma}(Y) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} (\mathbb{E}\gamma_{1}(Y), \ldots, \mathbb{E}\gamma_{n}(Y))$.
We remark that both $M^{\mathrm{\sup}}$ and $M^{\mathrm{\inf}}$ depend on $n \geq 1$, $x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}, [a,b] \subset \mathbb{R}$, and $\gamma$. We shall remind the basic fact that the convex hull of a compact set is compact. For simplicity we shall use the symbol $M$ for $M^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)$.
There are series of results describing $M$ for some particular $\gamma$. A common goal is to have a parametric representation for it. However, as soon as $n$ is large it becomes difficult to find parametric representation for $M$ in such generality.
\subsubsection{Convex envelopes and Carath\'eodory number}
Under some mild assumptions on $\gamma$, say $\gamma$ is continuous on $[a,b]$ is sufficient (see \cite{Kem1968, Rog1958}), $M$ is defined on $\mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))$. Moreover, for any $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))$, $M(x)$ is the solution of the {\em dual problem}
\begin{align}\label{dual}
M(x) = \inf_{d_{0} \in \mathbb{R}, d \in \mathbb{R}^{n}} \{ d_{0}+ \langle d,x \rangle \;\; \text{such that}\;\; d_{0}+ \langle d, \bar{\gamma}(t) \rangle \geq \gamma_{n+1}(t)\; \text{for all} \; t \in [a,b]\},
\end{align}
where $\langle a,b\rangle$ denotes the dot product in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Thus $M$ is the minimal concave function defined on $ \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))$ with the obstacle condition $M(\bar{\gamma}(t)) \geq \gamma_{n+1}(t)$ for all $t \in [a,b]$. So the graph $(x,M(x))$, $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))$ belongs to the boundary of $\mathrm{conv} (\gamma([a,b]))$. Carath\'eodory's theorem says that $(x,M(x))$ is convex combination of at most $n+2$ points from $\gamma([a,b])$. However, due to the fact $(x, M(x)) \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv} (\gamma([a,b]))$, one can see that $n+1$ points suffice by considering any affine hyperplane $H$ supporting $\mathrm{conv} (\gamma([a,b]))$ at $(x,M(x))$. Since $\gamma([a,b])$ lies on one side of $H$, it follows that the points, whose convex combination is $(x,M(x))$, must lie in $H$, and we can apply Carath\'eodory's theorem to $H \cap \gamma([a,b])$ in $n+1$ dimensional space $H$.
This leads us to another representation
\begin{align}\label{carath}
M(x) = \sup_{\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}c_{j} \bar{\gamma}(t_{j})=x} \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^{n+1} c_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(t_{j})\; :\; \sum_{j=1}^{n+1}c_{j}=1, \; c_{\ell} \geq 0,\; t_{\ell} \in [a,b], \;1\leq \ell \leq n+1\right\}.
\end{align}
Probabilistic way of looking at (\ref{carath}) is that the supremum and infimum in (\ref{sup1}) and (\ref{inf1}) is attained on random variables $Y$ whose density is the sum of delta masses on at most $n+1$ points in $[a,b]$, i.e., $\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}c_{j}\delta_{t_{j}}$, with $t_{j} \in [a,b]$ for all $j=1, \ldots, n+1$.
A direction of research focuses on understanding for which curves $\gamma$, the number $n+1$ appearing in $\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}c_{j}\delta_{t_{j}}$ can be made smaller. As we just described this is related to the following question: {\em
given a curve $\gamma :[a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, and a point $y \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))$, find the smallest number of points $b(y)$ on $\gamma([a,b])$ whose convex combination coincides with $x$.}
The integer $b(y)$ is called Carath\'eodory number for $y$, and it is defined for all $y \in \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))$. Carath\'eodory number $b(\gamma)$ of a set $\gamma([a,b])$ is defined as
\begin{align}\label{karate1}
b(\gamma) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\sup_{x \in \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))}b(x).
\end{align}
By Carath\'eodory's theorem $b(\gamma) \leq n+2$ for curves in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. For certain curves $\gamma$, the number $b(\gamma)$ can be strictly smaller than $n+2$. Fenchel's theorem \cite{Fenchel, Hanner} asserts that if the compact set $\gamma([a,b])$ cannot be separated by a hyperplane into two non-empty disjoint sets then $b(\gamma)\leq n+1$. In particular, for continuous curves $\gamma$ over closed intervals $[a,b]$ the Carath\'eodory's number is at most $n+1$ giving one more justification of (\ref{carath}) for continuous maps $\gamma$. See \cite{Baran} where Carath\'eodory number and an extension of Fenchel's theorem is studied for certain type of sets in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$.
\subsubsection{A Convex Optimization Approach}
Another direction of research reduces (\ref{dual}) to what is called {\em positive semidefinite optimization problem} under the assumption
$$
\gamma(t) = (t,t^{2}, \ldots, t^{n}, \mathbbm{1}_{I}(t)),
$$
where $I$ is an interval in $\mathbb{R}$.
Finding upper or lower bounds on $\mathbb{E} \mathbbm{1}_{I}(Y) = \mathbb{P}(Y \in I)$ given the first $n$ moments of $Y$ is of important interests as it would refine the classical Chebyshev and Markov inequalities. To give a feeling how the corresponding positive semidefinite optimization problem looks like we cite Theorem~11 in \cite{Berts}: the tight upper bound on $\mathbb{P}(Y \geq 1)$ over all nonnegative random variables $Y$ given the first $n$ moments $\mathbb{E}Y^{j}=x_{j}$, $1\leq j \leq n$ coincides with
\begin{align*}
M^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)\, =\, \min_{d_{0}, \ldots, d_{n} \in \mathbb{R}} \quad d_{0}+\sum_{j=1}^{n}d_{j} x_{j}
\end{align*}
Subject to
\begin{align*}
\quad &0 = \sum_{i,j\, :\, i+j=2\ell-1} t_{ij}, \qquad \qquad \quad \; \,\ell=1, \ldots, n,\\
&(d_{0}-1)+\sum_{j=\ell}^{n} d_{j} \binom{j}{\ell}=t_{00},\\
&\sum_{j=\ell}^{n} d_{j} \binom{j}{\ell} = \sum_{i,j\, :\, i+j=2\ell}t_{ij}, \quad \quad \; \,\ell=1, \ldots, n,\\
&0 = \sum_{i,j\, :\, i+j=2\ell-1} z_{ij}, \qquad \qquad \quad \; \, \ell = 1, \ldots, n,\\
&\sum_{j=0}^{\ell} d_{j} \binom{n-j}{\ell-j} = \sum_{i,j\, :\, i+j=2\ell} z_{ij} \quad \ell=0, \ldots, n,\\
&T, Z \geq 0,
\end{align*}
where $T, Z \geq 0$ means that the matrices $T=\{t_{ij}\}_{i,j=0}^{n}, Z = \{z_{ij}\}_{i,j=0}^{n}$ are positive semidefinite.
The advantage of having such a semidefinite optimization problem is that it can be solved in a {\em polynomial time}. However, it is not clear to us how practical are these results if one wants to verify bounds $M(x) \leq R(x)$ for a given function $R$ and all $x$ in $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$. In \cite{Berts} the authors provide explicit formulas for the tight upper bound on $\mathbb{P}(Y>\lambda)$ for $n=3$ over all nonnegative random variables with given first 3 moments.
\subsubsection{Tchebysheff systems, convex curves, and Markov moment problem}\label{markovs}
The system of continuous functions $(\gamma_{0}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t))$, on an interval $[a,b]$ is called Tchebysheff system (or $T$-system) if any nontrivial linear combination $\sum_{j=0}^{n} a_{j} \gamma_{j}(t)$ has at moat $n$ roots on $[a,b]$. As the monographs \cite{krn, Karlin1} deal with general Markov moment problem with arbitrary Borel measures, and in this paper we consider only probability measures, in what follows we will be assuming that $\gamma_{0}(t)=1$ to make the presentation consistent with \cite{krn, Karlin1}. Under such an assumption the corresponding curve $t\mapsto (\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t))$ is called {\em convex curve}.
The sequence $(\gamma_{0}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t))$ is called $T_{+}$-system if
\begin{align}\label{nudel}
\mathrm{det}(\{ \gamma_{i}(t_{j})\}_{i,j=0}^{n})>0
\end{align}
on the simplex $\Sigma = \{ a\leq t_{0}<\ldots, <t_{n} \leq b\}$. Notice that any $T$-system can be made into $T_{+}$-system just by flipping the sign in front of $\gamma_{n}$ if necessary.
If $(\gamma_{0}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{k}(t))$ is $T_{+}$-system on $[a,b]$ for any $k=0,\ldots, n$ then the sequence $(\gamma_{0}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t))$ is called $M_{+}$-system on $[a,b]$. Checking the positivity of the determinant (\ref{nudel}) seems a bit unpractical as one needs to verify the inequality on the simplex
$\Sigma$. The following proposition gives a simple sufficient criteria for the system to be $M_{+}$ system.
\begin{theorem}[Chapter VIII, \cite{Karlin1}]\label{man1}
Let $\gamma_{0}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t)$ be in $C([a,b])\cap C^{n}((a,b))$. Then for the sequence $(\gamma_{0}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t))$ to be $M_{+}$-system on $[a,b]$ it is necessary\footnote{Here $\gamma_{j}^{(0)}(t)=\gamma_{j}(t)$} that $\mathrm{det}(\{ \gamma_{i}^{(j)}(t)\}_{i,j=0}^{k})\geq 0$ on $(a,b)$ for all $k=0,\ldots, n$, and it is sufficient that $\mathrm{det}(\{ \gamma_{i}^{(j)}(t)\}_{i,j=0}^{k})> 0$ on $(a,b)$ for all $k=1,\ldots, n$.
\end{theorem}
We say that $(\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1}(t))$ satisfies $(A1)$ condition if $\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1}(t)$ are in $C([a,b])\cap C^{n+1}((a,b))$ such that
\begin{align*}
(1,\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t)) \quad \text{and} \quad (1,\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1}(t)) \quad \text{are} \quad T_{+}-\text{systems on} \quad [a,b] \quad (A1)
\end{align*}
Clearly if $\gamma(t) = (\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1}(t))$ has totally positive torsion on $(a,b)$ then the condition $(A1)$ holds by Theorem~\ref{man1}. On the other hand if the sequence $(\gamma_{0}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1})$ satisfies only the assumption (A1) then the probability distribution of a random variable $X$ achieving supremum or infimum in Question~\ref{que1} is given in terms of {\em upper and lower principal representations}, see Chapter III and IV in \cite{krn}, and also Proposition 2 in a brief survey \cite{pin01}. In particular, Carath\'eodory number is at most $\lfloor \frac{n+3}{2}\rfloor$ for the curves $t\mapsto (\gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n+1}(t))$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ satisfying the assumption (A1).
A typical example of the convex curve is the moment curve
$$
\gamma(t) = (t, \ldots, t^{n+1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1},
$$
Assume $[a,b]=[0,1]$. In~\cite{Karlin2} the authors show that if $x=(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n})$ belongs to the interior of $\mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1]))$ then $M^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)$ and $M^{\mathrm{inf}}(x)$ are the unique solutions $x_{n+1}$ of the linear equations
\begin{align}\label{nobel}
K_{n+1}=0 \quad \text{and} \quad S_{n+1}=0,
\end{align}
correspondingly, where $K_{k}, S_{k}$ are defined as
\begin{align}\label{Sharp1}
S_{2k} = \det
\begin{pmatrix}1 & x_{1} & \ldots & x_{k}\\
\vdots & & & \\
x_{k} & x_{k+1} & \ldots & x_{2k}\end{pmatrix}, \quad S_{2k+1} = \det
\begin{pmatrix}x_{1} & x_{2} & \ldots & x_{k+1}\\
\vdots & & & \\
x_{k+1} & x_{k+2} & \ldots & x_{2k+1}\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{kar1}
K_{2k} = \det
\begin{pmatrix}x_{1}-x_{2} & x_{2}-x_{3} & \ldots & x_{k}-x_{k+1}\\
\vdots & & & \\
x_{k}-x_{k+1} & x_{k+1}-x_{k+2} & \ldots & x_{2k-1}-x_{2k}\end{pmatrix},\\
K_{2k+1} = \det
\begin{pmatrix}1-x_{1} & x_{1}-x_{2} & \ldots & x_{k}-x_{k+1}\\
\vdots & & & \\
x_{k}-x_{k+1} & x_{k+1}-x_{k+2} & \ldots & x_{2k}-x_{2k+1}\end{pmatrix}. \nonumber
\end{align}
An important contribution of \cite{Karlin2} is that the authors give complete description of $\partial \, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1]))$ which allowed them to obtain a geometric point of view on the classical orthogonal polynomials. For example, knowing the width in $x_{n+1}$ direction of the set $\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1]))$ one can recover the classical fact that among all polynomials of degree $n+1$ on $[0,1]$ with the leading coefficient $1$ the Tchebyshev polynomials minimize the maximum of the absolute value on $[0,1]$ (Theorem 25.2 in ~\cite{Karlin2}).
Karlin--Sharpley did announce an intend to settle the case when $[a,b]$ is replaced by $[-1,1]$, $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ or $\mathbb{R}$. After looking into a literature, to the best of our knowledge the corresponding results appeared in the monograph of Karlin--Studden~\cite{Karlin1}.
In ~\cite{Sch0101} Schoenberg obtained a formula for the volume of a smooth closed\footnote{Here closed curve means $\nu(0)=\nu(2\pi)$} convex curve $\nu : [0, 2\pi] \mapsto \mathbb{R}^{n}$ in even-dimensional Euclidean space
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{conv}(\nu([0, 2\pi]))) = \pm \frac{1}{n!(n/2)!}\int_{[0,2\pi]^{\frac{n}{2}}}\det (\nu(t_{1}), \ldots, \nu(t_{n/2}), \nu'(t_{1}), \ldots, \nu'(t_{n/2}))dt_{1}\ldots dt_{n/2},
\end{align*}
and as a corollary, using Fourier series, he derived an isoperimetric inequality
$$
(\mathrm{length}(\nu))^{n}\geq (\pi n)^{n/2}(n/2)! n! \mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{conv}(\nu([0, 2\pi]))),
$$
where $\mathrm{length}(\nu)$ denotes the Euclidean length of $\nu$, and $\mathrm{Vol}(\cdot)$ denotes the Euclidean volume. The volumes of the convex hull of $\gamma([a,b])$, such that $\gamma(0)=0$ and the sequence $(1, \gamma_{1}(t), \ldots, \gamma_{n}(t))$ forms the $T$-system were obtained both in odd and even dimensions in \cite{krn, Karlin1}, see for example, Theorem 6.1, Ch. IV in \cite{Karlin1}.
\subsubsection{Other results for systems different from $T$-system} In \cite{sed1, sed2} Sedykh describes possible {\em singularities} of the boundary of convex hulls of a curve in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. In~\cite{Krist1}, using tools from algebraic geometry, namely, {\em De Jonqui\`eres' formula}, the authors compute number of {\em complex tritangent planes} of the {\em algebraic boundary} of the convex hull of an algebraic space curve in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ in terms of its genus and degree of the curve. Moreover, in \cite{Krist1} the authors also find an algebraic elimination method for computing {\em tritangent planes} and {\em edge surfaces} of the boundary of the convex hulls of algebraic space curves in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. {\em Algebraic boundary} of the convex hull of an algebraic variety was studied \cite{KRBS1}, where the authors extended several results from \cite{Krist1} to higher dimensions. In \cite{Freed}, using topological results it is shown that the number of tritangent planes to a smooth {\em generic} curve in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ with nonvanishing torsion is even.
Convex hulls of space curves have appeared implicitly or explicitly in other works in relation to problems not directly related to them. We do not intend to provide the full list of references, however, let us mention some of the examples. Finding sharp constants in such classical estimates as John--Nirenberg inequality is related to finding convex hulls {\em in non-convex domains} of certain space curves. In particular, in \cite{Iv1, Iv2}, an algorithm is presented which finds the convex hull of a space curve $\gamma(t) = (t, t^{2}, f(t))$ defined on $\mathbb{R}$, under the assumption that $f'''(t)$ changes sign finitely many times (notice that the sign of $f'''$ coincides with the sign of the torsion of $\gamma(t)$). As the number of sign changes of $f'''$ increase the ``complexity'' of computing the convex hull of $\gamma(t)$ increases too. The method obtained in \cite{Iv1,Iv2} is illustrated on a particular example in \cite{Vasyunin} for the family of space curves $\gamma_{\alpha}(t)=(t,t^{2}, g_{\alpha}(t))$ where $g_{\alpha}(t)$ is a parametric family of functions defined for all $\alpha>0$ as follows
\begin{align*}
g_{\alpha}(t) = \begin{cases}
-\cos(t), & |t|\leq \alpha \\
\frac{1}{2}(t^{2}-\alpha^{2})\cos \alpha+(\sin \alpha-\alpha \cos \alpha)(|t|-\alpha)-\cos \alpha, & |t|\geq \alpha.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Notice that the quadratic part for $|t|\geq \alpha$ is chosen in such a way that $g_{\alpha} \in C^{2}(\mathbb{R})$. Clearly $g'''_{\alpha}(t)=-\sin(t)$ for $|t|\leq \alpha$, and $g'''_{\alpha}(t)=0$ for $|t|\geq \alpha$. We see that as $\alpha$ increases the number of sign changes of $g'''_{\alpha}(t)$ increases too. In \cite{Vasyunin} the upper boundary of the convex hull of the space curve $\gamma_{\alpha}(t)$, $t \in \mathbb{R}$, is found in the non-convex parametric domain\footnote{By convex hull of $\gamma_{\alpha}$ in $\Omega_{\varepsilon}$ we mean all possible convex combinations of those points on $\gamma_{\alpha}$ such that the projection of the resulting convex hull of these points onto $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ lies inside $\Omega_{\varepsilon}$}.
$\Omega_{\varepsilon} = \{ (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^{2}\, :\, x^{2} \leq y \leq x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}\}.$
In the limiting case $\varepsilon \to \infty$ one recovers the upper boundary of the convex hull of the space curve $\gamma_{\alpha}(t)$.
In sharpening the triangle inequality in $L^{p}$ spaces, for each $p \in \mathbb{R} \setminus\{0\}$ the paper \cite{IM} finds the boundary of the convex hull of a space curve $\gamma(t) = (t, \sqrt{1-t^{2}}, ((1-t)^{1/p}+(1+t)^{1/p})^{p}), t \in [-1,1]$. In~\cite{IVZ} the boundary of the convex hull of a closed space curve is described which is the union of the following three curves
\begin{align*}
&\left(\frac{1}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}, \frac{t^{p}}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}, \frac{(1+t)^{p}}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}\right), \quad t \in [0,1];\\
&\left(\frac{(1-t)^{p}}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}, \frac{1}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}, \frac{(2-t)^{p}}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}\right), \quad t \in [0,1];\\
&\left(\frac{t^{p}}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}, \frac{(1-t)^{p}}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}, \frac{|1-2t|^{p}}{t^{p}+(1-t)^{p}+1}\right), \quad t \in [0,1].
\end{align*}
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to Pavel Zatitskiy for pointing our attention to the reference~\cite{krn}.
The authors would like to thank V.~Sedykh for providing references on topological results on the convex hulls of space curves.
\section{Statements of main results}\label{glavnaya}
\label{sec:Statements}
For any $v=(v_{1}, \ldots, v_{d}) \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ we set $\overline{v}=(v_{1}, \ldots, v_{d-1})$ to be the projection onto the first $d-1$ coordinates, and we set $v^{z}=v_{d}$ to be the projection onto the last coordinate. For any $a<b$ define the following sets
\begin{align*}
&\Delta^{k}_{c} := \{ (r_{1}, \ldots, r_{k}) \in \mathbb{R}^{k}\, :\, r_{j} \geq 0, j=1, \ldots, k, \, r_{1}+\ldots+r_{k}\leq 1\},\\
&\Delta_{*}^{k} := \{ (y_{1}, \ldots, y_{k}) \in \mathbb{R}^{k}\, :\, a\leq y_{1}\leq y_{2} \leq \ldots\leq y_{k}\leq b\}.
\end{align*}
Let $n\geq 1$. If $n=2\ell$ we define
\begin{align*}
&U_{n} : \Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell} \ni (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \mapsto \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j} \gamma(x_{j}) + (1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}) \gamma(b);\\
&L_{n} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell} \ni (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \mapsto (1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\gamma(a)+\sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j} \gamma(x_{j}),
\end{align*}
and if $n=2\ell-1$ we define
\begin{align*}
&U_{n} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1} \ni (\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, x_{2},\ldots, x_{\ell}) \mapsto (1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\gamma(a) +\sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j} \gamma(x_{j})+\beta_{1} \gamma(b);\\
&L_{n} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell} \ni (\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, x_{1},\ldots, x_{\ell}) \mapsto (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j})\gamma(x_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j} \gamma(x_{j}).
\end{align*}
If $n=1$ we set $U_{1} : [0,1]=:\Delta_{c}^{1}\times \Delta_{*}^{0} \mapsto (1-\beta_{1})
\gamma(a)+\beta_{1}\gamma(b)$, and $L_{1} : [a,b]=:\Delta_{c}^{0}\times \Delta_{*}^{1} \mapsto \gamma(x_{1})$.
Together with maps $U_{n}$ and $L_{n}$ we define functions $B^{\sup}$ (and $B^{\inf}$) on the image of $\overline{U}$ (or $\overline{L}$) such that
\begin{align}
&B^{\sup}(\overline{U}_{n})=U^{z}_{n}, \label{vog}\\
&B^{\inf}(\overline{L}_{n}) = L^{z}_{n} \label{vyp}.
\end{align}
We remark that at this moment $B^{\sup}$ (and $B^{\inf}$) is not {\em well defined}, i.e., it could be that there are points $s_{1}, s_{2}$, $s_{1} \neq s_{2}$ such that $\overline{U}_{n}(s_{1})=\overline{U}_{n}(s_{2})$ and at the same time $U^{z}_{n}(s_{1})\neq U^{z}_{n}(s_{2})$. However, we will see that the next theorem, in particular, claims that both functions $B^{\sup}, B^{\inf}$ are well defined.
\begin{theorem}\label{mth010}
Let $\gamma : [a,b] \mapsto \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ be in $C([a,b])\cap C^{n+1}((a,b))$ with totally positive torsion.
If $n =2\ell$, $\ell \geq 1$, we have
\begin{align}
& \overline{U}_{2\ell}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})) =\overline{L}_{2\ell}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}))= \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b])), \label{b2l}\\
&\overline{U}_{2\ell} : \mathrm{int} (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}) \mapsto \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))) \quad \text{is diffeomorphism}, \label{diff2lu}\\
&\overline{L}_{2\ell} : \mathrm{int} (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}) \mapsto \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))) \quad \text{is diffeomorphism}. \label{diff2ll}
\end{align}
If $n=2\ell-1$ we have
\begin{align}
& \overline{U}_{2\ell-1}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})) =\overline{L}_{2\ell-1}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}))= \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b])), \label{b2l-1}\\
&\overline{U}_{2\ell-1} : \mathrm{int} (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}) \mapsto \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))) \quad \text{is diffeomorphism}, \label{diff2l-1u}\\
&\overline{L}_{2\ell-1} : \mathrm{int} (\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}) \mapsto \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))) \quad \text{is diffeomorphism}. \label{diff2l-1l}
\end{align}
For all $n\geq 1$,
\begin{align}\label{welld}
B^{\sup}, B^{\inf} \quad \text{are well defined}, \quad B^{\sup}, B^{\inf} \in C(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))) \cap C^{1}(\mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b])))).
\end{align}
Next, for all $n\geq 1$ we have\footnote{When $n=1$ the equality $B^{\sup}(\overline{\gamma})=\gamma_{2}$ should be replaced by $B^{\sup}(\overline{\gamma})\geq \gamma_{2}.$}
\begin{align}
&B^{\sup} \quad \text{is minimal concave on} \quad \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b])) \quad \text{with} \quad \, B^{\sup}(\overline{\gamma})=\gamma_{n+1}; \label{mincon1}\\
&B^{\inf} \quad \text{is maximal convex on} \quad \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b])) \quad \text{with}\quad \, B^{\inf}(\overline{\gamma})=\gamma_{n+1}; \label{maxcon2}
\end{align}
Moreover,
\begin{align}
&B^{\inf}(y)=B^{\sup}(y) \quad \text{if and only if} \quad y \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b])), \label{giff}\\
& \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))=\{(x,B^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\} \cup \{(x,B^{\mathrm{inf}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\}. \label{union}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
The statement of Theorem~\ref{mth010} may seem a bit technical, however, we think that the intuition behind the construction of the convex hulls is natural. We refer the reader to schematic pictures in Fig.~\ref{fig:sketches} for better understanding of the claims made in the theorem. In Fig.~\ref{fig:4d} the domain $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))$ of $B^{\sup}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is foliated by triangles where $B^{\sup}$ is linear on each such triangle.
\newcommand{\showsketch}[1]{%
\begin{minipage}{.33\textwidth}%
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 1 1 1 1 , clip, width=\textwidth]{d=#1.pdf}
$n+1 = #1$
\end{center}
\end{minipage}%
}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\showsketch{1}\showsketch{3}\showsketch{5}
\showsketch{2}\showsketch{4}\showsketch{6}
\caption{These schematic pictures clarify how the convex hull of the space $\gamma$ with totally positive torsion is parametrized. If $n$ is even then the {\em upper hull} is described by convex combination of $\frac{n}{2}+1$ points of $\gamma$, where among these points, $\frac{n}{2}$ are {\em free}, i.e., they are chosen in an arbitrary way on the space curve, and the last point $\gamma(b)$ is always fixed. For the {\em lower hull} $\gamma(a)$ is fixed instead of $\gamma(b)$. If $n$ is odd the picture is asymmetric. In this case the {\em upper hull} fixes $2$ endpoints $\gamma(a)$ and $\gamma(b)$ and has $\frac{n-1}{2}$ free points. The lower hull has $\frac{n+1}{2}$ free points, and no fixed points. The case $n=0$ (the convex hull of an interval), not mentioned in Theorem~\ref{mth010}, was helpful to guess the construction in higher dimensions, it has two fixed points $\gamma(a)$ and $\gamma(b)$. Compare with the exact pictures for the cases $n+1= 2,3,4$ shown in Figures \ref{fig:2d},\ref{fig:3d} and \ref{fig:4d}. }
\label{fig:sketches}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{4d_Top.png}
\caption{For $n+1=3+1$ the set $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))$ is foliated by triangles (simplices) with vertices $\overline{\gamma}(a), \overline{\gamma}(b)$ and $\overline{\gamma}(t)$ for each $t \in (a,b)$. The function $B^{\sup}$ is linear on each such triangle and $B^{\sup}(\overline{\gamma})=\gamma_{4}$. Also $B^{\sup}=B^{\inf}$ on edges of each triangle.}
\label{fig:4d}
\end{figure}
\vskip0.3cm
Perhaps it may seem that the total positivity of the torsion, i.e., the fact that the leading principal minors of $(\gamma', \ldots, \gamma^{(n+1)})$ have positive signs on $(a,b)$, is a redundant assumption for Theorem~\ref{mth010} to hold true. However, the next proposition shows that the total positivity is a sensitive assumption.
\begin{proposition}\label{sensitive}
There exists a curve $\gamma : [-1,1] \to \mathbb{R}^{2+1}$ in $C^{\infty}([-1,1])$ such that the leading principal minors of $(\gamma', \gamma'', \gamma''')$ are positive on $[-1,1]$ except the $2\times2$ and $3\times 3$ principal minors vanish at $t=0$, and the map $B^{\sup}$ defined by (\ref{vog}) is not concave on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([-1,1]))$.
\end{proposition}
The next theorem answers Question~\ref{que1}, and also provides us with optimizers, i.e., the random variables $Y$ which attain supremum (infimum) in Question~\ref{que1}.
\begin{theorem}\label{mth1} Let $\gamma : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, $\gamma \in C([a,b]) \cap C^{n+1}((a,b))$ be such that all the leading principal minors of the $(n+1)\times (n+1)$ matrix $(\gamma'(t), \ldots, \gamma^{(n+1)}(t))$ are positive for all $t \in (a,b)$. Then
\begin{align}
\sup_{a\leq Y\leq b} \{ \mathbb{E}\gamma_{n+1}(Y) \, :\, \mathbb{E}\bar{\gamma}(Y)=x\} &=B^{\mathrm{sup}}(x),\label{extr01}\\
\inf_{a\leq Y\leq b} \{ \mathbb{E}\gamma_{n+1}(Y) \, :\, \mathbb{E}\bar{\gamma}(Y)=x\} &=B^{\mathrm{inf}}(x),\label{extr02}
\end{align}
hold for all $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))$, where $B^{\sup}$ and $B^{\inf}$ are given by (\ref{vog}) and (\ref{vyp}). Moreover, given $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))$ the supremum in (\ref{extr01}) (infimum in (\ref{extr02})) is attained by the random variable $\zeta(x)$ (the random variable $\xi(x)$) defined as follows:
Case 1: $n=2\ell-1$. Then by (\ref{b2l-1}) and (\ref{diff2l-1u}), $x =(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\overline{\gamma}(a)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j})+\beta_{1}\overline{\gamma}(b)$ for some $(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell})\in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times\Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$. Set $\mathbb{P}(\zeta(x)=a)=1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}$, $\mathbb{P}(\zeta(x)=b)=\beta_{1}$, and $\mathbb{P}(\zeta(x)=x_{j})=\beta_{j}$ for $j=2,\ldots, \ell$. Also, by (\ref{b2l-1}) and (\ref{diff2l-1l}), $x =(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j})$ for some $(\lambda_{2}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})\in \Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times\Delta_{*}^{\ell}$. Set $\mathbb{P}(\xi(x)=y_{1})=1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}$, and $\mathbb{P}(\xi(x)=y_{j})=\lambda_{j}$ for $j=2,\ldots, \ell$.
Case 2: $n=2\ell$. Then by (\ref{b2l}) and (\ref{diff2lu}), $x =\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j})+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\overline{\gamma}(b)$ for some $(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell})\in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times\Delta_{*}^{\ell}$. Set $\mathbb{P}(\zeta(x)=b)=1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}$, and $\mathbb{P}(\zeta(x)=x_{j})=\beta_{j}$ for $j=1,\ldots, \ell$. Also, by (\ref{b2l}) and (\ref{diff2ll}), $x =(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(a)+\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j})$ for some $(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})\in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times\Delta_{*}^{\ell}$. Set $\mathbb{P}(\xi(x)=a)=1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}$, and $\mathbb{P}(\xi(x)=y_{j})=\lambda_{j}$ for $j=1,\ldots, \ell$.
\end{theorem}
The next corollary recovers the result of Karlin--Sharpley \cite{Karlin2}, i.e., the equations (\ref{nobel}) in case of the moment curve.
\begin{corollary}\label{nobel2}
Let $\gamma(t) = (t, \ldots, t^{n}, t^{n+1}) : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. If $x=(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n}) \in \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv} (\overline{\gamma}([0,1])))$ then $B^{\sup}(x)$ and $B^{\inf}(x)$ are the unique solutions $x_{n+1}$ of the equations $K_{n+1}=0$ and $S_{n+1}=0$ correspondingly, where $K_{n+1}$ and $S_{n+1}$ are defined by (\ref{Sharp1}) and (\ref{kar1}).
\end{corollary}
In the next corollary we give a sufficient local description of convex curves. Recall that a curve $\gamma : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is called {\em convex} if no $n+1$ its different points lie in a single affine hyperplane.
\begin{corollary}\label{karatecor}
Let $\gamma : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\gamma \in C([a,b]) \cap C^{n}((a,b))$ be such that all the leading principal minors of the $n\times n$ matrix $(\gamma'(t), \ldots, \gamma^{(n)}(t))$ are positive for all $t \in (a,b)$. Then $\gamma$ is convex. In particular, for any integer $k$, $1\leq k \leq n$, the equation $c_{0}+c_{1}\gamma_{1}(t)+\ldots+c_{k}\gamma_{k}(t)=0$ has at most $k$ roots on $[a,b]$ provided that $(c_{0}, \ldots, c_{k})\neq (0, \ldots, 0)$.
\end{corollary}
Recall the definition of Carath\'eodory number $b(\gamma)$ of a curve $\gamma : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n}$, i.e., the smallest integer $k$ such that any point of $\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))$ can be represented as convex combination of at most $k$ points of $\gamma([a,b])$, see (\ref{karate1}). The next corollary directly follows from Theorem~\ref{mth010} (parts (\ref{b2l-1}), (\ref{diff2l-1l}), (\ref{b2l}), and (\ref{diff2ll})).
\begin{corollary}\label{karatekid}
Let $\gamma : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\gamma \in C([a,b]) \cap C^{n}((a,b))$ be a curve with totally positive torsion. Then its Carath\'eodory number equals to $\lfloor \frac{n+2}{2}\rfloor$.
\end{corollary}
In the next corollary we obtain formulas for the volumes of the convex hulls of a space curve having totally positive torsion both in even and odd dimensions.
\begin{corollary}\label{provolume}
Let $\gamma : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\gamma \in C([a,b]) \cap C^{n}((a,b))$ be a curve with totally positive torsion. If $n=2 \ell$ then
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b])))& \\
=\frac{(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}}{(2\ell)!}& \int_{a\leq x_{1}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell} \leq b} \mathrm{det}(\gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(a), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(a), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell})) \, dx \\
=\frac{(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}}{(2\ell)!}& \int_{a\leq x_{1}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell} \leq b} \mathrm{det}(\gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(b), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(b), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell})) \, dx.
\end{align*}
If $n=2\ell-1$ then
\begin{align*}
&\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))) \\
&=\frac{(-1)^{\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}{2}}}{(2\ell-1)!} \int_{a\leq x_{2}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell} \leq b} \mathrm{det}(\gamma(b)-\gamma(a), \gamma(x_{2})-\gamma(a), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(a), \gamma'(x_{2}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell})) \, dx \\
&=\frac{(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}}{(2\ell-1)!} \int_{a\leq x_{1}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell} \leq b} \mathrm{det}(\gamma(x_{2})-\gamma(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(x_{1}), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell}))\, dx.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
Let $\mathrm{Area}$ denote $n$ dimensional Lebesgue measure in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, and let $A^{\mathrm{Tr}}$ be the transpose of a matrix $A$.
\begin{corollary}\label{area1}
Let $\gamma : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, $\gamma \in C^{1}([a,b]) \cap C^{n+1}((a,b))$ be a curve with totally positive torsion. If $n=2 \ell$ then
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Area}(\partial \; \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))) = \frac{1}{n!} \int_{a\leq x_{1}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell}\leq b} \left( \sqrt{\det S_{a}^{\mathrm{Tr}}S_{a}} +\sqrt{\det S_{b}^{\mathrm{Tr}}S_{b}} \right) dx,
\end{align*}
where $S_{r} = (\gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(r), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(r), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell}))$ is $(2\ell+1)\times 2\ell$ matrix, and $dx$ is $\ell$ dimensional Lebesgue measure.
If $n=2\ell-1$ then
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Area}(\partial \; \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))) = \frac{1}{n!} \int_{a\leq x_{2}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell}\leq b} \sqrt{\det \Psi^{\mathrm{Tr}}\Psi} \, d\tilde{x} +\frac{1}{n!} \int_{a\leq x_{1}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell}\leq b} \sqrt{\det \Phi^{\mathrm{Tr}}\Phi} \, dx,
\end{align*}
where $\Psi = (\gamma(b)-\gamma(a), \gamma(x_{2})-\gamma(a), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(a), \gamma'(x_{2}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell}))$, $\Phi = (\gamma(x_{2})-\gamma(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(x_{1}), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell}))$ are $2\ell \times (2\ell-1)$ size matrices, and $d\tilde{x}$ denotes $\ell-1$ dimensional Lebesgue measure.
\end{corollary}
\section{The proof of main results}\label{damtkiceba}
Sometimes we will omit the index $n$ and simply write $U, L$ instead of $U_{n}, L_{n}$, and it will be clear from the context what is the corresponding number $n$. Before we start proving Theorem~\ref{mth010}, first let us state several lemmas that will be helpful throughout the rest of the paper. The next lemma illustrates {\em local to global} principle.
\begin{lemma}\label{klasika}
If the torsion of $\gamma$ is totally positive on $(a,b)$ then
\begin{align}\label{dplane}
\det(\gamma'(x_{1}), \gamma'(x_{2}), \ldots \gamma'(x_{n+1}))>0
\end{align}
for all $a<x_{1}<\ldots<\ldots<x_{n+1}<b$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality assume $[a,b]=[0,1]$. The lemma can be derived from the identity (9) obtained in \cite{DW}. As the lemma is an important step in the proofs of the main results stated in this paper, for the readers convenience we decided to include the proof of the lemma without invoking the identity from \cite{DW}.
We have
\begin{align}
&\det \begin{pmatrix}
\gamma'_{1}(x_{1}) & \gamma'_{1}(x_{2}) & \dots & \gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})\\
\gamma'_{2}(x_{1}) & \gamma'_{2}(x_{2}) & \ldots & \gamma'_{2}(x_{n+1})\\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{1}) & \gamma'_{n+1}(x_{2}) & \dots & \gamma'_{n+1}(x_{n+1})
\end{pmatrix} = \nonumber\\
&\det \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1& \dots & 1\\
\frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{2})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{2})} & \ldots & \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{n+1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})}\\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{2})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{2})} & \dots & \frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{n+1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})}
\end{pmatrix}\, \prod_{j=1}^{n+1} \gamma'_{1}(x_{j}) = \nonumber\\
&\det \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0& \dots & 0\\
\frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{2})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{2})}- \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \ldots & \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{n+1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})}- \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} \\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{2})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{2})} -\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \dots & \frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{n+1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})} -\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})}
\end{pmatrix}\, \prod_{j=1}^{n+1} \gamma'_{1}(x_{j}) = \nonumber\\
&\det \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{2})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{2})}- \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \ldots & \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{n+1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})}- \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} \\
\vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{2})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{2})} -\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \dots & \frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{n+1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})} -\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})}
\end{pmatrix}\, \prod_{j=1}^{n+1} \gamma'_{1}(x_{j}) \stackrel{(*)}{=} \nonumber\\
&\det \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{2})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{2})}- \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \ldots & \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{n+1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})}- \frac{\gamma'_{2}(x_{n})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n})} \\
\vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{2})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{2})} -\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{1})} & \dots & \frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{n+1})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n+1})} -\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(x_{n})}{\gamma'_{1}(x_{n})}
\end{pmatrix}\, \prod_{j=1}^{n+1} \gamma'_{1}(x_{j}) = \nonumber\\
&\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}} \int_{x_{2}}^{x_{3}} \dots \int_{x_{n}}^{x_{n+1}} \det
\begin{pmatrix}
\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}(y_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(y_{1})}\right)' & \ldots & \left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}(y_{n})}{\gamma'_{1}(y_{n})}\right)' \\
\vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
\left(\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(y_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(y_{1})}\right)' & \dots & \left(\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(y_{n})}{\gamma'_{1}(y_{n})}\right)'
\end{pmatrix} dy_{1} dy_{2}\dots dy_{n}\, \prod_{j=1}^{n+1} \gamma'_{1}(x_{j}), \nonumber
\end{align}
where in the equality $(*)$ we used the property of the determinant that if $v_{1}, \ldots, v_{k}$ are column vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{k}$ then $\det(v_{2}-v_{1}, v_{3}-v_{1}, \ldots, v_{k}-v_{1})) = \det(v_{2}-v_{1}, v_{3}-v_{2}, \ldots, v_{k}-v_{k-1})$ by subtracting the columns from each other.
The leading principal minors of the matrix $(\gamma', \gamma'', \ldots, \gamma^{(n+1)})$ are positive. In particular $\gamma'_{1}$ is positive on $(0,1)$, and hence the factor $\prod_{j=1}^{n+1}\gamma'(x_{j})>0$. To verify (\ref{dplane}) it suffices to show
\begin{align}\label{dplane2}
\det
\begin{pmatrix}
\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}(y_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(y_{1})}\right)' & \ldots & \left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}(y_{n})}{\gamma'_{1}(y_{n})}\right)' \\
\vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
\left(\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(y_{1})}{\gamma'_{1}(y_{1})}\right)' & \dots & \left(\frac{\gamma'_{n+1}(y_{n})}{\gamma'_{1}(y_{n})}\right)'
\end{pmatrix} >0 \quad \text{for all} \quad 0<y_{1}<y_{2}<\ldots<y_{n}<1.
\end{align}
We will repeat the same computation as before but now for the determinant in (\ref{dplane2}), and, eventually, we will see that the proof of the lemma will be just $n$ times the application of the previous computation together with an identity for determinants that we have not described yet.
Before we proceed let us make couple of observations. We started with the determinant of $(n+1)\times (n+1)$ matrix. Next, we divided the columns by the entries in the first row which consist of $\gamma'_{1}>0$, and after the Gaussian elimination and the fundamental theorem of calculus we ended up with the integral of the determinant of $n \times n$, and we also acquired the factor $\prod_{j=1}^{n+1} \gamma'_{1}(x_{j}) >0$. To repeat the same computation for the determinant in (\ref{dplane2}) and the ones that we obtain in a similar manner we should verify that the entries in the first row of all such new matrices (of smaller sizes) are positive. Such entries are changed as follows
\begin{align}\label{iteracia}
\gamma'_{1} \stackrel{\mathrm{step \,1}}{\mapsto} \left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)' \stackrel{\mathrm{step\, 2}}{\mapsto} \left( \frac{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{3}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'}{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'} \right)' \stackrel{\mathrm{step\, 3}}{\mapsto} \left(\frac{\left( \frac{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{4}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'}{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'} \right)'}{\left( \frac{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{3}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'}{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'} \right)'}\right)' \stackrel{\mathrm{step\, 4}}{\mapsto} \ldots\, .
\end{align}
We claim that after $k$'th step, $1 \leq k \leq n$, the obtained entry is of the form $\frac{\Delta_{k+1} \Delta_{k-1}}{\Delta^{2}_{k}}$,
where $\Delta_{\ell }$ denotes the leading $\ell \times \ell $ principal minor of the matrix $(\gamma',\gamma'', \ldots, \gamma^{(n+1)})$ (by definition we set $\Delta_{0}:=1$). Assuming the claim, Lemma~\ref{klasika} follows immediately because of the condition $\Delta_{\ell}>0$ on $(0,1)$ for all $0\leq \ell \leq n+1$.
To verify the claim we set $T = (\gamma', \gamma'', \ldots, \gamma^{(n+1)})$. Given subsets $I, J \subset \{1, \ldots, n+1\}$ we define $T_{I\times J}$ to be the determinant of the submatrix of $T$ formed by choosing the rows of the index set $I$ and the columns of index set $J$.
We have
\begin{align}
\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)' &= \frac{\gamma''_{2}\gamma'_{1}-\gamma''_{1}\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}=\frac{T_{\{1,2\}\times\{1,2\}}}{T^{2}_{\{1\}\times \{1\}}}, \nonumber\\
\left(\frac{\gamma'_{\ell}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)' &= \frac{T_{\{1,\ell\}\times\{1,2\}}}{T^{2}_{\{1\}\times \{1\}}}, \quad \text{for all} \quad \ell \geq 2; \nonumber\\
\left( \frac{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{\ell}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'}{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'} \right)' &= \left(\frac{T_{\{1,\ell\}\times\{1,2\}}}{T_{\{1,2\}\times\{1,2\}}}\right)' \stackrel{(*)}{=} \frac{T_{\{1,\ell\}\times\{1,3\}} T_{\{1,2\}\times \{1,2\}} - T_{\{1,\ell\}\times\{1,2\}} T_{\{1,2\}\times \{1,3\}}}{T^{2}_{\{1,2\}\times\{1,2\}}} \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(**)}{=}\frac{T_{\{1,2,\ell\}\times\{1,2,3\}}\, T_{\{1\}\times\{1\}}}{T^{2}_{\{1,2\}\times\{1,2\}}}, \quad \text{for all} \quad \ell \geq 3, \label{ind2}
\end{align}
where $(*)$ follows from the identity $(T_{I\times \{1,2,\ldots, k-1, k\}})'=T_{I\times \{1,2,\ldots, k-1, k+1\}}$, and $(**)$ follows from the following general identity for determinants:
\begin{align}\label{tozhd1}
T_{\{[k-2], \ell\}\times \{[k-2], k\}} T_{[k-1]\times [k-1]}-T_{\{[k-2], \ell\}\times [k-1]} T_{[k-1]\times\{[k-2], k\}}=T_{\{[k-1],\ell\}\times [k]} T_{[k-2]\times [k-2]}
\end{align}
for all $k, 3 \leq k \leq n+1$, where we set $[d]:=\{1,2, \ldots, d\}$ for a positive integer $d$. Before we verify the identity (\ref{tozhd1}), notice that it also implies
\begin{align}
\left(\frac{T_{\{[k-2], \ell \}\times[k-1]}}{T_{[k-1]\times [k-1]}}\right)'&=\frac{T_{\{[k-2], \ell\}\times \{[k-2], k\}} T_{[k-1]\times [k-1]}-T_{\{[k-2], \ell\}\times [k-1]} T_{[k-1]\times\{[k-2], k\}}}{T^{2}_{[k-1]\times [k-1]}} \nonumber\\
&= \frac{T_{\{[k-1],\ell\}\times [k]} T_{[k-2]\times [k-2]}}{T^{2}_{[k-1]\times [k-1]}}, \label{tozhd2}
\end{align}
for all $k, \ell$ such that $3\leq k \leq n+1$ and $k-1\leq \ell \leq n+1$. Therefore
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{\left( \frac{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{\ell}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'}{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'} \right)'}{\left( \frac{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{3}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'}{\left(\frac{\gamma'_{2}}{\gamma'_{1}}\right)'} \right)'}\right)' \stackrel{(\ref{ind2})}{=} \left(\frac{T_{\{1,2,\ell\}\times\{1,2,3\}}}{T_{\{1,2,3\}\times\{1,2,3\}}}\right)' \stackrel{(\ref{tozhd2})}{=} \frac{T_{\{[3],\ell\}\times [4]} T_{[2]\times [2]}}{T^{2}_{[3]\times [3]}}.
\end{align*}
In particular, after step 3, the entry in (\ref{iteracia}) becomes $\frac{T_{[4]\times [4]} T_{[2]\times [2]}}{T^{2}_{[3]\times [3]}}>0$ because $T_{[k]\times[k]}=\Delta_{k}$. It then follows that after step $k$, the entry in (\ref{iteracia}) takes the form
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{T_{\{[k-1],k+1\}\times[k]}}{T_{[k]\times[k]}}\right)' \stackrel{(\ref{tozhd1})}{=} \frac{T_{[k+1]\times[k+1]} T_{[k-1]\times [k-1]}}{T^{2}_{[k]\times[k]}} = \frac{\Delta_{k+1} \Delta_{k-1}}{\Delta_{k}} >0,
\end{align*}
for all $1\leq k \leq n$. Thus the proof of Lemma~\ref{klasika} is complete provided that the determinant identity (\ref{tozhd1}) is verified. Let $\Delta$ be an invertible $(k-2)\times (k-2)$ matrix, $p,w,u,q \in \mathbb{R}^{k-2}$, and let $a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}$. To verify the identity (\ref{tozhd1}) it suffices to show that
\begin{align}\label{sila}
\det \begin{pmatrix}
\Delta & q^{T} \\
w & a
\end{pmatrix} \det \begin{pmatrix}
\Delta & u^{T} \\
p & b
\end{pmatrix} - \det \begin{pmatrix}
\Delta & u^{T} \\
w & c
\end{pmatrix} \det \begin{pmatrix}
\Delta & q^{T} \\
p & d
\end{pmatrix} = \det \begin{pmatrix}
\Delta & u^{T} & q^{T} \\
p & b & d \\
w & c & a
\end{pmatrix} \det \Delta.
\end{align}
Since $\det \begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} = \det A \, \det (D -CA^{-1}B)$ for an invertible $m\times m$ matrix $A$, and arbitrary $n\times n$ matrix $D$, $n\times m$ matrix $B$, and $m\times n$ matrix $C$, we see that (\ref{sila}) simplifies to
\begin{align*}
&(\det \Delta)^{2} \left[ (a-w\Delta^{-1} q^{T}) (b-p\Delta^{-1} u^{T})-(c-w \Delta^{-1} u^{T})(d-p\Delta^{-1} q^{T})\right]=\\
&(\det \Delta)^{2} \det \left( \begin{pmatrix}
b & d \\
c & a
\end{pmatrix}- \begin{pmatrix}
p\\
w
\end{pmatrix} \Delta^{-1} \begin{pmatrix}
u^{T} q^{T}
\end{pmatrix}\right),
\end{align*}
which holds because
$\begin{pmatrix}
p\\
w
\end{pmatrix} \Delta^{-1} \begin{pmatrix}
u^{T} q^{T}
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
p \Delta^{-1}u^{T} & p\Delta^{-1} q^{T}\\
w \Delta^{-1} u^{T} & w \Delta^{-1}q^{T}
\end{pmatrix}$. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{klasikac}
Let $a<b$, and let $\beta : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R}^{m}$ be a curve $\beta \in C([a,b])\cap C^{m}((a,b))$ with totally positive torsion. Choose any $a\leq z_{1}<\ldots<z_{m}\leq b$ and $r \in [0,1]\setminus\{z_{1}, \ldots, z_{m}\}$. Then the vectors $\beta(z_{1})-\beta(r), \ldots, \beta(z_{m})-\beta(r)$ are linearly independent in $\mathbb{R}^{m}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\nu$, $0\leq \nu \leq m$, be chosen in such a way that $r \in [z_{\nu}, z_{\nu+1}]$. Here we set $z_{0}:=a$, and $z_{m+1}:=b$. We have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\beta(z_{1})-\beta(r), \ldots, \beta(z_{m})-\beta(r)) =\\
&\pm \det(\beta(z_{2})-\beta(z_{1}),\ldots, \beta(r)-\beta(z_{\nu}), \beta(z_{\nu+1})-\beta(r), \ldots, \beta(z_{m})-\beta(z_{m-1}))=\\
& \pm \int_{z_{m-1}}^{z_{m}}\ldots \int_{r}^{z_{\nu+1}}\int_{z_{\nu}}^{r}\ldots \int_{z_{1}}^{z_{2}}\det(\beta'(s_{1}), \ldots,\beta'(s_{\nu}), \beta'(s_{\nu+1}),\ldots \beta'(s_{m}))ds_{1}\ldots ds_{m}\neq 0
\end{align*}
by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
\end{proof}
Certain parts of the proof of Theorem~\ref{mth010} will require induction on the dimension $n+1$. In particular, we will need to verify the base cases when $n=1$ (the odd case) and $n=2$ (even case).
In what follows without loss of generality we assume $[a,b]=[0,1]$, and $\gamma(0)=0$.
\subsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{mth010} in dimension 1+1}\label{kkl1}
This case is trivial and Theorem~\ref{mth010} essentially follows by looking at Fig.~\ref{fig:2d}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{2d.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ Proof of Theorem \ref{mth010} for dimension $n+1 = 1+1$.}
\label{fig:2d}
\end{figure}
If we reparametrize the curve $\gamma$ as $\tilde{\gamma}(t):= \gamma(\gamma_{1}^{-1}(t))$, $t \in (0,\gamma_{1}(1))$, then $\tilde{\gamma}$ has totally positive torsion. So $\tilde{\gamma}(t) = (t, g(t)), t \in (0, \gamma_{1}(1))$ where $g(0)=0$, and $\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}g(t)>0$ for all $t\in (0,\gamma_{1}(1))$. We have $U_{1}(\beta_{1})=\beta_{1}\gamma(1), \beta_{1} \in [0,1]$, is the line joining the endpoints of $\tilde{\gamma}$. Also $L_{1}(x_{1})=\gamma(x_{1}), x_{1} \in [0,1]$, is the curve coinciding with $\tilde{\gamma}$. It is easy to see that in this case Theorem~\ref{mth010} holds true.
\subsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{mth010} in dimension 2+1}
\subsubsection{The lower hull}\label{3low}
Recall that
\begin{align*}
\overline{L}_{2} :\Delta_{c}^{1}\times \Delta_{*}^{1} = [0,1]^{2} \ni (\alpha, x) \mapsto \alpha \overline{\gamma}(x).
\end{align*}
We claim
\begin{align}
&\overline{L}_{2}(\partial ([0,1]^{2})) =\partial ( \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))); \label{3db}\\
&\overline{L}_{2} :\mathrm{int}([0,1]^{2}) \mapsto \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))) \quad \text{is diffeomorphism.} \label{3ddiff}
\end{align}
To verify (\ref{3db}) it suffices to show that $\overline{\gamma}$ is the convex curve in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. Convexity of $\overline{\gamma}$ can be verified in a similar way as in Section~\ref{kkl1}. However, here we present one more proof which later will be adapted to higher dimensions too. Assume contrary, i.e., there exists $0\leq a <b<c \leq 1$ such that $\overline{\gamma}(a), \overline{\gamma}(b), \overline{\gamma}(c)$ lie on the same line, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{ura1}
0=\det(\overline{\gamma}(b)-\overline{\gamma}(a), \overline{\gamma}(c)-\overline{\gamma}(b)) = \int_{a}^{b} \int_{b}^{c} \det(\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{2}))dy_{1}dy_{2}.
\end{align}
The equation (\ref{ura1}) is in contradiction with Lemma~\ref{klasika} applied to $\overline{\gamma}$.
To verify (\ref{3ddiff}), by Hadamard-Caccioppoli theorem it suffices to check that the differential of $\overline{L}:=\overline{L}_{2}$ at the interior of $[0,1]^{2}$ has full rank, and the map $\overline{L}_{2}$ is injection. The injectivity will be verified later in all dimensions simultaneously (see the section on proofs of (\ref{diff2l-1u}), (\ref{diff2l-1l}), (\ref{diff2lu}), and (\ref{diff2ll})). To verify the full rank property we have $D \overline{L} = (\overline{L}_{\alpha}, \overline{L}_{x}) =\alpha \det(\overline{\gamma}(x),\overline{\gamma}'(x))$. On the other hand
\begin{align}\label{3dtozhd1}
\det (\overline{\gamma}(x),\overline{\gamma}'(x)) = \int_{0}^{x} \det(\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x))dy_{1} \stackrel{\text{Lemma}~\ref{klasika}}{>} 0.
\end{align}
Thus, see Fig.~\ref{fig:3d},
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{Bottom_3d.png}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{Top_3d.png}
\caption{Two pieces of the boundary of the convex hull of $\gamma$: the lower hull $L_{2}$ (left) and the upper hull $U_{2}$}
\label{fig:3d}
\end{figure}
$$
L_{2} : \Delta_{c}^{1}\times \Delta_{*}^{1}=[0,1]^{2} \ni (\alpha, x) \mapsto \alpha \gamma(x)
$$
parametrizes a surface in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ which is a graph of a function $B^{\mathrm{inf}}$ defined on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$ as follows
\begin{align*}
B^{\mathrm{inf}}(\alpha \overline{\gamma}(x)) = \alpha \gamma_{3}(x), \quad \text{for all} \quad (\alpha, x) \in [0,1]^{2}.
\end{align*}
Let us check that $B^{\mathrm{inf}}$ is convex. Indeed, at any point $(\alpha_{0}, x_{0}) \in \mathrm{int}([0,1]^{2})$ the set of points $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ belonging to the tangent plane at point $L_{2}(\alpha_{0}, x_{0})$ is found as the solution of the equation
\begin{align}\label{trieq}
\det(L_{\alpha}(\alpha_{0}, x_{0}),L_{x}(\alpha_{0}, x_{0}), \xi-L(\alpha_{0}, x_{0})) = \alpha_{0} \det(\gamma(x_{0}), \gamma'(x_{0}), \xi)=0.
\end{align}
For $\xi=e_{3}$, where $e_{3}=(0,0,1)$ we have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\gamma(x_{0}), \gamma'(x_{0}), e_{3}) = \det(\overline{\gamma}(x_{0}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{0}))\stackrel{(\ref{3dtozhd1})}{>}0.
\end{align*}
Therefore, to verify the convexity of $B^{\mathrm{inf}}$, i.e., the surface $L([0,1]^{2})$ lies above the tangent plane at point $L(\alpha_{0}, x_{0}),$ it suffices to show that
$$
\det(\gamma(x_{0}), \gamma'(x_{0}), L(\alpha, x)) = \alpha \det(\gamma(x_{0}), \gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma(x)) \geq 0.
$$
If $x=x_{0}$ there is nothing to prove. If $x>x_{0}$ then
\begin{align*}
\det(\gamma(x_{0}), \gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma(x)) = \int_{0}^{x_{0}}\int_{x_{0}}^{x}\det(\gamma'(y_{1}),\gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma'(y_{3}))dy_{1}dy_{3} \stackrel{\text{Lemma}~\ref{klasika}}{>}0.
\end{align*}
Similarly, if $x<x_{0}$, by Lemma~\ref{klasika} we have
\begin{align*}
\det(\gamma(x_{0}), \gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma(x)) = \int_{x}^{x_{0}} \int_{0}^{x} \det(\gamma'(y_{1}),\gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma'(y_{3}))dy_{1} dy_{3} >0.
\end{align*}
To verify that $B^{\mathrm{inf}}$ is the maximal convex function defined on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$ such that $B(\overline{\gamma}(s)) = \gamma_{3}(s)$, notice that since every point $(\xi,B^{\mathrm{inf}}(\xi))$, where $\xi \in \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$, is the convex combination of some points of $\gamma$, it follows that any other candidate $\tilde{B}$ would be smaller than $B$ by convexity.
\subsubsection{The upper hull} \label{3up}
Consider the map
\begin{align*}
\overline{U}_{2} : \Delta_{c}^{1}\times \Delta_{*}^{1} = [0,1]^{2} \ni (\alpha, x ) \mapsto \alpha \overline{\gamma}(x)+(1-\alpha)\overline{\gamma}(1).
\end{align*}
Similarly as before $\Phi$ satisfies (\ref{3db}) and (\ref{3ddiff}). The property (\ref{3db}) follows from from the convexity of $\overline{\gamma}$. The property (\ref{3ddiff}) follows from
\begin{align*}
\det(\overline{U}_{\alpha}, \overline{U}_{x}) = \alpha \det(\overline{\gamma}(x)-\overline{\gamma}(1), \overline{\gamma}'(x))= \int_{x}^{1}\det(\overline{\gamma}'(x), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{2}))dy_{2} \neq 0
\end{align*}
for all $(\alpha, x) \in \mathrm{int}([0,1]^{2})$ by Lemma~\ref{klasika} applied to $\overline{\gamma}$.
Next, we show that
\begin{align*}
B^{\mathrm{sup}}(\alpha \overline{\gamma}(x)+(1-\alpha)\overline{\gamma}(1)) = \alpha \gamma_{3}(x)+(1-\alpha)\gamma_{3}(1)
\end{align*}
defines a minimal concave function on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$ with the property $B^{\mathrm{sup}}(\overline{\gamma})= \gamma_{3}$, see Fig 3. Let $U(\alpha, x) = \alpha \gamma(x)+(1-\alpha)\gamma(1)$. The equation of the tangent plane at point $U(\alpha_{0}, x_{0})$, where $(\alpha_{0}, x_{0}) \in \mathrm{int}([0,1]^{2})$, is given by
\begin{align*}
&\det(U_{\alpha}(\alpha_{0}, x_{0}), U_{x}(\alpha_{0}, x_{0}), \xi -U(\alpha_{0}, x_{0})) =\alpha_{0}\det(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(x_{0}), \xi-\alpha_{0}(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(1))-\gamma(1))\\
&=\alpha_{0}\det(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(x_{0}), \xi-\gamma(1))=0.
\end{align*}
For $\xi=\lambda e_{3}$ with $\lambda \to +\infty$ we have
\begin{align*}
&\mathrm{sign}[\det(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(x_{0}), \lambda e_{3}-\gamma(1))] = \mathrm{sign}[ \det (\overline{\gamma}(x_{0})-\overline{\gamma}(1),\overline{\gamma}'(x_{0})]\\
&=\mathrm{sign}\left[\int_{x_{0}}^{1}\det (\overline{\gamma}'(x_{0}) ,\overline{\gamma}(y_{2})) dy_{2}\right] >0
\end{align*}
by Lemma~\ref{klasika} applied to $\overline{\gamma}$. Therefore, the concavity of $B^{\mathrm{sup}}$ would follow from the following inequality
\begin{align*}
\det(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(x_{0}), U(\alpha, x)-\gamma(1))=\alpha \det(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma(x)-\gamma(1)) \leq 0
\end{align*}
for all $x_{0}, \alpha, x \in [0,1]$. If $x=x_{0}$ there is nothing to prove. Consider $x>x_{0}$ (the case $x<x_{0}$ is similar). Then
\begin{align*}
&\det(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma(x)-\gamma(1))=\det(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma(x)-\gamma(x_{0}))=\\
&-\det(\gamma(x_{0})-\gamma(x), \gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma(1)-\gamma(x_{0})) = -\int_{x}^{x_{0}}\int_{x_{0}}^{1}\det(\gamma'(y_{1}), \gamma'(x_{0}), \gamma'(y_{2}))dy_{2}dy_{1}<0
\end{align*}
by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
\vskip1cm
The properties (\ref{giff}) and (\ref{union}) will be verified in sections \ref{giffsub} and \ref{unionsub}.
\subsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{mth010} in an arbitrary dimension $n+1$}
\begin{proof}
Since Theorem~\ref{mth010} contains several statements the whole proof will be split into several parts.
{\em The proof of claims (\ref{b2l-1}) and (\ref{b2l}).}
The proof will be by induction on $n$. We have checked the statement for $n=1,2$. First we consider the case when $n=2\ell-1$. We shall verify the claim (\ref{b2l-1}) by showing that $\overline{U}_{2\ell-1}|_{\partial(\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})}$, i.e., the restriction of $\overline{U}_{2\ell-1}$ on $\partial(\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$, coincides with maps $U_{2\ell-2}$ and $L_{2\ell-2}$ (similarly for $\overline{L}_{2\ell-1}|_{\partial(\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})}$). Since by the induction the union of the images of $U_{2\ell-2}$ and $L_{2\ell-2}$ coincides with the boundary of the convex hull of $\overline{\gamma}([0,1])$, see (\ref{union}), we obtain the claim.
Recall that
\begin{align*}
\overline{U}_{2\ell-1} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1} \ni (\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{2},\ldots, y_{\ell}) \mapsto \beta_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j}),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&U_{2\ell-2} : \Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1} \ni (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell-1}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell-1}) \mapsto \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1} \lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j}) + (1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\lambda_{j}) \overline{\gamma}(1),\\
&L_{2\ell-2} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1} \ni (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell-1}, z_{1}, \ldots, z_{\ell-1}) \mapsto \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1} \lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(z_{j}).
\end{align*}
If $\beta_{1}=0$ then $\overline{U}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $L_{2\ell-2}$. If $\sum_{j=1}^{n}\beta_{j}=1$, i.e., $\beta_{1}=1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}$, then $\overline{U}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $U_{2\ell-2}$. Thus, we have
\begin{align*}
\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) \stackrel{\mathrm{induction}}{=} U_{2\ell-2}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}) \cup L_{2\ell-2}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}) \subset \overline{U}_{2\ell-1}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})).
\end{align*}
On the other hand, if $\beta_{p}=0$ for some $p \in \{2, \ldots, \ell\}$, then $\overline{U}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $L_{2\ell-2}$ restricted to $z_{1}=1$. If at least one of the following conditions hold: a) $y_{2}=0$; b) $y_{s}=y_{s+1}$ for some $s \in \{2, \ldots, \ell-1\}$; c) $y_{\ell}=1$, then $\overline{U}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $U_{2\ell-2}$ restricted to $x_{1}=0$. Thus we obtain $\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) = \overline{U}_{2\ell-1}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}))$.
Next, we verify that $\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) = \overline{L}_{2\ell-1}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}))$. We recall
\begin{align*}
\overline{L}_{2\ell-1} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell} \ni (\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1},\ldots, y_{\ell}) \mapsto \sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j})+(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j})\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}).
\end{align*}
If $y_{\ell}=1$ then $\overline{L}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $U_{2\ell-2}$. If $y_{1}=0$ then $\overline{L}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $L_{2\ell-2}$. Thus, by induction $\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) \subset \overline{L}_{2\ell-1}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}))$.
Next, if $y_{s}=y_{s+1}$ for some $s \in \{1, \ldots, \ell-1\}$ then $\overline{L}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $L_{2\ell-2}$ restricted to $\lambda_{1}=1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell-1}\lambda_{j}$. Also, if $\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}=1$ then $\overline{L}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $L_{2\ell-2}$. Finally, if $\beta_{s}=0$ for some $s \in \{2, \ldots, \ell\}$ then $\overline{L}_{2\ell-1}$ coincides with $L_{2\ell-2}$ restricted to $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\lambda_{j}=1$. Thus we obtain
$\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) = \overline{L}_{2\ell-1}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}))$.
Next, we assume $n=2\ell$. First we verify (\ref{b2l}). As before we claim that the restriction of $\overline{U}_{2\ell}$ on $\partial(\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ coincides with maps $U_{2\ell-1}$ and $L_{2\ell-1}$ (similarly for $\overline{L}_{2\ell}$). Since by the induction the union of the images of $U_{2\ell-1}$ and $L_{2\ell-1}$ coincide with the boundary of the convex hull of $\overline{\gamma}([0,1])$, see (\ref{union}), we obtain the claim.
We recall that
\begin{align*}
\overline{U}_{2\ell} : \Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell} \ni (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \mapsto \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j}) + (1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}) \overline{\gamma}(1);
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&U_{2\ell-1} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1} \ni (\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{2},\ldots, y_{\ell}) \mapsto \beta_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j});\\
&L_{2\ell-1} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell} \ni (\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, z_{1},\ldots, z_{\ell}) \mapsto (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j})\overline{\gamma}(z_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(z_{j}).
\end{align*}
Notice that if $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j}=1$ then $\overline{U}_{2\ell}$ coincides with $L_{2\ell-1}$. On the other hand, if $x_{1}=0$ then $\overline{U}_{2\ell}$ coincides with $U_{2\ell-1}$. Thus, by induction we have $\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) \subset \overline{U}_{2\ell}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}))$. Also notice that if $\lambda_{p}=0$ for some $p \in \{1, \ldots, \ell\}$ (or $x_{s}=x_{s+1}$ for some $s \in \{1, \ldots, \ell-1\}$, or $x_{\ell}=1$) then $\overline{U}_{2\ell}$ coincides with $U_{2\ell-1}$ restricted to the boundary of $\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}$ (if $\lambda_{p}=0$ or $x_{\ell}=1$ take $\beta_{1} = 1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}$, if $x_{s}=x_{s+1}$ take $\beta_{1} = 1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}$). Thus we obtain $\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) = \overline{U}_{2\ell}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}))$.
Next, we verify the claim $\overline{L}_{2\ell}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})) = \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$.
We recall that
\begin{align*}
\overline{L}_{2\ell} :\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell} \ni (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \mapsto \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j}),
\end{align*}
If $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}=1$ then $\overline{L}_{2\ell}$ coincides with $L_{2\ell-1}$. If $x_{\ell}=1$ then $\overline{L}_{2\ell}$ coincides with $U_{2\ell-1}$. Thus by induction we have $\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) \subset \overline{L}_{2\ell}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}))$
If $\lambda_{p}=0$ for some $p \in \{1, \ldots, \ell\}$, or $x_{1}=0$, then $\overline{L}_{2\ell}$ coincides with $U_{2\ell-1}$ if we choose $\beta_{1}=0$. Finally, if $x_{s}=x_{s+1}$ for some $s \in \{1, \ldots, \ell-1\}$, then $\overline{L}_{2\ell}$ coincides with $U_{2\ell-1}$ if we choose $\beta_{1}=0$, and $\beta_{s+1}=\lambda_{s}+\lambda_{s+1}$. Therefore, we have $\overline{L}_{2\ell}(\partial\, (\Delta_{c}^{\ell} \times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})) \subset \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$, and the claim (\ref{b2l}) is verified.
{\em The proof of claims (\ref{diff2l-1u}), (\ref{diff2l-1l}), (\ref{diff2lu}) and (\ref{diff2ll}).}
We start by showing that the Jacobian of the map $\overline{U}_{n}$ has full rank at the interior points of its domain. Hence the map is local diffeomoerphism by inverse function theorem. Therefore, the map is surjective, otherwise the image of its domain would have a boundary in the interior of the codomain (boundary goes to boundary by (\ref{b2l}) and (\ref{b2l-1})) and this would contradict the local diffeomoerphism. Next, we show that the map $\overline{U}_{n}$ is injective, and hence proper. So we conclude that $\overline{U}_{n}$ is diffeomorphism. The similar reasoning will be done for $\overline{L}_{n}$.
First we verify that the Jacobian matrices $\nabla \overline{U}_{n}$ and $\nabla \overline{L}_{n}$ have full rank at the interior points of their domains.
Assume $n=2\ell-1$. We have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\nabla \overline{U}_{2\ell-1}) =\det(\overline{\gamma}(1), \overline{\gamma}(x_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell}), \beta_{2} \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \ldots, \beta_{\ell}\overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}))\\
&=\pm \det(\overline{\gamma}(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{3}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{3}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}(1)) \prod_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j}\\
& = \pm \det(\overline{\gamma}(x_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(0), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{3})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{3}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell-1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}(1)-\overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})) \prod_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j}\\
&=\pm \prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\, \int_{x_{\ell}}^{1}\ldots \int_{x_{2}}^{x_{3}} \int_{0}^{x_{2}} \det(\overline{\gamma}'(s_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}),\overline{\gamma}'(s_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(s_{\ell}))ds_{1} ds_{2}\ldots ds_{\ell}.
\end{align*}
Thus $\det(\nabla \overline{U}_{2\ell-1})$ is nonzero by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
Next, we verify that $\det(\nabla \overline{L}_{2\ell-1})\neq 0$, Indeed,
\begin{align*}
&\det(\nabla \overline{L}_{2\ell-1}) = \\
&\det( \overline{\gamma}(x_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{3})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}) ) (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}=\\
& \det( \overline{\gamma}(x_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{3})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell-1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}) ) (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}=\\
&\pm \det(\overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{3})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell-1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}) ) (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}=\\
&\pm (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \times \\
&\int_{x_{\ell-1}}^{x_{\ell}}\ldots \int_{x_{2}}^{x_{3}}\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\det( \overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(s_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}'(s_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(s_{\ell-1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell})) ds_{1} ds_{2}\ldots ds_{\ell-1} \neq 0
\end{align*}
by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
Assume $n=2\ell$. We have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\nabla \overline{U}_{2\ell}) = \det(\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(1), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(1), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell})) \prod_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j}=\\
&\pm \det(\overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{3}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(1))\prod_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j} = \\
& \pm \int_{x_{\ell}}^{1}\ldots \int_{x_{2}}^{x_{3}}\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\det(\overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(s_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \overline{\gamma}'(s_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(s_{\ell}))ds_{1}ds_{2}\ldots ds_{\ell} \prod_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}
\end{align*}
which is nonzero by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
Finally, we verify $\det(\nabla \overline{L}_{2\ell}) \neq 0$. We have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\nabla \overline{L}_{2\ell}) =\det(\overline{\gamma}(x_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell})) \prod_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}=\\
&\pm \det(\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(0),\overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}(x_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \ldots,\overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell-1}),\overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell})) \prod_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} = \\
&\pm \int_{x_{\ell-1}}^{x_{\ell}} \ldots \int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\int_{0}^{x_{1}}\det(\overline{\gamma}'(s_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(s_{2}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(s_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell})) ds_{1} ds_{2}\ldots ds_{\ell}\prod_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}.
\end{align*}
Thus $\det(\nabla \overline{L}_{2\ell}) \neq 0$ by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
Next, we show that the map $\overline{U}_{n}$ is injective in the interior of its domain. Assume $n=2\ell$. Let $(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell})$ and $(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})$ be two different points in $\mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ such that $\overline{U}_{\ell}$ takes the same values on these points. Then
\begin{align}\label{linin}
\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(1)) - \sum_{k=1}^{\ell} \beta_{k} (\overline{\gamma}(y_{k})-\overline{\gamma}(1))=0.
\end{align}
We claim that (\ref{linin}) holds if and only if $x_{j}=y_{j}$ and $\lambda_{j}=\beta_{j}$ for all $j=1, \ldots, \ell$. Indeed, we need the following
\begin{lemma}\label{ltorsion}
For any numbers $z_{j}$, $1\leq j \leq 2\ell$, such that $0<z_{1}<z_{2}<\ldots<z_{2\ell}\leq 1$, and any $r \in [0,1]\setminus\{z_{1}, \ldots, z_{2\ell}\}$, the vectors $\overline{\gamma}(z_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(r), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(z_{2\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(r)$ are linearly independent in $\mathbb{R}^{2\ell}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The lemma follows from Corollary~\ref{klasikac} applied to $\beta=\overline{\gamma}$.
\end{proof}
Let $N$ be the cardinality of the set $Q=\{x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}\} \cap \{y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}\}$. If $N=\ell$ then necessarily $x_{j}=y_{j}$ for all $j=1, \ldots, \ell$, and the equation (\ref{linin}) combined with Lemma~\ref{ltorsion} implies that $\lambda_{j}=\beta_{j}$ for all $j=1, \ldots, \ell$. Therefore, assume $N<\ell$. Then we can split the sum (\ref{linin}) into the sum of 3 terms: the sum of $\lambda_{j} (\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(1))$ where $x_{j} \notin Q$; the sum $(\lambda_{j}-\beta_{i_{j}})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(1))$ where $x_{j} \in Q$; and the sum $\beta_{j} (\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(1))$ where $y_{j}\notin Q$. Since $\beta_{j}$ and $\lambda_{j}$ cannot be zero, then applying Lemma~\ref{ltorsion} with $r=1$ we get a contradiction.
Next, we verify the injectivity of $\overline{L}_{2\ell}$ on the interior of its domain. Let $(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell})$ and $(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})$ belong to $\mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ and satisfy
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j}) -\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}\beta_{k} \overline{\gamma}(y_{k})=0.
\end{align*}
By applying Lemma~\ref{ltorsion} with $r=0$ and invoking the set $Q$ as before we obtain $x_{j}=y_{j}$, $\lambda_{j}=\beta_{j}$ for all $j=1, \ldots, \ell$.
Assume $n=2\ell-1$. To verify the injectivity of $\overline{U}_{2\ell-1}$ on the interior of $\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$ we pick points $(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell})$ and $(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{2}, \ldots, y_{\ell})$ from $\mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$, and we assume
\begin{align}\label{kidev1}
(\lambda_{1}-\beta_{1})\overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j})=0.
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{lltorsion}
For any numbers $0<z_{1}<\ldots<z_{2\ell-2}<1$ the vectors $\overline{\gamma}(z_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(z_{2\ell-2}), \overline{\gamma}(1)$ are linearly independent in $\mathbb{R}^{2\ell-1}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The lemma follows from Corollary~\ref{klasikac} applied to $\beta=\overline{\gamma}$, $z_{2\ell-1}=1$, and $r=0$.
\end{proof}
Invoking the set $Q$, and repeating the same reasoning as in the case of injectivity of $\overline{U}_{2\ell}$, we see that the equality (\ref{kidev1}) combined with Lemma~\ref{lltorsion} implies $x_{j}=y_{j}$ for all $j=2, \ldots, \ell$, and $\lambda_{j}=\beta_{j}$ for all $j=1, \ldots, \ell$.
To verify the injectivity of $\overline{L}_{2\ell-1}$ on the interior of $\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}$ we pick points $(\lambda_{2}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell})$ and $(\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})$ from $\mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$, and we assume
\begin{align}\label{eq0011}
(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})=(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\overline{\gamma}(y_{j}).
\end{align}
Without loss of generality assume $y_{1}\leq x_{1}$. We rewrite (\ref{eq0011}) as follows
\begin{align}\label{sum01}
(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))=0.
\end{align}
Notice that if the points $x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}$ are different from each other, and they belong to the interval $(0,1)$, then the vectors $\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(x_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \overline{\gamma}(y_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})$ are linearly independent. The proof of the linear independence proceeds absolutely in the same way as the proof of Lemma~\ref{ltorsion} therefore we omit the proof to avoid the repetitions. Let $Q = \{x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell}\}\cap \{y_{2}, \ldots, y_{\ell}\}$, $X=\{x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell}\}$ and $Y=\{y_{2}, \ldots, y_{\ell}\}$. Then (\ref{sum01}) takes the form
\begin{align}
&(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))+\sum_{j\, :\, x_{j} \in X\setminus Q}\lambda_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))+\nonumber\\
&\sum_{j\, :\, x_{j} \in Q}(\lambda_{j}-\beta_{k_{j}})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))
-\sum_{j\, :\, y_{j} \in Y\setminus Q}\beta_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))=0. \label{pirx}
\end{align}
If $y_{1}<x_{1}$ then from the linear independence we obtain that $x_{j}=y_{j}$ for all $j=1,\ldots, \ell$, and $\lambda_{j}=\beta_{j}$ for all $j=2,\ldots, \ell$. In what follows we assume $y_{1}<x_{1}$.
Notice that if for any $y \in Y \setminus Q$ we have $y\neq x_{1}$ then (\ref{pirx}) contradicts to the linear independence. On the other hand if for some $y_{j^{*}}\in Y\setminus Q$ we have $y_{j^{*}}=x_{1}$ (we remark that there can be only one such $y_{j^{*}}$ in $Y\setminus Q$, moreover, $y_{j^{*}}\notin Q$) then (\ref{pirx}) we can rewrite as
\begin{align}
&(1-\beta_{j}^{*}-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))+\sum_{j\, :\, x_{j} \in X\setminus Q}\lambda_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))+\nonumber\\
&\sum_{j\, :\, x_{j} \in Q}(\lambda_{j}-\beta_{k_{j}})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))
-\sum_{j\, :\, y_{j} \in Y\setminus Q, \, y_{j}\neq y_{j^{*}}}\beta_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))=0. \label{pirx1}
\end{align}
Invoking the linear independence we must have $1-\beta_{j}^{*}-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}=0$. Since $\lambda_{j}, \beta_{j} >0$ we have $X\setminus Q$ and $Y\setminus (Q \cup\{y_{j^{*}}\})$ are empty. Then $Q$ has cardinality $\ell-1$ and $Q$ does not contain $y_{j^{*}}$ which is a contradiction.
\subsubsection{The proof of (\ref{welld})}
Assume $n=2\ell$. Since $\overline{U}_{n}$ and $\overline{L}_{n}$ are diffeomorphisms between $\mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$
and $\mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])))$ we see that the equations
\begin{align}
&B^{\sup}(\overline{U}(t))=U^{z}(t), \label{be1}\\
&B^{\inf}(\overline{L}(t))=L^{z}(t) \label{be2}
\end{align}
for all $t \in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ define functions $B^{\sup}$ and $B^{\inf}$ uniquely on $\mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])))$. We would like to extend the definitions of $B^{\sup}$ and $B^{\inf}$ to the boundary of $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$ just by taking $t \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ in (\ref{be1}) and (\ref{be2}). To make sure that the choice $t \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ in (\ref{be1}) defines $B^{\sup}$ (and $B^{\inf}$) uniquely and continuously on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$ we shall verify the following
\begin{lemma}\label{gran1}
If $\overline{U}(t_{1})=\overline{U}(t_{2})$ for some $t_{1}, t_{2} \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}$, then $U^{z}(t_{1})=U^{z}(t_{2})$. Similarly, if $\overline{L}(t_{1})=\overline{L}(t_{2})$ for some $t_{1}, t_{2} \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}$, then $L^{z}(t_{1})=L^{z}(t_{2})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we can assume that $t_{1}, t_{2} \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ otherwise the lemma follows from (\ref{b2l}), (\ref{diff2lu}), and (\ref{diff2ll}).
First we show $\overline{L}(t_{1})=\overline{L}(t_{2})$ for some $t_{1}, t_{2} \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ implies $L^{z}(t_{1})=L^{z}(t_{2})$. If $t_{1}=t_{2}$ there is nothing to prove, therefore, we assume $t_{1}\neq t_{2}$. For $t_{1} = (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ we have
\begin{align*}
\overline{L}_{2\ell}(t_{1}) = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j}\overline{\gamma}(x_{j}).
\end{align*}
Among $\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}$ many of them can be zero so we reduce the sum into $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell_{1}} \lambda_{q_{j}} \overline{\gamma}(x_{q_{j}})$ where $\lambda_{q_{j}}>0$, $\ell_{1}\leq \ell$, and $0\leq x_{q_{1}}\leq \ldots \leq x_{q_{\ell_{1}}}\leq 1$. Next, among $x_{q_{1}}, \ldots, x_{q_{\ell_{1}}}$ many can be equal to each other. Those $x_{q_{j}}$ who are equal to each other we group them together, and those $x_{j}$'s which are zero we remove from the sum by reducing the sum if necessary. This brings as to the following expression
\begin{align*}
\overline{L}_{2\ell}(t_{1})=\sum_{k=1}^{m}\lambda_{I_{k}} \overline{\gamma}(x_{I_{k}})
\end{align*}
where $ I_{k} \subset \{1, \ldots, \ell\}$, the sets $I_{k}$ are disjoint for all $k=1, \ldots, m$. Here, $0<x_{I_{1}}<\ldots<x_{I_{m}}\leq 1$; for any $k, 1\leq k \leq m$ we have $x_{j}=x_{I_{k}}$ for all $j \in I_{k}$; for any $k$, $1\leq k \leq m$ we set $0<\lambda_{I_{k}} := \sum_{j \in I_{k}} \lambda_{j}$. We remark that if $I_{k}=\emptyset$ then the term $\lambda_{I_{k}} \overline{\gamma}(x_{I_{k}})$ is zero by definition.
Similarly, for $t_{2} = (\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ we can write
\begin{align*}
\overline{L}_{2\ell}(t_{2})=\sum_{k=1}^{v}\beta_{J_{k}} \overline{\gamma}(y_{J_{k}})
\end{align*}
with $v \leq \ell$.
As in the previous section, from linear independence of the vectors $\overline{\gamma}(z_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(z_{2\ell})$, where $0<z_{1}<\ldots<z_{2\ell}\leq 1$, it follows that $ \overline{L}_{2\ell}(t_{1})= \overline{L}_{2\ell}(t_{2})$ holds if and only if $v=m$, $x_{I_{k}}=y_{J_{k}}$, and $\lambda_{I_{k}}=\beta_{J_{k}}$ for all $k=1, \ldots, m$. Hence $L^{z}_{2\ell}(t_{1})=L^{z}_{2\ell}(t_{2})$.
The proof for the map $\overline{U}_{2\ell}$ proceeds in the same way as for $\overline{L}_{2\ell}$. Indeed, the equality $\overline{U}_{2\ell}(t_{1})=\overline{U}_{2\ell}(t_{2})$ implies
$\sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(1)) = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \beta_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(1)).$
By removing zero terms, and grouping the similar terms inside the sums as before we obtain the equation
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=1}^{m} \lambda_{I_{k}}(\overline{\gamma}(x_{I_{k}})-\overline{\gamma}(1))=\sum_{k=1}^{v} \beta_{J_{k}}(\overline{\gamma}(y_{J_{k}})-\overline{\gamma}(1)),
\end{align*}
where we also removed the terms containing those $x_{j}$ and $y_{i}$ which are equal to $1$.
Applying Lemma~\ref{ltorsion} with $r=1$
we obtain that $v=m$ and $x_{I_{k}}=y_{J_{k}}$ for all $k=1,\ldots, m$, and $\lambda_{I_{k}}=\beta_{J_{k}}$. Hence $U^{z}_{2\ell}(t_{1})=U^{z}_{2\ell}(t_{2})$
\end{proof}
Next, we prove the analog of Lemma~\ref{gran1} for $n=2\ell-1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{gran2}
If $\overline{U}(t_{1})=\overline{U}(t_{2})$ for some $t_{1}, t_{2} \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$, then $U^{z}(t_{1})=U^{z}(t_{2})$. Similarly, if $\overline{L}(t_{1})=\overline{L}(t_{2})$ for some $t_{1}, t_{2} \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}$, then $L^{z}(t_{1})=L^{z}(t_{2})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we can assume that $t_{1}, t_{2} \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$ (similarly, $t_{1}, t_{2} \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ in the second claim of the lemma) otherwise the lemma follows from (\ref{b2l-1}), (\ref{diff2l-1u}), and (\ref{diff2l-1l}).
We show that the equality $\overline{U}(t_{1})=\overline{U}(t_{2})$ for some
$t_{1}=(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell})$, and $t_{2}=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{2}, \ldots, y_{\ell})$ in $\partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$ implies $L^{z}(t_{1})=L^{z}(t_{2})$. We can further assume $t_{1}\neq t_{2}$ otherwise there is nothing to prove. We have
\begin{align}\label{jau1}
\lambda_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j}) = \beta_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\overline{\gamma}(y_{j}).
\end{align}
As in the previous lemma, in the left hand side of (\ref{jau1}) we reduce the sum by removing those $\lambda_{j}$'s which are equal to zero. We further reduce the sum by considering only positive $x_{j}$'s. Next, among the numbers $0\leq x_{2}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell}\leq 1$, those who are equal to each other we group them together, and those $x_{j}$'s which are equal to $1$ we group with $\lambda_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)$. Eventually, the left hand side of (\ref{jau1}) takes the form $\lambda_{I_{0}}\overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_{I_{j}}\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})$, where $m\leq \ell-1$, $0<x_{I_{1}}<\ldots<x_{I_{m}}<1$, and $\lambda_{I_{j}} = \sum_{j \in I_{j}}\lambda_{j}$ with $\lambda_{I_{0}}\geq 0$ and $\lambda_{I_{j}}>0$ for all $j=1, \ldots, m$. Making a similar reduction in the right hand side of (\ref{jau1}), we see that (\ref{jau1}) takes the form
\begin{align}\label{jau2}
(\lambda_{I_{0}}-\beta_{J_{0}})\overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_{I_{j}}\overline{\gamma}(x_{I_{j}}) - \sum_{j=1}^{v}\beta_{J_{j}}\overline{\gamma}(y_{J_{j}})=0.
\end{align}
Since $1+m+v\leq 2\ell-1$ it follows from Lemma~\ref{lltorsion} that (\ref{jau2}) holds if and only if $m=v$, $\lambda_{I_{j}}=\beta_{J_{j}}$ for all $j=2, \ldots, m$, and $x_{I_{j}}=y_{J_{j}}$ for all $j=1,\ldots, m$. It then follows that $U^{z}(t_{1})=U^{z}(t_{2})$.
Next, we show that the equality $\overline{L}(t_{1})=\overline{L}(t_{2})$ for some
$t_{1}=(\lambda_{2}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell})$, and $t_{2}=(\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})$ in $\partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ implies $L^{z}(t_{1})=L^{z}(t_{2})$. Without loss of generality assume $t_{1} \neq t_{2}$ and $y_{1}\leq x_{1}$. The equality $\overline{L}(t_{1})=\overline{L}(t_{2})$ implies
\begin{align*}
(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j})= (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j}),
\end{align*}
which we can rewrite as
\begin{align}\label{sum19}
(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(x_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}(\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))=0.
\end{align}
We would like to show $L^{z}(t_{1})-L^{z}(t_{2})=0$. Notice that
\begin{align}
&L^{z}(t_{1})-L^{z}(t_{2}) =(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})(\gamma_{n+1}(x_{1})-\gamma_{n+1}(y_{1}))+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}(\gamma_{n+1}(x_{j})-\gamma_{n+1}(y_{1}))-\label{sum13}\\
&\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}(\gamma_{n+1}(y_{j})-\gamma_{n+1}(y_{1})). \nonumber
\end{align}
Rearranging and grouping equal terms in (\ref{sum19}) as in the previous arguments we can rewrite (\ref{sum19}) as
\begin{align}
&(1-\sum_{j=1}^{m_{1}} \lambda_{I^{1}_{j}} -\beta_{I_{0}})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})) + \sum_{j=1}^{m_{2}}\lambda_{I_{j}^{2}}(\overline{\gamma}(x_{I_{j}^{2}})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})) \nonumber\\
&+\sum_{j=1}^{m_{3}}(\lambda_{I_{j}^{3}} - \beta_{J_{j}^{1}})(\overline{\gamma}(x_{I_{j}^{3}})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})) - \sum_{j=1}^{m_{4}} \beta_{J_{j}^{2}}(\overline{\gamma}(y_{J_{j}^{2}})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}))=0, \label{sum18}
\end{align}
where $m_{1}, m_{2}, m_{4}$ are non-negative integers with $1+m_{2}+m_{3}+m_{4}\leq 2\ell-1$ (if $m_{k}=0$ then the corresponding sum is set to be zero), $I_{j}^{1}, I_{j}^{2}, I_{j}^{3}, J_{j}^{1}, J_{j}^{2}$ are subsets of $\{2, \ldots, \ell\}$, $\beta_{I_{0}}\geq 0$, $\lambda_{I_{j}^{k}}=\sum_{j \in I_{j}^{k}} \lambda_{j}>0$, $\beta_{J_{j}^{k}}=\sum_{j \in J_{j}^{k}} \beta_{j}>0$, $\lambda_{I_{j}^{3}}\neq \beta_{J_{j}^{1}}$, and the points $x_{1}, \{x_{I_{j}^{2}}\}_{j=1}^{m_{2}},\{x_{I_{j}^{3}}\}_{j=1}^{m_{3}},\{y_{J_{j}^{2}}\}_{j=1}^{m_{4}}$ are different from each other, none of them (except of $x_{1}$) coincides with $y_{1}$, and all of them (except of $x_{1}$) belong to $(0,1]$. We remark that $x_{1}$ can be equal to $y_{1}$. In a similar way we can rewrite (\ref{sum13}) as (\ref{sum18}), i.e.,
\begin{align*}
&L^{z}(t_{1})-L^{z}(t_{2})=\\
&(1-\sum_{j=1}^{m_{1}} \lambda_{I^{1}_{j}} -\beta_{I_{0}})(\gamma_{n+1}(x_{1})-\gamma_{n+1}(y_{1})) + \sum_{j=1}^{m_{2}}\lambda_{I_{j}^{2}}(\gamma_{n+1}(x_{I_{j}^{2}})-\gamma_{n+1}(y_{1})) \\
&+\sum_{j=1}^{m_{3}}(\lambda_{I_{j}^{3}} - \beta_{J_{j}^{1}})(\gamma_{n+1}(x_{I_{j}^{3}})-\gamma_{n+1}(y_{1})) - \sum_{j=1}^{m_{4}} \beta_{J_{j}^{2}}(\gamma_{n+1}(y_{J_{j}^{2}})-\gamma_{n+1}(y_{1})).
\end{align*}
The next lemma follows from Corollary~\ref{klasikac}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lgtorsion}
For any numbers $z_{j}$, $1\leq j \leq 2\ell-1$, such that $0<z_{1}<z_{2}<\ldots<z_{2\ell}\leq 1$, and any $r \in [0,1]\setminus\{z_{1}, \ldots, z_{2\ell}\}$, the vectors $\overline{\gamma}(z_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(r), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(z_{2\ell-1})-\overline{\gamma}(r)$ are linearly independent in $\mathbb{R}^{2\ell-1}$.
\end{lemma}
If $y_{1}=x_{1}$ then $L^{z}(t_{1})-L^{z}(t_{2})=0$ follows from (\ref{sum18}) and Lemma~\ref{lgtorsion}. If $y_{1}<x_{1}$, then applying Lemma~\ref{lgtorsion} to (\ref{sum18}) we see that $1-\sum_{j=1}^{m_{1}} \lambda_{I^{1}_{j}} -\beta_{I_{0}}=0$ and $m_{2}=m_{3}=m_{4}=0$, which implies that $L^{z}(t_{1})-L^{z}(t_{2})=0$. Lemma~\ref{gran2} is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The proof of (\ref{mincon1}) and (\ref{maxcon2})}
We start with (\ref{mincon1}). Assume $n=2\ell-1$. First we show that $B^{\sup}(\overline{\gamma})=\gamma_{n+1}$. We remind that
\begin{align*}
B^{\sup}(\beta_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j}))=\beta_{1} \gamma_{n+1}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(x_{j}),
\end{align*}
holds for all $(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$. We claim that if $\beta_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j}) = \overline{\gamma}(y)$ for some $y \in [0,1]$ then $\beta_{1} \gamma_{n+1}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(x_{j})=\gamma_{n+1}(y)$. Indeed, $\overline{\gamma}(y)=\overline{U}(t_{2})$ with $t_{2} = (1,0, \ldots, 0, y) \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$, and $\beta_{1} \gamma_{n+1}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(x_{j})=\overline{U}(t_{1})$ with $t_{1}=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$. Thus the claim follows from Lemma~\ref{gran2}.
Next, we show that $B^{\sup}$ is concave on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$. As the surface parametrized by $U_{n}(t)$, $t \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$, coincides with the graph $\{ (x,B^{\sup}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))\}$, and $B^{\sup} \in C(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])))$, it suffices to show that the tangent plane $T$ at $U_{n}(s)$, for any $s=(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, y_{2}, \ldots, y_{\ell})\in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$, lies {\em above} the surface $U_{n}$. The equation of the tangent plane $T$ at $U(s):=U_{n}(s)$ is given as
\begin{align*}
T(x):=\det(U_{\beta_{1}}(s), \ldots, U_{\beta_{\ell}}(s), U_{x_{2}}(s), \ldots, U_{x_{\ell}}(s), x-U(s))=0, \quad x \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}.
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
T(x) = \lambda_{1} \cdots \lambda_{\ell}\det(\gamma(1), \gamma(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), x).
\end{align*}
To show that the tangent plane $T$ lies {\em above} the surface, first we should find the sign of $T(\lambda e_{n+1})$ as $\lambda \to \infty$, where $e_{n+1}=(\underbrace{0, \ldots, 0, 1}_{n+1})$. For sufficiently large positive $\lambda$ we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{sign}(T(\lambda e_{n+1})) = \mathrm{sign}( \det(\overline{\gamma}(1), \overline{\gamma}(y_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}))).
\end{align*}
On the other hand we have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\overline{\gamma}(1), \overline{\gamma}(y_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})) = \\
&(-1)^{\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}{2}} \det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{2}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}(1))
=\\
&(-1)^{\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}{2}}\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(0), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{2}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell-1}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}(1)-\overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell}))=\\
&(-1)^{\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}{2}} \int_{y_{\ell}}^{1} \int_{y_{\ell-1}}^{y_{\ell}}\ldots \int_{0}^{y_{2}}\det (\overline{\gamma}'(v_{2}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{2}), \ldots,\overline{\gamma}'(v_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(v_{
\ell+1}))dv_{2} \ldots dv_{\ell} dv_{\ell+1}.
\end{align*}
Thus, Lemma~\ref{klasika} applied to $\overline{\gamma}$ shows that $\mathrm{sign}(T(\lambda e_{n+1}))$, for sufficiently large $\lambda$, coincides with $(-1)^{\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}{2}}$. Therefore, the surface $U(t)$ being {\em below} the tangent plane $T$ simply means that $(-1)^{\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}{2}}T(U(t))\leq 0$ for all $t=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$. We have
\begin{align*}
T(U(t)) = \sum_{j=2}^{\ell} \beta_{j} \det(\gamma(1), \gamma(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(x_{j}))\, \prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{k}.
\end{align*}
It suffices to verify that
\begin{align}\label{nacili1}
(-1)^{\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}{2}}\det(\gamma(1), \gamma(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)) \leq 0
\end{align}
for all $u \in [0,1]$. We have
\begin{align}
&(-1)^{\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}{2}}\det(\gamma(1), \gamma(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)) \nonumber \\
&=\det(\gamma(y_{2}), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(1), \gamma(u)). \label{perm1}
\end{align}
If $u \in [y_{\ell},1]$, then
\begin{align*}
&\det(\gamma(y_{2}), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(1), \gamma(u))=\\
&-\det(\gamma(y_{2}), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}),\gamma(u),\gamma(1))=\\
&-\det(\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(0), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{\ell-1}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}),\gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{\ell}),\gamma(1)-\gamma(u))=\\
&-\int_{u}^{1}\int_{y_{\ell}}^{x_{j}}\int_{y_{\ell-1}}^{y_{\ell}}\ldots \int_{0}^{y_{2}}\det(\gamma'(v_{2}), \gamma'(y_{2}), \ldots, \gamma'(v_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}),\gamma'(v_{\ell+1}),\gamma'(v_{\ell+2}))dv_{2}\ldots dv_{\ell}dv_{\ell+1}dv_{\ell+2}
\end{align*}
is non-positive by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
If $u \in [0,y_{2}]$ we again use (\ref{perm1}). Next, we move the column $\gamma(u)$ to the left of the column $\gamma(y_{2})$. Notice that we will acquire the negative sign because passing the couples $\gamma(y_{i}), \gamma'(y_{i})$ does not change the sign of the determinant, the negative sign arises by passing $\gamma(1)$. Using the similar integral representation as before together with Lemma~\ref{klasika} we see that the inequality (\ref{nacili1}) holds true in the case $u \in [0, \gamma(y_{2})]$. The case $u \in [y_{i}, y_{i+1}]$ for some $i \in \{2, \ldots, \ell-1\}$, is similar to the previous case. Indeed, first we apply (\ref{perm1}), then we place the column $\gamma(u)$ between the columns $\gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma(y_{i+1})$ (thus we acquire the negative sign), we use the similar integral representation as before together with Lemma~\ref{klasika} to conclude that (\ref{nacili1}) holds true in this case too. This finishes the proof of concavity of $B^{\sup}$ on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$.
Next, we show that $B^{\sup}$ is the minimal concave function in a family of concave functions $G$ on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$ with the obstacle condition $G(\overline{\gamma}(s)) \geq \gamma_{n+1}(s)$ for all $s \in [0,1]$. Indeed, pick an arbitrary point $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$. We would like to show $G(x) \geq B^{\sup}(x)$. There exists $(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, y_{2}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1}$ such that $x = \lambda_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j}).$
Therefore
\begin{align*}
B^{\sup}(x) = \lambda_{1} \gamma_{n+1}(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}\gamma_{n+1}(y_{j})\leq \lambda_{1} G(\overline{\gamma}(1))+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}G(\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})) \leq G(x).
\end{align*}
Next we consider $B^{\sup}$ when $n=2\ell$. We only check the concavity of $B^{\sup}$ because the remaining properties (minimality and the obstacle condition $B^{\sup}(\overline{\gamma})=\gamma_{n+1}$) are verified similarly as in the dimension $n=2\ell-1$. The equation of the tangent plane $T$ at point
\begin{align*}
U(s) :=U_{n}(s) = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \beta_{j} \gamma(y_{j})+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\gamma(1),
\end{align*}
where $s=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$, is given as
\begin{align*}
T(x) := \det(U_{\beta_{1}}, \ldots, U_{\beta_{\ell}}, U_{y_{1}}, \ldots, U_{y_{\ell}}, x-U(s))=0, \quad x \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}.
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{sign}(T(x)) = \mathrm{sign}(\det(\gamma(y_{1})-\gamma(1), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), x-\gamma(1))).
\end{align*}
Next,
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{sign}(T(\lambda e_{n+1})) = \mathrm{sign}(\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(1), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(1),\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})))
\end{align*}
as $\lambda \to +\infty$. On the other hand we have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(1), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(1),\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})) = \\
&(-1)^{\ell}\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell-1}),\overline{\gamma}(1)-\overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell}),\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}))=\\
&(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}\det(\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}),\overline{\gamma}(y_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}),\overline{\gamma}(1)-\overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell}))=\\
&(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}} \int_{y_{\ell}}^{1}\ldots \int_{y_{1}}^{y_{2}} \det(\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}),\overline{\gamma}'(x_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}),\overline{\gamma}'(x_{\ell}))dx_{1} \ldots dx_{\ell}.
\end{align*}
Thus, it follows from Lemma~\ref{klasika} that $\mathrm{sign}(T(\lambda e_{n+1})) = (-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}$ as $\lambda \to \infty$. Therefore, to verify concavity of $B^{\sup}$ it suffices to show $(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}} T(U(t)) \leq 0$ for all $t = (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}$. We have
\begin{align*}
T(U(t))= \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j} \det(\gamma(y_{1})-\gamma(1), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(x_{j})-\gamma(1))\prod_{i=1}^{\ell}\beta_{i}.
\end{align*}
It suffices to show that $(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}} \det(\gamma(y_{1})-\gamma(1), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(1)) \leq 0$ for all $u \in [0,1]$. Assume $u \in [y_{i}, y_{i+1}]$ for some $i\in \{1,\ldots, \ell-1\}$. We have
\begin{align*}
&(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}} \det(\gamma(y_{1})-\gamma(1), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(1),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(1))=\\
&-\det(\gamma'(y_{1}), \gamma(1)-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(1)-\gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma(1)-\gamma(u))=-\\
&\det(\gamma'(y_{1}), \gamma(1)-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma(1)-\gamma(y_{i}),\gamma(1)-\gamma(u), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \gamma(1)-\gamma(y_{i+1}), \ldots, \gamma(1)-\gamma(y_{\ell}))=\\
&-\det(\gamma'(y_{1}), \gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{i}),\gamma(y_{i+1})-\gamma(u), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \gamma(y_{i+2})-\gamma(y_{i+1}), \ldots, \gamma(1)-\gamma(y_{\ell}))\\
&=- \int_{y_{\ell}}^{1}\ldots \int_{u}^{y_{i+1}} \int_{y_{i}}^{u} \ldots \int_{y_{1}}^{y_{2}}\det(\gamma'(y_{1}), \gamma'(v_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma'(w), \gamma'(v_{i}), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \ldots, \gamma'(v_{\ell})) dv_{1}\ldots dw dv_{i} \ldots dv_{\ell}
\end{align*}
which has a nonpositive sign by Lemma~\ref{klasika} (here $y_{i+2}$ for $i=\ell-1$ is set to be $1$). The cases $u \in [0,y_{1}]$, and $u \in [y_{\ell},1]$ are treated similarly.
Next, we verify (\ref{maxcon2}). The obstacle condition $B^{\inf}(\overline{\gamma})=\gamma_{n+1}$ and the minimality (assuming $B^{\inf}$ is convex) are verified similarly as in the case $B^{\sup}$. So, in what follows we only verify convexity of $B^{\inf}$.
Assume $n=2\ell-1$. The equation of the tangent plane $T$ at point
\begin{align*}
L(s):=L_{n}(s) = (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\gamma(y_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \gamma(y_{j}),
\end{align*}
where $s=(\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ is given by
\begin{align*}
&T(x):=\det(L_{\beta_{2}}, \ldots, L_{\beta_{\ell}}, L_{y_{1}}, \ldots, L_{y_{\ell}}, x-L(s)) =\\
&\det(\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), x-\gamma(y_{1}))\, (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}) \prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}.
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{sign}(T(\lambda e_{n+1})) = \mathrm{sign}(\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})))
\end{align*}
as $\lambda \to +\infty$. On the other hand
\begin{align*}
&\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})) =\\
&(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}\det(\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}),\overline{\gamma}(y_{2})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots,\overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell-1}), \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell-1}),\overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}))=\\
&(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}} \int_{y_{\ell-1}}^{y_{\ell}}\ldots \int_{y_{1}}^{y_{2}} \det(\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}),\overline{\gamma}'(v_{2}), \ldots,\overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell-1}), \overline{\gamma}'(v_{\ell}),\overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})) dv_{2} \ldots dv_{\ell}.
\end{align*}
Thus $\mathrm{sign}(T(\lambda e_{n+1})) = (-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}$ by Lemma~\ref{klasika} as $\lambda \to +\infty$. Therefore, $B^{\inf}$ is convex if $(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}} T(L(t))\geq 0$ for all $t = (\lambda_{2}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}$. We have
\begin{align*}
&T(L(t)) = \det(\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), L(t)-\gamma(y_{1}))\, (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}) \prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}=\\
&(1-\sum_{k=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{k})\det(\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(y_{1}))\, (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}) \prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\\
&+\sum_{k=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{k} \det(\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(x_{k})-\gamma(y_{1}))\, (1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}) \prod_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}.
\end{align*}
Thus, to verify convexity of $B^{\inf}$, it suffices to show
\begin{align*}
(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}\det(\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{1}))\geq 0
\end{align*}
for all $u \in [0,1]$. Notice that
\begin{align*}
&(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}\det(\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{1})) =\\
& \det(\gamma'(y_{1}),\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell-1}),\gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{1})).
\end{align*}
Next, assume $u \in [y_{i}, y_{i+1}]$ for some $i \in \{1, \ldots, \ell-1\}$ (the cases $u \in [0, y_{1}]$ and $u\in [y_{\ell},1]$ are considered similarly). We have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\gamma'(y_{1}),\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell-1}),\gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{1}))=\\
&\det(\gamma'(y_{1}),\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{1}),\gamma(y_{i+1})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{1}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}))=\\
&\det(\gamma'(y_{1}),\gamma(y_{2})-\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{i}),\gamma(y_{i+1})-\gamma(u), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell})-\gamma(y_{\ell-1}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}))\\
&=\int_{y_{\ell-1}}^{y_{\ell}}\ldots \int_{u}^{y_{i+1}}\int_{y_{i}}^{u}\ldots \int_{y_{1}}^{y_{2}}\\
&\det(\gamma'(y_{1}),\gamma'(v_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma'(w),\gamma'(v_{i}), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \ldots, \gamma'(v_{\ell-1}), \gamma'(y_{\ell})) dv_{1}\ldots dv_{i}dw\ldots dv_{\ell-1}.
\end{align*}
Thus $T(L(t))\geq 0$ by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
Next, we consider $B^{\inf}$ when $n=2\ell$. As in the previous cases we only verify convexity of $B^{\inf}$ (minimality and the obstacle condition $B^{\inf}(\overline{\gamma})=\gamma_{n+1}$ are verified easily).
The equation of the tangent plane $T$ at point
\begin{align*}
L(s):=L_{n}(s) = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \gamma(y_{j}),
\end{align*}
where $s=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ is given by
\begin{align*}
&T(x):=\det(L_{\beta_{1}}, \ldots, L_{\beta_{\ell}}, L_{y_{1}}, \ldots, L_{y_{\ell}}, x-L(s)) =
\det(\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), x)\, \prod_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}.
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{sign}(T(\lambda e_{n+1})) = \mathrm{sign}(\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})))
\end{align*}
as $\lambda \to +\infty$. On the other hand
\begin{align}
&\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})) =\label{nishani1}\\
&(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}\det(\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})-\overline{\gamma}(0),\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots, \overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell})-\overline{\gamma}(y_{\ell-1}),\overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell}))= \nonumber\\
&(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}} \int_{y_{\ell-1}}^{y_{\ell}}\ldots \int_{0}^{y_{1}} \det(\overline{\gamma}'(v_{1}),\overline{\gamma}'(y_{1}), \ldots,\overline{\gamma}'(v_{\ell}), \overline{\gamma}'(y_{\ell})) dv_{1} \ldots dv_{\ell}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Thus $\mathrm{sign}(T(\lambda e_{n+1})) = (-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}$ by Lemma~\ref{klasika} as $\lambda \to +\infty$. Therefore, $B^{\inf}$ is convex if $(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}} T(L(t))\geq 0$ for all $t = (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}$. We have
\begin{align*}
&T(L(t)) = \sum_{k=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{k}\det(\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(x_{k}))\, \prod_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}.
\end{align*}
Thus, to verify convexity of $B^{\inf}$, it suffices to show
\begin{align*}
(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}\det(\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u))\geq 0 \quad \text{for all} \quad u \in [0,1].
\end{align*}
Notice that
\begin{align*}
(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}\det(\gamma(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)) = \det(\gamma(y_{1}),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)).
\end{align*}
Next, assume $u\in [y_{i}, y_{i+1}]$ for some $i \in \{1, \ldots, \ell-1\}$ (the cases $u\in [0,y_{1}]$ or $u \in [y_{\ell},1]$ are considered similarly). Set $y_{0}=0$. We have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\gamma(y_{1}),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{\ell}), \gamma(u)) =\\
&\det(\gamma(y_{1}),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{i}), \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma(u), \gamma(y_{i+1}), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \ldots)=\\
&\det(\gamma(y_{1})-\gamma(0),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(y_{i}) - \gamma(y_{i-1}), \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma(u)-\gamma(y_{i}), \gamma(y_{i+1})-\gamma(u), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \ldots)=\\
&\int_{y_{\ell-1}}^{y_{\ell}}\ldots \int_{u}^{y_{i-1}}\int_{y_{i}}^{u}\int_{y_{i-1}}^{y_{i}}\ldots \int_{0}^{y_{1}}\\
&\det(\gamma'(v_{1}),\gamma'(y_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(v_{i}) , \gamma'(y_{i}), \gamma'(w), \gamma'(v_{i+1}), \gamma'(y_{i+1}), \ldots, \gamma'(v_{\ell}), \gamma'(y_{\ell})) dv_{1} \ldots dv_{i} dw dv_{i+1}\ldots dv_{\ell}.
\end{align*}
Thus $T(L(t))\geq 0$ by Lemma~\ref{klasika}.
\subsubsection{The proof of (\ref{giff})}\label{giffsub}
First we show the implication $B^{\sup}(u)=B^{\inf}(u) \Rightarrow u \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$. Consider the case $n=2\ell$. Assume contrary, i.e., $u \in \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])))$. Then using (\ref{diff2lu}), (\ref{diff2ll}) we can find $t = (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell})$ and $s=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})$, both in $\mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$, such that
\begin{align*}
u=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j})+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(1)=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\overline{\gamma}(y_{j}).
\end{align*}
The equality $B^{\sup}(u)=B^{\inf}(u)$ implies (see (\ref{be1}), (\ref{be2}))
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \gamma(x_{j})+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\gamma(1)=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\gamma(y_{j}).
\end{align*}
We see that $\gamma(1)$ is a linear combination of $2\ell$ vectors $\gamma(x_{j}), \gamma(y_{j}), j=1,\ldots, \ell$ which leads us to a contradiction with Corollary~\ref{klasikac}. Thus $u \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1]))$.
Next, consider the case $n=2\ell-1$ and assume the contrary, i.e., $u \in \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])))$. Similarly as before we have
\begin{align}\label{ukanaskneli}
\lambda_{1} \gamma(1)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \gamma(x_{j})=(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j})\gamma(y_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \gamma(y_{j})
\end{align}
for some $t=(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$ and $s = (\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$. The equality (\ref{ukanaskneli}) shows that $\gamma(1)$ is a linear combination of $2\ell-1$ vectors $\{\gamma(x_{j})\}_{j=2}^{\ell}$, $\{\gamma(y_{j})\}_{j=1}^{\ell}$ which contradicts to Corollary~\ref{klasikac}.
Next we show the implication $u \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])) \Rightarrow B^{\sup}(u)=B^{\inf}(u)$. Consider $n=2\ell$. Suppose
\begin{align*}
\overline{U}(t) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j})+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(1)=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\overline{\gamma}(y_{j}) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} \overline{L}(s)
\end{align*}
for some $t = (\lambda, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell})$ and $s=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})$, both in $\partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}).$ The goal is to show that
\begin{align}\label{zgvari1}
U^{z}(t) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} \sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(x_{j})+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\gamma_{n+1}(1)=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\gamma_{n+1}(y_{j})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} L^{z}(s).
\end{align}
We claim that (\ref{zgvari1}) follows from the second part of Lemma~\ref{gran1}. For this it suffices to show that any point $\overline{U}(t)$, $t \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$, can be written as $\overline{L}(s_{1})$ for some $s_{1}=(\beta'_{1}, \ldots, \beta'_{\ell}, y'_{1}, \ldots, y'_{\ell}) \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$. Indeed, as $t \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ several cases can happen. 1) If $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}=1$, then choose $\beta'_{j}=\lambda_{j}$, $j=1, \ldots, \ell-1$, $\beta'_{\ell}=1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\lambda_{j}$, and $y'_{j}=x_{j}$, $j=1, \ldots, \ell$. Then
\begin{align}\label{shemtxveva1}
L^{z}(s) = B^{\inf}(\overline{L}(s)) \stackrel{\mathrm{Lemma}~\ref{gran1}}{=} B^{\inf}(\overline{L}(s_{1})) =\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta'_{j}\gamma_{n+1}(y'_{j}) = U^{z}(t).
\end{align}
Next, 2) if at least one $\lambda_{j}=0$, say $\lambda_{p}=0$ for some $p \in \{1, \ldots, \ell\}$, then take $\beta'_{1}=\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \beta'_{p-1}=\lambda_{p-1}, \beta_{p}=\lambda_{p+1}, \ldots, \beta'_{\ell-1}=\lambda_{\ell}, \beta_{\ell}=1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \lambda_{j}$, and $y'_{1}=x_{1}, \ldots, y'_{p-1}=x_{p-1}, y'_{p}=x_{p+1}, \ldots, y'_{\ell-1}=x_{\ell}, y'_{\ell}=1$ and repeat (\ref{shemtxveva1}). Next 3) if $x_{\ell}=1$, choose $(\beta'_{j}, y'_{j})=(\lambda_{j}, x_{j})$ for $j=1, \ldots, \ell-1$, and $(\beta'_{\ell}, y'_{\ell})=(\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\lambda_{j},1)$ and repeat (\ref{shemtxveva1}). 4) If $x_{p}=x_{p+1}$ for some $p\in \{1, \ldots, \ell-1\}$ then take $y'_{j}=x_{j}$ for $j=1, \ldots, p$; $y'_{j}=x_{j+1}$ for $j=p+1, \ldots, \ell-1$; $y'_{\ell}=1$; $\beta'_{1}=\lambda_{1}$, \ldots, $\beta'_{p}=\lambda_{p}+\lambda_{p+1}$, $\beta'_{p+1}=\lambda_{p+2}, \ldots, \beta'_{\ell-1}=\lambda_{\ell}$, $\beta'_{\ell}=1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}$ and repeat (\ref{shemtxveva1}). Finally, 5) if $x_{1}=0$ choose $\beta'_{j}=\lambda_{j+1}$, $j=1,\ldots, \ell-1$; $\beta'_{\ell}=1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}$; $y'_{j}=x_{j+1}$, $j=1, \ldots, \ell-1$; $y'_{\ell}=1$, and apply (\ref{shemtxveva1}).
Next, consider $n=2\ell-1$. Suppose
\begin{align*}
\overline{U}(t) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} \sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \overline{\gamma}(x_{j}) + \beta_{1} \overline{\gamma}(1)=(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(y_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j}) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} \overline{L}(s)
\end{align*}
for some $t=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell},x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$ and $s=(\lambda_{2}, \ldots, \lambda _{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$. We would like to show
\begin{align}\label{shemxtveva2}
U^{z}(t) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} \sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(x_{j})+ \beta_{1} \gamma_{n+1}(1)=(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\gamma_{n+1}(y_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(y_{j}) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} L^{z}(s).
\end{align}
As in the case $n=2\ell-1$ we claim that (\ref{shemxtveva2}) follows from Lemma~\ref{gran2}. It suffices to show that for any point $\overline{U}(t)$, $t \in \partial (\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell-1})$, there exists a point $s_{1} =(\lambda'_{2}, \ldots, \lambda'_{\ell}, y'_{1}, \ldots, \lambda'_{\ell}) \in \partial(\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ such that $\overline{U}(t)=\overline{L}(s_{1})$. Several instances may happen. 1) if $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}=1$. Let
\begin{align*}
(\lambda'_{2}, \ldots, \lambda'_{\ell-1}, \lambda'_{\ell}, y'_{1}, \ldots, y'_{\ell-1}, y'_{\ell})=(\beta_{3}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, \beta_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell}, 1).
\end{align*}
Notice that $1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda'_{j}=\beta_{2}$. 2) if $\beta_{p}=0$ for some $p \in \{1,\ldots, \ell-1\}$ then let
\begin{align*}
&(\lambda'_{2}, \ldots, \lambda'_{p-1}, \lambda'_{p}, \ldots, \lambda'_{\ell-1}, \lambda'_{\ell}, y'_{1}, y'_{2}, \ldots, y'_{p-1}, y'_{p}, \ldots, y'_{\ell-1}, y'_{\ell}) =\\
&(\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{p-1}, \beta_{p+1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, \beta_{1}, 0, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{p-1}, x_{p+1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}, 1).
\end{align*}
3) if $\beta_{1}=0$ then we choose $y'_{1}=0$ and
\begin{align*}
(\lambda'_{2}, \ldots, \lambda'_{\ell}, y'_{2}, \ldots, y'_{\ell})=(\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell}).
\end{align*}
4) if $x_{2}=0$ then we choose $y_{1}=0$ and
\begin{align*}
(\lambda'_{2}, \ldots, \lambda'_{\ell-1}, \lambda'_{\ell}, y'_{2}, \ldots, y'_{\ell-1}, y'_{\ell})=(\beta_{3}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, \beta_{1}, x_{3}, \ldots, x_{\ell}, 1).
\end{align*}
5) if $x_{\ell}=1$ then let $y_{1}=0$ and
\begin{align*}
(\lambda'_{2}, \ldots, \lambda'_{\ell-1}, \lambda'_{\ell}, y'_{2}, \ldots, y'_{\ell-1}, y'_{\ell})=(\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell-1}, \beta_{\ell}+\beta_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{\ell-1}, 1).
\end{align*}
Finally, 6) if $x_{p}=x_{p+1}$ for some $p \in \{2, \ldots, \ell-1\}$ take $y_{1}=0$ and
\begin{align*}
&(\lambda'_{2}, \ldots, \lambda'_{p-1},\lambda'_{p}, \lambda'_{p+1}, \ldots, \lambda'_{\ell-1}, \lambda'_{\ell}, y'_{2}, \ldots, y'_{p}, y'_{p+1}, \ldots, y'_{\ell-1}, y'_{\ell})=\\
&(\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{p-1},\beta_{p}+\beta_{p+1}, \beta_{p+2},\ldots, \beta_{\ell}, \beta_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{p}, x_{p+2}, \ldots x_{\ell}, 1).
\end{align*}
Under such choices we have
\begin{align*}
L^{z}(s) = B^{\inf}(\overline{L}(s)) \stackrel{\mathrm{Lemma}~\ref{gran2}}{=} B^{\inf}(\overline{L}(s_{1})) =(1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda'_{j})\gamma_{n+1}(y'_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda'_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(y'_{j}) = U^{z}(t).
\end{align*}
This finishes the proof of (\ref{giff}).
\subsubsection{The proof of (\ref{union})} \label{unionsub}
The inclusion
\begin{align*}
\{(x,B^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1]))\} \cup \{(x,B^{\mathrm{inf}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1]))\} \subset \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1]))
\end{align*}
is trivial. Indeed, it follows from (\ref{be1}) that the point $(x,B^{\sup}(x))$ is a convex combination of some points of $\gamma([0,1])$, therefore, $(x,B^{\sup}(x)) \in \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1]))$. On the other hand, no point of the form $(x,s)$, where $s>B^{\sup}(x)$ belongs to $\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1]))$. Indeed, otherwise $(x,s) = \sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_{j} \gamma(t_{j})$ for some $t_{j} \in [0,1]$ and nonnegative $\lambda_{j}$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{m} \lambda_{j}=1$. Then
\begin{align*}
B^{\sup}(x)=B^{\sup}\left( \sum \lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(t_{j})\right)\stackrel{(\ref{mincon1})}{\geq} \sum \lambda_{j} B^{\sup}(\overline{\gamma}(t_{j})) \stackrel{(\ref{mincon1})}{=} \sum \lambda_{j} \gamma_{n+1}(t_{j})=s
\end{align*}
gives a contradiction. Thus $(x,B^{\sup}(x)) \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1]))$. In a similar way we have $(x,B^{\inf}(x)) \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1]))$ for $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1]))$.
To verify the inclusion
\begin{align*}
\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1])) \subset \{(x,B^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1]))\} \cup \{(x,B^{\mathrm{inf}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1]))\}
\end{align*}
we pick a point $(x,t) \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([0,1]))$ where $x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, i.e., $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1]))$. Clearly $B^{\inf}(x) \leq t \leq B^{\sup}(x)$. Assume contrary that $B^{\inf}(x) < t < B^{\sup}(x)$. If $x \in \partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1]))$ then by (\ref{giff}) we have $B^{\inf}(x) = B^{\sup}(x)$, therefore, we get a contradiction. If $x \in \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1])))$ then (\ref{giff}) and continuity of $B^{\sup}$ and $B^{\inf}$ imply that there exists a ball $U_{\varepsilon}(x)$ or radius $\varepsilon>0$ centered at point $x$ such that $U_{\varepsilon}(x) \subset \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([0,1])))$ and $B^{\inf}(s)<t-\delta < t+\delta<B^{\sup}(s)$ for all $s \in U_{\varepsilon}(x)$ and some $\delta>0$. Then
\begin{align*}
&(x,t) \in U_{\min\{\varepsilon, \delta\}}((x,t))\subset \{(s,y)\, :\, B^{\inf}(s)\leq y\leq B^{\sup}(s), s \in U_{\min\{\varepsilon, \delta\}}(x)\}=\\
&\mathrm{conv}(\{(s,B^{\inf}(s)), \, s \in U_{\min\{\varepsilon, \delta\}}(x)\} \cup \{(s,B^{\sup}(s)), \, s \in U_{\min\{\varepsilon, \delta\}}(x)\}) \subset \mathrm{conv} (\gamma([0,1])),
\end{align*}
where $U_{\min\{\varepsilon, \delta\}}((x,t))$ is the ball in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ centered at $(x,t)$ with radius $\min\{\varepsilon, \delta\}$. We obtain a contradiction with the assumption that $(x,t)$ belongs to the boundary of $\mathrm{conv} (\gamma([0,1]))$.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{mth010} is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The proof of Proposition~\ref{sensitive}}
Take $\gamma(t) = (t,t^{4}, -t^{3})$ on $[-1,1]$. We have
\begin{align*}
(\gamma', \gamma'', \gamma''') = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
4t^{3} & 12t^{2} & 24 t\\
-3t^{2} & -6t & -6
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
All the leading principal minors of the matrix $(\gamma', \gamma'', \gamma''')$ are positive on $[-1,1]\setminus \{0\}$, and we notice that $2\times 2$ and $3\times 3$ the leading principal minors vanish at $t=0$. Assume contrary to Proposition~\ref{sensitive} that the map $B^{\sup}(x,y)$ defined on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([-1,1]))$ by (\ref{vog}) is concave. We have
\begin{align}
B(\lambda (a,a^{4})+(1-\lambda)(1,1)) = -\lambda a^{3} -(1-\lambda), \lambda \in [0,1], a \in (-1,1).
\end{align}
In particular, $g(y):=B(0,y), y \in [0,1],$ must be concave. The restriction $\lambda a + (1-\lambda)=0$ implies $\lambda = \frac{1}{1-a}$. Therefore
\begin{align*}
\lambda a^{4} + (1-\lambda) = a^{3}+a^{2}+a \quad \text{and} \quad -\lambda a^{3} -(1-\lambda) = a^{2}+a.
\end{align*}
Since $-a^{3}-a^{2}-a = y \in [0,1]$ we must have $a \in [-1,0]$. Thus $g(-a^{3}-a^{2}-a) = a^{2}+a$ for $a \in [-1,0]$. differentiating both sides in $a$ two times we obtain
\begin{align*}
&g'(-a^{3}-a^{2}-a) = -\frac{2a+1}{3a^{2}+2a+1},\\
&g''(-a^{3}-a^{2}-a) = \frac{-6a(a+1)}{(3a^{2}+2a+1)^{3}} > 0 \quad \text{for} \quad a \in [-1,0).
\end{align*}
Thus $g''>0$ gives a contradiction.
\subsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{mth1}}
We verify (\ref{extr01}). The verification of (\ref{extr02}) is similar. Denote
\begin{align*}
M^{\sup}(x) :=\sup_{a\leq Y\leq b} \{ \mathbb{E} \gamma_{n+1}(Y)\, :\, \mathbb{E} \overline{\gamma}(Y)=x\}, \quad x \in \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b])).
\end{align*}
First we show the inequality $M^{\sup} \leq B^{\sup}$ on $\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))$. Indeed, let $x \in \mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([a,b]))$. Pick an arbitrary random variable $Y$ with values in $[a,b]$, such that $\mathbb{E} \overline{\gamma}(Y)=x$. Then
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} \gamma_{n+1}(Y) \stackrel{(\ref{mincon1})}{=} \mathbb{E}B^{\sup}(\overline{\gamma}(Y)) \stackrel{(\ref{mincon1})+\mathrm{Jensen}}{\leq} B^{\sup}(\mathbb{E}\overline{\gamma}(Y))=B^{\sup}(x).
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum over all $Y$, $a\leq Y\leq b$, such that $\mathbb{E} \overline{\gamma}(Y)=x$, gives the inequality $M^{\sup}(x) \leq B^{\sup}(x)$.
To verify the reverse inequality $M^{\sup}(x) \geq B^{\sup}(x)$ it suffices to construct at least one random variable $Y=Y(x)$, $a\leq Y\leq b$, such that $\mathbb{E} \overline{\gamma}(Y)=x$ and $\mathbb{E} \gamma_{n+1}(Y)=B^{\sup}(x)$. Notice that $Y=\zeta(x)$, where $\zeta(x)$ is defined in Theorem~\ref{mth1}, satisfies $a\leq \zeta(x) \leq b$, $\mathbb{E} \overline{\gamma}(\zeta(x))=x$. It also follows from (\ref{vog}) that $\mathbb{E} \gamma_{n+1}(\zeta(x))=B^{\sup}(x)$.
\subsection{The proof of Corollary~\ref{nobel2}}. The moment curve $\gamma$ has totally positive torsion on $[0,1]$, hence, Theorem~\ref{mth010} applies.
First we work with $B^{\sup}(x)=x_{n+1}$. Consider the case $n=2\ell$. By Theorem~\ref{mth010} there exists a unique point $(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \overline{\gamma}(y_{j})+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(1)=x$ then the value $x_{n+1}:=B^{\sup}(x)$ equals to $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} y_{j}^{2\ell+1}+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})$. We would like to show that the linear equation
\begin{align}\label{gant01}
\det
\begin{pmatrix}a_{0} & a_{1} & \ldots & a_{\ell}\\
\vdots & & & \\
a_{\ell} & a_{\ell+1} & \ldots & a_{2\ell}\end{pmatrix}=0,
\end{align}
where $a_{k}:=x_{k}-x_{k+1}$, $k=0, \ldots, 2\ell$, $x_{0}:=1$, has a unique solution in $x_{n+1}$ which equals to $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} y_{j}^{2\ell+1}+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})$. First we check why $x_{n+1}=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} y_{j}^{2\ell+1}+(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})$ solves (\ref{gant01}). Notice that $a_{k} = \langle y^{k}, \beta \rangle$, where $y^{k} := (y_{1}^{k}, \ldots, y_{\ell}^{k})$, and $\beta := (\lambda_{1}(1-y_{1}), \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}(1-y_{\ell}))$. The $j$'th column of the matrix in (\ref{gant01}), call it $w_{j}$, $j=0, \ldots, \ell$, we can write as $w_{j} = AD^{j}\beta^{T}$, where $A$ is $(\ell+1)\times \ell$ matrix with $m$'th column $(1, y_{m}, \ldots, y_{m}^{\ell})^{T}$, and $D$ is $\ell\times\ell$ diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}$. Since there exists a nonzero vector $(z_{0}, \ldots, z_{\ell})\in \mathbb{R}^{\ell+1}$ such that $z_{0}D^{0}+\ldots+z_{\ell}D^{\ell}=0$ (the number of variables $z_{j}$ is greater than the number of equations, i.e., $\ell$), it follows that the vectors $\{w_{0}, \ldots, w_{\ell}\}$ are linearly dependent, so (\ref{gant01}) holds true.
To show the uniqueness of the solution $x_{n+1}$ it suffices to show that the leading $\ell\times \ell$ principal minor $R$ of the matrix in $(\ref{gant01})$ has nonzero determinant. Notice that $R=\det(\tilde{w}_{0}, \ldots, \tilde{w}_{\ell-1})$, where $\tilde{w}_{j}=\tilde{A}D^{j}\beta^{T}$ and $\tilde{A}$ is obtained from $A$ by removing the last row. Assume contrary that $R=0$. Then there exists a nonzero vector $(z_{0}, \ldots, z_{\ell-1})\in \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ such that $\tilde{A}(z_{0}D^{0}+\ldots+z_{\ell-1}D^{\ell-1})\beta^{T}=0$. As $\det(\tilde{A})\neq 0$ (Vandermonde matrix) we have $(z_{0}D^{0}+\ldots+z_{\ell-1}D^{\ell-1})\beta^{T}=0$. Since the entries of $\beta^{T}$ are nonzero and the matrix $(z_{0}D^{0}+\ldots+z_{\ell-1}D^{\ell-1})$ is diagonal we must have $z_{0}D^{0}+\ldots+z_{\ell-1}D^{\ell-1}=0$. The last equation rewrites as $\tilde{A}^{T}z^{T}=0$ where $z=(z_{0}, \ldots, z_{\ell-1})\neq 0$, which is a contradiction.
Next, consider $n=2\ell-1$. In this case $x = (1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\overline{\gamma}(0)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})+\lambda_{1}\overline{\gamma}(1)$ for a unique $(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, y_{2}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\overline{\gamma}([0,1])))$, and the value $x_{n+1}:=B^{\sup}(x)$ is $(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\gamma_{n+1}(0)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}\gamma_{n+1}(y_{j})+\lambda_{1}\gamma_{n+1}(1)$. Set $b_{k}:=x_{k}-x_{k+1}$, $k=1, \ldots, 2\ell-1$. As before we would like to show that the linear equation
\begin{align}\label{gant02}
\det
\begin{pmatrix}b_{1} & b_{2} & \ldots & b_{\ell}\\
\vdots & & & \\
b_{\ell} & b_{\ell+1} & \ldots & b_{2\ell-1}\end{pmatrix}=0,
\end{align}
has a unique solution in $x_{n+1}$ which equals to $(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\gamma_{n+1}(0)+\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}\gamma_{n+1}(y_{j})+\lambda_{1}\gamma_{n+1}(1)$. To check that such a choice for $x_{n+1}$ solves (\ref{gant02}), notice that $b_{k} =\langle y^{k}, \beta \rangle$, where $y^{k} = (y_{2}^{k}, \ldots, y_{\ell}^{k})$ and $\beta = (\lambda_{2}(1-y_{2}), \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}(1-y_{\ell}))$.
The $j$'th column of the matrix in (\ref{gant02}), call it $w_{j}$, $j=1, \ldots, \ell$, we can write as $w_{j} = AD^{j}\beta^{T}$, where $A$ is $\ell\times(\ell-1)$ matrix with $m$'th column $(y_{m}, \ldots, y_{m}^{\ell})^{T}$, $m=2, \ldots, \ell$, and $D$ is $(\ell-1)\times(\ell-1)$ diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $y_{2}, \ldots, y_{\ell}$. Since there exists a nonzero vector $(z_{1}, \ldots, z_{\ell})\in \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ such that $z_{1}D+\ldots+z_{\ell}D^{\ell}=0$ (the number of variables $z_{j}$ is greater than the number of equations, i.e., $\ell-1$), it follows that the vectors $\{w_{1}, \ldots, w_{\ell}\}$ are linearly dependent, so (\ref{gant02}) holds true.
To show the uniqueness of the solution $x_{n+1}$ it suffices to show that the leading $(\ell-1)\times (\ell-1)$ principal minor $R$ of the matrix in $(\ref{gant02})$ has nonzero determinant. Notice that $R=\det(\tilde{w}_{1}, \ldots, \tilde{w}_{\ell-1})$, where $\tilde{w}_{j}=\tilde{A}D^{j}\beta^{T}$, and $\tilde{A}$ is obtained from $A$ by removing the last row. Assume contrary that $R=0$. Then there exists nonzero vector $(z_{1}, \ldots, z_{\ell-1})\in \mathbb{R}^{\ell-1}$ such that $\tilde{A}(z_{1}D+\ldots+z_{\ell-1}D^{\ell-1})\beta^{T}=0$. As $\det(\tilde{A})\neq 0$ (Vandermonde matrix) we have $(z_{1}D+\ldots+z_{\ell-1}D^{\ell-1})\beta^{T}=0$. Since the entries of $\beta^{T}$ are nonzero and the matrix $(z_{1}D+\ldots+z_{\ell-1}D^{\ell-1})$ is diagonal we must have $z_{1}D+\ldots+z_{\ell-1}D^{\ell-1}=0$. The last equation rewrites as $\tilde{A}^{T}z^{T}=0$ where $z=(z_{1}, \ldots, z_{\ell-1})\neq 0$, which is a contradiction.
Next we work with $B^{\inf}(x)$. Consider $n=2\ell$. There is a unique point $(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}) \in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times\Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}\overline{\gamma}(y_{j})=x$. It suffices to show that the linear equation
\begin{align}\label{gant03}
\det
\begin{pmatrix}x_{1} & x_{2} & \ldots & x_{\ell+1}\\
\vdots & & & \\
x_{\ell+1} & x_{\ell+2} & \ldots & x_{2\ell+1}\end{pmatrix}=0,
\end{align}
has a unique solution $x_{2\ell+1}=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j}\gamma_{n+1}(y_{j})$. The $j$'th column of the matrix in (\ref{gant03}), call it $w_{j}$, $j=1, \ldots, \ell+1$, we can write as $w_{j} = AD^{j}\lambda^{T}$, where $A$ is $(\ell+1)\times\ell$ matrix with $m$'th column $(y_{m}, \ldots, y_{m}^{\ell+1})^{T}$, $m=1, \ldots, \ell$, $D$ is $\ell\times\ell$ diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}$, and $\lambda=(\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell})$. The rest of the reasoning (including the uniqueness of the solution $x_{n+1}$) is similar to the one we just discussed for $B^{\sup}$ and $n=2\ell$.
Finally, consider $n=2\ell-1$. There exists a unique point $(\beta_{2}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell}, y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell})\in \mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell-1}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j} \gamma(y_{j})=x$, where $\beta_{1}:=1-\sum_{j=2}^{\ell}\beta_{j}$. It suffices to show that the linear equation
\begin{align}\label{gant04}
\det
\begin{pmatrix}1 & x_{1} & \ldots & x_{\ell}\\
\vdots & & & \\
x_{\ell} & x_{\ell+1} & \ldots & x_{2\ell}\end{pmatrix}=0,
\end{align}
has a unique solution $x_{2\ell}=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\beta_{j}\gamma_{n+1}(y_{j})$. The $j$'th column of the matrix in (\ref{gant03}), call it $w_{j}$, $j=1, \ldots, \ell+1$, we can write as $w_{j} = AD^{j-1}\beta^{T}$, where $A$ is $(\ell+1)\times\ell$ matrix with $m$'th column $(1, y_{m}, \ldots, y_{m}^{\ell})^{T}$, $m=1, \ldots, \ell$, $D$ is $\ell\times\ell$ diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $y_{1}, \ldots, y_{\ell}$, and $\beta=(\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{\ell})$. The rest of the reasoning (including the uniqueness of the solution $x_{n+1}$) is similar to the one we just discussed for $B^{\sup}$ and $n=2\ell$.
\subsection{The proof of Corollary~\ref{karatecor}}
Assume contrary that there exist $n+1$ points, $\gamma(t_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(t_{n+1})$, where $a\leq t_{1}<\ldots <t_{n+1}\leq b$, which lie in a single affine hyperplane. In particular, we have
\begin{align}\label{lies}
\det(\gamma(t_{2})-\gamma(t_{1}), \gamma(t_{3})-\gamma(t_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(t_{n+1})-\gamma(t_{1}))=0.
\end{align}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{align*}
&\det(\gamma(t_{2})-\gamma(t_{1}), \gamma(t_{3})-\gamma(t_{1}), \ldots, \gamma(t_{n+1})-\gamma(t_{1})) = \\
&\det(\gamma(t_{2})-\gamma(t_{1}), \gamma(t_{3})-\gamma(t_{2}), \ldots, \gamma(t_{n+1})-\gamma(t_{n})) = \\
&\int_{t_{n}}^{t_{n+1}}\ldots\int_{t_{2}}^{t_{3}}\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}} \det(\gamma'(s_{1}),\gamma'(s_{2}) \ldots, \gamma'(s_{n})) ds_{1}ds_{2}\ldots ds_{n} >0
\end{align*}
by Lemma~\ref{klasika}. Thus we have a contradiction with (\ref{lies}).
\subsection{The proof of Corollary~\ref{provolume}}
To prove the formulas for the volume we apply Theorem~\ref{mth010}, where $\gamma$ in Corollary~\ref{provolume} will be used as $\overline{\gamma}$ in Theorem~\ref{mth010}. Let $n=2\ell$. To verify
\begin{align}
\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b])))& \label{moculoba}\\
=\frac{(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}}{(2\ell)!}& \int_{a\leq x_{1}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell} \leq b} \mathrm{det}(\gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(a), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(a), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell})) dx, \nonumber
\end{align}
notice that according to Theorem~\ref{mth010} the map $U:=U_{2\ell}$, where
\begin{align*}
U_{2\ell} : \Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell} \ni (\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{\ell}, x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \mapsto (1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})\gamma(a)+\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j} \gamma(x_{j}),
\end{align*}
is diffeomorphism between $\mathrm{int}(\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell})$ and $\mathrm{int}(\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b])))$. In particular, by change of variables formula, we have
\begin{align*}
&\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))) = \int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}} \int_{\Delta_{*}^{\ell}} |\det(U_{\lambda_{1}}, \ldots, U_{\lambda_{\ell}}, U_{x_{1}}, \ldots, U_{x_{\ell}})| d\lambda\, dx=\\
&\int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}}\lambda_{1}\ldots \lambda_{\ell} d\lambda \, \int_{\Delta_{*}^{\ell}} |\mathrm{det}(\gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(a), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(a), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell}))|dx.
\end{align*}
Next, using the identity
\begin{align}\label{distr}
\int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}}\lambda^{p_{1}-1}_{1}\ldots \lambda_{\ell}^{p_{\ell-1}}(1-\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\lambda_{j})^{p_{0}-1} d\lambda = \frac{\prod_{j=0}^{\ell} \Gamma(p_{j})}{\Gamma(\sum_{j=0}^{\ell} p_{j})}
\end{align}
valid for all $p_{0}, \ldots, p_{\ell}>0$ (see Dirichlet distribution in \cite{book1}), and the property
\begin{align*}
&|\mathrm{det}(\gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(a), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(a), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell}))| \\ &=(-1)^{\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2}}\mathrm{det}(\gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(a), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(a), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell}))
\end{align*}
whenever $a<x_{1}<\ldots <x_{\ell}<b$, see (\ref{nishani1}), we recover (\ref{moculoba}). The other three identities in Corollary ~\ref{provolume} are obtained in the same way by repeating the computations with $L_{2\ell}$, and in the case of odd dimensions with $U_{2\ell-1}$ and $L_{2\ell-1}$.
\subsection{The proof of Corollary~\ref{area1}}
Let $n=2\ell$ (the case $n=2\ell-1$ is similar and will be omitted), and let us verify the identity
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Area}(\partial \; \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))) = \frac{1}{n!} \int_{a\leq x_{1}\leq \ldots \leq x_{\ell}\leq b} \left( \sqrt{\det S_{a}^{\mathrm{Tr}}S_{a}} +\sqrt{\det S_{b}^{\mathrm{Tr}}S_{b}} \right) dx,
\end{align*}
where $S_{r} = (\gamma(x_{1})-\gamma(r), \ldots, \gamma(x_{\ell})-\gamma(r), \gamma'(x_{1}), \ldots, \gamma'(x_{\ell}))$. By (\ref{union}) we have
\begin{align*}
\partial\, \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))=\{(x,B^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\} \cup \{(x,B^{\mathrm{inf}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\}.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, by (\ref{giff}) and (\ref{b2l}) the set $\{(x,B^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\} \cap \{(x,B^{\mathrm{inf}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\}$ is contained in the image of $C^{1}$ map of the set $\partial (\Delta^{\ell}_{c}\times \Delta^{\ell}_{*})$ which has zero $n$ dimensional Lebesgue measure. Therefore, it follows from (\ref{diff2lu}) and (\ref{diff2ll}) that
\begin{align*}
&\mathrm{Area}(\partial \; \mathrm{conv}(\gamma([a,b]))) = \\
&\mathrm{Area}(\{(x,B^{\mathrm{sup}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\}) + \mathrm{Area}(\{(x,B^{\mathrm{inf}}(x)), x \in \mathrm{conv}(\bar{\gamma}([a,b]))\}) = \\
&\int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}}\sqrt{ \det{ A^{\mathrm{Tr}} A}} \, dx d\lambda + \int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}}\sqrt{ \det{ C^{\mathrm{Tr}} C}}\, dx d\lambda,
\end{align*}
where $A = (U_{\lambda_{1}}, \ldots, U_{\lambda_{\ell}}, U_{x_{1}}, \ldots, U_{x_{\ell}})$ with $U:=U_{n}$, and $C=(L_{\lambda_{1}}, \ldots, L_{\lambda_{\ell}}, L_{x_{1}}, \ldots, L_{x_{\ell}})$ with $L:=L_{n}$. Notice that $A^{\mathrm{Tr}}A =RS^{\mathrm{Tr}}_{b}S_{b}R$ where $R$ is $2\ell \times 2\ell$ diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $r_{1}=\ldots=r_{\ell}=1$, and $r_{\ell+1}=\lambda_{1}, \ldots, r_{\ell+\ell}=\lambda_{\ell}$. Similarly $C^{\mathrm{Tr}}C = RS_{a}^{\mathrm{Tr}}S_{a}R$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}}\sqrt{ \det{ A^{\mathrm{Tr}} A}} \, dx d\lambda + \int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}\times \Delta_{*}^{\ell}}\sqrt{ \det{ C^{\mathrm{Tr}} C}}\, dx d\lambda =\\
&\int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}} \lambda_{1}\cdots \lambda_{\ell} d\lambda \int_{\Delta_{*}^{\ell}}\sqrt{\det S^{\mathrm{Tr}}_{b}S_{b}}dx + \int_{\Delta_{c}^{\ell}} \lambda_{1}\cdots \lambda_{\ell} d\lambda \int_{\Delta_{*}^{\ell}}\sqrt{\det S^{\mathrm{Tr}}_{a}S_{a}}dx \stackrel{(\ref{distr})}{=}\\
&\frac{1}{(2\ell)!}\int_{\Delta_{*}^{\ell}} \left(\sqrt{\det S^{\mathrm{Tr}}_{b}S_{b}} +\sqrt{\det S^{\mathrm{Tr}}_{a}S_{a}} \right) \, dx.
\end{align*}
This finishes the proof of Corollary~\ref{area1}.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}}
When teaching statistics and data science, it is crucial for students to engage authentically with data. The revised Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) College Report provides recommendations for instruction, including ``Integrate real data with a context and purpose'' and ``Use technology to explore concepts and analyze data'' \citep{carveretal2016}. Many instructors have students engage with data using technology through in-class experiences or separate lab activities.
An important pedagogical decision when choosing to teach data analysis is the choice of tool. There has long been a divide between `tools for learning' and `tools for doing' data analysis \citep{mcnamara2015a}. Tools for learning include applets, and standalone software like TinkerPlots, Fathom, or their next-generation counterpart CODAP \citep{konoldmiller2001, finzer2002a, CODAP2021}. Tools for doing are used by professionals, and include software packages like SAS as well as programming languages like Julia, R, and Python.
Many tools for learning were inspired by Rolf Biehler's 1997 paper, ``Software for Learning and for Doing Statistics'' \citep{biehler1997}. In it, Biehler called for more attention to the design of tools used for teaching. In particular, he was concerned with on-ramps for students (ensuring the tool was not too complex), as well as off-ramps (using one tool through an entire class, which could also extend further) \citep{biehler1997}. At the time he wrote the paper it was quite difficult to teach using an authentic tool for doing, because these tools lacked technological or pedagogical on-ramps.
However, recent developments in Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) and pedagogical advances have opened space for a movement to teach even novices statistics and data science using programming. In particular, curricula using Python and R have become popular. In these curricula, educators make pedagogical decisions about what code to show students, and how to scaffold it. In both the Python and R communities, there have been movements to simplify syntax for students.
For example, the UC Berkeley Data 8 course uses Python, including elements of the commonly-used \texttt{matplotlib} and \texttt{numpy} libraries as well as a specialized library written to accompany the curriculum called \texttt{datascience} \citep{adhikarietal2021, deneroetal2020}. The \texttt{datascience} library was designed to reduce complexity in the code. At the K-12 level, the language Pyret has been developed as a simplified version of Python to accompany the Bootstrap Data Science curriculum \citep{krishnamurthietal2020}.
In R, the development of less-complex code for students has been under consideration for even longer \citep{pruimetal2011}. R offers non-standard evaluation, which allows package authors to create new `syntax' for their packages \citep{morandatetal2012}. In human language, syntax is the set of rules for how words and sentences should be structured. If you use the wrong syntax in human language, people will hear there is something wrong with how you structured your speech or writing. However, because human understanding is flexible, the listener will probably still understand the general idea you were trying to convey. Syntax in programming languages is more formal-- it governs what code will execute, run, or compile correctly. Using the wrong syntax usually means failing to get a result from the program.
Typically, programming languages have only one valid syntax. For example, an aphorism about the language Python is ``There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it'' \citep{peters2004}. But, non-standard evaluation in R has allowed there to be many obvious ways to do the same task. There is some disagreement over whether syntax is a precise term for these differences. Other terms suggested for these variations in valid R code are `dialects,' `interfaces,' and `domain specific languages.' Throughout this paper, we use the term syntax as a shorthand for these concepts. At present, there are three primary syntaxes used: base, formula, and \texttt{tidyverse} \citep{mcnamara2018a}.
The base syntax is used by the base R language \citep{rcoreteam2020}, and is characterized by the use of dollar signs and square brackets. The formula syntax uses the tilde to separate response and explanatory variable(s) \citep{pruimetal2017}. The \texttt{tidyverse} syntax uses a data-first approach, and the pipe to move data between steps \citep{wickhametal2019}.
A comparison of using the three syntaxes for univariate statistics and displays can be seen in \ref{r-syntax}. This example code, like the rest in this paper, uses the \texttt{palmerpenguins} data \citep{horstetal2020}. All three pieces of code accomplish the same tasks, and all three use the R language. But, the syntax varies considerably.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\CommentTok{\# base syntax}
\FunctionTok{hist}\NormalTok{(penguins}\SpecialCharTok{$}\NormalTok{bill\_length\_mm)}
\FunctionTok{mean}\NormalTok{(penguins}\SpecialCharTok{$}\NormalTok{bill\_length\_mm)}
\CommentTok{\# formula syntax}
\FunctionTok{gf\_histogram}\NormalTok{(}\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{bill\_length\_mm, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins)}
\FunctionTok{mean}\NormalTok{(}\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{bill\_length\_mm, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins)}
\CommentTok{\# tidyverse syntax}
\FunctionTok{ggplot}\NormalTok{(penguins) }\SpecialCharTok{+}
\FunctionTok{geom\_histogram}\NormalTok{(}\FunctionTok{aes}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{x =}\NormalTok{ bill\_length\_mm))}
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{summarize}\NormalTok{(}\FunctionTok{mean}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm))}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\captionof{chunk}{Making a histogram of bill length from the penguins dataset, then taking the mean, using three different R syntaxes. Base syntax is characterized by the dollar sign, formula by the tilde, and tidyvese is dataframe-first. In order for this code to run as-is, missing (NA) values need to be dropped before the code is run.}
\label{r-syntax}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
There is some agreement about pedagogical decisions for teaching R. In particular, most educators agree that in order to reduce cognitive load, instructors should only teach one syntax, and to be as consistent as possible about that syntax \citep{mcnamaraetal2021a}. There is also some agreement base R syntax is not the appropriate choice for introductory statistics, but there is widespread disagreement on whether the formula syntax or \texttt{tidyverse} syntax is better for novices.
While there are strongly-held opinions on which syntax should be taught \citep{pruimetal2017, cetinkaya-rundeletal2022}, there is relatively little empirical evidence to support these opinions. In the realm of computer science, empirical studies by Andreas Stefik, et al have shown significant differences in the intuitiveness of languages, as well as error rates, based on language design choices \citep{stefiketal2011, stefiksiebert2013}. Thus, it seems likely there are language choices that could make data science programming easier (or harder) for users, particularly novices.
Stefik's team is working to add data science functionality to their evidence-based programming language. As a first step toward understanding which elements of existing languages might be best to emulate, they ran an experiment comparing the three main R syntaxes \citep{rafalskietal2019}. The study showed no statistically significant difference between any of the three syntaxes with regard to time to completion or number of errors. However, there were significant interaction effects between syntax and task, which suggested some syntaxes might be more appropriate for certain tasks \citep{rafalskietal2019}.
Beyond this, examining the results from the study with an eye toward data science pedagogy showed common errors made by students related to their conceptions of dataframes and variables. For example, one of the figures from \citet{rafalskietal2019} shows real student code with errors. In the first line of code, the student gets everything correct using formula syntax, with the exception of the name of the dataframe. When that code does not work, they try again using base R syntax, but again get the dataframe name wrong. After both those failures, they appear to fall back on computer science knowledge and try syntax quite different from R. This is consistent with other studies of novice behavior in R \citep{roberts2015}. It is not clear if this type of error was dependent on the syntax participants were asked to use.
The other missing element in this study was instruction. The study was a quick intervention showing students examples of a particular syntax, then asking them to duplicate that syntax in a new situation. But without any instruction about data science concepts like dataframes, it would be difficult to troubleshoot the syntax error mentioned above. The work served as the inspiration for the longer comparison of multiple R syntaxes in the classroom context described in this paper.
The remainder of this paper is organized into three sections. Section \ref{sec:methods} describes the setup of the classes, the participants (\ref{sec:participants}) and their experience (\ref{sec:priorexp}), and the content of the course under investigation (\ref{sec:materials}). Section \ref{sec:results} contains results of the analysis, including a comparison of material lengths between the sections (\ref{sec:ll}), the number of unique functions shown in each section (\ref{sec:numfunc}), results from the pre- and post-survey (\ref{sec:prepost}), and analysis of YouTube (\ref{sec:yt}) and RStudio Cloud (\ref{sec:rstudio}) data. Finally, Section \ref{sec:discussion} discusses the results and opportunities for future study.
All pedagogical materials used for the course under discussion are available on GitHub and are Creative Commons licensed, so they can be used or remixed by anyone who wants to use them (\url{https://github.com/AmeliaMN/STAT220-labs}). All code and anonymized data from this paper is also available on GitHub, for reproducibility (\url{https://github.com/AmeliaMN/ComparingSyntaxForModeling}). Data analysis was performed in R, and the paper is written in RMarkdown. The categorical color palette was chosen using Colorgorical \citep{gramazioetal2017}, and colors for the Likert scale plot are from ColorBrewer \citep{harrowerbrewer2003}. Example data used throughout the paper is from \texttt{palmerpenguins} \citep{horstetal2020}. Code from the formula section uses the R packages loaded in that course, \texttt{mosaic} and \texttt{ggformula} (\texttt{ggformula} is now loaded automatically with \texttt{mosaic}) \citep{pruimetal2017, kaplanpruim2020}. Code from the tidyverse section uses the functions from that course, the \texttt{tidyverse} and \texttt{infer} packages \citep{wickhametal2019, brayetal2021}.
\hypertarget{sec:methods}{%
\section{Methods}\label{sec:methods}}
The author did this head-to-head comparison in her introductory statistics labs. The comparison was run twice, once in the Spring 2020 semester and once in the Fall 2020 semester. The disruption of COVID-19 to the Spring 2020 semester made the resulting data unusable, so this paper focuses on just Fall 2020 data.
Data was collected from YouTube analytics for watch times, from RStudio Cloud for aggregated compute time, and from pre- and post-surveys of students. Participants for the pre- and post-survey were recruited from this pool after Institutional Research Board ethics review (University of St Thomas IRB 1605810-2).
\hypertarget{sec:participants}{%
\subsection{Participants}\label{sec:participants}}
Participants were students enrolled in an introductory statistics course at a mid-sized private university in the upper Midwest. At this university, statistics students enroll in a lecture (approximately 60-90 students per section), which is broken into several smaller lab sections for hands-on work in statistical software. Lecture and lab sections are taught by different instructors, and the lab sections associated with a particular lecture often use different software. For example, one lab may use Minitab while the other two use Excel. However, every lab section (no matter what lecture it is associated with, or what software is used) does the same set of standardized assignments. This structure provides a consistent basis for comparison.
In Fall 2020, the author taught two labs associated with the same lecture section, so all students saw the same lecture content. (A third lab was associated with the same lecture, using a different software, and was not considered.) Using random assignment (coin flip), the author selected one lab section to be instructed using formula syntax, and one to be instructed using \texttt{tidyverse} syntax. The goal was to compare syntaxes head-to-head.
Because the lab took place during the coronavirus pandemic, the instructor recorded YouTube videos of herself working through the pre-lab documents for each lab, and posted them in advance. Students watched the videos and worked through the associated pre-lab RMarkdown document on their own time, then came to synchronous class to ask questions and get help starting on the real lab assignment. Students used R through the online platform RStudio Cloud \citep{rstudiopbc2021}.
The two labs were of the same size (\(n=21\) in both sections) and reasonably similar in terms of student composition. In both sections, approximately half of students were Business majors, with the other half a mix of other majors.
Participants for the pre- and post-survey were recruited from this pool after Institutional Research Board ethics review. For the pre-survey, \(n=12\) and \(n=13\) students consented to participate, and in the post-survey \(n=8\) and \(n=13\) responded. So, for paired analysis we have \(n=8\) for the formula section, and \(n=13\) for the \texttt{tidyverse} section. These sample sizes are very small, and because students could opt-in, may suffer from response bias. However, because we have additional usage data from non-respondents, some elements of the data analysis include the full class sample sizes of \(n=21\).
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\hypertarget{sec:priorexp}{%
\subsection{Prior programming experience}\label{sec:priorexp}}
\linespread{1}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:priorexptab}Responses from pre-survey about prior programming experience. The majority of students in both sections had no prior programming experience.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{lrr}
\toprule
& formula & tidyverse\\
\midrule
No & 10 & 9\\
Yes, but not with R & 2 & 4\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
To verify both groups of students had similar backgrounds, we compared the prior programming experience of the two groups of students. Table \ref{tab:priorexptab} shows results from the pre-survey. While two additional students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section had prior programming experience, the overall pattern was the same. The majority of students in both sections had no prior programming experience.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
For the students who had programmed before, none had prior experience with R. Three students had prior experience with Java, 3 with Javascript, and a smaller number had experience with other languages, including C++ and Python.
\hypertarget{sec:materials}{%
\subsection{Materials}\label{sec:materials}}
Each week, the lab instructor prepared a ``pre-lab'' document in RMarkdown. The pre-lab covered the topics necessary to complete the standardized lab assignment done by all students across lab sections. Pre-lab documents included text explanations of statistical and R programming concepts, sample code, and blanks (both in the code and the text) for students to fill in as they worked.
The instructor recorded YouTube videos of herself working through the pre-lab documents for each lab, and posted them in advance. Literature about flipped classrooms suggests shorter videos are better for student engagement, although there is no consensus about the ideal length for videos, with suggestions ranging from 5 to 20 minutes as a maximum length for a video \citep{zuber2016, beattyetal2019, guoetal2014}. The instructor attempted to keep the total number of minutes of video content below 20 each week. If video content became too long, the instructor split the content into multiple shorter videos. Students were told to watch the pre-lab video(s) and work through the RMarkdown document on their own time, then come to synchronous class to ask questions and get help starting on the real lab assignment.
The topics covered in Fall 2020 were as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\def\arabic{enumi}.{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
{[}No lab, short week{]}
\item
Describing data: determining the number of observations and variables in a dataset, variable types.
\item
Categorical variables: exploratory data analysis for one or two categorical variables. Frequency tables, relative frequency tables, bar charts, two-way tables, and side-by-side bar charts.
\item
Quantitative variables: exploratory data analysis for one quantitative variable. Histograms, dot plots, density plots, and summary statistics like mean, median, and standard deviation.
\item
Correlation and regression: exploratory data analysis for two quantitative variables. Correlation, scatterplot, simple linear regression as a descriptive technique.
\item
Bootstrap intervals: the use of the bootstrap to construct non-parametric confidence intervals.
\item
Randomization tests: the use of randomization to perform non-parametric hypothesis tests.
\item
Inference for a single proportion: use of the normal distribution to construct confidence intervals and perform hypothesis tests for a single proportion.
\item
Inference for a single mean: use of the t-distribution to construct confidence intervals and perform hypothesis tests for a single mean.
\item
Inference for two samples: use of distributional approximations (normal or t) to perform inference for a difference of proportions or a difference of means.
\item
{[}No lab, assessment{]}
\item
{[}No lab, Thanksgiving{]}
\item
ANOVA: inference for more than two means, using the F distribution.
\item
Chi-square: inference for more than two counts, using the \(\chi^2\) distribution
\item
Inference for Regression: inference for the slope coefficient in simple linear regression, prediction and confidence intervals. Multiple regression.
\end{enumerate}
Although this was a 15-week semester, there are only 12 lab topics. Labs were not held during the first week of classes or during Thanksgiving week. Additionally, there were two ``lab assessments'' to gauge student understanding of concepts within the context of their lab software. One took place during finals week, the other was scheduled in week 11.
\hypertarget{sec:results}{%
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}}
\hypertarget{sec:assessment}{%
\subsection{Summative assessments}\label{sec:assessment}}
One obvious question arising when considering the comparison of the two syntaxes is whether students performed better in one section or another. The IRB did not cover examining student work (an obvious place for improved further research), so we cannot look at student outcomes on a per-assignment basis. However, running a randomization test for a difference in overall mean lab grades showed no significant difference between the two sections. While they may have been interesting differences in grades depending on the topic of the lab, we at least know these differences averaged out in the end.
Similarly, it would be interesting to know if student attitudes about the instructor were different from the summative student evaluations completed by all students at the end of the semester. These evaluations are anonymous, and the interface only provides summary statistics. Again, a test for a difference in means showed no difference in mean evaluation score on the questions ``Overall, I rate this instructor an excellent teacher.'' and ``Overall, I rate this course as excellent.''
\hypertarget{sec:ll}{%
\subsection{Lab lengths}\label{sec:ll}}
The first question we seek to answer is whether the materials presented to students were of approximately the same length. We can assess this based on the length of the pre-lab documents (in lines) and of the pre-lab videos (in minutes).
The length of the pre-lab RMarkdown documents can be measured using lines. Figure \ref{fig:prelablength} shows the number of lines of code for each section's pre-lab document, per week. Lines in the RMarkdown document include the YAML header (consistent between documents), the descriptive text about processes (largely similar between documents), and the code in code chunks, which varies based on the syntax of the lab.
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/prelablength-1}
}
\caption{Length of pre-lab RMarkdown documents each week, in lines. Data has been adjusted for the formula section in weeks 8 and 9, because an instructor error led this section to have only one document combining both weeks' work.}\label{fig:prelablength}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/videolength-1}
}
\caption{Length of pre-lab videos each week. Outlines help delineate multiple videos for a single week.}\label{fig:videolength}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Every attempt was made to align these RMarkdown documents, so the descriptive text was only changed when necessary to describe specific elements of the code. Similarly, if blank code chunks appeared in one lab, that was mirrored by a blank chunk in the other lab. Both labs' documents were styled using the styler package \citep{mullerwalthert2022} to remove inconsistencies with spacing, assignment operators, and the like. Code was styled using the default style from the package, which is based on the tidyverse style guide \citep{wickham2022}. The tidyverse style guide has become the de facto style guide for R, as previously-existing style guides like the Google R Style Guide have largely decided to follow \citet{wickham2022}.
Figure \ref{fig:prelablength} indicates RMarkdown documents for the \texttt{tidyverse} section tended to be longer. We can compute a difference in lab lengths for each week, and compute the mean difference, which is 19 lines. Although we only have 12 labs worth of data, it appeared relatively normally distributed. A 95\% confidence interval for the difference in line length (computed using the Student's t-distribution) is (7, 31), and a bootstrap confidence interval computed with 5,000 bootstrap samples and using the percentile method is (9, 29). Both intervals indicate labs for the \texttt{tidyverse} section were longer, but only by a few lines.
A slightly longer length for these labs makes sense, because \texttt{tidyverse} code is characterized by multiple short lines strung together into a pipeline with \texttt{\%\textgreater{}\%}, while the formula syntax typically has single function calls, sometimes with more arguments. The code shown in this paper is styled the same way the labs were, so any code comparison you see (for example, in \ref{tally-ex1} and \ref{tidy-tally1}) will show the difference in lines of code between the two syntaxes.
Then the question becomes if the longer lengths of documents lent themselves to longer pre-lab videos. Figure \ref{fig:videolength} shows the video lengths, which appear more consistent between sections. Effort was made to ensure the maximum video length was approximately 20 minutes, and some weeks had multiple videos.
Again, we can compute a pairwise difference in total video length (adding together multiple videos in weeks that had them), and compute the mean of that difference. That difference is 2 minutes (\texttt{tidyverse} videos being longer). The distribution of differences appeared to be right-skewed, which may impact results because the sample size is so low. Using a t-distribution, we can compute a 95\% confidence interval, which is (-0.3, 3.6), and thus contains 0.
Alternately, we could compute a bias-corrected 95\% bootstrap confidence interval using 5,000 bootstrap samples. Because of the right-skew to the data, the boostrap distribution also appeared skewed. Bias-correction should help adjust for this. The boostrap interval is (0.23, 4). This interval does not contain 0, but 0.23 minutes is equivalent to 14 seconds, which is not practically significant. It appears that while \texttt{tidyverse} labs are longer in terms of lines of code, the corresponding videos are not meaningfully different in length.
\hypertarget{sec:diflabs}{%
\subsubsection{Divergent labs}\label{sec:diflabs}}
One place where the labs are of particularly different lengths is in week 3, when the topic was exploratory data analysis for one and two categorical variables. For the formula section the RMarkdown document was 134 lines long, and the two videos totaled 28 minutes. The RMarkdown document for the \texttt{tidyverse} section was 180 lines long, and the videos totaled 35 minutes. There is a clear reason why.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
In the formula section, students found frequency tables and relative frequency tables with code as in \ref{tally-ex1} and \ref{tally-ex2}.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\FunctionTok{tally}\NormalTok{(}\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{island, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins)}
\FunctionTok{tally}\NormalTok{(}\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{island, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins, }\AttributeTok{format =} \StringTok{"percent"}\NormalTok{)}
\FunctionTok{tally}\NormalTok{(species }\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{ island, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins)}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\captionof{chunk}{Making tables of one and two categorical variables using the formula syntax and mosaic::tally().}
\label{tally-ex1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\FunctionTok{tally}\NormalTok{(species }\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{ island, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins, }\AttributeTok{format =} \StringTok{"percent"}\NormalTok{)}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\begin{verbatim}
island
species Biscoe Dream Torgersen
Adelie 26.19048 45.16129 100.00000
Chinstrap 0.00000 54.83871 0.00000
Gentoo 73.80952 0.00000 0.00000
\end{verbatim}
\captionof{chunk}{Making a table of two categorical variables using the formula syntax and mosaic::tally() function, almong with the percent option.}
\label{tally-ex2}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
The \texttt{mosaic::tally()} function produces a familiar-looking two-way table, which took very little explanation, other than to show how reversing the variables in the formula led to different percentages, as is seen in \ref{tally-ex3}. Compare \ref{tally-ex2} and \ref{tally-ex3} to see the effect of swapping the order of variables.
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\FunctionTok{tally}\NormalTok{(island }\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{ species, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins, }\AttributeTok{format =} \StringTok{"percent"}\NormalTok{)}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\begin{verbatim}
species
island Adelie Chinstrap Gentoo
Biscoe 28.94737 0.00000 100.00000
Dream 36.84211 100.00000 0.00000
Torgersen 34.21053 0.00000 0.00000
\end{verbatim}
\captionof{chunk}{Making a table of two categorical variables using the formula syntax and mosaic::tally() function, with variables swapped.}
\label{tally-ex3}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
However, in the \texttt{tidyverse} section, both the code and output took longer to explain. Initial summary statistics for categorical variables are computed in \ref{tidy-tally1}, while the tidy version of a relative frequency table is shown in \ref{tidy-tally2}.
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{group\_by}\NormalTok{(island) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{summarize}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{n =} \FunctionTok{n}\NormalTok{())}
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{group\_by}\NormalTok{(island) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{summarize}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{n =} \FunctionTok{n}\NormalTok{()) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{mutate}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{prop =}\NormalTok{ n }\SpecialCharTok{/} \FunctionTok{sum}\NormalTok{(n))}
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{group\_by}\NormalTok{(island, species) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{summarize}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{n =} \FunctionTok{n}\NormalTok{())}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\captionof{chunk}{Computing summary statistics for one and two categorical variables in the tidyverse syntax.}
\label{tidy-tally1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{group\_by}\NormalTok{(island, species) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{summarize}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{n =} \FunctionTok{n}\NormalTok{()) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{mutate}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{prop =}\NormalTok{ n }\SpecialCharTok{/} \FunctionTok{sum}\NormalTok{(n))}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\begin{verbatim}
# A tibble: 5 x 4
# Groups: island [3]
island species n prop
<fct> <fct> <int> <dbl>
1 Biscoe Adelie 44 0.262
2 Biscoe Gentoo 124 0.738
3 Dream Adelie 56 0.452
4 Dream Chinstrap 68 0.548
5 Torgersen Adelie 52 1
\end{verbatim}
\captionof{chunk}{Computing summary statistics for two categorical variables in the tidyverse syntax.}
\label{tidy-tally2}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Again, reversing the order of the variables (this time, inside the \texttt{dplyr::group\_by()}) changed the percentages, but it was more difficult to determine how the percents added up, because the data was in long format, rather than wide format. Compare \ref{tidy-tally2} and \ref{tidy-tally3} to see the effect of swapping the order of variables.
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{group\_by}\NormalTok{(species, island) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{summarize}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{n =} \FunctionTok{n}\NormalTok{()) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{mutate}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{prop =}\NormalTok{ n }\SpecialCharTok{/} \FunctionTok{sum}\NormalTok{(n))}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\begin{verbatim}
# A tibble: 5 x 4
# Groups: species [3]
species island n prop
<fct> <fct> <int> <dbl>
1 Adelie Biscoe 44 0.289
2 Adelie Dream 56 0.368
3 Adelie Torgersen 52 0.342
4 Chinstrap Dream 68 1
5 Gentoo Biscoe 124 1
\end{verbatim}
\captionof{chunk}{Computing summary statistics for two categorical variables in the tidyverse syntax, with variables swapped.}
\label{tidy-tally3}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
A similar discrepancy can be seen in week 10, where the formula section's RMarkdown document was 146 lines long, and the videos totaled 19 minutes. That same week, the \texttt{tidyverse} RMarkdown document was 187 lines long, and the videos totaled 27 minutes.
The explanation for the varying time is similar, as well. Week 10 focused on inference for two samples; that is, inference for a difference of proportions or a difference of means. While a difference of means makes it fairly easy to know which variable should go where (the quantitative variable is the response variable to take the mean of, and the categorical variable is the explanatory variable splitting it), with a difference of two proportions the concept comes back to thinking about two-way tables. Again, the \texttt{tidyverse} presentation of a ``two-way table'' made this more difficult to conceptualize.
In the formula section, students saw code like that in \ref{formula-prop}.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\FunctionTok{tally}\NormalTok{(island }\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{ sex, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins, }\AttributeTok{format =} \StringTok{"proportion"}\NormalTok{)}
\FunctionTok{prop.test}\NormalTok{(island }\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{ sex, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins, }\AttributeTok{success =} \StringTok{"Biscoe"}\NormalTok{)}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\captionof{chunk}{Making a two-way table and performing inference for a difference of proportions using the formula syntax. In order for this code to run as-is, the Torgerson island has to be removed so there are just two categories in that variable.}
\label{formula-prop}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
The code for finding the point estimate using \texttt{mosaic::tally()} is quite similar to the code for performing inference using \texttt{prop.test()}.
In the \texttt{tidyverse}, the code is not as consistent. Students in this section saw code like that shown in \ref{tidy-prop}.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{group\_by}\NormalTok{(sex, island) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{summarize}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{n =} \FunctionTok{n}\NormalTok{()) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{mutate}\NormalTok{(}\AttributeTok{prop =}\NormalTok{ n }\SpecialCharTok{/} \FunctionTok{sum}\NormalTok{(n))}
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{prop\_test}\NormalTok{(}
\AttributeTok{response =}\NormalTok{ island,}
\AttributeTok{explanatory =}\NormalTok{ sex,}
\AttributeTok{alternative =} \StringTok{"two{-}sided"}\NormalTok{,}
\AttributeTok{order =} \FunctionTok{c}\NormalTok{(}\StringTok{"female"}\NormalTok{, }\StringTok{"male"}\NormalTok{)}
\NormalTok{ )}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\captionof{chunk}{Making a `two-way table' and performing inference for a difference of proportions using the tidyverse syntax. Again, the Torgerson island data has been removed beforehand.}
\label{tidy-prop}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
In \texttt{tidyverse} syntax the code for finding the point estimate (\texttt{dplyr}'s \texttt{group\_by()}, \texttt{summarize()} and then \texttt{mutate()}) is quite different from the code performing the inference (the \texttt{infer::prop\_test()} function). And, the output from the inferential \texttt{prop\_test()} function makes it harder to determine the code was correct. In the \texttt{prop.test()} output, sample estimates are provided, which allows you to check your work against a point estimate computed earlier.
These discrepancies made it take longer to explain code in the \texttt{tidyverse} section for these topics. However, as we saw in \ref{sec:ll}, overall the length of videos did not appear meaningfully different between sections. Comparisons of RMarkdown document length and YouTube video length, as well as the corresponding reasons for those discrepancies are the first hint of the computing time results to come in Section \ref{sec:rstudio}.
\hypertarget{sec:numfunc}{%
\subsection{Number of functions}\label{sec:numfunc}}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Since both sections relied on the use of RMarkdown documents, there is a wealth of text data to be explored. The instructor prepared the pre-lab documents with blanks, but also saved a `filled-in' copy after recording the accompanying video. She also completed each lab assignment in an RMarkdown document to generate a key.
Students in each section were also given a ``All the R you need for intro stats'' cheatsheet at the beginning of the semester. These cheatsheets (one for formula and one for \texttt{tidyverse}) were modeled on the cheatsheet of a similar name accompanying the \texttt{mosaic} package \citep{pruimetal2017}. The cheatsheets aimed to include all code necessary for the entire semester, but were generated a priori.
These varied documents allow us to use automated methods to analyze the number of unique functions shown in each section, using the \texttt{getParseData()} function from the built-in \texttt{utils} package.
The cheatsheets given to students at the beginning of the semester contained 34 functions for the formula section and 42 functions for the \texttt{tidyverse} section. There was an overlap of 18 functions between the two cheatsheets.
Of course, while teaching a real class, an instructor often has to improvise at least a little. So, it is also interesting to consider the number of functions actually shown throughout the course of the semester. To do this, we can consider the functions shown in the filled-in version of pre-lab documents the instructor ended up with after recording the associated instructional video.
Considering this data, the formula section saw a total of 37 functions and the \texttt{tidyverse} section saw 50, again with an overlap of 18 functions between the two sections. These numbers make it appear as if in the formula section the instructor showed all functions from the cheatsheet, and then a few additional functions. However, there were actually several functions in the cheatsheet that were never shown in the actual class, and many more functions that appeared in the class that did not make it onto the cheatsheet. For a list of the functions used in both sections, see Appendix \ref{sec:functions}.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
In the \texttt{tidyverse} section, there were 9 functions shown in class that did not appear on the cheatsheet, and only 1 function on the cheatsheet that was not discussed in class. In the formula section, however, there were 10 functions shown in class that did not appear on the cheatsheet, as well as 7 functions on the cheatsheet that were not discussed in class. In both classes the majority of functions shown in class were on the cheatsheet.
Interestingly, there was quite a bit of overlap in the functions students saw in both sections. Considering functions actually used in class, the two sections had 18 functions in common.
The functions both sections of students saw included helper functions like \texttt{library()}, \texttt{set.seed()}, and \texttt{set()} (a function in the knitr options included in the top of each RMarkdown document), statistics like \texttt{mean()}, \texttt{sd()}, and \texttt{cor()}, and modeling-related functions like \texttt{aov()}, \texttt{lm()}, \texttt{summary()} and \texttt{predict()}. (The instructor chose not to introduce the \texttt{tidymodels} package to the \texttt{tidyverse} section.)
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Students in the formula section saw 19 functions unique from the set both sections saw, while the \texttt{tidyverse} section saw 32 unique functions. It makes sense the number of unique functions in the \texttt{tidyverse} section would be slightly larger, as there are several elements of the \texttt{tidyverse} that require multiple functions to combine to accomplish a single task.
For example, students in both sections saw how to make a barchart, boxplot, histogram, and scatterplot, but in the formula section they used standalone functions like \texttt{gf\_boxplot()} whereas in the \texttt{tidyverse} section they needed to start with \texttt{ggplot} and add on a \texttt{geom\_} function like \texttt{geom\_boxplot()}, while specifying the \texttt{aes}thetic values somewhere.
Similarly, both sections saw several common summary statistics, but in the formula section they used the function (e.g.~\texttt{mean()}) on its own, whereas in the \texttt{tidyverse} section base summary functions needed to be wrapped within \texttt{summarize()}. Students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section also saw slightly more summary statistic functions, because one lab called for the five number summary.
In the formula lab, students found the five number summary as shown in \ref{favstats}.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\FunctionTok{favstats}\NormalTok{(}\SpecialCharTok{\textasciitilde{}}\NormalTok{bill\_length\_mm, }\AttributeTok{data =}\NormalTok{ penguins)}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\captionof{chunk}{The mosaic::favstats() function provides many common summary statistics for one quantitative variable. The favstats() function automatically drops missing values.}
\label{favstats}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
This approach is particularly attractive because it deals with missing values as part of the standard output.
In the \texttt{tidyverse} section, the instructor chose to show two approaches. Both approaches are in \ref{tidy-summary1}, and both needed to include \texttt{drop\_na()} to deal with missing values. Past those similarities, the approaches are divergent.
\linespread{1}
\begin{Shaded}
\begin{Highlighting}[]
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{drop\_na}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{summarize}\NormalTok{(}
\AttributeTok{min =} \FunctionTok{min}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm),}
\AttributeTok{lower\_hinge =} \FunctionTok{quantile}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm, .}\DecValTok{25}\NormalTok{),}
\AttributeTok{median =} \FunctionTok{median}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm),}
\AttributeTok{upper\_hinge =} \FunctionTok{quantile}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm, .}\DecValTok{75}\NormalTok{),}
\AttributeTok{max =} \FunctionTok{max}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm)}
\NormalTok{ )}
\NormalTok{penguins }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{drop\_na}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{pull}\NormalTok{(bill\_length\_mm) }\SpecialCharTok{\%\textgreater{}\%}
\FunctionTok{fivenum}\NormalTok{()}
\end{Highlighting}
\end{Shaded}
\captionof{chunk}{Two approaches for doing summary statistics of one quantitative variable in tidyverse syntax. The first is quite verbose, the second is more compact but introduces a function never seen again.}
\label{tidy-summary1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
The instructor should have chosen a single solution to present to students, but was faced with a dilemma. The first \texttt{tidyverse} approach is very verbose, but it follows nicely from other summary statistics students had already seen, just adding a few more functions like \texttt{min}, \texttt{max}, and \texttt{quantile}. The second solution is more concise, but it introduces the \texttt{pull} function, which was never used again in the course.
This brings up an important consideration when teaching coding-- how many times students will see the same function. Because there is some cognitive load associated with learning a new function, and repetition helps move information from working memory to long term memory, it is ideal for students to see each function at least twice \citep{lovettgreenhouse2000, mcnamaraetal2021a}. When analyzing the number of functions shown in each section, we found there were 7 functions shown only one time in the formula section, and 6 functions only shown once in the \texttt{tidyverse} section.
Overall, neither section appeared to expose students to an overwhelming number of functions. One argument against the use of the \texttt{tidyverse} in teaching is that it contains too many functions. However, when teaching a course (particularly an introductory one) an instructor never shows every function in a package. The \texttt{tidyverse} section saw 32 as compared to the formula section's 19 functions, but that difference does not feel practically significant, particularly considering the way in which \texttt{tidyverse} operations often use helper functions.
The comparison also underscores the fact that while instructors may say they are teaching \texttt{tidyverse} or formula syntax, they are ultimately teaching R. Both sections saw 18 common functions, many of them from base R.
The practice of analyzing the number of functions shown over the course of the semester was eye-opening. It will provide valuable information for the instructor the next time she teaches the course, as she can attempt to remove functions only shown once, and ensure the cheatsheets better match what is actually shown throughout the semester. The list of functions provided in Appendix \ref{sec:functions} can also serve as a starting point for other instructors as they work to produce curricular materials for introductory statistics classes in R.
\hypertarget{sec:prepost}{%
\subsection{Pre- and post-survey}\label{sec:prepost}}
As discussed in \ref{sec:participants}, the number of students who completed both the pre- and post-surveys were low (\(n=8\) for the formula section, and \(n=13\) for the \texttt{tidyverse} section), so there are major limitations to paired analysis.
The majority of the survey was modeled on a pre- and post-survey used by the Carpentries, a global nonprofit teaching coding skills \citep{thecarpentries2021}. Questions ask respondents to use a 5-step Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to rate their agreement with the following statements:
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep-3mm
\linespread{1}
\item I am confident in my ability to make use of programming software to work with data
\item Having access to the original, raw data is important to be able to repeat an analysis
\item Using a programming language (like R) can make me more efficient at working with data
\item While working on a programming project, if I get stuck, I can find ways of overcoming the problem
\item Using a programming language (like R) can make my analysis easier to reproduce
\item I know how to search for answers to my technical questions online \linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\end{itemize}
In Figure \ref{fig:pre-post}, you can see a visualization of these Likert-scale questions. Based on results below, it became clear that there was no major difference between the two sections, so this plot shows the overall trends without breaking into the groups.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/pre-post-1}
}
\caption{Pre and post responses to Likert-scale questions. Most questions show some level of improvement, such as the first question, `I am confident in my ability to make use of programming software to work with data.' but others show no change or even a decline in agreement.}\label{fig:pre-post}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Figure \ref{fig:pre-post} does not suggest that there was any overall trend from pre- to post-survey. Many categories appear to have made an improvement (like Programming Confident), while others seem to show a decrease in agreement from the pre- to the post-survey (like Overcome Problem).
Likely, the questions used by The Carpentries was inappropriate for this setting, and a different set of survey questions would have been more appropriate for this group. For example, this class did not include any explicit instruction on searching for answers online. This was an intentional choice, because novices typically struggle to identify which search results are relevant to their queries and get overwhelmed by the multitude of syntactic options they encounter. Instead, students with questions were referred to the ``all the R you need'' cheatsheet they had been given at the beginning of the semester, which attempted to summarize every function they would encounter. Likely, students still attempted to Google questions, which may be why the responses to the questions about seaching online and overcoming problems got more negative over the course of the semester.
Figure \ref{fig:pre-post} does not show section-level differences, which were slight, nor does it utilize the potential for matching pre- and post-responses from the same student to measure change at the individual level. To consider this individual-level change, we can compute the difference between an individual student's response on the pre- and post-survey. We compute \(\text{post score} - \text{pre score}\) such that positive differences mean the student's attitude on the item improved from the beginning of the class to the end, and negative differences mean they worsened.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Because the questions were on Likert scales, it is not appropriate to compute an arithmetic mean of the differences, but median scores can be computed. To provide a broader picture of the distribution of responses, we also compute the 25th and 75th percentiles for question. This information is most easily displayed as a boxplot. The boxplots in question can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:prepost-both}, and a version of the plot broken down by section is in Figure \ref{fig:prepost}.
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/prepost-both-1}
}
\caption{Distribution of paired differences for student responses to questions. Individual student scores are plotted as points, with boxplots over the top. A score of 0 means the student responded the same way in the pre- and post-surveys, whereas a negative score means their agreement was lower at the end of the course, and a positive score means their agreement was higher. The boxes cross 0 for all except `I am confident in my ability to make use of programming software to work with data.'}\label{fig:prepost-both}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/prepost-1}
}
\caption{Distribution of paired differences for student responses to questions, broken down by section.}\label{fig:prepost}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
In both Figure \ref{fig:prepost-both} and \ref{fig:prepost}, almost all boxes are centered at or touching 0 (meaning the median response did not change over the course of the semester), so there is no overall difference in medians for those questions.
The one question where the boxes are not centered at 0 is ``I am confident in my ability to make use of programming software to work with data.'' In Figure \ref{fig:prepost}, the boxes for both sections are centered at a median of 1, meaning the median student answered one level up on the question at the end of the course. Both boxes (the middle 50\% of the data) are fully positive, although the lower whisker (minimum value) for both includes zero.
Although the sample sizes are quite small, we did attempt inference about a difference in medians between sections using a 95\% bootstrap confidence interval with 5,000 bootstrap samples. As expected, that interval contained 0, meaning that there was no clear difference between the sections. We did not attempt an analogous inferential task using a theoretical distribution.
As a follow-up, we computed a bootstrap confidence interval for the median using both sections together (the data as seen in Figure \ref{fig:prepost-both}). Again, we used 5,000 bootstrap samples, and a bias-corrected confidence interval because the distribution appeared skewed. In this case, we computed a 99\% confidence interval, to help correct for the fact that we cherry-picked the one question that looked significant. The 99\% bias-corrected interval was (1, 2.4), indicating that students across sections improved in their confidence with programming over the course of the semester.
It is somewhat heartening to know students improved their confidence in programming over the course of the semester, but since was no clear difference between the sections, this does not provide any strong evidence for one syntax or the other.
\hypertarget{additional-survey-questions}{%
\subsubsection{Additional survey questions}\label{additional-survey-questions}}
In addition to the six questions asked on both the pre- and post-survey, the two surveys also had some unique questions.
The pre-survey also asked students to share what they were most looking forward to, and most nervous about. Both sections had similar responses. Students wrote they looked forward to ``learning how to code!'' and ``Gaining a better understanding of how to analyze data.'' Beyond worries related to the pandemic, they expressed apprehension about ``getting stuck,'' ``using R,'' and ``Figuring out how to do the programming and typing everything out.''
On the post survey, students were asked to report which syntax they had learned, with an option to respond ``I don't know.'' All students in both sections correctly identified the syntax associated with their lab. Then, they were asked if they would have preferred to learn the other syntax. We hypothesized many students would say `yes,' thinking the other syntax would have been easier or lack some feature they found frustrating. Surprisingly, though, the majority of students in both sections said `no,' they preferred to learn the syntax they had been shown. Responses to this question are shown in Table \ref{tab:preferother}.
\linespread{1}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:preferother}Responses to the question, `Would you have preferred to learn the other syntax?'}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{llrr}
\toprule
Section & Answer & n & Proportion\\
\midrule
formula & No & 6 & 0.86\\
formula & Yes & 1 & 0.14\\
tidyverse & No & 10 & 0.91\\
tidyverse & Yes & 1 & 0.09\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
However, part of the explanation is likely that the students did not know what the other syntax looked like. Throughout the semester, the instructor was careful to only expose students to the syntax for the particular section. Several students asked to see the alternate syntax during office hours, but this was the exception and not the norm.
An optional follow-up question asked students why they had responded the way they did. Responses to this question are shown in Table \ref{tab:whyprefer}. Several students suggested a cross-over design for the experiment would have allowed them to better compare. This is both a good direction for further work and a possible indication the students were listening during the chapter on experimental design.
\linespread{1}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:whyprefer}Reasons stated by students for their preference of which syntax to learn.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{l>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{6in}}
\toprule
Section & Response\\
\midrule
formula & I've heard that formula was more straightforward\\
formula & Because I am not familiar with it\\
formula & I thought the syntax that I learned worked well\\
formula & Do not really know what the difference is, but also Prof. M was a very good teacher.\\
formula & I have no idea what the differences are, so I don't really know how to answer this question.\\
\addlinespace
tidyverse & As per my plan to study data Science in graduate school, I would have preferred learning both syntaxes\\
tidyverse & I really enjoyed this class and have learned a lot.\\
tidyverse & Tidy, is well tidy. When looking online the other syntax seemed more complex/abnormal\\
tidyverse & Im not sure what the benefit is.\\
tidyverse & I really enjoyed tidyverse, it was super easy to learn, and I liked the simplicity of the syntax\\
\addlinespace
tidyverse & I'm not sure I wish we got to experience both so we could compare, maybe learn one for one half of the semester and the other for the other half?\\
tidyverse & I'm not sure of the difference and I had 0 experience of coding or using anything like r so I didn't have a preference as to which one I learned.\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Another question on the post-survey asked students ``How was the experience of learning to program in R?'' Overall, students seem to have positive sentiment toward learning R, whether in the formula or the \texttt{tidyverse} section. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:post-sentiment}, most students said either the experience was ``not what I expected -- in a good way'' or ``About what I expected -- in a good way.''
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/post-sentiment-1}
}
\caption{Responses to the question, ``How was the experience of learning to program in R?''}\label{fig:post-sentiment}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Nothing from the survey responses seem to indicate a difference between the two sections. While the pre- and post-survey results do not suggest interesting results, the incidental data from YouTube and RStudio Cloud provided some insights.
\hypertarget{sec:yt}{%
\subsection{YouTube analytics}\label{sec:yt}}
Because of the format of the class, which was flipped such that students watched videos of pre-recorded content, we can study overall patterns of YouTube watch time. YouTube offers a data portal which allows for date targeting. We defined each week of the semester as running from Sunday to Saturday, which covered the time when videos were released through to the time finished labs needed to be submitted (Fridays at 11:59 pm). For each week, we downloaded YouTube analytics data for the channel, and filtered the data to focus only on the videos related to the introductory statistics labs.
YouTube analytics data includes number of views for each video, number of unique viewers, and total watch time. A ``view'' is defined as a person playing 30 seconds or more of the video, and unique viewers are counted using browser cookies. By limiting the data to a particular week, we were able to join it with data recording the length of the relevant videos. This allows us to calculate the approximate proportion of the videos watched by each student.
Data from YouTube is aggregated, and since videos were posted publicly, could contain viewers who were not enrolled in the class. As a way to check for possible inflated view counts from people not in the class, we checked view counts of lab videos on subsequent weeks. For example, we looked at number of views on the the ``describing data'' lab (assigned in week 2) during weeks 3-15. Students in the class would be unlikely to watch videos in a week they were not assigned, but the general population on the internet would be less targeted in their timing. Rarely did a video garner more than 2 two views in a week that was not the assigned lab week. This indicates there may have been a very small number of non-student views on videos, but they are negligible. While the public nature of the videos means we do need to view these results with a level of skepticism, we can be reasonably sure the majority of viewers were students. Studying the data displays some interesting trends.
First, we can look at the number of unique watchers per video, seen in Figure \ref{fig:youtube-num-uniques}. Interestingly, at the start of the semester there are more unique viewers than enrolled students in the class, but as time goes on, the number of unique viewers levels out at slightly less than the number of enrolled students (\(n=21\) for both sections). The lower numbers later on make sense because some students were likely unengaged, or found it possible to do their lab work without watching the video. However, the high numbers at the start of the semester are puzzling. Perhaps students were viewing the videos from a variety of devices (phone, laptop, computer at school, etc) when the semester began.
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/youtube-num-uniques-1}
}
\caption{Average number of unique viewers per video. Horizontal line represents the 21 students enrolled in each of the sections, a baseline for comparison.}\label{fig:youtube-num-uniques}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
If we assume all viewers were actually students (some students being counted as separate viewers because of different devices or cookie settings such as adblockers or private browsing), we can find an approximate proportion of video content watched, per student. This is shown in Figure \ref{fig:youtube-percent-student}. It appears the proportion of video content watched is larger for the formula videos than for the \texttt{tidyverse} videos. We can characterize the difference by doing pairwise differences of proportion of video watched for each week. The mean of this difference is 11, indicating that on average the formula section watched approximately 11 percentage points more of the videos each week.
The distribution of differences looked approximately normal, so we can determine if this difference is meaningful by constructing a 95\% confidence interval. Using a t-distribution the interval is (1.9, 20.6). A bootstrap distribution computed with 5,000 samples appears slightly left-skewed, so we can use a bias-corrected method to compute the interval (3, 18.6). Both intervals suggest the formula section watched between 2 and 20 percentage points more of the videos each week.
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/youtube-percent-student-1}
}
\caption{Estimated proportion of YouTube video content watched, per student. This data came from dividing the total amount of time watched by the number of students in each section and the total length of the video(s) for the section that week.}\label{fig:youtube-percent-student}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Initially, it seemed as though the discrepancy in watch proportions could be explained by the \texttt{tidyverse} videos being longer. But, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:ll}, there appears to be no meaningful difference between the length of videos in the two sections.
No matter the explanation, this trend is particularly interesting when considered in conjunction with the RStudio Cloud usage patterns in the following section.
\hypertarget{sec:rstudio}{%
\subsection{RStudio Cloud usage}\label{sec:rstudio}}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
The other source of unexpected data came from RStudio Cloud usage logs. RStudio Cloud provides summary data per user in a project, aggregated by calendar month. This data includes all students (\(n=42\)) enrolled in the two sections.
The first thing we can look at is the total number of compute hours used per month, as in Table \ref{tab:overallcompute}. RStudio Cloud instructor plans include 300 hours of compute time per month, and are charged an hourly overage fee (\$0.10/hour, as of this writing) for any hours above that number. Since the instructor set up separate projects for each section, we can see usage hours per section. Within a single section, monthly compute hours rarely went above 300 hours per month, but for two sections they always did. Note that data for the month of November is missing for the \texttt{tidyverse} section because of an oversight on the part of the author.
\linespread{1}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:overallcompute}Total compute time on RStudio Cloud per month in hours. Recall different months had different numbers of assignments. Instructors pay additional surcharges when the number of hours exceeds 300 in a single month.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{lrrr}
\toprule
month & formula & tidyverse & total\\
\midrule
September & 228 & 198 & 426\\
October & 315 & 392 & 707\\
November & 193 & missing & 193\\
December & 182 & 258 & 440\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\begin{figure}
{\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{PaperDraft_files/figure-latex/rstudio-month-1}
}
\caption{Hours of compute time on RStudio Cloud, per month of the semester. Students in the tidyverse section appear to be spending more time on RStudio Cloud, particularly in the months of October and December.}\label{fig:rstudio-month}
\end{figure}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Data is also available on a per-student basis, aggregated by month. This data was downloaded using browser developer tools. This allows us to create Figure \ref{fig:rstudio-month}, which shows the distribution of hours of compute time per section, broken down by month. While the \texttt{tidyverse} section seemed to watch less of the provided videos each week (as discussed in Section \ref{sec:yt}), they appear to spend more time on RStudio Cloud per month. All the distributions in Figure \ref{fig:rstudio-month} are right-skewed, with several students spending many more hours of compute time than the majority.
It is also important to note these numbers are likely inflated based on the way RStudio Cloud counts usage time. The spaces for both sections were allocated 1 GB of RAM and 1 CPU, so one hour of clock time on the space counted as one project hour (spaces with more RAM or CPU may consume more than one project hour per clock hour), but student usage often includes a fair amount of idle time. RStudio Cloud will put a project to sleep after 15 minutes without interaction, and based on observation of student habits it is likely almost every session ends with a 15 minute idle time before the project sleeps. In a month with four labs, this can add up to at least an hour of project time that does not correspond to students actually using R.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Nevertheless, because the numbers would be inflated in the same way in both sections, we can persist in comparing them. Using data over the entire semester, students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section had an mean number of compute hours per month of 13.5 and students in the formula section had a mean of 11.5 hours.
We can also study these numbers per month, as seen in Table \ref{tab:meancompute}. The mean compute time for both sections increases from September to October, likely because of the increased number of labs that month (two labs were due in September, five in October). Compute time then drops down again for the formula section, and continues downward. November data is missing for the \texttt{tidyverse} section, but time also appears to decrease in this section as months progress, although not to the same degree as in the formula section.
\linespread{1}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:meancompute}Mean student compute time on RStudio Cloud per month in hours (standard deviation in parentheses), broken down by section. Note different months had different numbers of assignments, although the number of assignments was consistent between sections.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{lllll}
\toprule
section & September & October & November & December\\
\midrule
formula & 10.4 (3.3) & 13.9 (10.3) & 9.4 (6) & 7.7 (6)\\
tidyverse & 7.7 (4.7) & 17.1 (8.6) & missing & 11.5 (7.2)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Whereas in the pre- and post-surveys we have quite small sample sizes, the RStudio Cloud data includes all students enrolled in the class. So, we can feel more confident performing inferential statistics.
Data was collected at the student level over time, so it is necessary to use a mixed effects model to account for clustering within students. We also need to take into account the longitudinal nature of the data, so we included month as a predictor. We use the \texttt{lme4} package to fit the linear mixed effect models \citep{batesetal2015}.
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
\linespread{1}
\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Initially, we fit an unconditional means model, to determine how much variability in compute time was due to differences between students, without considering differences over time or between section. Based on the intraclass correlation coefficient, we can conclude 30\% of the total variation in compute time is attributable to differences between students.
After iterating through several candidate models, we arrived at a final model which predicts compute time per month (in hours) using section and month as fixed effect predictors, as well as an interaction effect between section and month. Student identifier was used as a random effect. This final model has the lowest AIC and BIC values of all candidate models. Results from the model can be seen in Table \ref{tab:lmenum}.
\linespread{1}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:lmenum}Linear mixed-effects, using month as a categorical variable.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{lllrrr}
\toprule
effect & group & term & estimate & std.error & statistic\\
\midrule
fixed & & (Intercept) & 11.4 & 1.6 & 7.3\\
fixed & & sectiontidyverse & -2.0 & 2.2 & -0.9\\
fixed & & monthOctober & 4.4 & 1.7 & 2.6\\
fixed & & monthNovember & -1.7 & 1.7 & -1.0\\
fixed & & monthDecember & -2.3 & 1.7 & -1.4\\
fixed & & sectiontidyverse:monthOctober & 4.9 & 2.3 & 2.1\\
fixed & & sectiontidyverse:monthDecember & 5.2 & 2.3 & 2.3\\
ran\_pars & ID & sd\_\_(Intercept) & 4.6 & & \\
ran\_pars & Residual & sd\_\_Observation & 5.2 & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
The predicted values for each section/month combination match the means computed in Table \ref{tab:meancompute}. The \texttt{lme4} package does not provide p-values for model coefficients, but it does provide a method for confidence intervals. The confidence intervals for each of the coefficients are shown in Table \ref{tab:confints}.
\linespread{1}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:confints}Confidence intervals for coefficient estimates.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{lrr}
\toprule
& 2.5\% & 97.5\%\\
\midrule
.sig01 & 3.3 & 6.1\\
.sigma & 4.5 & 5.9\\
(Intercept) & 8.4 & 14.4\\
sectiontidyverse & -6.2 & 2.2\\
monthOctober & 1.2 & 7.5\\
monthNovember & -4.9 & 1.5\\
monthDecember & -5.5 & 0.9\\
sectiontidyverse:monthOctober & 0.4 & 9.4\\
sectiontidyverse:monthDecember & 0.7 & 9.7\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
The confidence interval on the \texttt{sectiontidyverse} coefficient crosses zero, which suggests the difference in number of hours of compute time between the sections in September was not statistically significant. The confidence interval on \texttt{monthOctober} does not cross zero, suggesting students in the formula section spent longer on RStudio Cloud that month compared to September. But, the intervals for the formula section in November and December cross zero, which means the number of compute hours is not significantly different from the number of hours in September for that section. For the \texttt{tidyverse} section it is a little harder to assess. The intervals for the \texttt{sectiontidyverse:monthOctober} and \texttt{sectiontidyverse:monthDecember} intervals do not cross zero, but if combined with the intervals on \texttt{monthOctober} and \texttt{monthDecember}, they would.
As a model assessment strategy, we can use a likelihood ratio test to compare the unconditional means model with our more complex model. A drop-in-deviance test (Table \ref{tab:didt}) suggests the more complex model significantly outperforms the unconditional means model.
\linespread{1}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:didt}Drop-in-deviance test comparing the unconditional means model to more complex model. The more complex model significantly outperforms the unconditional means model.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{lrrrrrrrl}
\toprule
term & npar & AIC & BIC & logLik & deviance & statistic & df & p.value\\
\midrule
model.a & 3 & 977.9 & 986.8 & -486.0 & 971.9 & & & \\
model.d & 9 & 943.1 & 969.8 & -462.5 & 925.1 & 46.8 & 6 & 2.03e-08\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\linespread{2}
\vspace{3mm}\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}
Based on the significance of the drop-in-deviance test, and the number of confidence intervals in the model that did not cross zero, it seems both month and section have some predictive power for the number of compute hours students used on RStudio Cloud.
It appears students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section spent more time on RStudio Cloud. We can concoct several different scenarios to explain this difference. In one, students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section were more engaged with their work, so spent more time playing with code in R. In another, students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section struggled to complete their work, so spent more time in R trying to get their lab material to work. A more neutral third option is just that some of the tasks take more code to accomplish (as discussed in \ref{sec:diflabs}), so they needed more time to do their work. Because the usage data was collected incidentally after the fact, we have no information about which story is closer to the truth. A follow-up study might conduct semi-structured interviews with students after the completion of the class, to determine more about student experiences and work patterns.
It would also be interesting to know if students who spent more time on RStudio Cloud received higher or lower grades on their assignments, but as discussed in Section \ref{sec:assessment}, the IRB did not cover graded student work in that way. We do know the two sections did not have an overall difference in mean grade.
Since these results are from a pilot study, they should not be used without caveats. However, they do indicate that if instructors are worried about the amount of time assignments take to complete, they may want to consider using the formula syntax rather than the \texttt{tidyverse} syntax.
The results can also be used by instructors attempting to ballpark how many usage hours their classes may take over the course of a month or a semester. Students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section used an average of 13.5 hours per month, and students in the formula section used an average of 11.5 hours. These numbers can be used to make back-of-the-envelope calculations on how much RStudio Cloud would end up costing for a class of a particular size.
\hypertarget{sec:discussion}{%
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}}
This semester-long, head-to-head comparison of two sections of introductory statistics labs provides data comparing two popular R coding styles, the formula syntax and the \texttt{tidyverse} syntax. Pre- and post-survey analysis showed limited differences between the two sections, but analysis of other incidental data, including pre-lab document lengths and YouTube and RStudio Cloud data presented interesting distinctions.
Materials for the \texttt{tidyverse} section tended to be longer in lines of code (likely because of the convention of linebreaks after \texttt{\%\textgreater{}\%}), although not in terms of the length of the associated YouTube videos. Students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section watched a smaller proportion of the weekly pre-lab videos than students in the formula section, but spent more time computing on RStudio. Conversely, students in the formula section were watching a larger proportion of the pre-lab videos each week, but spending less time computing each month.
These two insights are slightly contradictory-- perhaps the formula section students found the concepts more complex as they were watching the videos, but then had an easier time applying them as they worked on the real lab.
There is much more interesting further work that could be considered. As students suggested, a cross-over design where students saw one syntax for the first half of the semester and the other for the second half would allow for better comparisons. However, there are a few caveats here.
First, anecdotal evidence from many instructors suggests it is best for students to see only one consistent syntax over the course of the semester. The other challenge is the formula syntax tends to seep (albeit only minorly) into the \texttt{tidyverse} section. For example, when doing linear regression both sections saw the \texttt{lm(y\textasciitilde{}x,\ data\ =\ data)} formula syntax, because the instructor chose not to introduce the \texttt{tidymodels} package. If a cross-over design used the existing materials from these classes, just swapping the final few weeks, students in the formula section would likely see more that was familiar to them than students in the \texttt{tidyverse} section. This could potentially be remedied by the inclusion of \texttt{tidymodels} for things like linear regression.
In fact, the \texttt{tidyverse} students almost \emph{did} have a cross-over design. This may be why the number of hours of compute time for the \texttt{tidyverse} section remained consistent from November to December (even though there were fewer instructional weeks in December) while the formula section's hours of compute time decreased.
Another follow-up study that would be interesting to complete would look at student success in subsequent courses. Because \texttt{tidyverse} syntax is frequently used for higher-level courses, students who were in the \texttt{tidyverse} section may have an easier time in those later courses. However, most students in the classes under consideration here will not go on to take further statistics courses. So the takeaways about syntax choice may vary depending on the student population to which they will be applied.
One criticism of the \texttt{tidyverse} is how many functions the associated packages contain. Therefore, another interesting insight from this head-to-head comparison is the number of unique functions needed to cover a semester of introductory statistics in R.
The \texttt{tidyverse} section exposed students to 32, compared to the 19 functions shown in the formula section, both labs focused on a relatively small number of functions. Because there were 12 labs in the semester, this averages out to approximately 3 functions per lab for the \texttt{tidyverse} section compared to an average 2 functions shown in the formula section. The \texttt{tidyverse} section saw more unique functions, but both sections were limited to a small vocabulary of functions for the semester.
We recommend instructors follow this approach regardless of syntax. Instructors should attempt to reduce the number of functions they expose students to over the course of a semester, particularly in an introductory class. This will help reduce cognitive load.
The exercise of counting R functions in existing materials, using the \texttt{getParseData()} function, is one we recommend all instructors attempt, particularly before re-teaching a course. It can be eye-opening to discover how many functions you show students, and which functions are only used once.
We hope this work helps answer some initial questions about the impact of R syntax on teaching introductory statistics, while also raising further questions for future study. While some aspects of the analysis from these classes suggest the formula syntax is simpler for students to learn and use, there are still many course scenarios for which we believe the \texttt{tidyverse} syntax is the most appropriate choice. While formula syntax can be used throughout an entire semester of introductory statistics, it does not offer functionality for tasks like data wrangling. This means students who will go on to additional statistics or data science classes may be better served by an early introduction to \texttt{tidyverse}. However, in order to determine this conclusively, additional study would be needed.
No matter which syntax an instructor chooses, it appears possible to limit the number of functions shown in a semester, and provide students with a positive learning experience.
\hypertarget{acknowledgements}{%
\section{Acknowledgements}\label{acknowledgements}}
Thanks to Sean Kross for his guidance about parsing R function data, Christina Knudson for her help with mixed effects modeling, and Nick Horton for his useful comments on the paper overall.
\hypertarget{appendix-appendix}{%
|
\section{Bell correlations and Retrocausality}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (2,2) ;
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (-2,2) ;
\draw[->] (-2,2) -- (0,4) ;
\draw[->] (2,2) -- (0,4) ;
\node [below ] at (0,0) {A};
\node [right ] at (2,2) {C};
\node [left ] at (-2,2) {B};
\node [above] at ( 0,4) {D};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Schematic experimental geometry for the simple Bell experiment discussed throughout this article. $A$ is the spacetime point where the Bell state is prepared, $B$ and $C$ are the spacetime locations in the future lightcone of $A$ where the two measurements are performed on the two particles from the Bell pair, and $D$ is some spacetime location in the future lightcone of both $B$ and $C$ - for example, perhaps the location where the results of the measurements at $B$ and $C$ are compared. }
\label{prep}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Bell's theorem tells us that, subject to certain assumptions, any realistic, intersubjective account of quantum phenomena must explain the relationships between the correlated outcomes of measurements on a Bell pair in terms of some mechanism other than a common cause in the past lightcones of the measurements. So, assuming we believe the assumptions that go into Bell's theorem and we are not willing to give up on the attempt to provide a realistic, intersubjective account of quantum phenomena, we seem to have three options, which can be seen clearly on the diagram in figure \ref{prep}, where we suppose that the experimenters at $B, C$ make free choices of their measurements settings at the time of their measurements,
\begin{enumerate} \item The beables mediating the correlations are not located along any continuous spacetime pathway between $B$ and $C$, or there are no beables at all mediating the correlations
\item The beables mediating the correlations are located along a continuous, partly spacelike (faster-than-light) pathway between $B$ and $C$
\item The beables mediating the correlations are located along a continuous, lightlike or timelike and partly retrocausal pathway between $B$ and $C$ which goes via the future (e.g. point $D$) or the past (e.g. point $A$).
\end{enumerate}
Option 2) is usually cashed out in terms of something like a `collapse of the wavefunction' (the collapse will be instantaneous in one frame of reference and thus will appear to occur at finite but faster-than-light speeds in some other frames of reference). Because we have to postulate a preferred reference frame on which the wavefunction collapses, this route is somewhat in tension with relativity. Moreover it has been pointed out that the hypothesis that nonlocal influences are mediated by some finite superluminal process makes different predictions from standard quantum mechanics in certain special cases\cite{Bancal_2012}. Actually performing the experiments to differentiate between these hypotheses is not straightforward, but so far all the evidence points to the predictions of quantum mechanics being correct. For these reasons, we will not discuss option 2) further in this article.
Option 1) involves accepting the existence of unmediated nonlocal influences. In section \ref{myway} we will see that combining this view with relativistic constraints (i.e. demanding the nonexistence of a preferred reference frame) leads naturally to a kind of retrocausality. But for now we will mainly focus on option 3), which of course explicitly involves accepting the existence of retrocausality.
As an alternative to these three options, one could also consider denying one of the assumptions that goes into Bell's theorem, thus potentially restoring the possibility of explaining the Bell correlations in terms of a common cause in the past lightcone. There are a variety of such assumptions, but here we will confine our attention to those which bear some relation to retrocausality (so we will not, for example, discuss the many-worlds approach, which denies the assumption that measurements always have a single outcome). One assumption which has received significant attention in recent years is `statistical independence,' i.e. the assumption that the ontic state prepared at $A$ is independent of the choices of measurement settings made at points $B$ and $C$. Approaches which deny statistical independence are often known as `superdeterministic,'\cite{hossenfelder2020superdeterminism,10.3389/fphy.2020.00139} although in fact models of this sort do not necessarily have to be deterministic\cite{adlam_2021}. There are three possible ways to explain violations of statistical independence:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The experimenters' choices at $B$, $C$ are caused or non-causally influenced by the value of the ontic state at $A$.
\item The value of the ontic state at $A$ is caused or non-causally influenced by the experimenters' choices at $B$ and $C$.
\item Both the experimenters' choices at $B$, $C$ and the local hidden hidden variables have some joint common cause or non-causal explanation.
\end{enumerate}
Of these options, 2) transparently requires that events at $A$ depend on events at $B$ and $C$, so it is a retrocausal approach in the general sense in which we are using that term.
Moreover, we can easily arrange for option 1) to exhibit similar features: we may require that the experimenters make their choices some time before the experiment begins, so those choices are made in the past lightcone of $A$, and thus, if we assume that the underlying mechanism works the same in both cases, we would then have a retrocausal influence from $A$ to the location of the choice. (In sections \ref{symmetry}, \ref{myway} we will examine in greater detail the assumption that the underlying mechanism works the same in both cases). Thus neither of these approaches straightforwardly delivers on the original vision of superdeterminism as a way of explaining the Bell correlations purely in terms of common causes in the past lightcone of the relevant measurements. However, since we are free to suppose that the influence of the measurement choice on the ontic state is mediated by a retrocausal process involving a continuous spacetime pathway, there is a sense in which locality is maintained. Option 3) on the other hand allows us to avoid retrocausality altogether and thus models of the third kind may offer a way of maintaining locality without retrocausality. The \emph{Invariant Set Theory} approach is making some interesting progress in this direction\cite{palmer2016invariant}, but since this is not a retrocausal approach we will not address it further in this paper.
Thus we see that a number of different proposals for realist, intersubjective accounts of the Bell correlations lead to some form of retrocausality, broadly construed. However, there are two importantly different routes here. Either we use retrocausality to rescue locality, and thus account for the Bell correlations without the need for a preferred reference frame, or we explicitly accept nonlocality and then it transpires that demanding the nonexistence of a preferred reference frame leads us toward a form of retrocausality in any case. It's clear, therefore, that the combination of the Bell correlations with the absence of a preferred reference frame is somehow linked with retrocausality, but what role does locality play in all this? For those of us who are willing to accept the existence of retrocausality, should we be using it to rescue locality or should we just accept nonlocality and retrocausality as part of a single package?
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\node [above ] at (0,0) {Bell's inequalities are violated};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (-6,-2) ;
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,-2) ;
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (6,-2) ;
\node [below ] at (-6,-2) {Influences not};
\node [below ] at (-6,-2.5) {produced by a common};
\node [below ] at (-6,-3) {cause in the past lightcone};
\node [below] at ( 0,-2) {Deny an assumption};
\node [below ] at (6,-2) {Deny realism};
\draw[->] (0,-3) -- (5,-4) ;
\node [below ] at (5,-4) {Deny statistical} ;
\node [below ] at (5,-4.5) {independence};
\draw[->] (5,-5.5) -- (5,-7) ;
\node [below ] at (5,-7) {Superdeterminism} ;
\draw[->] (5,-7.8) -- (1,-9) ;
\draw[->] (5,-7.8) -- (9,-9) ;
\node [below ] at (9,-9) {Non-retrocausal superdeterminism} ;
\draw[->] (0,-3) -- (0,-4) ;
\node [below ] at (0,-4) {Deny } ;
\node [below ] at (0,-4.5) {no-future-input-dependence};
\draw[->] (0,-3) -- (10,-4) ;
\node [below ] at (10,-4) {Deny some} ;
\node [below ] at (10,-4.5) {other assumption};
\draw[->] (0,-5.3) -- (-2,-6) ;
\draw[->] (-6,-4) -- (-10,-6) ;
\draw[->] (-6,-4) -- (-6,-6) ;
\draw[->] (-6,-4) -- (-2,-6) ;
\node [below ] at (-10,-6) {1) No continuous};
\node [below ] at (-10,-6.5) {spacetime pathway};
\draw[->] (-10,-7.5) -- (-10,-9) ;
\node [below, ] at (-10,-9) {`All-at-once'};
\node [below ] at (-10,-9.5) {retrocausality};
\node [below] at(-6,-6) {2) Superluminal};
\node [below] at(-6,-6.5) { pathway};
\node [below ] at (-2,-6) {3) Retrocausal};
\node [below ] at (-2,-6.5) { pathway};
\draw[->] (-2,-7.5) -- (-5,-9) ;
\draw[->] (-2,-7.5) -- (1,-9) ;
\node [below ] at (-5,-9) {Via the future ($D$)};
\node [below] at (1,-9) {Via the past ($A$)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A schematic diagram setting out various possible ways of responding to the violations of Bell's inequalities and the relationships between them}
\label{prep}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Motivations for Rescuing Locality \label{reasons}}
The idea that retrocausality can be used to rescue locality has a long history. It seems to have been proposed first by Costa de Beauregard\cite{deBeauregard1953-DEBMQ,deBeauregard1976-DEBTSA,CostaDeBeauregard:1977ik}, and has since been taken up by a number of physicists, with contemporary proponents including Price\cite{PRICE_1994}, Wharton\cite{Wharton_2018}, Sutherland\cite{Sutherland:1983wq,article}, Evans\cite{Evans_2013}, Miller\cite{Miller1996RealismAT} Argaman\cite{RevModPhys.92.021002} and others. A variety of explicit retrocausal models have been developed, including Schulman's anomaly models\cite{schulman1997time,e14040665} and Wharton's Lagrangian models\cite{WhartonKleinGordon,2016hwar}; perhaps the most fully developed retrocausal approach at present is the transactional interpretation proposed by Cramer\cite{PhysRevD.22.362,article} and Kastner\cite{doi:10.1063/1.4982766}, which describes experiments in terms of `offer waves' travelling forwards in time produced by emitters (e.g. preparation devices) and `confirmation waves' travelling backwards in time produced by absorbers (e.g. measurement devices), which interact to form a transaction and thus actualise some outcome of the relevant measurement.
The motivation for the retrocausal response to Bell's theorem is quite simple. One of the assumptions going into the derivation of Bell's theorem is `no future input-dependence.' ie `\emph{no model parameter associated with time $t$ can be dependent upon model inputs associated with times greater than $t$}.' \cite{RevModPhys.92.021002} So if we allow this assumption to be violated, we can come up with a realistic, intersubjective model of the Bell experiment in figure \ref{prep} which exhibits a form of locality - we simply postulate an influence mediated by some beable which is located along a continuous lightlike or timelike path which goes forward to point $D$ and then back into the past, or alternatively goes back to point $A$ and then forward into the future. As discussed by Wharton and Argaman in ref \cite{RevModPhys.92.021002}, the resulting models will still violate Bell's assumption of local causality, because local causality as defined by Bell is the conjunction of no future-input dependence with a screening assumption, but nonetheless `\emph{an essential element of `locality' can be retained}' as these models satisfy a condition that Wharton and Argaman refer to as \emph{continuous action} (CA): that is to say, these models utilize spacetime-based parameters associated with intermediate regions between preparations and measurements and therefore they are `locally mediated,' i.e. correlations cannot be introduced or altered except via intermediate spacetime-based mediators. The possibility of rescuing locality in this specific sense is often cited as a key motivation for moving to retrocausal models - see for example refs \cite{RevModPhys.92.021002,Priceretro,Evans_2013}.
Approaches making use of retrocausality to restore locality in the CA sense are evidently motivated by a conviction that local theories are preferable to nonlocal ones. And this is indeed a widely held view - even now many physicists are very reluctant to accept the existence of genuine unmediated nonlocal influences. But in this section, we will argue that retrocausal theories satisfying CA do not accrue any of the benefits one might hope to gain from local theories. Specifically, our conclusion will be that anything which can be achieved by a retrocausal model satisfying CA can also be achieved within an equivalent retrocausal model which does not satisfy CA, and therefore considerations of simplicity and ontological economy give us good reason to do away with these intermediate beables.
For simplicity, we will proceed by making a comparison between two specific models. $M_1$ is some model which obeys CA, i.e. in $M_1$ all correlations are mediated by beables which are located along continuous spacetime paths connecting all the relevant events. For example $M_1$ could be a version of the transactional interpretation\cite{Cramer}, or one of Wharton's path integral models\cite{Wharton_2018}. Meanwhile, $M_2$ is identical to $M_1$ except that there are no beables in the regions between the events: in this model the relations between the events are understood as purely a form of objective modal structure. That is to say, in $M_2$ the modal relations between the events (perhaps causal relations, or perhaps some other sort of modal relation such as ontological priority or metaphysical necessitation) exist and are instantiated by the events in question without any need for mediation via some physical bearer of modal powers; $M_2$ therefore belongs to the class of modal interpretations of quantum mechanics\cite{Vermaas1999-VERAPU}. We reinforce that $M_1$ and $M_2$ are not mathematically different, but they differ at the level of ontology and interpretation. As we will discuss later, removing the CA requirement significantly expands the space of possible models and therefore we would expect that in the long term moving away from CA would lead to new models which are mathematically different from existing CA models, but for the purpose of making a clear comparison it is most straightforward to consider two models which differ only in what they say about the existence of intermediate beables.
\subsection{Consistency with relativity \label{reason1}}
The most common reason given for attempting to rescue CA is that this allows us to make quantum mechanics consistent with relativity\cite{RevModPhys.92.021002,Priceretro,Cramer}. This point is motivated by the fact that most extant explicitly non-local interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation and the GRW collapse model, model non-locality via a collapse or update of the wavefunction which occurs instantaneously everywhere, and thus we usually have to define a preferred reference frame on which this collapse or update can occur. The existence of this preferred reference frame does not lead to outright contradictions with relativity in the de Broglie-Bohm or GRW models, because it turns out that the preferred reference frame can't be directly observed and thus it will not lead to any experimental predictions which are in conflict with the predictions of relativity\cite{Passon2006-PASWYA}. However, reintroducing a preferred reference frame looks like a major step backwards\cite{cushing1994quantum}, since a large part of the scientific revolution that resulted from special relativity was due to Einstein's rejection of the classical notion of `absolute space' and the associated notion of preferred reference frames. Moreover one important reason for being interested in the interpretation of quantum mechanics is the hope that getting clear about interpretative questions might help with ongoing efforts to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity\cite{hardy2010physics}, and an approach which so explicitly runs counter to the spirit of relativity doesn't seem likely to be productive on that front.
Thus the goal of accounting for the Bell correlations without introducing a preferred reference frame is certainly a very reasonable one. And indeed, models like $M_1$ which maintain continuous action by placing mediating beables along a zig-zag path through the future or the past do achieve that goal, since a continuous timelike or lightlike path through spacetime is a relativistically covariant object and therefore no preferred reference frame is required for these models. However, the relativistic covariance of these models has nothing to do with the fact that they postulate \emph{mediation}: consistency with relativity follows immediately from the fact that the models don't make use of an instantaneous collapse or update, so the mediating continuous paths really have nothing to do with the relativistic covariance. Indeed, the alternative model $M_2$ which gets rid of the continuous paths and allows the preparation and measurement events to depend directly on one another is also relativistically covariant, because it likewise refrains from postulating an instantaneous collapse or update. So the mandate to avoid preferred reference frames does not in and of itself give us any particular reason to prefer the continuous paths model $M_1$ to the direct dependence model $M_2$. Moreover, Ockham's razor would seem to favour $M_2$ over $M_1$ - given that the mediating beables aren't really needed to maintain consistency with relativity, we might as well get rid of them.
\subsection{Explaining the apparent locality of the classical world \label{reason2}}
Another possible motivation is simply the desire to preserve our classical intuitions about reality: we experience the world as local, so we would like to have an interpretation of quantum mechanics which is also local. But this seems like a fairly weak argument: quantum mechanics has already forced us to discard many of our classical intuitions, so why should locality be any different?
A better version of this argument starts with the observation that much of reality \emph{appears} to be local - for example, it isn't possible for us to influence distant objects without employing a physical process which propagates via a continuous path in spacetime. This is a striking feature of the physical world which seems to demand an explanation - and one might reasonably think that the best way to explain this feature is to postulate that the world really is local at the fundamental level. Moreover, throughout the history of science locality principles have in general been highly successful - for example, quantum field theory is based on a principle known as `locality,' which in different formulations of the theory refers either to the fact that spacelike separated operators commute, or that we employ only Lagrangians in which all interaction terms apply to fields at the same spacetime point\cite{Tongqft}. The fact that QFT obeys `locality' in these senses doesn't entail that it is local in either the Bell sense or the CA sense, and indeed, it has been shown that violations of Bell inequalities are generic in QFT\cite{brunetti2012locality}. But nonetheless, the fact that these specific locality principles have worked so well in the formulation of QFT is something which any interpretation of quantum mechanics should seek to explain, and surely the most obvious explanation is to say that the world really \emph{is} local at the most fundamental level?
But this argument too has problems. For the retrocausality employed in $M_1$ and other similar CA-satisfying models is explicitly intended to allow us to create an appearance of nonlocality under certain circumstances, in order to explain violations of Bell inequalities. And therefore prima facie there seems no reason why this sort of retrocausality could not be used to create the appearance of \emph{much stronger} nonlocality whilst still satisfying $CA$. For example, in a model allowing retrocausality with no restrictions on what sorts of backwards influences we can create, it would be possible to produce the appearance of superluminal signalling in a Bell experiment by sending a signal to the future and then back into the past (e.g. via point $A$ in figure \ref{prep}). Indeed, in a model allowing unrestricted retrocausality it would be possible to make phenomena appear almost as nonlocal as one could possibly imagine by simply sending signals very far into the future and then back into the past. Yet all of these models would still obey $CA$, since the signals are transmitted via continuous spacetime paths. So in fact, simply postulating CA together with retrocausality as in the model $M_1$ does nothing to explain the appearance of locality in the macroscopic world.
In order to provide such an explanation, $M_1$ needs some principled way to limit the sorts of retrocausal influences that actually obtain in reality, which thereby places limits on the extent to which retrocausal influences can be used to create an appearance of nonlocality. For example, ref \cite{2015arXiv151003706A} shows that Schulman's retrocausal model\cite{schulman1997time} prevents signalling backwards in time by imposing a symmetry on the model which has the effect that the different possible retrocausal influences are equivalent from the point of local observers. It is these sorts of restrictions on the set of possible retrocausal influences in $M_1$, rather than the fact that it obeys $CA$, which give rise to the appearance of locality at the macroscopic level; and since $M_2$ is by definition subject to all of the same constraints on the set of possible retrocausal influences, it will give rise to the appearance of locality in just the same way even though it explicitly does not obey CA. So CA is not actually doing any work in model $M_1$ to explain the apparent locality of the macroscopic world or the success of locality principles: all the work is done by the set of restrictions on allowed retrocausal influences, and thus $M_2$ can achieve equal explanatory power without postulating mediation or continuous action.
\subsection{Ontology \label{ontology} }
Another kind of motivation for CA is based on considerations of ontology. If for example we want to adopt a particle-based ontology, then naturally we would like to account for Bell correlations with a model obeying CA, as a defining feature of particles is that they travel along continuous spacetime pathways. The same goes for an ontology based on waves or fields, since classical wave theories and all our successful field theories describe behaviour which is local in spacetime. So plausibly one might be attracted to models satisfying CA in order to facilitate the adoption of a familiar ontology.
But this seems to be getting things the wrong way round: we should not draw conclusions about reality based on our presuppositions about ontology, rather we should make inferences about ontology based on what conclusions our theories lead us to draw about reality. Of course, it may be argued that we \emph{have} in fact inferred the existence of particles and/or waves and/or fields from our theories, because we arrive at such things by reifying certain elements of the mathematical structure of our theories - for example, by assuming the quantum state is an element of reality, we arrive at an ontology based on a wave or field evolving unitarily and locally. But this claim is questionable. First, we know that the locally evolving wavefunction can't be the whole story, because we still need to make sense of the collapse of the wavefunction - and if we have ruled out the idea of a literal collapse or state update because we don't wish to introduce a preferred reference frame, it seems we must either become Everettians\cite{Wallace} or take the wavefunction itself less literally. Second, there are often several distinct mathematical descriptions for quantum processes, so how do we know which one we ought to reify in this way? Why for example should we base our ontology on temporally evolving states (the central object of the Schr\"{o}dinger picture) rather than temporally evolving operators (the central object of the equivalent Heisenberg picture)?\cite{sakurai2020modern}
Furthermore, consider for a moment the plight of some hypothetical observers who live in a world which does in fact generically violate CA, i.e. a world in which events stand in modal relations to one another without any mediating beables in the spacetime regions between the events. When the observers try to express the nature of these modal relations mathematically for the purpose of predicting future events, their mathematical description will naturally have to include mathematical structures of some sort - differential equations, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, operators or whatever else their mathematicians might dream up. And since these structures relate events which are located in spacetime, it's likely that the observers would be able to find a way of interpretating parts of these structures as some sort of beables occupying the spacetime regions between the events in questions. But ex hypothesi in this world these relations are not mediated by anything physical; so the mere fact that our theories contain mathematical structures which could potentially be interpreted as mediating spacetime processes does not entail that there really \emph{are} any mediating spacetime processes, and therefore we still need some specific reason to prefer $M_1$'s interpretation in terms of mediating processes over $M_2$'s interpretation in terms of pure modal structure. Indeed, we already know that there are significant obstacles to interpreting the mathematical structures of quantum mechanics as physical beables which satisfy CA - for example, the wavefunction lives on configuration space rather than ordinary spacetime, so it can't straightforwardly be interpreted as an ordinary CA-satisfying physical field as in model $M_1$, whereas if the wavefunction is regarded as simply a mathematical expression of modal structure as in model $M_2$, then it is not at all surprising that it does not live on physical space.
Another type of ontological objection involves the concern that it's unclear what ontology we are left with if we remove intermediate beables from our models. For example, the transactional interpretation describes a process of emission and absorption of offer and confirmation waves which takes place between `emitters' and `absorbers,' which are typically assumed to be macroscopic objects\cite{Cramer}: if we get rid of the intermediate quantum waves and transactions, we are left with just the `emitters' and `absorbers,' but what are emitters and absorbers made of if not quantum systems? Similarly, in Wharton's field-based retrocausal models, \emph{`External measurements (both before and after the subsystem in question) will be treated as physical constraints, imposed on the subsystem in exactly the same way that boundaries are imposed when using Hamilton’s principle,'}\cite{sym2010272} so the model says nothing about the nature of the preparation and measurement devices which establish the relevant constraints, and therefore it's not clear what ontology remains if we get rid of the intermediate fields and postulate direct relations between these preparation and measurement devices.
This objection has some bite - the lack of clarity around the ontology of emitters, absorbers, preparation and measuring devices and so on is certainly a problem for these retrocausal interpretations. But exactly the same problem arises even if we retain mediating beables in our ontology: these models rely on a well-defined distinction between the microscopic (the mediating beables) and the macroscopic (the emmitters/absorbers/etc) which we are apparently required to accept as a primitive, and yet the fact that conventional quantum theory treats the distinction between the microscopic and the macroscopic as primitive is one of the main reasons why it needs an interpretation in the first place! Thus whether or not we take the mediating beables seriously as part of our ontology, it remains the case that without answers to these questions the retrocausal approaches don't represent a complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. So there is certainly work to be done to establish a well-defined ontology for these approaches which explains what measuring devices and macroscopic objects actually are, but this work must be done regardless of whether or not we include mediating beables in our ontology: removing the propagating waves or particles from our ontology makes the problem more noticeable, but the difficulty was really there all along and therefore these considerations are not in and of themselves a reason to insist on continuous action.
\subsection{Symmetry Arguments \label{symmetry}}
A novel argument for the CA approach is presented in ref \cite{Evans_2013}. Here, the authors discuss an experiment (SEPRB) in which the experimenter chooses from one of two ways of inputting a photon to a polariser, and the photon is then passed through a second polariser and measured. Obviously here the second measurement must be at a timelike separation from the location of the experimenter's initial choice. The authors note that the correlations between the experimenter's choice of polarizer setting and the result of the final measurement are identical to the correlations obtained between the choice of measurement on one side the the measurement outcome on the other in the case of entangled Bell particles, as in figure \ref{prep} (EPRB). They argue that since the correlations are identical in both cases, we should assume that the underlying mechanism producing the correlations is of the same kind in both cases. But of course, in the SEPRB case we typically suppose that the correlations are the result of information carried in the state of the photon as it travels along a continuous spacetime path from the first measurement to the second measurement, i.e. our usual model of these correlations satisfies CA. So the authors conclude that in the EPRB case we should likewise suppose that the correlations are the result of information carried in the state of some beable as it travels along a continuous spacetime path from one measurement to the other measurement, and thus this case also satisfies CA; the only difference is that in the EPRB case the path of the beable will have to be retrocausal, i.e. for part of its journey this beable will be travelling backwards in time.
There are a few possible options for responding to this argument - but most interestingly from the present perspective, we may simply choose to accept that it is likely both processes arise from the same sort of underlying mechanism, and then conclude that \emph{neither} case satisfies CA! The main argument put forward in ref \cite{Evans_2013} to support the CA approach is that continuous spacetime paths are the \emph{`widely accepted `intuitive' picture of the explanation of quantum correlations in the SEPRB cases.'} But if we have learned anything in a century of trying to make sense of quantum mechanics it is that `intuitive' pictures aren't always a good guide to reality. The `local paths' explanation is intuitive largely because it allows us to suppose that the behaviour of quantum objects is similar to the behaviour of objects we're familiar with in the classical world, but there is no good reason to think that the quantum world looks similar to the classical world. So perhaps we should simply accept that even in the SEPRB experiment there is not really any photon travelling along a continuous spacetime path: the second measurement depends directly on the first measurement, with no need for any photon to mediate the correlations between them. This may seem like an extreme position, but it is in fact a very natural one to adopt if we have already accepted that violations of CA are possible: we will discuss this view further in section \ref{myway}.
The authors point out that the causal relationship in SEPRB can be used for signalling and control of macroscopic processes, which they seem to regard as evidence against its being unmediated. But if we accept the possibility of genuine causal influences at a distance, there seems no reason why these influences should not be used for signalling and control. Indeed, the fact that the apparently unmediated influences involved in the EPRB experiment \emph{can't} be used for signalling has long been regarded as a puzzling feature of quantum mechanics which is in need of explanation\cite{SpekkensWood}, so clearly for at least some people in the field there is nothing conceptually problematic about the idea of unmediated influences giving rise to signalling and control.
\section{Retrocausality within a Wider Conceptual Schema\label{AVD}}
Although the term `retrocausality' appears quite frequently in the foundations of quantum mechanics, proponents of these approaches often refrain from commenting on the nature of the causal relations involved or the broader metaphysical picture required to accommodate retrocausality. However, as noted in ref \cite{Adlamspooky}, there are two importantly different notions of retrocausality floating around in the literature. Some approaches seem to be postulating two distinct directions of dynamical causality which together determine intermediate events by forwards and backwards evolution respectively from separate and independent initial and final states - for example, the forwards-evolving state and the backwards-evolving state in the two-state vector interpretation\cite{Aharonov}. Other approaches postulate an `all-at-once,' picture where the laws of nature apply atemporally to the whole of history, as for example in Wharton's all-at-once Lagrangian models\cite{Wharton_2018}; in such a picture the past and the future have a reciprocal effect on one another, so there is definitely some kind of influence from the future to the past at play, but these effects can't be separated out into separate forwards and backwards evolutions. We will not address here the question of whether these reciprocal all-at-once influences can be properly called causal - there are certainly legitimate reasons to dispute this terminology, but nonetheless we will continue to refer to all-at-once approaches as `retrocausal' in order to maintain consistency with the literature.
In this section, we will examine some different ways in these competing notions of retrocausality might be embedded within a broader metaphysical picture, and consider the consequences for the strategy of using retrocausality to rescue locality in the CA sense. We begin by discussing the possibilities for retrocausality within a Humean metaphysics, ultimately arguing that the CA principle is redundant in this context. We then move to the
`realist' context in which retrocausality is regarded as a form of objective modal structure, concluding that within the realist approach, `all-at-once' retrocausality has many advantages over the dynamical approach and thus it is likely that any successful realist approach to retrocausality must ultimately be based on an all-at-once picture. Finally, we will argue that the CA principle is likewise redundant within the all-at-once picture. Thus we conclude `rescuing locality' is not an appropriate motivation for retrocausality within any viable conceptual model of retrocausality.
\subsection{The Humean View}
The `Humean' approach to modality denies that there are any necessary connections in nature, including causal relations, backwards causal relations, or any more general sort of modal relation\cite{Mulder}. Humeans therefore cannot hold that retrocausal relations are real modal relations. However, in this article we are using the term `retrocausality' without presupposing that retrocausality involves a causal relation in the usual sense, and thus it may still be possible to have something akin to retrocausality within a Humean metaphysics. For example, Humeans of the best-systems school hold that the laws of nature are simply the axioms of the systematisation of the Humean mosaic which best combines simplicity and strength (the term `Humean mosaic' refers to the set of all local matters of particular fact within a given possible world, including things like events and properties but not modal notions like causes, laws and so on)\cite{Lewis1980-LEWASG}. So proponents of this approach might be willing to say that `retrocausality' exists if the best systematization of the actual Humean mosaic is one in which some of the axioms take as input a final state and predict what happens at earlier times.
However, for the Humean this sort of `retrocausality' can have no more than descriptive significance: it just so happens that the actual distribution of events in the Humean mosaic is such that the mosaic can be efficiently described using retrocausal notions, but retrocausal influences are not actually responsible for anything that happens in the mosaic. And likewise, the Humean will usually be able to produce laws which look local in some sense, but that locality will be purely descriptive. Provided that all correlated events within a Humean mosaic have at least one spacetime point in the intersection of their future lightcones and/or past lightcones, we will always be able to write down a CA-satisfying axiomatisation in which we postulate, as a purely formal device, mediating beables which lie along continuous spacetime paths (including possibly some retrocausal paths). However, it will also always be possible to come up with an axiomatisation of equal predictive power in which events depend directly on one another without mediation. And there is no obvious reason to insist on the CA-satisfying axiomatisation here, because according to the Humean the beables lying on continuous spacetime paths between events can't have any causal or nomic power to influence events along their path, and therefore the presence of these beables can't actually be necessary to bring about the relevant correlations. Because there are no objective modal relations in a Humean universe, it is not objectively the case that the events depend directly on one another or that the correlations between them are mediated by physical processes: it is just a matter of fact that the events in question are correlated and in fact nothing whatseover brings those correlations about.
Thus to adopt a Humean strategy, proponents of the CA approach would have to argue that the axiomatisation with mediating beables is simpler than the approach without mediating beables - indeed, `robustly' simpler in Lewis's sense\cite{10.2307/2254396} - in order to claim that the CA-satisfying axiomatisation is in fact the `best system.' It doesn't seem obvious that such an approach is indeed always simpler, but perhaps an argument could be made based on the claim that continuity is in some sense simpler than discontinuity. Nonetheless, it's clear this is a very different argument to the one the proponents of continuous spacetime paths typically make. For the Humean the mediating beables are purely `descriptive fluff' which make the theory look simpler; they are not necessary to make the theory work, nor to guarantee consistency with relativity. Indeed locality itself has no deep significance within the Humean approach, as it is nothing more than one possible form of simplicity. So those who wish to use retrocausality to rescue locality do have the option of understanding retrocausality in Humean terms, but this is a deflationary approach which significantly reduces the import and interest of the retrocausal models.
\subsection{The realist approach}
The alternative view, which I will refer to as `realist,' maintains that retrocausality is a part of the objective modal structure of reality. That is, retrocausal influences are real modal relations - perhaps causal relations, or perhaps more general modal relations such as metaphysical necessitation, ontological priority, or ontological dependence. We will now consider how dynamical and all-at-once retrocausality could be embedded in a broader metaphysical picture of modal structure.
One common way of thinking about causation and other types of modal structure is in terms of \emph{`dynamic production'}\cite{chen2021governing}, which refers to a `\emph{metaphysical picture of the past generating the future}' \cite{Maudlin2002-MAUQNA}. In this picture, we suppose that modal structure plays an active role in producing the future from the present. This view of modal structure is naturally coupled with the A-theory approach to time, which tells us that past and future have different status and the present is a moving interface between the future and the past\cite{10.2307/2248314}. Dynamic production seems to be presupposed by the approach to physics sometimes known as the `Newtonian schema,'\cite{Wharton} i.e. the idea that the universe is something like a computer which takes an initial state and evolves it forwards in time: computers literally `produce' solutions in a temporal process wherein an input state is subjected to a sequence of state transformations, and the dynamic production picture assumes that the universe works in roughly the same way.
Another way of thinking about causation and other types of modal structure involves a metaphysical picture in which the objective modal structure determines what happens in the block but there is no process in which the modal structure actively generates anything: the course of history selected by the modal structure is simply instantiated eternally and timelessly \cite{chen2021governing, adlam2021laws}. We will refer to this approach as `\emph{block instantiation}.' The block instantiation model for modality is naturally coupled with the B-theory approach to time, which tells us that present, past and future have the same status and so we have a `block universe' which exists eternally and timelessly. However, our analysis here is concerned primarily with the role played by objective modal structure in shaping the course of history, not with the nature of temporal becoming, and therefore it is in principle possible to imagine that one might choose positions on the metaphysics of time and the metaphysics of modal structure that are not aligned in this way. For example, one could combine a block instantiation model for modality with a moving spotlight approach to time, where the block selected by the objective modal structure exists timelessly but the present moment moves through the block\cite{Cameron2015-CAMTMS-3}. Or one could even combine a block instantiation model for modality with a growing block view, where the selection of a course of history by the laws is eternal and timeless but the actual instantiation of that course of history takes place via a growth process in accordance with the solution selected by the laws. In this article we will not be concerned with these sorts of distinctions, as our aim is to understand the way in which retrocausality may be embedded in an objective modal structure, and it is the process of \emph{selecting} the contents of reality rather than the metaphysics of temporal becoming which is relevant to this discussion.
Note that it isn't our intention to suggest that a `dynamic production' picture is particularly plausible or even coherent. In fact we consider block instantiation models to be preferable for many reasons, but it's important for us to address the possibility of dynamic production because it seems likely that attempts to use retrocausality to rescue locality are to at least some degree influenced by intuitions based on a production-style picture.
\subsubsection{Retrocausality in dynamic production models}
Dynamic production is viewed with suspicion by many modern physicists, largely because of a common assumption that A-theory approaches to time are inconsistent with relativity, since the `present moment' or the `front of the block' seems to single out a preferred reference frame\cite{sep-time}. But in fact, as shown by Earman and Pooley, it is possible to come up with a relativistic version of growing block models which does not single out a preferred global present\cite{10.2307/42705837,Earman2008-EARRTP}. We need only say that the `temporal becoming' process is not a total order, but rather a partial order - if two spacetime points stand in a timelike or lightlike relation to one another there is a fact of the matter about the order in which they come into being, but if two spacetime points stand in a spacelike relation to one another then there is no fact about the order in which they come into being.
However, this approach encounters problems when we try to incorporate quantum mechanics, for if we accept that Bell inequality violations entail that the universe contains instantaneous nonlocal influences, and if we assume that these influences are causal or at least asymmetric, we then will require some spacelike separated spacetime points to come into being in a fixed order so that they are able to nonlocally influence one another. For example, in an interpretation of quantum mechanics which tells us that the choice of measurement at position $B$ in figure \ref{prep} has a direct, unmediated nonlocal influence on the result of the measurement at position $C$, clearly we need the spacetime point $B$ to come into being before or concurrently with the spacetime point $C$, so we end up with a `preferred class' of reference frames, i.e. those reference frames in which $B$ occurs earlier than or at the same time as $C$. Thus it would seem that proponents of generation-based metaphysics who wish to deny the existence of preferred reference frames must find a way to accommodate the empirical results of quantum mechanics without postulating any genuine nonlocal influences between spacelike separated events - and as we have seen, one possible way to do that is to invoke retrocausality.
But what would retrocausality look like within a dynamic production picture? First, we evidently cannot invoke all-at-once retrocausality. For all-at-once laws apply to the whole of history all at once, whereas in the dynamic production picture we need the laws to operate piecewise on reality during the process of production; so the dynamic production picture must be coupled with dynamical retrocausality. But there are still difficulties. One obvious issue is that the notion of production implies ordering: if one event produces another then the first event must already exist before it can produce the second event. This works straightforwardly if we suppose that production occurs only in one temporal direction, since in that case we can insist that events are generated in some temporal sequence. But problems arise as soon as we allow both forwards causality and retrocausality, as in models using retrocausality to explain the Bell correlations, because then the future events must produce the past events but also the past events must produce the future events, so it's unclear how the generation process can ever get off the ground.
In order to solve this problem it seems likely we would have to accept a \emph{mutable timeline} metaphysics. It is common within both philosophy and wider popular culture to distinguish between time travel with mutable and immutable timelines: the former entails that if you go back in time and interfere with events you can change the past and may thus end up changing the present, whilst the latter entails that if you go back in time and try to interfere with events you will find yourself unable to change anything about the past and thus will also not change anything about the present\cite{VanInwagen2010-VANCTP-3}. In a similar way, one might distinguish between `mutable timeline retrocausality,' where an event having a retrocausal influence on the past can change the present in virtue of changing the past, and `immutable timeline retrocausality,' where an event in the present having a retrocausal influence on the past can't change anything about the present because its retrocausal influence has already been exerted. Allowing a mutable timeline offers several possibilities to accommodate retrocausality within a dynamic production picture, because we can have one event generate another event which then in turn exerts a backwards influence which alters the original event, so each event in turn generates the other through some number of rounds of successive alterations. For example, we might suppose that the growing block grows to some time $t$, and then a retrocausal influence from time $t$ `reaches back' into the past and makes some alteration to events at time $t' < t$ which have already occurred, and the existing events inside the block between $t'$ and $t$ are updated to be consistent with the change (Van Inwagen proposes a model similar to this to allow for mutable timelines within a growing block universe model \cite{VanInwagen2010-VANCTP-3}). Another possible option would be to postulate two distinct growing blocks, one growing from the beginning of time and one growing from the end of time, with the former generating forwards causal influences and the latter generating backwards causal influences: at some point the blocks meet, whereupon the future block would begin to penetrate the past block and vice versa and each would effect changes within the other.
However, mutable timeline approaches lead to a number of problems. First off, like mutable timeline versions of time-travel, mutable timeline retrocausality can potentially lead to paradoxes. For example, we can imagine a retrocausal version of the grandfather paradox, in which Bob takes an action which has a retrocausal influence on the past so as to prevent Bob's grandfather from being born, meaning that Bob himself never exists to take this action in the first place. Now as explored by Price in ref \cite{PRICE_1994}, it transpires that the kind of retrocausality needed to explain the Bell correlations actually can't be used to create causal paradoxes of this kind - but this fact leaves us with further questions about \emph{why} the retrocausality involved in quantum mechanics should so neatly avoid causal paradoxes. It has been pointed out that the possible retrocausal influences must be carefully fine-tuned to achieve this\cite{almada2015retrocausal}. One possible route to explaining this fine-tuning is suggested by
ref \cite{almada2015retrocausal}, which demonstrates that the fine-tuning of the retrocausal influences in Schulman's retrocausal model is a consequence of a particular symmetry of the theory, i.e. the fact that for a particular function $W$ and angle $\theta$ that enter into the model, $\forall \theta \ W(\theta) = W(-\theta)$. Explaining fine-tuning by appeal to symmetry considerations is certainly better than simply regarding it as brute fact, but it still has a slightly conspiratorial air: after all, even if Schulman's model is correct it is presumably only a contingent fact that the model happens to obey this particular symmetry, so what would have happened if the symmetry had not obtained? It appears to be only this contingent fact which prevents the model from giving rise to logical paradoxes, which seems troubling - we would really like the absence of logical paradoxes to rest on a more robust foundation.
Probably the most natural way to guarantee the absence of paradoxes would be to say that the set of allowed retrocausal influences is subject to some sort of constraint forbidding influences which could give rise to causal paradoxes. This is exactly the solution typically invoked in response to a similar dilemma within the philosophy of general relativity: general relativity admits solutions which include closed timelike curves, so in order to avoid the grandfather paradox and similar problems, it is necessary to impose consistency constraints on the fields along the curve. Earman observes that these constraints probably can't be expressed wholly in local terms - `\emph{in general, the consistency constraints may have to refer to the global structure of spacetime'}\cite{Earman2323} - and this seems likely to be true in the case of retrocausality in QM also: the existence of causal paradoxes is not a property of individual events but rather a holistic property of some collection of events, and therefore constraints forbidding them will not in general be expressible in local terms. That is to say, the constraints in question will probably have to be global `all-at-once' constraints, which as we have observed makes them a poor fit for a dynamic production picture.
A further problem with the mutable timeline approach is that that it leads to a particularly strong form of scepticism with respect to knowledge of the past. For as we have noted, it seems natural to understand dynamic production models in terms of the A theory metaphysics of time, where the front of the block represents `the present' and the growth process is tied to our experience of the passage of time. This would mean that we presumably experience a moment when the block first generates it, and therefore any retrocausal influences that go back and change the past will be too late for us to actually witness their effects. Thus, for example, if retrocausality of this kind is used to explain the correlations in Bell experiments, it follows that we will never actually observe the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. Now this is not actually inconsistent with the empirical evidence, because the retrocausal influences will change our memories and records so we will \emph{think} that we witnessed the appropriate quantum correlations, even though in fact we did not. However, this requires us to accept that our records of the past very frequently record events which never actually took place, which places us in a somewhat parlous epistemic situation and raises a number of thorny questions around the way in which scientific confirmation would work under such circumstances. To our knowledge no proponents of retrocausal interpretations have so far raised or attempted to answer these questions, which seems to indicate that most modern proponents of the approach don't intend to be committed to a mutable timeline version of retrocausality. Certainly these issues give us good reason to avoid mutable timeline retrocausality if possible and thus to prefer a block instantiation model over a dynamic production model for retrocausal approaches to quantum mechanics.
Moreoever, even if these dual-direction dynamical production pictures could be made coherent, they don't seem to have much to recommend them. The main argument for `growth'-type models in the philosophy of time is to preserve the intuition that there is something special about the present - the growing block universe makes the notion of temporal becoming literal\cite{Deng2017-DENMSO-3}. But accommodating retrocausality in a generation model would require us to postulate something like two blocks growing in opposite directions, which undercuts this argument - are there other conscious beings whose present is being carried backwards through time? Why is there no evidence for this other `present' or the relations between the two `presents'? Even in the case where we have a single block with some retrocausal influences reaching back into the block, it still seems hard to understand why `the present' is necessarily at the front of the block even though other parts of the block are also undergoing changes. There are also a whole host of more general objections to A theory approaches and growing block approaches, such as the fact that we need to postulate a second timeline to measure the growth of the block, and this kind of `two time' view is unappealing for a number of reasons\cite{baron2018introduction}. We won't rehearse these well known arguments here, but it's worth nothing that most of these objections may also be regarded as objections to the standard `Newtonian schema' in which the universe is something like a computer: computers generate solutions in a temporal process since they exist \emph{within} the spacetime structure of the universe, but we have no clear evidence that the universe itself exists within some larger spacetime structure and thus it may not be coherent to imagine the universe as a whole being produced in a temporal sequence.
\subsubsection{Retrocausality in block instantiation models}
Since it seems the pairing of retrocausality with a dynamic production approach is an uncomfortable fit, let us now move to the block instantiation approach. In this paradigm, laws of nature no longer `produce' the universe in some quasi-temporal process: instead they assign probabilities to entire courses of history in an all-at-once manner, and then some particular course of history is selected and the block universe instantiating that solution exists timelessly and eternally. To formalise this idea we will use the framework introduced in ref \cite{adlam2021laws} and developed further in refs \cite{adlam2021determinism,adlam2022operational}, which is designed to accommodate a variety of laws outside the time-evolution paradigm, including all-at-once laws. This framework construes lawhood in terms of \emph{constraints}, which are defined extensionally, appealing to techniques employed in modal logic: a constraint is defined as a set of Humean mosaics, i.e. the set of all mosaics in which that constraint is satisfied. We emphasize that the use of this terminology is not intended to reflect a commitment to the standard Humean ontology consisting \emph{only} of the Humean mosaic - we use the phrase `Humean mosaic' to refer to all of the actual, non-modal content of reality, but since we are now focusing on realist approaches to modality, we are committed to the claim that reality has objective modal structure above and beyond the Humean mosaic. In particular, we will postulate that every world has some set of laws of nature which are an objective fact about the modal structure of that world, and we characterise these laws in terms of \emph{probability distributions over constraints}. For example, a law which forbids superluminal signalling would be understood as assigning probability $1$ or close to $1$ to the set of all mosaics in which no superluminal signalling occurs. Within this picture, we can imagine that the laws of nature operate as follows: first, for each law a constraint is drawn according to the associated probability distribution, and then the constraints \emph{govern} by singling out a set of mosaics from which the Humean mosaic of the actual world must be drawn - i.e. the actual mosaic must be in the intersection of all the chosen constraints. That is to say, the laws of nature associated with a given world are understood to operate by narrowing down the set of physical possibilities for that world, thus dictating what properties the Humean mosaic for that world is required to have.
It is then straighforward to see that in such a picture, `all-at-once' retrocausality can enter via a kind of cross-time mutual coordination. For example, in a Bell experiment where the two Bell particles are measured in the same basis, our all-at-once laws must assign probability $1$ to the set of mosaics in which the results on the two particles match, and probability $0$ to the set of mosaics in which the results on the two particles do not match. The two measurements thus have a reciprocal effect on one another, since the measurement outcomes are required to be the same if the settings are the same, but this probability distribution is completely symmetrical, so there is no sense in which one `causes' the other. Therefore if one measurement is in the future of the other we will have something that looks like retrocausality (in the general sense of `some sort of influence from the future to the past') although there is no mediating process in either temporal direction.
But what about dynamical retrocausality? It may be tempting to say that dynamical retrocausality simply can't exist within a block instantiation model, but some care needs to be taken here, because the block universe picture is very common amongst modern physicists, and most of those physicists currently believe in the existence of dynamical causality in at least one direction. In fact, the standard way to make sense of `dynamical causality' within a block universe picture is to move from thinking in terms of a process of temporal evolution to thinking in terms of dynamically possible histories: e.g. `\emph{A \emph{history} of the system is then a smooth function $q : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow Q$ assigning to each time $t$ the configuration $q(t)$ of the system at that time. The dynamical equations of Newtonian mechanics distinguish dynamically possible from dynamically impossible histories.}'\cite{pittphilsci16622} This way of thinking about dynamical laws allows us to express them in a block universe context using the constraint framework: a dynamical law is analysed as a probability distribution assigning probability $1$ to the set of Humean mosaics which contain only histories which are dynamically possible according to the law.
So if we want to have both forwards and backwards dynamics, as in a dynamical retrocausality picture, presumably we would need two distinct sets of dynamical laws, one assigning probabilities to sets of mosaics that we are to think of as defining `forward histories' and another assigning probabilities to sets of mosaics that we are to think of as defining `backward histories.' For a well-defined forward dynamics, we require that that for every state $s$ and time $t$, the probabilities assigned by the dynamics to mosaics featuring state $s$ at time $t$ sum to exactly $1$, and likewise for the backwards dynamics. In the dynamical picture we are supposed to be able to think of the laws of nature as defining the course of history based on a fixed initial state and final state, so we must select an initial state and then define a new distribution for the forward histories conditioned on that initial state; provided that the dynamics is well-defined this will give us a properly normalised probability distribution. Likewise we select a final state and then define a new distribution for the backward histories conditioned on that final state. Finally, we must draw sets of mosaics according to the distributions associated with the laws and then select the actual course of history from the intersection of the chosen sets.
An obvious problem with this approach is that neither a mosaic or a set of mosaics is intrinsically directed; a mosaic is simply some collection of local matters of particular fact. So in this dual dynamics picture, the sets of mosaics over which the forward-dynamics assigns probabilities are `forward-directed' purely by stipulation, and likewise for the backward-dynamics. Imposing some requirement of `locality' also does not help differentiate between forwards and backwards dynamics, because a mosaic where we have continuous `forwards' spacetime paths will also be a mosaic with continuous `backwards' spacetime paths. It's therefore quite unclear what it means to say that one set of dynamics is `forward' and the other is `backward': really we are just dealing with two distinct dynamics conditioned on different states. So conceptually, this `two directions of dynamical causality' looks quite difficult to sustain within a block model.
A further problem is that it's hard to maintain the requirement that the two dynamics are separate and independent without running into inconsistencies. For example, if the forward dynamics say that, conditional on the actual initial state, event $E$ has probability $1$ of happening, while the backwards dynamics say that, conditional on the actual final state, event $E$ has probability $0$ of happening, then the intersection from which we are supposed to select the actual course of history will be empty. Of course, it's also possible in the all-at-once picture that the intersection of the selected sets can be empty, but within an all-at-once picture we are free to simply stipulate that the laws are such that this intersection is never empty. We don't have that same freedom in the dynamical picture because part of the premise is that the initial and final state are distinct and independent inputs from which the rest of history is generated; thus we can't simply place constraints on the combination of initial and final state such that the two dynamics are never in outright contradiction, since that would undermine their supposed independence. After all, if we accept that the initial and final state can be selected jointly in this `all-at-once' manner, then why not just allow the whole history to be selected `all-at-once' and avoid these sorts of difficulties altogether?
This difficulty is obscured in some existing retrocausal approaches because it is common to apply the retrocausal description to just one experiment at a time, so the forwards dynamics need only meet the backwards dynamics once. For example in the transactional interpretation, we typically focus on a single experiment in which a variety of offer waves and confirmation waves interact and ultimately produce a single transaction\cite{Cramer}; the ongoing effect of the transaction on future events is not explicitly modelled. Likewise, in the two-state vector interpretation, we are typically dealing with a preparation, a final measurement, and a weak measurement in the middle whose outcome is determined by the forwards-evolving state produced by the preparation and the backwards-evolving state produced by the final measurement\cite{Aharonov}; we are not told how to model the effects of the outcome of the weak measurement on the entire future course of events. Focusing in on individual experiments makes it easy for us to isolate distinct forwards and backwards dynamics conditioned respectively on the initial and final states of a single experiment, so we can come up with simple formulas for the effect of the forwards and backwards dynamics on intermediate events, such as the ABL rule used in the two-state vector interpretation to predict the outcomes of weak measurements conditioned on an initial and final state\cite{Mohrhoff_2001}. But if we are to take the two-directions of dynamical causality picture seriously, it follows that any experiment must be embedded within a more general forwards dynamics and backwards dynamics, with the initial and final states for the experiment themselves undergoing causal influences from both the past and the future. Moreover, both the forwards dynamics to the future and the backwards dynamics to the past are affected by the result of the intermediate measurements, so the forwards and backwards histories must also be adjusted in response to whatever the result of that measurement might be. Thus we are no longer working within the simple picture where the forward and backwards dynamics meet at exactly one point and determine exactly one event: we must somehow reconcile the two independent dynamics in a consistent way all across spacetime.
This difficulty ties into an influential criticism made by Maudlin in his commentary on the transactional interpretation\cite{Maudlin2002-MAUQNA}. In this piece, Maudlin imagines an experiment in which a radioactive source emits a particle at random either to the right or the left. If no particle is detected on the right after a certain time, a detector is swung around to the left in order to detect the particle on the left instead. The transactional interpretation has some difficulty here, because the second detector can send a confirmation wave back only if it is in place on the left, but this occurs only if the particle has not been detected on the right, so the existence of the confirmation wave entails that the particle will certainly be detected on the left even though the \emph{amplitude} of the confirmation wave implies only a probability of half for this event. The reason this problem arises is that the scope of the transactional interpretation is too small: it works well if we consider only a single experiment with fixed preparation and measurement devices, but when we embed that experiment in a larger causal structure where the past and future may themselves be influenced by the outcome of the experiment, it becomes very difficult to maintain the picture of two distinct and independent dynamical processes. Maudlin's argument is thus a specific version of the difficulty we have encountered in finding a way to reconcile two independent dynamical processes within a block instantiation model. The crux of the problem, according to Maudlin, is that \emph{`if the course of present events depend on the future and the shape of the future is in part determined by the present then there must be some structure which guarantees the existence of a coherent mutual adjustment of all the free variables.'} According to Maudlin, this is also a problem not only for the transactional interpretation but also for any other retrocausal interpretation of quantum mechanics; but in fact, on examination it is clear that Maudlin's objections is a problem only for \emph{dynamical} retrocausality. For as noted in ref \cite{RevModPhys.92.021002}, in an all-at-once model we do indeed have such a structure - the role of the all-at-once laws is precisely to mutually adjust all of the free variables to ensure consistency and adherence to all of the laws. Thus as long as we don't have distinct dynamical processes which must somehow be combined into a unified prediction, Maudlin's problem cannot arise. (Of course all of this is fairly schematic; it would be very interesting to see a more detailed demonstration of how Maudlin's experiment would work in an all-at-once picture).
Indeed, many of the other responses to Maudlin's objection also seem to be moving towards an `all-at-once' approach. Evans' response is to observe that `\emph{the tension stems from the distinctly causal notion of “generation” in Maudlin’s metaphysical picture in contrast to the “fixity” of a unique solution in his characterisation of determinism,'}\cite{Evans2011-EVAASO-2}. That is, Maudlin's problem is dissolved if we alter the transactional interpretation to ensure `causal symmetry,' i.e. we don't have an offer wave first and \emph{then} a confirmation wave and \emph{then} another offer wave and so on, instead we achieve temporal symmetry by invoking both initial and final boundary conditions so the whole transaction is fixed eternally and atemporally. This seems to amount to a denial that offer wave and confirmation wave can be understood as separate and independent dynamical processes: the transaction must be understood within some kind of all-at-once picture. Similarly Kastner suggests removing the offer and confirmation process from ordinary spacetime and locating it instead in a broader possibilistic space, which requires that we \emph{`abandon the idea that there is cyclic `echoing' between absorber B and the emitter.}'\cite{RK} Kastner's response thus entails that the retrocausal influence is not mediated by physical, dynamical spacetime beables, but rather by a calculation in some other space which selects which transaction is to be actualised and then applies that result `all-at-once' without any physical mediation. We don't have space here to discuss the details of these solutions, but it's clear that they're based on a similar underlying intuition that Maudlin's problem can be avoided if we move away from the picture of dynamical retrocausality and instead take up an `all-at-once' approach.
\subsubsection{Continuous Action in the `all-at-once' picture}
Demanding CA makes sense in a metaphysics of dynamic production, because we tend to think of the process by which the future is produced from the past as being itself local, so that the events at a spacetime point $x$ generate all the points in the future lightcone of $x$ immediately adjacent to $x$ and then those points generate the next points in their own future lightcones and so on. But we have just seen that a metaphysics of dynamic production leads to a whole host of problems when we try to combine it with retrocausality, and therefore it seems unlikely that many proponents of retrocausality would actually want to be committed to this sort of picture. Indeed, many current proponents of retrocausality seem to favour all-at-once approaches paired with block instantiation metaphysics - see for example Wharton's `all-at-once' models\cite{Wharton_2018}, and Evans' work on retrocausality in a block universe\cite{Evans2011-EVAASO-2}. Moreover, many of these modern proponents want to use \emph{this sort} of retrocausality to rescue CA - but in a metaphysics \emph{not} based on a generation process, it's much less clear why we would expect our models to obey CA in the first place. In this section we argue that in fact mediating beables are redundant within the all-at-once picture and thus `rescuing locality' cannot be the main motivation for retrocausality of this kind.
Heuristically, it's straightforward to see the problem for intermediate beables in an all-at-once approach. For in the all-at-once picture, probabilities are assigned to entire histories, which, if we zoom out far enough, would ultimately encompass entire Humean mosaics. Thus the existence or nonexistence of beables occupying the spacetime regions between relevant events in the mosaic is not really relevant, because if probabilities are assigned directly to the entire distribution of events across the mosaic, there is no need for information about one part of the mosaic to be carried to other parts by a physical beable propagating either forwards or backwards in time. After all, in this picture what happens at a spacetime point is not determined by the information locally available at that spacetime point but rather by the probability distribution assigned from the outside, which necessarily contains information about events taking place at other locations in the mosaic: our models can be as retrocausal and non-local as we like without any need for mediation, as we can simply choose probability distributions which give rise to nontrivial correlations between the relevant events. For example, in the Bell experiment shown in figure \ref{prep}, if we are working in an `all-at-once' model we don't need a local physical process propagating from $C$ to $B$ via either $A$ or $D$ in order for the measuring device at $B$ to `know' the choice of measurement at $C$; we simply postulate `all-at-once' laws which assign the appropriate quantum-mechanical probabilities to mosaics exhibiting various different combinations of measurement outcomes at $B$ and $C$.
Now, it is of course true that within an all-at-once picture we might sometimes be able to find a `local time evolution' interpretation of a given model if the probability distribution over mosaics defined by the model is factorisable in the following sense. Let us decompose reality into a set of discrete events taking place at different spacetime locations. Next, for each location we use our model to define a probability distribution over the possible events that could occur at that location, conditioned only on events in the past lightcone of that location. Then, given some set of initial events (i.e. an initial condition) we can try to calculate the correct probability distribution over mosaics by combining all the local conditional probabilities: $P(e_1 e_2 e_3) = p(e_1) p(e_2 | e_1) p(e_3 | e_2 e_3)$ where $e_1$ is in the past lightcone of $e_2$ and $e_2$ is in the past lightcone of $e_3$, and so on until we have covered the entire mosaic. If the probability distribution thus obtained matches the full distribution over Humean mosaics induced by our model, then that model can be understood in terms of a `local time evolution' picture where we can think of the laws locally generating each step based on information in the local (past-determined) state at that spacetime point. If it isn't possible to create a distribution in this way which matches the full distribution induced by the model, then the model can't be interpreted in terms of local time evolution.
Thus in an all-at-once picture, to say that the laws involve `nonlocality' is simply to say that the local time evolution decomposition isn't always possible: the probability distribution over mosaics induced by the laws can't be completely decomposed into local probabilities conditioned on past lightcones. Under these circumstances, we can no longer imagine that the laws locally generate each step based on information in the local past-determined state at that spacetime point. Moreover, because assigning probabilities to entire mosaics does not give rise to intrinsically directed evolutions or causal relations, for any pair of events whose correlations can't be understood in terms of a local time-evolution decomposition, we must simply understand those events as standing in some sort of reciprocal dependence relation. So as long as the events are at different times there will necessarily be some sort of `retrocausality' involved (in the general sense of `some sort of influence from future to past.') Thus in the all-at-once picture, to say that laws are `retrocausal' is simply to say that we have a nonlocal model in which some of the correlations which can't be decomposed into local past-determined probabilities involve events at different times. And in fact this will always be the case, because the only way that two events can be at the same time in all reference frames is for them to be at one and the same spacetime point, in which case there can't be nonlocality involved. So in the all-at-once picture, to say that the mosaic is `retrocausal' just is to say that it is `nonlocal.'
Of course, one could also look for a `backwards local time evolution' model involving a similar decomposition with conditional probabilities defined over events in the \emph{future} lightcones of the relevant points. This would allow us to give an interpretation which is local and retrocausal in the sense that the direction of causality is everywhere reversed. But the approaches we have discussed which aim to use retrocausality to rescue locality require both forwards and backwards causality, so this can't be what proponents of such models have in mind. So can we have a `forwards \emph{and} backwards local time evolution' interpretation? This would correspond to a decomposition with the probabilities for a given event conditioned on events which can be reached from that event by timelike or lightlike pathways going forward and/or backwards in time. It is clear that Bell correlations will always have such an interpretation, since such correlations require a preparation event in the past lightcone of both measurements and hence there is necessarily an appropriate path between them via that preparation event. Moreover, any correlations that we can actually measure must have such an interpretation, since in order for us to calculate correlations between events we must be able to compare the results at some point in the future lightcones of both events, and thus there must be an appropriate path between them via that future point. So the existence of this decomposition is trivial for all correlations that we ever have measured or ever will measure, and therefore we have no grounds for attaching a special significance to the possibility of coming up with such a decomposition: finding a `forwards local time evolution' decomposition does seem to tell us something interesting about the nature of the underlying processes, but finding a `forwards and backwards local time evolution' decomposition tells us nothing at all.
That is to say, we can have mediating beables traveling along continuous paths within an all-at-once picture if we so wish, but they are entirely redundant, since the existence of a `forwards and backwards time evolution' decomposition is necessarily trivial. Kastner makes a similar point in her article arguing that there is no real retrocausation in retrocausal approaches to quantum mechanics\cite{doi:10.1063/1.4982766}. Kastner takes the view that retrocausal approaches which include both an initial and final condition necessarily lead to a block universe metaphysics, since `\emph{their explicit time symmetry forces a static ontology}.' Moreoever, by `retrocausation' she means approaches in which the retrocausal influences are understood in terms of `\emph{dynamical propagation ... occurring in spacetime'} i.e. what we have referred to as dynamical retrocausality. Now, we have seen in this article that retrocausal approaches don't necessarily have to be combined with a block universe metaphysics (since we have the option of a dynamic production using a mutable timeline approach). However, we have argued that there are very good reasons to prefer the block instantiation model combined with an all-at-once approach, and thus Kastner's comments still have bite. As she notes, if our background metaphysics is a block universe, all-at-once picture, then `\emph{there is no influence propagating `anywhen' in spacetime; it is just a story tacked on to a set of events that already exist ... it is the static block world that is doing the work of `saving locality,' not any dynamical process.}'
Indeed, the foregoing discussion makes it clear that in an all-at-once picture there is a sense in which locality is very \emph{unnatural}: if we are dealing with laws which assign probabilities to entire mosaics, then generically it \emph{won't} be possible to come up with a forwards local time evolution decomposition of these laws, so laws which are `local' are actually very special cases. So if we believe in the `all-at-once' picture the existence of nonlocality is not in the least surprising - the real surprise is the fact that it is so limited!
\section{Retrocausality from Nonlocality \label{myway}}
We have so far made the argument that while it is technically possible to use retrocausality to save locality, there is no very good reason to do so. In this final section, we will make the complementary argument: in fact accepting the existence of genuine, unmediated nonlocality in and of itself leads us to accept retrocausality. More specifically, if we attempt to give a realist, intersubjective account of the Bell correlations in terms of some mechanism other than beables lying along a continuous spacetime pathway, and we are not willing to accept the existence of a preferred reference frame, then we have good reason to accept the existence of retrocausality in the unmediated all-at-once sense.
First, observe that as argued in ref \cite{Adlamspooky} it follows straightforwardly that if we accept the existence of an unmediated influence between spatially separated measurements in a spacelike Bell experiment, then we must also accept the existence of an unmediated influence between temporally separated measurements in a Bell experiment, since the spatially separated measurements become temporally separated measurements under a change in reference frame. This conclusion could be avoided by postulating that the reference frame in which the measurements are spatially separated is a preferred reference frame, but we have committed to avoiding preferred reference frames so this option is not available to us. Thus, the existence of spatial nonlocality together with a commitment to avoiding preferred reference frames inevitably leads us to the possibility of nonlocality not merely in \emph{space} but in \emph{time}.
Moreover, this nonlocality in time will also have a retrocausal nature in some frames of reference. For example, suppose we postulate that there is an influence from $B$ to $C$ in figure \ref{prep}. But there are many reference frames in which $C$ is in the past of $B$, so in those reference frames this influence will be retrocausal. Clearly the same is true if we say the influence is from $C$ to $B$ instead, or indeed if we say that it goes both ways: there is no relativistically covariant way to guarantee that the influence will always go forward in time.
Now, this demonstrates the existence of temporal nonlocality and retrocausality only between spacelike separated events, and one might well feel that since spacelike separated events have no well-defined temporal order this doesn't count as retrocausality in any strong sense. We can of course rearrange our experiment such that $C$ is in the future lightcone of $B$, but in that case it is no longer strictly necessary for us to postulate any kind of nonlocality, since we can always suppose that there is some physical signal travelling from $B$ to $C$. However, this way out entails accepting that the underlying mechanism by which the correlations are brought about changes when we move $B$ into the future lightcone, even though the correlations are exactly the same. This contravenes the common sense notion sometimes known as `ontic equivalence,' i.e. the idea that if two processes produce the same operational statistics, they should where possible be attributed to the same kind of underlying mechanism\cite{Spekkens}. There are cases within quantum mechanics where it appears that we have to violate ontic equivalence (this is essentially the content of the contextuality theorems\cite{Spekkens}) but this does not appear to be one of those cases - the asymmetry can easily be removed by supposing that the same nonlocal mechanism operates in both cases, and therefore it seems we have good reason to make that supposition. Indeed, since the particle at point $B$ has no way to know whether or not $C$ is in its future lightcone at the time of the measurement unless the particle at position $C$ sends some sort of retrocausal signal back to position $B$, it follows that if we want to avoid timelike retrocausality we would have to suppose that when $B$ is measured it \emph{both} sends a nonlocal influence directly to $C$ and \emph{also} broadcasts a physical signal into the whole of its future lightcone just in case $C$ is to be found there; and then since we know that the nonlocal influence is sufficient to produce the observed correlations, this physical signal seems superfluous, unless we are supposed to imagine that simply being in the future lightcone of $B$ somehow blocks the particle at $C$ from being affected by this nonlocal influence. Moreoever, once we have accepted the existence of nonlocal influences across spacelike separations, we have already admitted such influences into our ontology and therefore there seems much less reason to object to the possible existence of such influences across timelike separations.
So far this argument gets us only to the existence of temporally non-local influences across timelike separations: we have not shown that these influences must be retrocausal. However, returning to the spacelike separated case, observe that if the particles employed in the experiment are maximally entangled, there's no operational difference between them and so we can't appeal to the statistics to determine which measurement `causes' the result of the other. Nor can we appeal to time-ordering, since there is no relativistically covariant way to determine time-ordering in the case of spacelike-separated events. We can't even choose the direction of causality at random - any choice of probability distribution would look biased in some reference frames. So it seems that if we are determined to avoid preferred reference frames we can't hold that one measurement causes the result of the other and not vice versa. Instead we must maintain that the two particles undergo a kind of non-local joint coordination - their correlations are fixed `all-at-once' rather than in some particular sequence, so the effect of the particles on one another is perfectly reciprocal. The same conclusion is reached in ref \cite{almada2015retrocausal}, which argues that choosing one of the measurements to be the cause of the other breaks the operational symmetry of the scenario, and argues that `\emph{If this broken symmetry is restored,
where influence is always allowed to go both ways (no matter when the measurements
occur), then these models become retrocausal as well as superluminal.}'
Finally, since we have already argued that if possible we should suppose that the same mechanism is in operation when the measurements are performed at a timelike separation, it follows that when $C$ is in the future lightcone of $B$ the correlations still arise from non-local joint coordination and thus the particles have a reciprocal effect on one another - that is, $B$ has an influence on $C$ but also $C$ has an influence on $B$, so we do indeed have retrocausality. This form of retrocausality, however, is not mediated via any beables lying along continuous spacetime pathways: it is a natural consequence of the kind of `all-at-once' picture that we discussed in section \ref{AVD}. (As we noted earlier in the paper, one might well feel that this kind of all-at-once, reciprocal influence is not really `causal' in nature - we are not committed to the claim that it is `causal' in any strong sense, but since it involves some kind of backwards in time influence, it qualifies as `retrocausal' in the very general sense in which we have been using that term).
We summarise the structure of this argument now:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe (either observable or unobservable) - i.e. there is relativistic covariance at all levels of reality
\item Suppose that when an EPR experiment as in fig \ref{prep} is performed with $B$ and $C$ at a spacelike separation, the correlations are explained by a non-local influence between $B$ and $C$
\item There is no relativistically covariant way to decide whether the nonlocal influence in an EPR experiment goes from $B$ to $C$ or vice versa
\begin{enumerate}
\item 1), 2) and 3) together entail that in an EPR experiment there is a nonlocal influence between the measurements at $B$ and $C$ which is \emph{reciprocal} - i.e. the influence is from $B$ to $C$ and also from $C$ to $B$
\end{enumerate}
\item Suppose the ontic equivalence principle is valid: where possible, two processes which produce the same operational statisticsshould be attributed to the same kind of underlying mechanism
\item The operational statistics for an EPR experiment as in fig \ref{prep} are the same regardless of whether $B$ and $C$ are at a spacelike separation or $C$ is in the future lightcone of $B$
\begin{enumerate}
\item 4) and 5) together entail that we should assume the underlying mechanism responsible for the EPR correlations is the same regardless of whether $B$ and $C$ are at a spacelike separation or $C$ is in the future lightcone of $B$
\end{enumerate}
\item 3a) and 5a) together entail that when an EPR experiment as in fig \ref{prep} is performed with $C$ in the future lightcone of $B$, the measurements have a reciprocal influence on one another.
\item 6) entails that when $C$ is in the future lightcone of $B$, it has a `retrocausal' influence on the measurement at $B$; so timelike retrocausality exists
\end{enumerate}
This argument gives us reason to believe in the existence of timelike retrocausality in the case of entangled particles; in and of itself it doesn't entail that retrocausality is in action for other sorts of systems. However, someone who accepts the conclusion of this argument might well think seriously about allowing retrocausality in other contexts as well. First of all, one major motivation for avoiding retrocausal models in science is the conviction that retrocausality is the kind of thing that simply can't happen, either because it's logically impossible (as it leads to logical paradoxes, or it is ruled out by the definition of causality) or because it's nomically impossible (because bringing about retrocausality is not a nomic power which exists within our world). But if we accept that there is timelike retrocausality in the case of entangled particles, we must acknowledge that retrocausality (in the general sense in which we have used the term here) is both logically and nomically possible, and thus one major obstacle to postulating retrocausal models has been removed.
Second, we've already argued that the `all-at-once' approach to retrocausality is more coherent than dynamical retrocausality approaches, and moreover given the reciprocal nature of the dependence we've postulated for entangled particles, it seems the behaviour of the entangled particles is most naturally understood in an `all-at-once' picture. But it's difficult to imagine how one could possibly combine an `all-at-once' model for entangled particles with a standard `forwards time evolution' picture for everything else, because entangled particles are not separable from the rest of reality: the behaviour of entangled particles is determined by classical objects (since we prepare entangled particles with classical devices) and in turn the entangled particles affect classical objects (since we measure entangled particles with classical devices). So we can't do the `all-at-once' calculation for entangled particles without first knowing about the behaviour of various classical objects throughout history, but we can't get to the end of the evolution of the classical objects without knowing where the `all-at-once' calculation leaves the entangled particles. Thus the natural solution is to assume that the `all-at-once' approach applies to the entire contents of reality, meaning that retrocausality applies to everything, even if it's less noticeable for classical objects. The specific way in which retrocausality is manifested for systems other than entangled particles would depend on the details of the particular retrocausal model under examination, and since most existing retrocausal models take classical objects as primitives they don't yet seek to address this question, but nonetheless this way of thinking does lead naturally to the conclusion that retrocausality (in the generalised sense used throughout this article) is probably a generic feature of reality.
Third, we can make a version of the argument of ref \cite{Evans_2013} discussed in section \ref{symmetry}, flipping the conclusion as suggested in that section to maintain that in fact even the straightforward single-photon experiment discussed in that paper should be thought of as involving nonlocality and retrocausality. Moreover, it's in fact generically true that EPR-style experiments involving entangled particles can be translated into prepare-transform-measure scenarios which give rise to the same operational statistics: this is a consequence of the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism and the operational interpretation of it set out in refs \cite{Leifer22} and \cite{e22091063}. So if we accept the ontic equivalence principle, and we accept that experiments involving entangled particles involve nonlocality and retrocausality, we have good reason to accept that a large variety of prepare-transform-measure scenarios in quantum mechanics also involve nonlocality and retrocausality.
\section{Conclusion}
In this article we have argued that using retrocausality to restore locality is the wrong motivation; including mediating beables in our retrocausal model does not seem to bring any concrete benefits and in any case such continuous paths are redundant both within the Humean approach to modality and within the all-at-once approach to retrocausality which seems most plausible and coherent for realists about modality.
Given the importance of modal structure for this analysis, it's worth remarking that the community's continued insistence on mediating beables may arise in part because proponents of retrocausality have an insufficiently robust approach to modality: those who are uncertain about the existence of modal structure as distinct from physical reality may feel that dependence relations need to be made physical via continuous spacetime paths or else they can't be `real.' But if there is no such thing as objective modal structure then the entities moving along these continuous spacetime paths can't have any modal or nomic power to make anything happen in any case, so the continuous spacetime paths don't actually help the situation for sceptics about modality. If you don't believe in objective modal structure then there can be no need for local physical processes to mediate modal relations; and if you do believe in objective modal structure then there seems to be no obvious reason to demand that it must always be mediated by local physical processes.
Let us finish by making some concrete suggestions for the retrocausal research programme in light of the conclusions reached here. One important point is that proponents of retrocausality might actually find that their positions look stronger if they stop making arguments based on locality. For the evident conflict between the `continuous path' picture and the `all-at-once' metaphysics needed for a reasonable account of retrocausality may contribute to an impression of philosophical incoherence; abandoning continuous paths therefore has the potential to make retrocausality more appealing to a wider audience.
Another important consequence of our argument is that the retrocausal research programme could benefit from a shift in focus. Up until now retrocausal models have largely focused on modelling the retrocausal process - for example, in terms of offer waves and confirmation waves in the transactional interpretation, or the interaction of a forwards and backwards evolving state in the two-state vector interpretation. But in view of the conclusions of this article, it may be that focusing entirely on the nature of the retrocausal process is something of a blind alley - if the `process' is actually a pure modal relation, it is not really located in spacetime and therefore puzzling over how it could be located in spacetime isn't the right question to ask. Note that we don't mean to suggest that models exhibiting continuous action should be actively avoided; in any explicit retrocausal model it will be necessary to formalise the modal relationships between different events in some way or other, and it may well turn out that the easiest way to do so is to write down models based on continuous paths through spacetime, with the proviso that those paths are not to be taken entirely literally. But we do contend that demonstrating consistency with continuous action should not be the main priority for the retrocausal research programme.
So what \emph{should} the priorities be? Well, as noted in section \ref{ontology}, most existing retrocausal models take macroscopic objects as primitives, but clearly at some point we'd like to understand how these macroscopic objects arise from fundamental ontology. Tackling this question may potentially lead to interesting new directions for the retrocausal research programme. One retrocausal approach which does attempt to address this sort of question is Kent's `solution to the Lorentzian quantum reality problem'\cite{Kent,2015KentL,2017}. Kent doesn't use the term `retrocausal,' but his models are certainly retrocausal in the general sense in which we've used the term in this article, since they tell us that the content of reality depends on the result of a `measurement' at the end of time. This approach offers an ingenious solution to the problem of establishing an ontology: effectively, events occur if and only if there is a record of them in the initial and/or final state of the universe. In particular, since measuring instruments are macroscopic objects, the result recorded by a measuring device quickly spreads out into the environment by means of decoherence and thus it can't realistically be erased, so there is always a record of a measurement result in the final state of the universe and therefore measuring instruments and measurement results feature in the ontology in a straightforward way. We don't have space to examine this approach in detail in this article, but whether or not Kent's proposed solution is the right one, we contend that he is addressing the right problem.
In a similar vein, in our view the strongest argument in favour of local theories, as described in section \ref{reasons}, is the idea that postulating locality at the fundamental level helps to explain the appearance of locality in the classical world and/or the fact that the principle of locality has been scientifically successful. But we have seen that postulating locality in the CA sense \emph{together with retrocausality} undercuts that explanation, since retrocausal models are designed to produce the appearance of nonlocality and thus in such models the locality at a fundamental level no longer explains the general appearance of locality in the classical world: that work is done by the constraints the retrocausal model places on the allowed retrocausal effects. Moreover, a very similar criticism will apply to any other approach which attempts to explain the appearance of macroscopic locality by rescuing locality at a fundamental level, such as superdeterminism - any such approach will have to come up with some method of producing the appearance of nonlocality in Bell inequality violations, and will therefore still have to explain why this method can't be used to produce much more widespread nonlocality. This suggests that it is a crucial problem both for the retrocausal research programme and for other interpretative approaches to explain why the classical world largely looks local despite the existence of mechanisms to produce correlations which are nonlocal in the Bell sense. Many current retrocausal models have no real explanation for this feature - they simply adopt some mathematical machinery from quantum mechanics which automatically has the consequence that nonlocality is limited in specific ways, but they make no attempt to explain why this particular machinery is suitable. Obviously, as ref \cite{hance2021wavefunction} points out, standard quantum mechanics doesn't explain this either and therefore other interpretative approaches are not doing any worse if they fail to explain it, but that seems like an inadequate response - the point of working on interpretations of quantum mechanics is precisely to explain things that standard QM fails to explain. Our view is that explaining the appearance of locality in the classical world and QFT is a more urgent and interesting question than attempting to rescue locality with retrocausality.
\section{Acknowledgements}
Thanks to participants in the `Quantizing Time' workshop, and particularly Ken Wharton, for discussions which inspired some parts of this article.
\vspace{2mm}
This publication was made possible through the support of the ID 61466 grant from the John Templeton Foundation, as part of the “The Quantum Information Structure of Spacetime (QISS)” Project (qiss.fr). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
With ever-increasing complexity of modern scientific research, today's high performance computing (HPC) applications and advanced instruments are producing extremely large volumes of data in their simulations or experiments. Hardware/Hybrid Accelerated Cosmology Code (HACC) \cite{hacc}, for example, could produce 20TB of simulation data at only one run with hundreds of simulation iterations and trillions of particles to involve.
During the past five years, quite a few outstanding error-bounded lossy compressors have been developed to resolve the big data issue, however, the compression/decompression throughput is still far lower than the target performance demanded by many use-cases, such as instrument data compression and in-memory compression. Linear Coherent Light Source (LCLS-II) \cite{lcls-ii} could generate the instrument data at a rate of 250GB/s \cite{use-case}, and these data need to be stored and transferred to a parallel file system (FPS) timely for post hoc analysis. By comparison, the single-core CPU performance of existing lossy compressors is generally only 200$\sim$400MBs \cite{sz17,Xin-bigdata18} and the GPU performance is only 10$\sim$66GB/s \cite{cusz,cuZFP}, which has also been verified in our experiments. Another typical example is exa-scale parallel quantum computing (QC) simulation, which requires a fairly large memory capacity (e.g., $2^{58}$$\approx$256PB when simulating 50 qubits each with a double precision) for each run in practice \cite{qc-comp}. In order to reduce memory requirement significantly, the QC simulation researchers \cite{qc-comp} have developed a method to store the lossy-compressed data in memory and decompress them whenever needed in the course of the simulation, while suffering from considerable overhead in simulation time (even up to $\sim$20$\times$ in worst case), which is totally undesired by users.
In this paper, we focus on how to significantly accelerate both compression and decompression performance for error-bounded lossy compression while keeping a certain high compression ratio, which faces two grand challenges to resolve. On the one hand, in order to pursue the ultra-high lossy compression/decompression performance, we have to strict the whole design to be limited to only super-lightweight operations including addition/subtraction/bitwise operations, which is a serious challenge. Specifically, the relatively expensive operations such as multiplication and division should be suppressed because of its significantly higher cost. All of the existing efficient error-bounded lossy compressors, however, depend on such expensive operations. For instance, SZ2.1 \cite{Xin-bigdata18} relies on the linear regression prediction, which involves masses of multiplications to compute the coefficients. Moreover, SZ2.1 relies on a linear-scale quantization to control the user-specified error bound, which involves a division operation (\textit{quantzation\_bin}=$[\frac{prediction\_error}{2\cdot error\_bound}+\frac{1}{2}]$ \cite{tpds-point-wise}) on each data point. ZFP \cite{zfp} is another state-of-the-art error-bounded lossy compressor, which is designed based on the data transform, also involving masses of matrix-multiplication operations. On the other hand, how to optimize the performance to adapt to different device architectures is very challenging, because it requires fairly detailed and non-trivial performance tuning in the regard of practical experiments with numerous real-world scientific datasets across different domains.
To address the above serious challenges, we propose a novel, \textbf{U}ltra-\textbf{F}ast error-bounded lossy \textbf{C}ompression framework -- namely \textit{\projectName}, which can also be extended/implemented efficiently for different devices such as CPU and GPU. The key contributions are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We develop {\projectName}, which composes only lightweight operations such as bitwise operation, addition and subtraction. {\projectName} also supports strict control of the compression errors within user-specified error bound, thanks to our elaborate design in its error-control mechanism.
\item We implement {\projectName} for CPU and GPU accelerator, and also optimize their performances carefully based on these device architectures, respectively.
\item We comprehensively evaluate {\projectName} by running it with 6 real-world scientific datasets on heterogeneous compute nodes offered by different supercomputers including ORNL Summit and ANL ThetaGPU. We rigorously compare {\projectName} to two state-of-the-art lossy compressors SZ and ZFP, as well as their GPU versions -- cuSZ, cuZFP.
\item Experiments show that {\projectName} is 2$\sim$5$\times$ as fast as the second-best existing error-bounded lossy compressor on CPU and 5$\sim$10$\times$ as fast as the second-best on GPU, with respect to both compression and decompression. At such a high performance, {\projectName} can still get a very nice compression ratio (3$\sim$12 for the overall compression ratio of each application; and up to 124 for the compression ratio of specific field) with good reconstructed data quality.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:relate}, we discuss related work. In Section \ref{sec:design}, we present the design overview of our ultra-fast error-bounded lossy compression framework. In Section \ref{sec:optimization}, we propose optimization strategies in improving the performance for different devises including CPU and GPU. In Section \ref{sec:evaluation}, we present and discuss the performance evaluation results. Finally, we conclude the paper with a vision of the future work in Section \ref{sec:con}.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:relate}
Basically, high-speed scientific data compression can be split into two categories - lossless compression and lossy compression, which will be discussed in the following text, especially in the regard of performance/speed.
High-speed lossless compressors have been developed in particular because of the strong demand on compression performance in many use-cases. Facebook Zstd \cite{zstd}, for example, was developed particularly for the sake of high performance, with very similar compression ratios compared with other state-of-the-art lossless compressors such as Zlib \cite{zlib} and Gzip \cite{gzip}. In general, Zstd could be 5$\sim$6$\times$ faster than Zlib as shown in \cite{zstd}, such that it has been widely integrated/used in 80+ production-level software/libraries/platforms.
Unfortunately, Zstd supports only lossless compression, which would suffer very low compression ratios (1.2$\sim$2 in most of cases) when compressing scientific datasets that are mainly composed of floating-point values (to be shown later).
High-speed lossy compression has also gained significant attentions by compressor developers or scientific applications/researchers. SZ \cite{sz16,sz17,Xin-bigdata18} is a typical fast error-bounded lossy compressor, which can reach 200$\sim$300MB/s in compression and decompression speed \cite{sz16,sz17, Xin-bigdata18}. However, it is still not as fast as expected by the quantum computing simulations \cite{qc-comp}, so a faster lossy compression method (namely \textit{QCZ} in the following text) was customized with comparable compression ratios (especially for a high-precision compression with relative error bound of 1E-4 or 1E-5). ZFP \cite{zfp} is another fast error-bounded lossy compressor, which is well known for its relatively high compression ratios and fairly high compression speed in both CPU and GPU. Based on our experiments (to be shown later), ZFP and QCZ has comparable compression speed, and they are generally 1.5$\sim$2$\times$ as fast as SZ. In fact, SZ already has a fairly high performance compared with other compressors as demonstrated in literature: it has a comparable performance with FPZIP \cite{fpzip} and SZauto \cite{szauto} and about one to two orders of magnitude higher performance than ISABELA \cite{isabela}, MGARD \cite{mgard} and TTHRESH \cite{tthresh}.
Because of the high demand on ultra-fast error-bounded lossy compressors, a few specific error-controlled lossy compression algorithms have been developed for GPU accelerators in particular, and cuSZ \cite{cusz} and cuZFP \cite{cuZFP} are two leading ones.
The cuSZ is the only GPU-based lossy compressor supporting absolute error bound for scientific data compression. It was designed based on the classic prediction-based compression model SZ and optimized for GPU performance significantly by leveraging a dual-quantization strategy \cite{cusz} to deal with the Lorenzo prediction. Since ZFP's core stage is performing a customized orthogonal data transform that can be executed in the form of matrix-multiplication, cuZFP can leverage high-performance CUDA library to reach a very high throughput. CuZFP, however, does not support error-bounded compression but only fixed-rate compression, which suffers from very low compression ratios, as verified in \cite{fraz}.
In comparison with all the above related works, our proposed {\projectName} is about 2$\sim$5$\times$ as fast as the second-fastest lossy compressor ZFP on CPU and 2$\sim$10$\times$ as fast as the second-fastest (cuSZ) on GPU, also with relatively high compression ratios (3$\sim$12 depending on user's error bound).
\section{Problem Formulation}
\label{sec:problem}
In this section, we formulate the research problem we focus on in this paper: optimization of the error-bounded lossy compression/decompression performance with as high compression ratios as possible. Specifically, given a scientific dataset (denoted by $D$) composed of $N$ data values each denoted by $d_i$, where $i$=1,2,3,$\cdots$,$N$. The objective of our work is to develop an error-bounded lossy compressor with an ultra high performance in both compression and decompression for both CPU and GPU, also strictly respecting the user-required error bound, which can be represented as the following formula.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:formulation}
\begin{array}{l}
\max (CT)\hspace{1mm}and\hspace{1mm}\max (DT) \\
s.t.\hspace{1mm}|d_i - d_i'| \le e \\
\hspace{6mm}C\hspace{-0.2mm}R\hspace{0.7mm}is\hspace{0.7mm}relatively\hspace{0.7mm}high\\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where \emph{CT} and \emph{DT} represent the compression throughput and decompression throughput, respectively; $d_i$ and $d_i'$ denote the original data value and decompressed data value in the dataset, respectively; $e$ is referred to as the user-specified absolute error bound, and \emph{CR} means the compression ratio, which is defined as the ratio of the original data size to the lossy compressed data size. In order to obtain as high performance as possible, the compression ratio (CR) would definitely be not optimal. However, we still hope to get a relatively high CR (expected to be over 5 or 10), which is still much higher than lossless compression ratio (generally 1.2$\sim$2 for scientific data).
The compression throughput and decompression throughput are defined in Formula (\ref{eq:ct}) and Formula (\ref{eq:dt}), respectively.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ct}
C\hspace{-0.1mm}T = (N \cdot b)/{T}
\end{equation}
\vspace{-5mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dt}
D\hspace{-0.1mm}T = (N \cdot b)/{T'}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of data points in the dataset $D$, $b$ represents the number of bytes per value in $D$ (e.g., $b$ = 4 when the original data precision is single-precision floating point); $T$ and $T'$ denote the time cost when compressing the dataset $D$ and the time cost when decompressing the corresponding compressed data, respectively.
In addition to the maximum compression error (i.e., error bound as shown in Formula (\ref{eq:formulation})), we will also evaluate the reconstructed data quality by commonly used statistical data distortion metrics such as Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) \cite{z-checker} and Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM) \cite{ssim}, which have been commonly used in lossy compression and visualization community. In general, the higher the PSNR or the higher the SSIM, the better the reconstructed data quality.
\section{Ultra-fast Error-bounded Lossy Compression Framework -- {\projectName}}
\label{sec:design}
In this section, we present the design overview of our ultra-fast error-bounded lossy compression framework -- {\projectName}. Detailed performance optimization strategies for CPU and GPU will be discussed in next section.
Our design is motivated by the fact that most of the scientific datasets are pretty smooth in space, such that all the values in a small block (e.g., 16 or 32 consecutive data points) are likely very close to each other, thus the mean of the minimal value and maximal value in the block can be used to represent the whole block based on a certain error bound. Figure \ref{fig:vis-smoothness} shows the visualization of four typical fields across from four different real-world simulation datasets (Miranda large-eddy simulation \cite{Miranda}, Nyx cosmology simulation \cite{nyx}, QMCPack quantum chemistry \cite{qmcpack}, and Hurricane climate simulation \cite{hurricane-2004}), clearly demonstrating the high smoothness of the data in local spatial regions. Furthermore, Figure \ref{fig:cdf} shows the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of block's relative value range\footnote{A block's relative value range is defined as the ratio of the block's value range to the dataset's global value range. The reason we check the block's relative value range is that the error-bounded lossy compression is often performed via value-range based relative error bound \cite{z-checker}, where the absolute error bound is calculated based on the dataset's global value range.}. It verifies that the four scientific datasets all exhibit fairly high smoothness of the local data without loss of generality. Specifically, for the Miranda dataset and QMCPack dataset, 80+\% of blocks have very small relative value ranges ($\leq$0.01), when the block size is 8.
\begin{figure}[ht] \centering
\hspace{-8mm}
\subfigure[{Miranda (pressure:slice128)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/Miranda-pressure-slice128-eps-converted-to.eps}}
}
\hspace{-3mm}
\subfigure[{Nyx cosmology (temperature)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/temperature-snapshot200-eps-converted-to.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\hspace{-7mm}
\subfigure[{QMCPack (slice500)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/QMCPack-slice500-eps-converted-to.eps}}
}
\hspace{-3mm}
\subfigure[{Hurricane (U:slice60)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/Hurricane-Uf23-slice60-eps-converted-to.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Demonstrating High Smoothness of Scientific Datasets}
\label{fig:vis-smoothness}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht] \centering
\hspace{-8mm}
\subfigure[{Miranda (pressure:slice128)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/Miranda-pressure-cdf.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\subfigure[{Nyx cosmology (temperature)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/temperature-cdf.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\hspace{-8mm}
\subfigure[{QMCPack (slice500)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/QMCPack-cdf.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\subfigure[{Hurricane (U:slice60)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/Uf23-cdf.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of Block's Value Range}
\label{fig:cdf}
\end{figure}
We design our compressor {\projectName} in terms of the local smoothing feature, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:workflow}. The fundamental idea is organizing the whole dataset as many small 1D blocks (or segments) and checking whether the mean of min and max (denoted by $\mu$) in each block can be used to represent all values in this block with deviations respecting user-specified error bound. If yes, we call this block `constant' block, so we just need to store $\mu$ for this block of data; or else, we compress all the data points in this block by analyzing their IEEE 754 representations in terms of the user-required error bound.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/workflow.eps}
\caption{Design Architecture/Workflow of {\projectName}}
\label{fig:workflow}
\end{figure}
We present the pseudo-code of the skeleton design in Algorithm \ref{alg:design-skeleton} to further describe details. Table \ref{tab:notation} summarizes all key notations to assist understanding of the algorithm.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Key Notations Involved in The ULF Algorithm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
\textbf{Notation} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline
$D$ & The dataset given for compression \\ \hline
$e$ & user-specified error bound
\\ \hline
$d_i$ & the data points in the original raw dataset $D$
\\ \hline
$B_k$ & $k$th block in the dataset
\\ \hline
$\mu_k$ & mean of min and max in Block $k$
\\ \hline
$r_k$ & variation radius of Block $k$
\\ \hline
$R_k$ & the required mantissa bits calculated via $e$ and $\mu_k$ for $B_k$
\\ \hline
$v_i$ & normalized values based on $\mu_k$ in each block $B_k$
\\ \hline
$L_i$ & identical leading bits of $v_i$ compared with $v_{i-1}$
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:notation}
\end{table}
We describe Algorithm \ref{alg:design-skeleton} as follows.
As mentioned previously, the whole dataset is split into many small fixed-size 1D blocks and the compression will be executed block by block (line 2). Because of the high smoothness of data in locality, quite a few data blocks may have the values already respect the error bound based on the mean of min and max (denoted by $\mu$) (line 4$\sim$6), and such blocks are called `constant' blocks, which will be compressed by simply storing the corresponding $\mu$ value.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\textsc{Skeleton Design of {\projectName}}} \label{alg:design-skeleton} \footnotesize
\renewcommand{\algorithmiccomment}[1]{/*#1*/}
\begin{flushleft}
\textbf{Input}: dataset $D$, user-specified error bound $e$, block size (denoted $b$)\\
\textbf{Output}: compressed data stream in form of bytes
\end{flushleft}
\begin{algorithmic} [1]
\STATE $i$ $\leftarrow$ 0, $k$ $\leftarrow$ 0;\COMMENT{Set 0 to all counters}
\FOR{each block $B_k$ with block size $b$}
\STATE Compute $\mu_k$ for $B_k$; \COMMENT{Compute mean of min and max}
\IF{($\forall$$d_i$$\in$$B_k$: $|d_i-\mu_k|\leq e$)}
\STATE $\mu\_$\textit{array} $\leftarrow$ $\mu_k$; \COMMENT{Collect $\mu$ for `constant' blocks}
\ELSE
\STATE Compute required \# mantissa bits (denoted as $R_k$);
\FOR{each normalized value $v_i$ in $B_k$}
\STATE Compute \textit{identical\_leading\_bytes} for $v_i$ and $v_{i-1}$;
\STATE Encode \textit{identical\_leading\_bytes} into \textit{xor\_leadingzero\_array};
\STATE \textit{mb\_array} $\leftarrow$ $R_k$ $-$ $L_i$; \COMMENT{Commit required bits excluding $L$}
\ENDFOR
\ENDIF
\STATE Aggregate output: $\mu\_$\textit{array}, \textit{xor\_leadingzero\_array}, \textit{mb\_array};
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
For each of the non-constant blocks, we first normalize the data by subtracting the variation radius of the block (i.e, mean of min and max for the data in the block), and then compress each such normalized value by IEEE 754 binary representation analysis according to the following three steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Line 7}: We compute the required number of mantissa bits (denoted as $R_k$) based on user-specified error bound, by the following formula.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:required-bits}
\hspace{-12mm}
R_k \hspace{-1mm} = \hspace{-1mm}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\hspace{-2mm}0,\hspace{19mm}p(r _k ) - p(e) \leq 0 \\
\hspace{-2mm}sizeof(type),\hspace{1.5mm}p(r _k ) - p(e) > sizeof(type) \\
\hspace{-2mm}p(r _k ) - p(e),\hspace{4mm}otherwise \\
\end{array} \right.\hspace{-6mm}
\end{equation}
where $p(x)$ denotes getting the exponent of the number $x$ , $r_k$ denotes the variation radius of data in the block $k$, and sizeof(type) refers to the length of the data type (e.g., 32bits for single-precision floating-point type).
The idea is normalizing the data values by subtracting the mean of min and max, such that the maximum exponent of each normalized value is foreseeable and thus the required mantissa bits are estimable by combining the exponent of the error bound value $e$.
\item \textbf{Line 9}: Compute identical leading bytes by an XOR operation between the normalized data value $v_i$ and its preceding data value $v_{i-1}$. The number of leading zeros after the XOR operation indicates the number of identical leading bytes between the two data points.
\item \textbf{Line 10}: We encode the number of identical leading bytes for each data point by a 2-bit code: 00, 01, 10, and 11 corresponds to 0, 1, 2, and 3 identical leading bytes, respectively. We use a 2-bit-per-value array (called \textit{xor\_leadingzero\_array}) to carry these 2-bit codes, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:mb_array}.
\item \textbf{Line 11}: We commit the necessary mantissa bits, i.e., error-bounded based required bits (denoted as $R_k$) excluding identical leading bytes (denoted by $L_i$, a.k.a, \textit{mid-bytes}), to a particular mantissa bit array (denoted as \textit{mb\_array}), as shown in Figure \ref{fig:mb_array}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/mb_array.eps}
\caption{Compressing non-constant block by binary representation analysis: suppose three adjacent normalized values in a non-constant block are 0.1234, 0.1235, and 0.1211, respectively.}
\label{fig:mb_array}
\end{figure}
\section{Performance Optimization for Various Devices}
\label{sec:optimization}
In this section, we describe our specific performance optimization strategies for CPU and GPU, respectively.
\subsection{Performance Optimization for CPU}
\label{sec:perfopt}
In this subsection, we describe how to accelerate the {\projectName} in our CPU code by an efficient bitwise right shifting operation, which mainly involves the line 7$\sim$12 in Algorithm \ref{alg:design-skeleton}. This is a fundamental optimization strategy which can also be applied in other devices/accelerators such as GPU. In what follows, we first describe a potential performance issue in the {\projectName} design, followed by our optimization solution thereafter.
As illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:cpu-perf-opt}, the mantissa bits that need to be stored for the normalized value $v_i$ should exclude the identical bytes $L_i$ and the insignificant bits which are calculated based on the user-specified error bound and variation radius of the corresponding block. The number of such necessary mantissa bits is generally not a multiple of 8 (to be verified later), so that committing/storing these bits in the compressed data requires specific bitwise operation strategies.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/CPU-perf-opt.eps}
\caption{Illustration of 3 Ways to Store Necessary Mantissa Bits (Solution C is our performance optimization strategy)}
\label{fig:cpu-perf-opt}
\end{figure}
Storing a short bit-array with an arbitrary number of bits is a very common operation in lossy compression. The most straight-forward solution (Solution A as shown in Figure \ref{fig:cpu-perf-opt}) is treating the given bit-array as a particular integer, and populate the target bit-stream pool (i.e., mb-array in the figure) by applying a couple of bit-wise operations (such as bit-shift, bit-and and bit-or) on the integer number. Many lossy compressors store the arbitrary bits in this way, such as Pastri \cite{pastri}. An alternative solution (Solution B as shown in Figure \ref{fig:cpu-perf-opt}) is splitting the necessary bits into two parts -- a number of necessary bytes ($\alpha$ bytes) + a few residual bits ($\beta$ bits), which was adopted by SZ \cite{sz16,tpds-point-wise}. In this solution, the residual bits with varied number of bits still need to be gathered in a target array by a set of bit-wise operations.
By comparison, we develop an ultra-fast method (solution C as shown in Figure \ref{fig:cpu-perf-opt}) to deal with the necessary bits very efficiently. The basic idea is bitwise right-shifting the normalized value by $s$ bits, where $s$ is given in Formula (\ref{eq:rightshift}), such that the number of the necessary bits to be stored is always a multiple of 8. As such, the necessary mantissa bits can be represented by an integer number of bytes, with eliminated residual bits. In this situation, we just need to use memory copy operation to commit the necessary bits to one byte-array, which would be fairly fast.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rightshift}
s = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
0,\hspace{18mm}R_k\% 8 = 0 \\
8 - R_k\% 8,\hspace{4.5mm}R_k\% 8 \ne 0 \\
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Investigating Space Overhead of Bitwise Right-Shifting}
Note that the bitwise right-shifting operation may increase the total number of required bits to store, thus reducing the compression ratios in turn. In the following text, we will show that the increased number of bits per value because of the bitwise right-shifting operation is very limited compared with the compressed data size, thanks to the design of identical leading bytes. That being said, such a space overhead introduced to compressed data size is negligible in most cases. In fact, although the bitwise right-shifting operation may increase the required number of bits, this operation may also potentially increase the number of identical leading bytes, such that some necessary bits could be ``recorded'' by the identical leading array instead. In other words, after the bitwise right-shifting operation, the necessary bits tend to increase on the right end but tend to decrease on its left end, which forms a counteraction to a certain extent.
We use Figure \ref{fig:space-overhead} (based on two real-world simulation datasets with different value range based error bounds \cite{z-checker}) to show the specific space overhead of our solution designed with bitwise right-shifting operation, as compared with the compressed data size. Specifically, the space overhead is defined as the ratio of the increased storage space introduced by the bitwise right-shifting method to the compressed data size, as presented in Formula (\ref{eq:space-overhead}).
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:space-overhead}
Overhead = \frac{\sum\limits_{v_i\in D}{(R_k+s-L_i')}-\sum\limits_{v_i\in D}{(R_k-L_i)}}{D_{size}/C\hspace{-0.4mm}R}
\end{equation}
where CR is compression ratio, $D_{size}$ refers to the original data size (thus $D_{size}$/CR means compressed data size), $\sum\limits_{v_i\in D}{(R_k+s-L_i')}$ refers to the total amount of necessary bytes to store under the Solution C (our solution), and $\sum\limits_{v_i\in D}{(R_k-L_i)}$ refers to the total amount of necessary bytes to store by Solution A or B.
\begin{figure}[ht] \centering
\hspace{-8mm}
\subfigure[{Hurricane-ISABEL ($e$=1E-3)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/Hurricane-rawdata_1E-3-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-7mm}
\subfigure[{Miranda ($e$=1E-3)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/Miranda_1E-3-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\hspace{-8mm}
\subfigure[{Hurricane-ISABEL ($e$=1E-4)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/Hurricane-rawdata_1E-4-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-6mm}
\subfigure[{Miranda ($e$=1E-4)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/Miranda_1E-4-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\hspace{-8mm}
\subfigure[{Hurricane-ISABEL ($e$=1E-5)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/Hurricane-rawdata_1E-5-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-6mm}
\subfigure[{Miranda ($e$=1E-5)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{figures/Miranda_1E-5-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Space overhead of bitwise right-shifting used in {\projectName}, showing the min, 2nd-min, avg, 2nd-max, and max overhead for two application datasets each with multiple fields}
\label{fig:space-overhead}
\end{figure}
According to Figure \ref{fig:space-overhead} which involves a total of about 100 different fields across these two applications, it is clearly observed that the space overhead is always lower than 12\% for all the fields, and average overhead for each case (with a specific block size) is always around or lower than 5\% compared with the compressed data size. We give an example to further explain how small the overhead is as follows. Specifically, for the field `density' in the Miranda simulation dataset, the original data size is 256$\times$384$\times$384$\times$bytes = 144MB, the compression ratio of {\projectName} is 9.923, so the compressed data size is about 15.2MB. Our characterization shows that Solution B and Solution C lead to 81,340,334 necessary bits (i.e., 10,167,542 bytes) and 83,054,120 necessary bits (i.e., 10,381,765 bytes), respectively, which means the overhead is only $\frac{10,381,765-10,167,542}{15.2MB}$=1.4\% for this field.
\subsubsection{Exploring The Optimal Block Size}
Different block sizes may affect the compressed data sizes (i.e., compression ratios) significantly, thus it is necessary to investigate the most appropriate setting about block size for the {\projectName}. As described previously, there are two types of the blocks in the design, which are called `constant' blocks (line 4$\sim$5 in Algorithm \ref{alg:design-skeleton}) and `nonconstant' blocks (line 6$\sim$12 in Algorithm \ref{alg:design-skeleton}), respectively. Before exploring the optimal block size, we need to understand how the two types of blocks contribute to the compressed data size (or compression ratios), which are analyzed as follows (with three \textit{impact factor}s summarized).
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Analysis of Constant Blocks} Constant blocks refer to the blocks each of which can be approximated by using one data value $\mu_k$ (i.e., mean of min and max). As such, the smaller block size, the more data points to be included in the constant blocks, because of the finer-grained block-wise processing, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:constant-block} (a). As shown in the figure, the first set of 8 data points can form a constant block because of relatively small block size. In this sense, the compression ratio tend to increase with decreasing block size because all the values within the constant block can be approximated by one value (i.e., $\mu_k$), which is called \textbf{impact factor} \circled{A} in the following text.
However, since each constant block needs to store a constant value $\mu_k$ in the compressed data, the smaller block size, the larger number of $\mu_k$ to be stored, which may also decrease the compression ratio in turn, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:constant-block} (b). We call this phenomenon \textbf{impact factor} \circled{B}. Specifically, for the relatively smooth regions in the dataset, the algorithm still needs to store multiple $\mu_k$s even though a large number of adjacent data points could be approximated by only one uniform value instead. This may introduce significant overhead because of extra unnecessary $\mu_k$ to store, thus leading to the lower compression ratios.
\begin{figure}[ht] \centering
\subfigure[{Pros of Small Block Size}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{figures/Fine-grain-constant-block-pros.eps}}
}
\hspace{1mm}\subfigure[{Cons of Small Block Size}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{figures/Fine-grain-constant-block-cons.eps}}
}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Constant block's pros and cons when block size is small}
\label{fig:constant-block}
\end{figure}
\item \textit{Analysis of Nonconstant Blocks} On the one hand, the impact factor \circled{B} also applies on nonconstant blocks as they also need to store $\mu$ for data denormalization during the decompression. On the other hand, smaller block size may tend to get higher compression ratios, because of the following reason (we call it \textbf{impact factor} \circled{C}). In fact, the smaller block size, the smaller variation in the block (i.e., smaller $\mu_k$), and thus the fewer necessary bits to store. Specifically, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:constant-block} (a), the first 8-point block has much smaller data variation than the other one, so that the corresponding required exponent would be smaller, leading to fewer required mantissa bits (according to Formula (\ref{eq:required-bits})).
\end{itemize}
Based on the above analysis, different block sizes may have distinct pros and cons to the compression quality in the regard of the two different types of blocks. It is not obvious what block size can get the best compression quality. In what follows, we explore the best block size setting by characterizing the compression ratios and Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) with different block sizes, as presented in Figure \ref{fig:block-ratio-psnr}. PSNR is a critical lossy compression data quality assessment metric, which has been widely used in the lossy compression and visualization community \cite{z-checker, sz16,sz17,szauto,zfp}. PSNR is defined in Formula (\ref{eq:psnr}).
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psnr}
psnr = 20\log_{10}\frac{(d_{\max}-d_{\min})}{\sqrt{MSE}}
\end{equation}
where $d_{min}$ and $d_{max}$ are the min value and max value in the dataset $D$, and MSE refers to the mean squared error between the original dataset $D$ and reconstructed dataset $D'$. The higher PSNR, the higher precision of the reconstructed data.
\begin{figure}[ht] \centering
\hspace{-8mm}
\subfigure[{CR ($e$=1E-3)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/Miranda-CR_1E-3.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\subfigure[{CR ($e$=1E-4)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/Miranda-CR_1E-4.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\hspace{-8mm}
\subfigure[{PSNR ($e$=1E-3)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/Miranda-PSNR_1E-3.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\subfigure[{PSNR ($e$=1E-4)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/Miranda-PSNR_1E-4.eps}}
}
\hspace{-10mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Compression quality of Miranda data with various block sizes}
\label{fig:block-ratio-psnr}
\end{figure}
In the exploration, we checked many different error bounds from 1E-3 through 1E-6. Because of space limit, we present in Figure \ref{fig:block-ratio-psnr} only the results about the value range based error bound of 1E-3 and 1E-4, which compress 7 fields of the Miranda simulation dataset by {\projectName}. Other error bounds and datasets exhibit very similar results.
From Figure \ref{fig:block-ratio-psnr}, we can observe that the compression ratio increases with block size in most of cases, while the PSNR always stays at the same level across different block size settings. This motivates us the best block size is 128 based on such a comprehensive characterization covering multiple applications and error bounds. This characterization also indicates that the \textbf{impact factor} \circled{B} dominates the overall compression ratios, because this is the only factor that may enhance the compression ratio with increasing block size.
\subsection{Performance Optimization for GPU}
In this section, we describe our design and implementation for the cu{\projectName} - CUDA GPU version of {\projectName}. {\projectName} is
considered as an irregular application to the GPU platforms due to the data dependencies
in both the compression and decompression. In order to maximize the utilization of
the GPU computing capacity, algorithmic adjustments and architecture-specific optimizations
for the cu{\projectName} are needed.
\noindent\textbf{Compression}: The basic design of cu{\projectName}'s compression is that each CUDA thread-block
handles one data-block. A thread-block is configured in two-dimensions. The data-block size is
chosen as a multiple of warp size to optimize the performance. There are two phases during
the cu{\projectName} compression. In the first phase, the compressor distinguishes the constant and
non-constant data-blocks by calculating their $\mu$ values and deviation radius. The entire data-block
set is processed by the thread-blocks iteratively. A thread-block with a non-constant
data-block would enter the second phase, whereas the one with a constant data-block would
record the data-block index and then immediately go forward to process the next data-block.
With this fashion, the workload imbalance can be significantly mitigated, in that the number of data-blocks is considerably larger than the number of thread-blocks. We also note that the calculations of min and max value are the main computing workloads during the first phase, and they can be efficiently
parallelized by leveraging the CUDA warp-level operations.
Only the thread-blocks with non-constant data-blocks go through the second phase. In the
second phase, the leading-number-based compression is performed. Performing the computation of \emph{xor\_leadingzero\_array}
and \emph{mb\_array} (a.k.a., mid-bytes) on GPU is straightforward. However, writing the mid-bytes back
to global memory in a compact format is challenging. Unlike the serial implementation,
in cu{\projectName}, the starting address to write mid-bytes of each data-block remains unknown
until the total number of mid-bytes of all its preceding data-blocks is computed. Therefore,
a prefix scan should be performed before writing the mid-bytes to the memory. Prefix-scan
on GPU has been well studied~\cite{scan}. We leverage the classical design and implement
it using 2-level in-warp shuffles.
\noindent\textbf{Decompression}: The basic design of cu{\projectName}'s decompression is similar to
its compression, in which each thread-block handles one data-block. Since the decompression
of the constant data-block is very lightweight, we only decompress the non-constant
data-blocks in GPU. The decompression consists of two components: the leading-byte retrieval
and the mid-byte retrieval. Implementing the latter is relatively straightforward as it
just need to read the bytes from the compressed data. We note that, due to the same
reason as in the compression, a parallel prefix-scan is applied before retrieving the
mid-bytes. However, implementing the leading-byte retrieval is challenging since retrieving
the bytes from the preceding adjacent element no longer works in the parallel environment.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{figures/idx-prop-crop.eps}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Schematic graph showing the index propagation for parallel leading-byte retrievals (assume the number of required bytes for this block is 3).}
\label{fig:idx-prop}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:idx-prop}, we illustrate the challenge by an example (see first row in particular), which displays an eight-element data-block with the mid-bytes highlighted in yellow.
In the serial code, we can retrieve the third leading-byte of the third element (B33) by reading
the mid-byte of the second element (B32) and then subsequently retrieve B34 by reading B33. However,
in the parallel context, B33 and B34 will be simultaneously retrieved, which will cause the read-after-write (RAW)
hazard. The same issue occurs when B27 and B28 are retrieved simultaneously.
To solve the above issue,
the decompression needs to predetermine the mid-byte position each leading-byte should read from.
For example, in this case, both B33 and B34 should read from B32. To this end, we propose
an index-propagation. This algorithm assigns each byte an initial reading-position. The ones for
leading-bytes are the first element's index (1 in the example) while the ones for mid-bytes are
their own elements' indices. Then a parallel interleaved addressing propagation will be
performed to propagate the position values. If the source value greater than the destination
value, the source value will be used as the new reading position for the current byte. With
the interleaved addressing scheme, the propagation complexity is reduced to O(logn). In the running
example, we only need three rounds of shuffles with strides 1, 2, and 4 to finish the propagation.
Notice that we omit the shuffles with stride=4 in Figure \ref{fig:idx-prop} to save space. It does
not change the final position values in this case. After the index-propagation, each leading-byte
knows which mid-byte it should read from to retrieve its value as shown in the last row of Figure \ref{fig:idx-prop}.
\section{Performance Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
In this section, we analyze the evaluation results, which are performed using 6 real-world scientific datasets on heterogeneous devices offered by two different supercomputers.
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
Table \ref{tab:app} describes all the application datasets used in our experiments. All the datasets are downloaded from the well-known scientific data reduction benchmark website \cite{sdrbench}.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Applications (all datasets here are originally stored in single-precision floating-points)}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|l|}
\hline
\textbf{Application} & \textbf{\# fields} &\textbf{Size per field} &\textbf{Description} \\ \hline
CESM-ATM (CE.) \cite{cesm} & 77 &1800$\times$3600 & Atomosphere simulation of Community Earth System Model\\ \hline
Hurricane (Hu.) \cite{hurricane-2004} & 13 &100$\times$500$\times$500 & simulation of Hurricane ISABEL \\ \hline
Miranda (Mi.) \cite{Miranda} & 7 & 256$\times$384$\times$384 &large-eddy simulation of multicomponent flows with turbulent mixing \\ \hline
Nyx (Ny.) \cite{nyx} & 6 & 512$\times$512$\times$512 & adaptive mesh, massively-parallel, cosmological simulation \\ \hline
QMCPack (QM.) \cite{qmcpack} & 2 & 288/816$\times$115$\times$69$\times$69 & simulation for electronic structure of atoms, molecules and solids \\ \hline
SCALE-LetKF (SL.) \cite{scale-letkf} & 12 & 98$\times$1200$\times$1200 & SCALE-RM weather simulation based on LETKF filter \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:app}
\end{table*}
We perform our GPU experiments on both A100 GPU (offered by ANL ThetaGPU \cite{thetaGPU}) and V100 GPU (offered by ORNL Summit \cite{summit}). We perform our CPU experiments on ANL ThetaGPU's compute nodes. We compare our developed ultra-fast compressor {\projectName} with two outstanding lossy compressors -- SZ \cite{sz16,sz17} and ZFP \cite{zfp}, since they are arguably the fastest existing error-bounded compressors based on prior studies \cite{szauto,sz16} and they both have GPU versions that can be compared with our solution {\projectName} in the experiments.
\subsection{Evaluation Results}
First of all, we check the data reconstruction quality under our {\projectName} for all the simulation datasets involved in our experiments. We conclude that the overall visual quality looks great when the value range based error bound (denoted by $REL$) is set to 1E-2$\sim$1E-4 for {\projectName}. Due to space limit, we demonstrate the visual quality, PSNR, and Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) using only the Hurricane-SIABEL simulation dataset (CLOUDf48), as shown in Figure \ref{fig:visualization-hurricane} (compression ratios are 14.6, 18, and 20.64, respectively). We can observe that the reconstructed data's visual quality is pretty high, even zooming in the top-left corn by 50$\times$, though a few artifacts can be seen in the dark blue area of Figure \ref{fig:visualization-hurricane} (d). How to further mitigate or remove artifacts will be our future work.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\hspace{-12mm}
\subfigure[{original data}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.26]{figures/visualization/CLOUDf48-ori-eps-converted-to.eps}}
}
\hspace{-4mm}
\subfigure[{$e$=1E-3,PSNR=74.4,SSIM=0.93}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.26]{figures/visualization/CLOUDf48-szx1E-3-eps-converted-to.eps}}
}
\hspace{-12mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\hspace{-12mm}
\subfigure[{$e$=4E-3,PSNR=62,SSIM=0.89}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.26]{figures/visualization/CLOUDf48-szx4E-3-eps-converted-to.eps}}
}
\hspace{-4mm}
\subfigure[{$e$=1E-2,PSNR=54.6,SSIM=0.865}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.26]{figures/visualization/CLOUDf48-szx1E-2-eps-converted-to.eps}}
}
\hspace{-12mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Visual Quality of {\projectName} on Hurricane-ISABEL Simulation (the compression ratios are 14.6, 18, 20.64, respectively)}
\label{fig:visualization-hurricane}
\end{figure}
We present compression ratios (CR) of the three compressors in Table \ref{tab:cr}, by showing the minimal, overall (i.e., Harmonic mean), and maximum CR, respectively, for all the fields in each application. The table shows that {\projectName} can get very high compression ratios (e.g., 124 for CESM) when REL=1E-2. Its overall compression ratio is 3$\sim$12 in all the cases, which is 0.5$\sim$3$\times$ lower compared with ZFP and 3$\sim$30$\times$ lower compared with SZ. This is reasonable because SZ and ZFP adopt advanced multidimensional data analysis and sophisticated encoding methods, which can get fairly high compression ratios but may suffer lower execution performance on both CPU and GPU in turn (to be shown later). By comparison, the overall compression ratio for the lossless compressor Zstd is only 1.12$\sim$1.49, which is lower than that of {\projectName} by about 200$\sim$400\%.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\footnotesize
\caption{Compression Ratios (Original Data Size / Compressed Data Size)}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.99\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{} & & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{CESM}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Hurricane}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Miranda}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Nyx}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{QMCPack}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Scale-LetKF}} \\ \hline
& \textbf{REL} & min & avg & max & min & avg & max & min & avg & max & min & avg & max & min & avg & max & min & avg & max \\ \hline
& 1E-2 & 4 & 9.1 & 124 & 4 & 6.6 & 21.1 & 8.2 & 11.8 & 16.2 & 4.8 & 11.34 & 124 & 9.2 & 9.4 & 9.7 & 7.6 & 10.6 & 25.2 \\ \cline{2-20}
\textbf{\projectName} & 1E-3 & 2.84 & 4.61 & 19.3 & 2.9 & 4 & 17.6 & 4.5 & 7.2 & 12.5 & 3.2 & 5.9 & 119 & 4.3 & 4.4 & 4.4 & 3.65 & 4.7 & 7.8 \\ \cline{2-20}
& 1E-4 & 2.14 & 3.3 & 17 & 2.1 & 3 & 16.2 & 2.7 & 4.5 & 9.5 & 2.4 & 3.7 & 75 & 2.9 & 2.9 & 2.9 & 2.7 & 3.14 & 5.6 \\ \hline\hline
& 1E-2 & 8 & 13.6 & 46 & 6.4 & 11.3 & 25.8 & 30.5 & 46.6 & 74.6 & 22.5 & 38.8 & 1.1k & 39.1 & 39.2 & 39.4 & 9.4 & 14.5 & 23.8 \\ \cline{2-20}
\textbf{ZFP} & 1E-3 & 4.3 & 7.9 & 30 & 4.3 & 6.7 & 13.2 & 20.6 & 25.6 & 38.5 & 8.2 & 13.1 & 150 & 21 & 21.1 & 21.2 & 6.4 & 7.8 & 13.4 \\ \cline{2-20}
& 1E-4 & 3 & 5.1 & 18.8 & 2.9 & 4.32 & 10.4 & 11 & 14.5 & 22.9 & 4.1 & 6.2 & 74 & 10.3 & 10.3 & 10.4 & 3.9 & 4.6 & 7.7 \\ \hline\hline
& 1E-2 & 34.4 & 151 & 3k & 20.4 & 49.8 & 339 & 92.8 & 126 & 234 & 263 & 507 & 21k & 201 & 213 & 227 & 26.3 & 84 & 746 \\ \cline{2-20}
\textbf{SZ} & 1E-3 & 15.6 & 151 & 840 & 9.24 & 17.5 & 58.8 & 49.6 & 59.5 & 75.2 & 36.7 & 79 & 3.6k & 52 & 54.3 & 56.8 & 18.9 & 26.5 & 140 \\ \cline{2-20}
& 1E-4 & 6.4 & 38.3 & 104 & 5.6 & 9.8 & 31 & 25.1 & 29.6 & 35 & 10.3 & 18.2 & 621 & 18.9 & 19.2 & 19.6 & 10 & 13.9 & 23.1 \\ \hline\hline
\textbf{zstd} & - & 1.03 & 1.44 & 17.1 & 1.08 & 1.49 & 19.56 & 1.6 & 1.21 & 4.86 & 1.08 & 1.12 & 1.14 & 1.18 & 1.19 & 1.2 & 1.08 & 1.37 & 2.95 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\label{tab:cr}
\end{table*}
We present the single-CPU compression throughput and decompression throughput in Table \ref{tab:cr} and Table \ref{tab:dt}, respectively. The numbers shown in the tables are the overall performance considering all the fields for each application. Through the tables, we can observe that our developed {\projectName} compressor significantly outperforms the other two error-bounded lossy compressors in both compression speed and decompression speed. In absolute terms, for compression, {\projectName} is about 2.5$\sim$5$\times$ as fast as ZFP, and about 5$\sim$7$\times$ as fast as SZ. For decompression, {\projectName} is about 2$\sim$4$\times$ as fast as both ZFP and SZ. Such a high performance in {\projectName} is mainly attributed to two factors: (1) the super-lightweight skeleton design (Algorithm \ref{alg:design-skeleton}), and (2) bitwise right-shifting strategy proposed in Section \ref{sec:perfopt}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\footnotesize
\caption{Overall Compression Throughput on CPU (MB/s)}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{} & \textbf{REL} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{CE.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Hu.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Mi.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Ny.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{QM.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{SL.}} \\ \hline
& 1E-2 & 1034 & 796 & 959 & 1087 & 969 & 1032 \\ \cline{2-8}
\textbf{\projectName} & 1E-3 & 822 & 750 & 833 & 877 & 902 & 703 \\ \cline{2-8}
& 1E-4 & 752 & 662 & 807 & 722 & 813 & 663 \\ \hline\hline
& 1E-2 & 392 & 256 & 249 & 418 & 323 & 258 \\ \cline{2-8}
\textbf{ZFP} & 1E-3 & 288 & 213 & 211 & 284 & 275 & 208 \\ \cline{2-8}
& 1E-4 & 234 & 181 & 280 & 226 & 208 & 174 \\ \hline\hline
& 1E-2 & 236 & 193 & 186 & 258 & 205 & 217 \\ \cline{2-8}
\textbf{SZ} & 1E-3 & 170 & 153 & 161 & 229 & 216 & 156 \\ \cline{2-8}
& 1E-4 & 143 & 130 & 139 & 164 & 147 & 124 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:ct}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\footnotesize
\caption{Overall Decompression Throughput on CPU (MB/s)}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{} & \textbf{REL} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{CE.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Hu.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Mi.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Ny.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{QM.}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{SL.}} \\ \hline
& 1E-2 & 1221 & 1085 & 1950 & 1450 & 1292 & 1408 \\ \cline{2-8}
\textbf{\projectName} & 1E-3 & 1022 & 1006 & 1546 & 1218 & 1083 & 975 \\ \cline{2-8}
& 1E-4 & 925 & 864 & 1319 & 956 & 928 & 886 \\ \hline\hline
& 1E-2 & 485 & 476 & 498 & 732 & 685 & 360 \\ \cline{2-8}
\textbf{ZFP} & 1E-3 & 327 & 371 & 401 & 455 & 524 & 395 \\ \cline{2-8}
& 1E-4 & 246 & 297 & 327 & 333 & 376 & 299 \\ \hline\hline
& 1E-2 & 559 & 451 & 549 & 635 & 588 & 519 \\ \cline{2-8}
\textbf{SZ} & 1E-3 & 381 & 291 & 444 & 534 & 462 & 334 \\ \cline{2-8}
& 1E-4 & 269 & 229 & 392 & 359 & 282 & 236 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:dt}
\end{table}
We evaluate the GPU performance for cu\projectName, cuZFP, and cuSZ on two cutting-edge supercomputers -- ANL thetaGPU (A100) and ORNL Summit (V100), respectively. The compression and decompression performance results regarding all the fields of each application are presented in Figure \ref{fig:gpu-CT} and Figure \ref{fig:gpu-DT}, respectively.
According to Figure \ref{fig:gpu-CT}, the peak performance of {\projectName} can reach up to 264GB/s (see Hurricane's result in Figure \ref{fig:gpu-CT} (a)). The overall compression performance of {\projectName} is 150$\sim$216GB/s on thetaGPU and 140$\sim$188GB/s on Summit. By comparison, both cuSZ and cuZFP suffer from very low GPU performance (9.8$\sim$86GB/s on thetaGPU and 12$\sim$52GB/s on Summit).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\hspace{-12mm}
\subfigure[{thetaGPU (A100)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/comp_a100-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-6mm}
\subfigure[{Summit (V100)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/comp_v100-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-12mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Overall Compression Throughput Per GPU (GB/s)}
\label{fig:gpu-CT}
\end{figure}
According to Figure \ref{fig:gpu-DT}, the peak performance of {\projectName} can reach up to 446GB/s (see Miranda's result in Figure \ref{fig:gpu-DT} (a)). The overall decompression performance of {\projectName} is 150$\sim$291GB/s on thetaGPU and 120$\sim$243GB/s on Summit. By comparison, both cuSZ and cuZFP suffer from much lower decompression performance on GPU (9.7$\sim$67GB/s on thetaGPU and 13.7$\sim$48GB/s on Summit).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\hspace{-12mm}
\subfigure[{thetaGPU (A100)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/decomp_a100-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-6mm}
\subfigure[{Summit (V100)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/decomp_v100-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-12mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Overall Decompression Throughput Per GPU (GB/s)}
\label{fig:gpu-DT}
\end{figure}
We also evaluate the overall data dumping/loadling performance on ANL thetaGPU nodes with different execution scales. Specifically, as for the data dumping experiment, we use an MPI code to launch 64$\sim$1024 ranks/cores, each performing a lossy compression using NYX dataset and writing compressed data onto PFS. For the data loading experiment, each MPI rank reads the compressed data from parallel file system (PFS) and then performs decompression. We present the performance breakdown in Figure \ref{fig:test-io} in terms of different value-range based error bounds.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\hspace{-12mm}
\subfigure[{dumping performance (1E-2)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{figures/dump-1E-2-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-6mm}
\subfigure[{loading performance (1E-2)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/load-1E-2-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-12mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\hspace{-12mm}
\subfigure[{dumping performance (1E-3)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/dump-1E-3-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-6mm}
\subfigure[{loading performance (1E-3)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/load-1E-4-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-12mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\hspace{-12mm}
\subfigure[{dumping performance (1E-4)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/dump-1E-4-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-6mm}
\subfigure[{loading performance (1E-4)}]
{
\raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/load-1E-2-a.eps}}
}
\hspace{-12mm}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{Data Dumping/Loading Performance on thetaGPU (NYX dataset)}
\label{fig:test-io}
\end{figure}
Through the figure, we can clearly observe that the {\projectName} obtains the highest overall performance in both data dumping and data loading on thetaGPU. In absolute terms, the solution with {\projectName} takes only $\frac{1}{3}$$\sim$$\frac{1}{2}$ time to dump or load data than other solutions in most cases. That is, the I/O performance is improved by 100\%$\sim$200\% under {\projectName}. The key reason is that the thetaGPU has relatively fast I/O speed, so that the compression/decompression stage turns the key bottleneck at the execution scales in our experiments.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
\label{sec:con}
In this paper, we propose an ultra-fast error-bounded lossy compression framework -- {\projectName}.
We perform comprehensive evaluations using 6 real-world scientific datasets and two cutting-edge supercomputers' heterogeneous resources. The key insights are summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item With the same error bound, {\projectName} has reasonably lower compression ratios than SZ and ZFP does (0.3$\sim$3$\times$ lower than ZFP and 3$\sim$30$\times$ lower than SZ) because it has no sophisticated data prediction/transform step and no expensive encoding algorithms such as Huffman encoding.
\item On CPU: with the same error bound, {\projectName} is 2.5$\sim$5$\times$ as fast as ZFP and 5$\sim$7$\times$ as fast as SZ in compression; {\projectName} is 2$\sim$4$\times$ as fast as both SZ and ZFP in decompression.
\item On GPU: with the same error bound, {\projectName}'s peak performance in compression and decompression on single GPU can reach up to 264GB/s and 446GB/s, respectively. This is 2$\sim$16$\times$ as fast as SZ and ZFP on GPU.
\item When compressing\&writing compressed data to parallel file system (PFS) or reading\&decompressing compressed data from PFS on ANL ThetaGPU with 64$\sim$1024 cores, the overall data dumping/loading performance under {\projectName} is higher than that with SZ or ZFP by 100\%$\sim$200\%, because of {\projectName}'s ultra-fast compression and decompression and relatively fast I/O speed on ThetaGPU.
\end{itemize}
In the future work, we plan to explore how to further improve compression ratios for {\projectName}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research was supported by the Exascale Computing Project (ECP), Project Number: 17-SC-20-SC, a collaborative effort of two DOE organizations – the Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration, responsible for the planning and preparation of a capable exascale ecosystem, including software, applications, hardware, advanced system engineering and early testbed platforms, to support the nation’s exascale computing imperative. The material was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, and by DOE’s Advanced Scientific Research Computing Office (ASCR) under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357, and supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2003709 and OAC-2104023. We acknowledge the computing resources provided on ThetaGPU, which is operated by the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility at Argonne National Laboratory.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The notion of a local mass density of pure gravity is non-existent due to the equivalence principle. For an isolated self-gravitating system where the spacetime is asymptotically flat, one defines the notion of mass as a flux integral over a space-like topological 2-sphere located at infinity. For such a system, this so-called ADM mass satisfies the desired positivity property \cite{schoen1979proof, schoen1981proof, witten1981new}. One also defines a notion of mass at the null-infinity \cite{bondi1962gravitational,schoen1982proof} as well. On the other hand, a notion of mass in-between scales is of extreme importance due to the fact that most physical models extend over a finite region. For example, if one were to study the kinematics of a black hole on a curved background, the first entity that one would require is the \textit{mass} associated with a topological $2-$ sphere that encloses the black hole. There are several problems in classical general relativity that require a notion of quasi-local mass as well. Penrose's singularity theorem \cite{penrose1965gravitational} essentially entails the study of the dynamics of space-like $2-$surfaces foliating the future null cone of an arbitrary point in the spacetime. In other words, the formation of black-hole is hinted at by the congruence of the future null geodesics measured by the trace of the null second fundamental form of topological $2-$spheres foliating the outgoing null-hypersurfaces generated by such null geodesics(later \cite{christodoulou2012formation} proved the dynamical formation of such trapped surfaces from initial data that did not contain the `trapped' characteristics in case of pure vacuum gravity). In such a case, one would want to study the evolution of the gravitational energy that is contained within such topological $2-$spheres and understand if such an evolution exhibits any special characteristics that hint towards a possible singularity formation. In order to even study such an evolution problem, one would need an expression of the energy contained within the surface of interest necessitating a formulation of \textit{quasi-}local mass/energy. In addition, a formulation (let alone proof) of the hoop conjecture \cite{thorne1972nonspherical, gibbons2009birkhoff} of general relativity requires a notion of quasi-local mass since this conjecture essentially deals with the question of the implosion of an object to a limit where a circular hoop of circumference $2\pi r_{s}$ ($r_{s}$ being the Schwarzschild radius) can be placed around it. Such a limit corresponds to a point of no return or eventual black hole formation similar to the formation of a trapped surface. One requires a notion of mass of the object under study that can be formulated as a quasi-local mass of a topological $2-$sphere bounding the object to address such conjecture. In addition, the study of black hole collision and merging also requires an appropriate notion of quasi-local mass.
Motivated by the aforementioned physically relevant questions, several authors defined different notions of quasi-local mass over the years. A necessary property of such a quasi-local mass would be that it should be positive for a space-like $2-$surface embedded in a curved spacetime and vanishes identically for any such $2-$surface in the Minkowski space. In addition, it should encode the information about pure gravitational energy (Weyl curvature effect) as well as the stress-energy tensor of any source fields present in the spacetime. Based on a Hamilton-Jacobi analysis, Brown-York \cite{brown1992quasilocal, brown1993quasilocal} and Li-Yau \cite{liu2003positivity,liu2006positivity} defined a quasi-local mass by isometrically embedding the $2-$surface into the reference Euclidean $3-$ space and comparing the extrinsic geometry (the formulation relied on the embedding theorem of Pogorelov \cite{pogorelov1952regularity} i.e., the topological $2-$sphere needed to posses everywhere non-negative sectional curvature). However, \cite{murchadha2004comment} discovered surfaces in Minkowski space that do have strictly positive Brown-York and Li-Yau mass. It appeared that these formulations were lacking a prescription of momentum information. This led Wang and Yau \cite{Wangyau, wang2009quasilocal} to define the most consistent notion (till today) of the quasi-local mass associated with a space-like topological $2-$surface. It involves isometric embedding of the topological $2-$sphere bounding a space-like domain in the physical spacetime satisfying dominant energy condition (energy can not flow into a past light cone of an arbitrary point in spacetime; essentially finite propagation speed) into the Minkowski spacetime instead of Euclidean $3-$space. This formulation relies on a weaker condition on the sectional curvature of the $2-$surface of interest and solvability of Jang's equation \cite{jang1978positivity} with prescribed Dirichlet boundary data. The Wang-Yau quasi-local mass is then defined as the infimum of the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy among all physical observers that is found by solving an optimal isometric embedding equation. This Wang-Yau quasi-local mass possesses several good properties that are desired on a physical ground. This mass is strictly positive for $2-$surfaces bounding a space-like domain in a curved spacetime that satisfies the dominant energy condition and it identically vanishes for any such $2-$surface in Minkowski spacetime. In addition, it coincides with the ADM mass at space-like infinity \cite{wang2010limit} and Bondi-mass at null infinity \cite{chen2011evaluating}, and reproduces the time component of the Bel-Robinson tensor (a pure gravitational entity) together with the matter stress-energy at the small sphere limit, that is when the $2-$sphere of interest is evolved by the flow of its null geodesic generators and the vertex of the associated null cone is approached \cite{chen2018evaluating}. In addition, explicit conservation laws were also discovered at the asymptotic infinity \cite{chen2015conserved}.
These physically desired features led to the belief that Wang-Yau quasi-local mass may be the one to consider as an appropriate notion of a quasi-local mass modulo few technicalities such as the mean curvature vector of the $2-$surface of interest is restricted to be space-like \cite{Wangyau, wang2009quasilocal}. Therefore, it is important to apply the Wang-Yau formalism to physically interesting spacetimes, explicitly compute the mass of a space-like domain bounded by a topological $2-$surface, and understand its properties. In this article, we are interested in spacetimes where an additional gauge field is coupled to gravity. The gauge fields are particularly interesting since their evolution is not free due to gauge invariance and therefore constraints must be solved on each Cauchy hypersurface (spatial hypersurface that is met exactly once by every inextendible causal curve) mush like the pure gravity problem itself. Due to these constraints, additional boundary terms appear in the expression of quasi-local energy through Hamilton-Jacobi analysis that is not controlled by the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy expression (unlike sources with non-gauge degrees of freedom where Wang-Yau quasi-local energy is sufficient to control their energy content in addition to pure gravitational energy as well). This additional contribution arises as a consequence of non-vanishing \textit{charge} associated with the gauge field. Therefore it turns out to be extremely important in the context of charged black-holes (electromagnetic or Yang-Mills) since we expect there must be a charge-mass inequality in order for the interior singularity to be hidden or in technical terms, the black-holes should be of sub-extremal type since exposing the interior singularity to a causal observer located in the domain of outer communication signals a pathological breakdown of the classical general relativity. Since we consider the notion of mass to be Wang-Yau quasi-local mass, this translates to obtaining a suitable inequality relating the charge of the gauge field and the W-Y quasi-local mass of membranes enclosing the black hole.
In addition, one of the other main motivation of the current study is the Bekenstein's inequality relating total energy of a relativistic object bounded by a membrane, its charge, and the angular momentum. Based on physical arguments, Bekenstein proposed an upper bound of the entropy of the object which takes the following form in the natural unit $\hbar=c=\kappa=1$ \cite{bekenstein2020universal}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}\leq \sqrt{\mathcal{E}^{2}R^{2}-\mathcal{J}^{2}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E},\mathcal{J},Q$, and $R$ are the objects entropy, total energy, angular momentum, charge, and size (the radius of smallest sphere containing it), respectively. This inequality proves to be difficult to establish in a rigorous way. Nevertheless, if one simply assumes the non-negativity of the entropy, then a weaker version of the above inequality reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}^{2}\geq \frac{\mathcal{J}^{2}}{R^{2}}+\frac{Q^{4}}{4R^{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
and for an object with non-negative angular momentum
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}\geq \frac{Q^{2}}{2R}.
\end{eqnarray}
As a first step of the proof of this inequality, one requires a physically reasonable definition of the energy contained within a region of non-zero charge bounded by a membrane in the fully general relativistic setting. A natural choice would be to consider the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy and try to establish the previous inequality. We note that recently \cite{alaee2019geometric} studied this inequality for several definitions of the quasi-local energy.
The structure of the article is as follows. Starting with the classical Hilbert action of the Einstein-Yang-Mills system (including a $U(1)$ Yang-Mills as well), we derive the boundary contribution to the quasi-local energy that arises solely due to the gauge fields through an ADM Hamilton-Jacobi analysis. Later, we specialize in the Kerr-Newman spacetime and explicitly compute the boundary contribution. Simultaneously, we compute the Wang-Yau energy functional and establish the necessary condition for it to be well behaved. We later show that the trivial data solves the optimal isometric embedding equation and the associated mass is positive by construction if the angular momentum of the black hole is not too large. This yields an inequality between the charge of the black hole and the quasi-local energy of membranes enclosing it. This total quasi-local energy is shown to exhibit monotonic decay in the radially outward direction from the outer horizon under the assumption of a small angular momentum. A few physical conclusions are drawn on the basis of our results and a few additional problems are discussed that are to be handled in the potential future.
\section{Quasi-local energy expression including a gauge field}
In this section, we derive the contribution of the gauge field to the expression of the quasi-local mass. We consider a `1+3' dimensional $C^{\infty}$ globally hyperbolic spacetime $\mathbb{R}\times M$, where $M$ is diffeomorphic to a Cauchy hypersurface, equipped with a Lorentzian metric $\hat{g}$. Since this globally hyperbolic spacetime is foliated by the space-like submanifolds $M_{t}$ ($t$ is a \textit{time} function which is well defined for a globally hyperbolic spacetime), we may use a \textit{lapse} function $N$ and a $M-$parallel \textit{shift} vector field $Y$ to represent $\hat{g}$ in the following ADM form \cite{arnowitt2008republication}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:metriclabel}
\hat{g}:=-N^{2}dt\otimes dt+g_{ij}(dx^{i}+Y^{i}dt)\otimes (dx^{j}+Y^{j}dt),
\end{eqnarray}
where $g$ is the Riemannian metric induced on $M$ by the embedding $i:M\hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}\times M$. The second fundamental form $K$ measuring the extrinsic geometry of $M$ in $\mathbb{R}\times M$ is defined by $K(X,Z):=-\hat{g}(\nabla[\hat{g}]_{X}\mathbf{n},Z),$ for all $X,Z$ being the sections of $TM$. Here $\mathbf{n}$ is the $t=$constant hypersurface orthogonal unit time-like vector field defined as $\mathbf{n}:\frac{1}{N}(\partial_{t}-Y)$.
To formulate the Yang-Mills theory over the spacetime $\mathbb{R}\times M$, we first choose a compact semisimple Lie group $G$. If a section of the principle $G-$bundle defined over $\mathbb{R}\times M$ is chosen and the connection is pulled back to the base manifold, then it yields a $1-$form field on the base which takes values in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $G$. Let us consider the dimension of the group $G$ to be $dim_{G}$ and since $\mathfrak{g}:=T_{e}G$, it has a natural vector space structure. Assume that the vector space $\mathfrak{g}$ has a basis $\{\chi_{A}\}_{A=1}^{dim_{G}}$ given by a set of $k\times k$ real-valued matrices ($k$ being the dimension of the representation $V$ of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$). The connection $1-$form field is then defined to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{A}:=\hat{A}^{A}_{\mu}\chi_{A}dx^{\mu}=\hat{A}^{A}_{\mu}(\chi_{A})^{a}_{b}dx^{\mu}=\hat{A}^{a}~_{b\mu}dx^{\mu},~a,b=1,2,3,...,k.
\end{eqnarray}
From now on by the connection 1-form field $\hat{A}_{\mu}$, we will always mean $\hat{A}^{a}~_{b\mu}$. In the current setting $\hat{A}\in \Omega^{1}(\mathbb{R}\times M;End(V))$, where $End(V)$ denotes the space of endomorphisms of the vector space $V$. The curvature of this connection is defined to be the Yang-Mills field $F\in \Omega^{2}(\mathbb{R}\times M; End(V))$
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{F}^{a}~_{b\mu\nu}:=\partial_{\mu}\hat{A}^{a}~_{b\nu}-\partial_{\nu}\hat{A}^{a}~_{b\mu}+[\hat{A},\hat{A}]^{a}~_{b\mu\nu},
\end{eqnarray}
where the bracket is defined on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and given by commutator of matrices under multiplication. The Yang-Mills coupling constant is set to unity. Since $G$ is compact, it admits a positive definite adjoint invariant metric on $\mathfrak{g}$. We choose a basis of $\mathfrak{g}$ such that this adjoint invariant metric takes the Cartesian form $\delta_{AB}$ and work with representations for which the bases satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
-\tr(\chi_{A}\chi_{B})=(\chi_{A})^{a}_{b}(\chi_{A})^{b}_{a}=\delta_{AB}.
\end{eqnarray}
One may for convenience decompose the $1+3$ $\mathfrak{g}$-valued connection $1-$form field $A^{a}~_{b\mu}$ into its component parallel and perpendicular to $M$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{A}^{a}~_{b}=A^{a}~_{b}-\hat{g}(A^{a}~_{b},\mathbf{n})\mathbf{n}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A^{a}~_{b}$ is a $\mathfrak{g}$ valued $1-$form field parallel to the spatial manifold $M$ i.e., $A\in \Omega^{1}(M;End(V))$. Importantly note that $\hat{A}^{a}~_{bi}=A^{a}~_{bi}$ but $\hat{A}^{a}~_{b}^{i}\neq A^{a}~_{b}^{i}$ unless the shift vector field $Y$ vanishes. Similarly, we decompose the Yang-Mills field strength $\hat{F}$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{F}^{a}~_{b}=\frac{1}{\mu_{g}}(\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}\otimes \mathbf{n}-\mathbf{n}\otimes\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b})+F^{a}~_{b},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{E}\in \Omega^{1}(M;End(V))$ is the electric field, $F\in \Omega^{2}(M;End(V))$ is related to the magnetic field, and $\mu_{g}:=\sqrt{\det(g_{ij})}$. Once again note $\hat{F}^{a}~_{bij}=F^{a}~_{bij}$ but $\hat{F}^{a}~_{b}~^{ij}\neq F^{a}~_{b}~^{ij}$. The Einstein-Hilbert action for a gauge-gravity system in the natural unit $G=1=\wp$ ($\wp$ is the Yang-Mills coupling constant) may be written as follows \cite{hawking1996gravitational}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:hilbert}
8\pi\mathcal{S}&:=&\frac{1}{2}\int_{I\times M} \mathcal{R}(\hat{g})\mu_{\hat{g}}-\frac{1}{4}\int_{I\times M}\hat{F}^{a}~_{b\mu\nu}F^{b}~_{a\alpha\beta}\hat{g}^{\alpha\mu}\hat{g}^{\beta\nu}\mu_{\hat{g}}\\\nonumber
&&+\int_{M_{t}-M_{t_{0}}}\tr_{g}K\mu_{\hat{g}}|_{M},
\end{eqnarray}
where $I\subset \mathbb{R}$ denotes a closed interval on the real line i.e., $I:=[t_{0},t]$, $\mu_{\hat{g}}:=\sqrt{|\det(\hat{g}_{\mu\nu})|}$, $K\tr_{g}$ is the mean extrinsic curvature of the constant time hypersurface $M$, and $\mu_{\hat{g}}|_{M}$ is the volume form induced on $M$. $M_{t}-M_{t_{0}}$ denotes the difference of the integrals over hypersurfaces $t=t$ and $t=t_{0}$. Through the ADM decomposition (\ref{eq:metriclabel}), one may introduce the canonical pairs ($g_{ij},\pi^{ij}:=-\mu_{g}(K^{ij}-\tr_{g}K g^{ij})$) for the gravity and $(A^{a}~_{bi},\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}:=\frac{\mu_{g}}{N}g^{ik}(\hat{F}^{a}~_{b0k}-\hat{F}^{a}~_{bjk}Y^{j}))$ for the Yang-Mills theory. Now, using the same ADM formalism, we may obtain an expression for the quasi-local energy associated with a $2-$surface bounding a domain in $M$ for this gauge-gravity coupled system through the Hamilton-Jacobi analysis. The following lemma describes the result.
\textbf{Lemma 1:} \textit{Let $\Sigma$ be a $2-$surface bounding a domain $\Omega$ in $M$ i.e., $\partial \Omega=\Sigma$ and $\nu$ be its space-like outward unit normal vector. Also assume that the Einstein-Hilbert action (\ref{eq:hilbert}) for a gauge-gravity coupled system is defined on $[t_{0},t]\times \Omega$. Then the quasi-local Hamiltonian defined by $\mathcal{H}_{ql}:=-\partial_{t}\mathcal{S}$ for this Einstein-Yang-Mills system with a compact semi-simple gauge group verifies the following expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}_{ql}:=-\frac{\partial \mathcal{S}}{\partial t}=-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\Sigma_{t}}(kN-\frac{\pi^{ij}}{\mu_{\Sigma}}\nu_{i}Y_{j}-\frac{\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}}{\mu_{\Sigma}}A^{b}~_{a0}\nu_{i})\mu_{\Sigma}d^{2}x,
\end{eqnarray}
where $k=\tr_{g}K$, and $\mu_{\Sigma}$ is the induced volume form on $\Sigma$.
}
\textbf{Proof:} Let us start with the Einstein-Hilbert action $\mathcal{S}:=\frac{1}{2}\int_{[t_{0},t]\times \Omega} \mathcal{R}(\hat{g})\mu_{\hat{g}}-\frac{1}{4}\int_{[t_{0},t]\times \Omega}\hat{F}^{a}~_{b\mu\nu}F^{b}~_{a\alpha\beta}\hat{g}^{\alpha\mu}\hat{g}^{\beta\nu}\mu_{\hat{g}}+\int_{\Omega_{t}-\Omega_{t_{0}}}\tr_{g}K\mu_{\hat{g}}|_{\Omega}$ and reduce it utilizing the ADM splitting (\ref{eq:metriclabel}). Straightforward calculations yield
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{R}(\hat{g})=R(g)+K_{ij}K^{ij}-(\tr_{g}K)^{2}-2(\nabla_{\mu}(n^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}n^{\mu})-\nabla_{\nu}(n^{\nu}\nabla_{\mu}n^{\mu}))
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{4}\hat{F}^{a}~_{b\mu\nu}F^{b}~_{a\alpha\beta}&=&-\frac{1}{2N^{2}}g^{ik}(\hat{F}^{a}~_{b0i}-F^{a}~_{bji}X^{j}) (\hat{F}^{b}~_{a0k}-F^{b}~_{ajk}X^{j})\\\nonumber &&+\frac{1}{4}g^{ik}g^{jm}F^{a}~_{bij} F^{b}~_{akm},
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the fact that $\hat{F}^{a}~_{bij}=F^{a}~_{bij}$.
Now recall the definitions of the gravitational and Yang-Mills momenta
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi^{ij}:=-\mu_{g}(K^{ij}-\tr_{g}Kg^{ij}),~\mathcal{E}^{a}_{b}~^{i}:=\frac{\mu_{g}}{N}g^{ik}(\hat{F}^{a}~_{b0k}-F^{a}~_{bjk}Y^{j}),
\end{eqnarray}
substitution of which yields the following expression for the action $\mathcal{S}(t)$
\begin{eqnarray}
8\pi\mathcal{S}(t)&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_{[t_{0},t]}\int_{\Omega}\left(\pi^{ij}\partial_{t}g_{ij}\nonumber-N\mu_{g}(|K|^{2}_{g}-(\tr_{g}K)^{2}-R(g))-2\pi^{ij}\nabla_{i}Y_{j}\right)d^{3}xdt\\\nonumber
&&+\int_{I}\int_{\Omega}\left(\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}\partial_{t}A^{b}~_{ai}-\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{bi}F^{b}~_{aji}Y^{j}+\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}[A_{0},A_{i}]^{b}~_{a}-\frac{N}{2\mu_{g}}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}\mathcal{E}^{b}~_{ai}\right.\\\nonumber
&&\left.-\frac{1}{4}F^{a}~_{bij}F^{b}~_{a}~^{ij}N\mu_{g}-\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}\partial_{i}A^{b}~_{a0}\right)d^{3}xdt\\\nonumber
&&+\int_{[t_{0},t]}\int_{\Omega}kN\mu_{\Sigma}d^{2}xdt.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have used the definition of the second fundamental form $K_{ij}=\hat{g}(\nabla[\hat{g}]_{\partial_{i}}n,\partial_{j})=-\frac{1}{2N}(\partial_{t}g_{ij}-L_{Y}g_{ij})$ and integration by parts of $(\nabla_{\mu}(n^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}n^{\mu})-\nabla_{\nu}(n^{\nu}\nabla_{\mu}n^{\mu}))N\mu_{g}$ to obtain the last boundary term since the first term cancels out by $\int_{\Omega_{t}-\Omega_{t_{0}}}\tr_{g}K\mu_{\hat{g}}|_{\Omega}$. Now notice the following calculations
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\Omega}\pi^{ij}\nabla_{i}Y_{j}d^{3}x=\int_{\Omega}\nabla_{i}(\pi^{ij}Y_{j})d^{3}x-\int_{\Omega}Y_{j}\nabla_{i}\pi^{ij}d^{3}x,
\end{eqnarray}
where we may integrate the first term since $\pi$ is a density and therefore $\nabla_{i}(\pi^{ij}Y_{j})=\partial_{i}(\pi^{ij}Y_{j})$ yielding
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\Omega}\pi^{ij}\nabla_{i}Y_{j}d^{3}x=\int_{\Sigma}\pi^{ij}Y_{j}\nu_{i}d^{2}x-\int_{\Omega}Y_{j}\nabla_{i}\pi^{ij}d^{3}x.
\end{eqnarray}
In an exact similar way we may reduce the similar term of the Yang-Mills sector
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\Omega}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}^{i}\partial_{i}A^{b}~_{a0}d^{3}x&=&\int_{\Omega}\partial_{i}(\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}^{i}A^{b}~_{a0})d^{3}x-\int_{\Omega}\partial_{i}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}^{i} A^{b}~_{a0}d^{3}x\\\nonumber
&=&\int_{\Omega}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}A^{b}~_{a0}\mathcal{\nu}_{i}d^{2}x-\int_{\Omega}\partial_{i}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}^{i} A^{b}~_{a0}d^{3}x.
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that the terms $\int_{\Omega}Y_{j}\nabla_{i}\pi^{ij}d^{3}x$ and $\int_{\Omega}\partial_{i}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}^{i} A^{b}~_{a0}d^{3}x$ give rise to the momentum constraint and the Gauss law constraint, respectively. Assembling all the terms together, we obtain the final expression for the action functional
\begin{eqnarray}
8\pi\mathcal{S}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{[t_{0},t]}\int_{\Omega}\left(\pi^{ij}\partial_{t}g_{ij}\nonumber-N\mu_{g}(|K|^{2}_{g}-k^{2}-\mathcal{R}(g)+\frac{1}{\mu^{2}_{g}}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}\mathcal{E}^{b}~_{ai}\right.\\\nonumber\left.+\frac{1}{2}F^{a}~_{bij}F^{b}~_{a}~^{ij})+(2\nabla_{i}\pi^{i}_{j}-\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}^{i}F^{b}~_{aji})Y^{j}\right)d^{3}xdt\\\nonumber+\int_{[t_{0},t]}\underbrace{\int_{\Sigma}(kN-\frac{\pi^{ij}}{\mu_{\Sigma}}\nu_{i}Y_{j})\mu_{\Sigma} d^{2}x}_{gravitational~energy~modulo~a~reference~term}dt\\\nonumber
+\int_{[t_{0},t]}\int_{\Omega}\left(\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}(\partial_{t}A^{b}~_{ai}+[A_{0},A_{i}]^{b}~_{a})+\partial_{i}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}A^{b}~_{a0}\right)d^{3}xdt\\\nonumber
-\int_{[t_{0},t]}\underbrace{\int_{\Sigma}\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}A^{b}~_{a0}\mathcal{\nu}_{i}d^{2}x}_{surface~energy~from~gauge~field}dt.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore using the Hamilton-Jacobi equation $\partial_{t}\mathcal{S}+\mathcal{H}_{q.l}=0$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}_{ql}=-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\Sigma}(kN-\frac{\pi^{ij}}{\mu_{\Sigma}}\nu_{i}Y_{j}-\frac{\mathcal{E}^{a}~_{b}~^{i}}{\mu_{\Sigma}}A^{b}~_{a0}\nu_{i})\mu_{\Sigma}d^{2}x.
\end{eqnarray}
This concludes the proof of the lemma. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$\Box$
Wang and Yau \cite{Wangyau, wang2009quasilocal} dealt with the pure gravitational and non-gauge part of the quasi-local energy by subtracting a well-defined reference contribution (by isometrically embedding $\Sigma$ into Minkowski space). Therefore, we will use their expression to handle the first term $-\int_{\Sigma}(kN-\frac{\pi^{ij}}{\mu_{\Sigma}}\nu_{i}Y_{j})\mu_{\Sigma}d^{2}x$ while computing the quasi-local energy for a given spacetime. They have shown with a suitable choice of the lapse function $N$ and the shift vector field $Y$ that one can define a notion of quasi-local mass which satisfies several properties that are desired on the physical ground. Let us now describe the Wang-Yau quasi-local mass which we wish to evaluate. Let us assume that the mean curvature vector $\mathbf{H}$ of $\Sigma$ is space-like. Let $\mathbf{J}$ be the reflection of $\mathbf{H}$ through the future outgoing light cone in the normal bundle of $\Sigma$. The data that Wang and Yau use to define the quasi-local energy is the triple ($\sigma,|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}},\alpha_{\mathbf{H}}$) on $\Sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the induced metric on $\Sigma$ by the Lorentzian metric $\hat{g}$ or $\mathbb{R}\times M$, $|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}$ is the Lorentzian norm of $\mathbf{H}$, and $\alpha_{\mathbf{H}}$ is the connection $1-$form of the normal bundle with respect to the mean curvature vector $\mathbf{H}$ and is defined as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:connection}
\alpha_{\mathbf{H}}(X):=\hat{g}(\nabla[\hat{g}]_{X}\frac{\mathbf{J}}{|\mathbf{H}|},\frac{\mathbf{H}}{|\mathbf{H}|}).
\end{eqnarray}
Choose a basis pair ($e_{3},e_{4}$) for the normal bundle of $\Sigma$ in the spacetime that satisfy $\hat{g}(e_{3},e_{3})=1,\hat{g}(e_{4},e_{4})=-1$, and $\hat{g}(e_{3},e_{4})=0$. Now embed the $2-$surface $\Sigma$ isometrically into the Minkowski space with its usual metric $\eta$ i.e., the embedding map $X: x^{a}\mapsto X^{\mu}(x^{a})$ satisfies $\sigma(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{a}},\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{b}})=\langle \frac{\partial X}{\partial x^{a}},\frac{\partial X}{\partial x^{b}}\rangle_{\eta}$, where $\{x^{a}\}_{a=1}^{2}$ are the coordinates on $\Sigma$. Now identify a basis pair ($e_{30},e_{40}$) in the normal bundle of $X(\Sigma)$ in the Minkowski space that satisfy the exact similar property as $(e_{3},e_{4})$. In addition the time-like unit vector $e_{4}$ is chosen to be future directed i.e., $\hat{g}(e_{4},\partial_{t})<0$. Let $\tau:=-\langle X,\partial_{t}\rangle_{\eta}$, a function on $\Sigma$ be the time function of the embedding $X$.
The Wang-Yau quasi-local energy is defined as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\underbrace{\int_{\Sigma_{t}}\left(-\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}\langle \mathbf{H}_{0},e_{30}\rangle-\langle\nabla[\eta]_{\nabla\tau}e_{30},e_{40}\rangle\right)\mu_{\Sigma}}_{I:=Contribution~from~the~Minkowski~space}\\\nonumber
-\frac{1}{8\pi}\underbrace{\int_{\Sigma_{t}}\left(-\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}\langle \mathbf{H},e_{3}\rangle-\langle\nabla[\hat{g}]_{\nabla\tau}e_{3},e_{4}\rangle\right)\mu_{\Sigma}}_{II:=contribution~from~the~physical~spacetime}.
\end{eqnarray}
However, there is still a gauge redundancy due to the boost transformations in the normal bundle of $\Sigma$. In other words, one is left with the freedom of choosing $e_{3}$ and $e_{4}$ since one may apply a hyperbolic rotation (boost) to yield another pair $(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})$. Wang and Yau \cite{Wangyau, wang2009quasilocal} considers the following minimization procedure to get rid of this extra gauge freedom. Choose a fixed basis $(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})$ of the fibres of the normal bundle of $\Sigma$ such that the space-like mean curvature vector $\mathbf{H}$ is expressible as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:property}
\mathbf{H}=-|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\hat{e}_{3},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{3}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=1$ and $\langle \hat{e}_{4},\hat{e}_{4}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=-1$. Write any general basis $(e_{3},e_{4})$ through a boost transformation in the normal bundle as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
e_{3}=\cosh\psi \hat{e}_{3}-\sinh\psi \hat{e}_{4},\\
e_{4}=-\sinh\psi \hat{e}_{3}+\cosh\psi \hat{e}_{4}
\end{eqnarray}
and substitute these expressions of $e_{3}$ and $e_{4}$ in the expression of $II$, and use the fact that $\hat{g}(\nabla[\hat{g}]_{e_{3}}\hat{e}_{4},e_{3})+\hat{g}(\nabla[\hat{g}]_{e_{4}}\hat{e}_{4},e_{4})=0$ (by construction) to yield
\begin{eqnarray}
II=\int_{\Sigma_{t}}\left(\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\cosh\psi-\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}}(\nabla\tau)+\psi\Delta \tau\right)\mu_{\Sigma}.
\end{eqnarray}
This is a convex functional of $\psi$ and therefore is minimized for the following boost
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi=\sinh^{-1}(-\frac{\Delta \tau}{|\mathbf{H}|\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}}).
\end{eqnarray}
One repeats the same procedure for the surface with metric $\sigma$ embedded in the Minkowski space and write the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\left(\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}|\mathbf{H}_{0}|_{\eta}\cosh\psi_{0}-\alpha_{\hat{e}_{30}}(\nabla\tau)\nonumber+\psi_{0}\Delta \tau\right)\mu_{\Sigma}\\-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\left(\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\cosh\psi-\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}}(\nabla\tau)+\psi\Delta \tau\right)\mu_{\Sigma}.
\end{eqnarray}
The quasi-local mass is defined to be the minimum of $\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}$ in the space of the residual embedding function $\tau$. This is so because the isometric embedding of a $2-$surface into a $4$-dimensional manifold provides three constraints out of a total of four degrees of freedom. Therefore, the additional leftover degrees of freedom (in this case $\tau$) needs to be obtained by other physical means. In the current context, therefore, the mass is defined through a minimization procedure in the space of $\tau$ motivated by the definition of the rest mass which is the minimum in the space of observers. Through a variational argument, \cite{Wangyau} obtained the following fourth-order elliptic equation for $\tau$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:optimal}
-(\hat{H}\hat{\sigma}^{ab}-\hat{\sigma}^{ac}\hat{\sigma}^{bd}\hat{h}_{cd})\frac{\nabla[\sigma]_{a}\nabla_{b}\tau}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}}+\nabla[\sigma]^{a}(\frac{\nabla_{a}\tau \cosh\psi}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}}|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\\\nonumber -\nabla_{a}\psi-(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{a})=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{h}$ is the second fundamental form of $\hat{\Sigma}$ while viewed as a surface in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. From now on we will use the term mass and energy interchangeably if there is no confusion. The compatible condition that is required to guarantee the isometric embedding is the positivity of the Gauss curvature of $\hat{\Sigma}$ i.e., $K_{\Sigma}+(1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma})^{-1}\det(\nabla[\sigma]_{a}\nabla_{b}\tau)>0$, where $K_{\Sigma}$ is the Gauss curvature of $\Sigma$.
Including the contribution from the pure gauge (Yang-Mills) part, we define the total quasi-local energy as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:gauge-gravity}
\mathcal{QLE}:=\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}+\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}\\\nonumber
=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\left(\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}|\mathbf{H}_{0}|_{\eta}\cosh\psi_{0}-\alpha_{\hat{e}_{30}}(\nabla\tau)+\psi_{0}\Delta \tau\right)\mu_{\Sigma}\\\nonumber-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\left(\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\cosh\psi-\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}}(\nabla\tau)+\psi\Delta \tau\right)\mu_{\Sigma}\\\nonumber
-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\hat{F}^{a}~_{b}(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})A^{b}~_{a0}\mu_{\Sigma}.
\end{eqnarray}
Luckily, due to the anti-symmetry as a $2-$form on the spacetime, $\hat{F}^{a}~_{b}(e_{3},e_{4})=\hat{F}(\cosh\psi \hat{e}_{3}-\sinh\psi \hat{e}_{4},-\sinh\psi \hat{e}_{3}+\cosh\psi \hat{e}_{4})=\hat{F}^{a}~_{b}(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})$ and therefore is boost invariant. However, notice that the term $\int_{\Sigma}\hat{F}^{a}~_{b}(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})A^{b}~_{a0}\mu_{\Sigma}$ heavily depends on the Yang-Mills gauge choice. Nevertheless, for a stationary space-time, this term is fixed. In addition, this term can be made to vanish if the spacetime does not contain a horizon. This is due to the fact that in the absence of a horizon, $A^{a}~_{b0}$ can always be gauged to zero (such a choice is temporal gauge). However, this term does not vanish for a black-hole spacetime that is electrically charged since a gauge transformation that sets $A^{a}~_{b0}$ to zero would be singular at the horizon. The reference contribution to the gauge part vanishes since $A^{a}~_{b0}$ may be set to zero on a reference spacetime (Minkowski spacetime in this case) which does not contain any horizon.
\section{Computation of quasi-local energy for Kerr-Newman spacetime}
In this section, we explicitly compute the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy functional as well as the energy contribution arising from the U(1) gauge sector of the Kerr-Newman spacetime. In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, the Kerr-Newman metric reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:kerr-newman}
\hat{g}\\
=-\frac{r^{2}-2rM+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta\nonumber+Q^{2}}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}dt\otimes dt+\frac{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}{r^{2}-2rM+a^{2}+Q^{2}}dr\otimes dr\\\nonumber
+(r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)d\theta\otimes d\theta+\frac{a\sin^{2}\theta(Q^{2}-2rM)}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}(dt\otimes d\varphi+d\varphi\otimes dt)\\\nonumber
+\left(\frac{(r^{2}+a^{2})(r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)+2rMa^{2}\sin^{2}\theta-a^{2}Q^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}\right)\sin^{2}\theta d\varphi\otimes d\varphi,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$, $a$, and $Q$ are the mass, angular momentum, and electric charge, respectively. They are defined in such a way as to have the same dimensions. Let us recognize the important surfaces associated with this spacetime. The horizons are obtained by solving the equation $\frac{1}{\hat{g}_{rr}}=0$ i.e., $r^{2}-2rM+a^{2}+Q^{2}=0$ which yields
\begin{eqnarray}
R^{+}=M+\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}-Q^{2}},~R^{-}=M-\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}-Q^{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The equation of the ergosphere $\hat{g}_{tt}=0$ yields
\begin{eqnarray}
R^{+}_{e}(\theta)=M+\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta-Q^{2}},~R^{-}_{e}(\theta)\nonumber=M-\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta-Q^{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
and the ergo region is the region between $R^{+}$ and $R^{+}_{e}$. The outer horizon is the surface $r=R^{+}$. Throughout this article, we will be interested in the region outside of the outer horizon.
We want to understand the quasi-local energy associated with the constant radius surface $\Sigma$ given by $t=$cosntant,~$r=R$. The induced metric $\sigma$ on $\Sigma$ is explicitly written as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma=(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)d\theta\otimes d\theta\\\nonumber
+\left(\frac{(R^{2}+a^{2})(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)+2rMa^{2}\sin^{2}\theta-a^{2}Q^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}{R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}\right)\sin^{2}\theta d\varphi\otimes d\varphi.
\end{eqnarray}
Fix a basis $(\partial_{\theta},\partial_{\varphi})$ of the tangent space of $\Sigma$ at each point. We will denote the elements of this basis set by $\partial_{a}$ ($a=\theta,\varphi$).
The corresponding solution of the Maxwell equations yields the connection
\begin{eqnarray}
A=\frac{Qr}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}dt-\frac{aQr\sin^{2}\theta}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}d\varphi.
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that on this fixed stationary spacetimes, $A_{0}$ is non-vanishing, and therefore the quasi-local energy contribution from the $U(1)$ gauge sector is non-vanishing as well. The curvature $\hat{F}$ of the connection $A$ is found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{F}=-\frac{Q(a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta-r^{2})}{(r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{2}}dt\wedge dr-\frac{Qra^{2}\sin2\theta}{(r^{2}+a^{2})^{2}}dt\wedge d\theta\\\nonumber-\frac{Qa\sin^{2}\theta(a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta-r^{2})}{(r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{2}}dr\wedge d\varphi
-\frac{Qar(r^{2}+a^{2})\sin2\theta}{(r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{2}}d\theta\wedge d\varphi.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to compute the quasi-local energy of a surface $\Sigma$ defined by $t=$constant, $r=R$ that arises from the $U(1)$ sector, we need to fix a pair $(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})$ of normal vectors to $\Sigma$ satisfying $\hat{g}(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{3})=1,\hat{g}(\hat{e}_{4},\hat{e}_{4})=-1,\hat{g}(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})=0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:fixed1}
\hat{e}_{3}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{rr}}}\partial_{r},\\
\label{eq:fixed2}
\hat{e}_{4}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\hat{g}_{tt})}}\left(\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\partial_{t}-\hat{g}_{t\varphi}\partial_{\varphi}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly they satisfy $\langle \hat{e}_{3},\partial_{a}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=\langle \hat{e}_{4},\partial_{a}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=0$.
An explicit computation yields the following expression for $\hat{F}(\hat{e}_{4},\hat{e}_{3})$ on $\Sigma$
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{F}(\hat{e}_{4},\hat{e}_{3})|_{\Sigma}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}}\sqrt{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{tt}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi})}}\left(\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\hat{F}(\partial_{t},\partial_{r})\nonumber-\hat{g}_{t\varphi}\hat{F}(\partial_{\varphi},\partial_{r})\right)\\\nonumber
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}}\sqrt{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{tt}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi})}}\left(\frac{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}Q(R^{2}-a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)}{(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{2}}-\frac{\hat{g}_{t\varphi}Qa\sin^{2}\theta(a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta-R^{2})}{(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{2}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
which together with $A_{0}|_{\Sigma}=\frac{QR}{R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}$ leads to the following expression for the energy density arising from $U(1)$ sector
\begin{eqnarray}
F(\hat{e}_{4},\hat{e}_{3})A_{0}=-\frac{Q^{2}R}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}}\sqrt{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{tt}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi})}}\\
\left(-\frac{(R^{2}-a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)\{(R^{2}+a^{2})(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)+(2rM-Q^{2})a^{2}\sin^{2}\theta\}}{(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{4}}\right.\\\nonumber
\left.+\frac{a^{2}\sin^{2}\theta(a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta-R^{2})(Q^{2}-2rM)}{(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{4}}\right)\sin^{2}\theta\\\nonumber
=\frac{Q^{2}R\sin^{2}\theta}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}}\sqrt{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{tt}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi})}}\frac{(R^{2}+a^{2})(R^{2}-a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)}{(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{3}}.
\end{eqnarray}
We could simply use $\hat{e}_{3}$ and $\hat{e}_{4}$ because $\hat{F}(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})$ is boost invariant as mentioned previously and therefore any orthonormal basis pair $(e_{3},e_{4})$ of the normal bundle would suffice. However, while computing the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy functional that arises from the gravity sector, one needs to make sure that $(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})$ satisfy the desired property (\ref{eq:property}) otherwise we have to choose a different basis that does.
Collecting all the terms together, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
8\pi \mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}=Q^{2}\int_{\Sigma}\frac{R(R^{2}+a^{2})(R^{2}-a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)\sin\theta}{(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{3}}d\theta d\varphi\\\nonumber
=2\pi Q^{2}R(R^{2}+a^{2})\int_{0}^{\pi}\frac{(R^{2}-a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)\sin\theta}{(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{3}}d\theta
\end{eqnarray}
$\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}$ is manifestly positive and behaves like $\sim \frac{ Q^{2}}{2R}$ as $R\to\infty$. Therefore, one may retrieve the electrical charge as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
Q:=\lim_{R\to\infty}\sqrt{2R \mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}}.
\end{eqnarray}
If we set $a=0$ (solution reduces to Reissner Nordstrom solution), then the expression for $\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}$ simplifies tremendously yielding
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}=\frac{ Q^{2}}{2R}~\forall R\geq R^{+}.
\end{eqnarray}
We can, in fact, evaluate the integral exactly for any $0\neq a<M$. Direct integration yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}=\frac{1}{8} Q^{2}R(R^{2}+a^{2})\left(\frac{a^{2}+3R^{2}}{R^{2}(a^{2}+R^{2})^{2}}+\frac{1}{aR^{3}}\tan^{-1}(\frac{a}{R})\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Later we evaluate this term on the outer horizon $R=R^{+}$ assuming a small angular momentum $a$.\\
Now that we have explicitly computed the contribution of the $U(1)$ sector, we move on to the computation of the quasi-local energy expression for the gravity part. Recall the expression for the quasi-local energy (\ref{eq:gauge-gravity})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:refphysical}
\label{eq:totalenergy}
\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\underbrace{\int_{\Sigma}\left(\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}|\mathbf{H}_{0}|_{\eta}\cosh\psi_{0}-\alpha_{\hat{e}_{30}}(\nabla\tau)\nonumber+\psi_{0}\Delta \tau\right)\mu_{\Sigma}}_{MS}\\-\frac{1}{8\pi}\underbrace{\int_{\Sigma}\left(\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\cosh\psi-\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}}(\nabla\tau)+\psi\Delta \tau\right)\mu_{\Sigma}}_{KN}.
\end{eqnarray}
We will explicitly compute each term for the physical spacetime (Kerr-Newman spacetime in the current context) contribution $KN$. For the contribution $MS$ that arises from the Minkowski space, we will use a more direct approach since \cite{Wangyau} derived the following simpler expression for $MS$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:minkowski}
MS=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\left(\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}|\mathbf{H}_{0}|_{\eta}\cosh\psi_{0}-\alpha_{\hat{e}_{30}}(\nabla\tau)\nonumber+\psi_{0}\Delta \tau\right)\mu_{\Sigma}\\
=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\hat{\Sigma}}\hat{H}\mu_{\hat{\Sigma}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{\Sigma}$ is the convex shadow of $\Sigma$ onto the complement of $\partial_{t}$ i.e., on a $\tau=$constant Euclidean slice $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, $\hat{H}$ is the mean curvature of $\hat{\Sigma}$ while realized as a $2-$surface in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, and $\mu_{\hat{\Sigma}}=\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}\mu_{\Sigma}$ is the volume form induced on $\hat{\Sigma}$. Now we proceed to compute the physical space contribution to the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy functional.\\
\textbf{Lemma 2:} \textit{For the Kerr-Newman spacetimes, the basis pair $(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})$ defined in equations (\ref{eq:fixed1}-\ref{eq:fixed2}) is the canonical pair for which $\mathbf{H}=-|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\hat{e}_{3}$ and $\langle\mathbf{H},\hat{e}_{4}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=0$}
\textbf{Proof:} Using the definition of $\mathbf{H}$ and the expressions of $(\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4})$ from (\ref{eq:fixed1}-\ref{eq:fixed2}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \mathbf{H},\hat{e}_{4}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=\sigma^{ab}\langle \nabla_{\partial_{a}}\hat{e}_{4},\partial_{b}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=-\sigma^{ab}\langle\nabla_{\partial_{a}}\partial_{b},\hat{e}_{4}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=-\sigma^{ab}\Gamma^{\mu}_{ab}(\hat{e}_{4})_{\mu}\\\nonumber
=\sigma^{ab}\Gamma^{t}_{ab}\sqrt{\frac{(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\hat{g}_{tt})}{{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}}}}
\end{eqnarray}
Explicit calculation shows that $\Gamma^{t}_{\theta\theta}$ and $\Gamma^{t}_{\varphi\varphi}$ vanish for Kerr-Newman spacetime (since $\partial_{t}$ and $\partial_{\varphi}$ are two Killing fields) yielding
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \mathbf{H},\hat{e}_{4}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\Box
\end{eqnarray}
As a consequence of Lemma 2, we do have the necessary ingredients to compute the quasi-local energy corresponding to the gravity sector. The hyperbolic angle $\psi$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:psi}
\psi=\sinh^{-1}(-\frac{\Delta \tau}{|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}$ is explicitly computed as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}=-\langle \mathbf{H},\hat{e}_{3}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=\sigma^{ab}\langle\nabla_{\partial_{a}}\hat{e}_{3},\partial_{b}\rangle=-\sigma^{ab}\langle\hat{e}_{3},\nabla[\hat{g}]_{\partial_{a}},\partial_{b}\rangle_{\hat{g}}\\\nonumber
=-\frac{\sigma^{ab}}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}}}\langle\partial_{r},\Gamma^{\mu}_{ab}\partial_{\mu}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=-\frac{\sigma^{ab}}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}}}\Gamma^{\mu}_{ab}\hat{g}_{\mu r}=-\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}}(\Gamma^{r}_{\theta\theta}\sigma^{\theta\theta}+\Gamma^{r}_{\varphi\varphi}\sigma^{\varphi\varphi}),
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the fact that $\hat{e}_{3}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}}}\partial_{r}$ (\ref{eq:fixed1}) and $\langle\hat{e}_{3},\partial_{a}\rangle=0$. Therefore, $|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}$ may be computed by substituting $\Gamma^{r}_{\varphi\varphi}=(\frac{r}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}+\frac{a^{2}\{r(Q^{2}-rm)+a^{2}m\cos^{2}\theta\}\sin^{2}\theta}{(r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{3}})(r^{2}-2rm+a^{2}+Q^{2})\sin^{2}\theta$ and $\Gamma^{r}_{\theta\theta}=-\frac{r(r^{2}-2rm+a^{2}+Q^{2})}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}$.
Next we want to compute the connection $1-$form of the normal bundle of $\Sigma$ i.e., $\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}}$.\\
\textbf{Lemma 3:} \textit{For an axis-symmetric embedding of a constant radius surface of Kerr-Newman spacetimes into Minkowski spacetime, the contribution of the connection of the normal bundle of $\Sigma$ to the physical energy vanishes i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}}(\nabla\tau)=0.
\end{eqnarray}
}
\textbf{Proof:}
A simple calculation using the definition of $\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}}$ yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}}(\nabla\tau)=\langle\nabla[\hat{g}]_{\nabla\tau}\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4}\rangle=\langle\nabla_{\sigma^{ab}\partial_{b}\tau\partial_{a}}\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4}\rangle\\\nonumber
=\frac{\sigma^{ab}\partial_{b}\tau(\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\Gamma^{\mu}_{ar}\hat{g}_{\mu t}-\hat{g}_{t\varphi}\Gamma^{\mu}_{ar}\hat{g}_{\mu\varphi})}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\hat{g}_{tt})}}=-\frac{\sigma^{\varphi\varphi}\partial_{\varphi}\tau \Gamma^{t}_{\varphi r}\sqrt{(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\hat{g}_{tt})}}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}}},
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the fact that $\Gamma^{t}_{\theta r}=0$.
This term vanishes identically since $\partial_{\varphi}\tau=0$ for an axis-symmetric embedding. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$\Box$
In order to compute the corresponding expression for the isometrically embedded surface $\Sigma$ in the Minkowski space, we first need an embedding. Due to the lack of all $4$ degrees of freedom while embedding a $2-$surface isometrically (and therefore 3 constraints) into Minkowski space, the time function $\tau$ is left as a free variable. Therefore, we have to solve for $\tau$ at the end. Wang and Yau \cite{Wangyau} considered the quasi-local mass to be the minimum among all time-like observers (compatible with the notion of rest mass in relativity). This amounts to minimizing the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy in the space of $\tau$, which yields an elliptic equation for $\tau$. As mentioned previously (\ref{eq:minkowski}) Wang-Yau \cite{Wangyau} showed that the reference (Minkowski) contribution (\ref{eq:refphysical})
may be expressed in the following alternative form \begin{eqnarray}
MS=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\hat{\Sigma}}\hat{H}\mu_{\hat{\Sigma}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{\Sigma}$ is the projection of the embedding on to the $\tau=$constant hypersurface in the Minkowski space and $\hat{H}$ is the total mean curvature of $\hat{\Sigma}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. The metric $\hat{\sigma}$ of this projected surface reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\sigma}=\sigma+\nabla\tau\otimes \nabla\tau.
\end{eqnarray}
Now we consider the isometric embedding of $\Sigma$ into the Minkowski space and compute the embedding functions. assuming axis-symmetry, the embedding may be written as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
X^{0}=\tau(\theta),X^{1}=A(\theta)\cos\varphi,X^{2}=A(\theta)\sin\varphi,X^{3}=B(\theta),
\end{eqnarray}
which through the isometric condition $\sigma_{ab}=\langle\partial_{a}X,\partial_{b}X\rangle_{\eta}$ yields the following set of ODE
\begin{eqnarray}
[A(\theta)^{'}]^{2}+[B(\theta)^{'}]^{2}=(\partial_{\theta}\tau)^{2}+\sigma_{\theta\theta},\\
A(\theta)^{2}=\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}.
\end{eqnarray}
In terms of the embedding variables $A(\theta)$ and $B(\theta)$, $\hat{H}$ may be computed explicitly. Through an explicit computation, the complete expression for the quasi-local energy reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}:=\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}+\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}\\
=\frac{1}{4}\int_{0}^{\pi}\left(\frac{2[(\partial_{\theta}\tau)^{2}+\sigma_{\theta\theta}-\frac{(\sigma^{'}_{\varphi\varphi})^{2}}{4\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}}]^{2}+\frac{\sigma^{'}_{\varphi\varphi}}{2}(2\partial_{\theta}\tau \partial^{2}_{\theta}\tau+\sigma^{'}_{\theta\theta}-\frac{[2\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}\sigma^{'}_{\varphi\varphi}\sigma^{''}_{\varphi\varphi}\nonumber-\sigma^{'3}_{\varphi\varphi}]}{4\sigma^{2}_{\varphi\varphi}})}{2[(\partial_{\theta}\tau)^{2}+\sigma_{\theta\theta}][(\partial_{\theta}\tau)^{2}+\sigma_{\theta\theta}-\frac{\sigma^{'2}_{\varphi\varphi}}{4\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}}]^{1/2}}\right.\\\nonumber
\left.+\frac{[(\partial_{\theta}\tau)^{2}+\sigma_{\theta\theta}-\frac{(\sigma^{'}_{\varphi\varphi})^{2}}{4\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}}]^{1/2}[\sigma^{'2}_{\varphi\varphi}-\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}\sigma^{''}_{\varphi\varphi}]}{2\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}([(\partial_{\theta}\tau)^{2}+\sigma_{\theta\theta})]}\right)d\theta \\\nonumber
-KN
+\frac{1}{4} Q^{2}R(R^{2}+a^{2})\int_{0}^{\pi}\frac{(R^{2}-a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)\sin\theta}{(R^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{3}}d\theta,
\end{eqnarray}
where $KN$ is the contribution of the physical spacetime in equation (\ref{eq:totalenergy}) with each term evaluated in terms of $\tau$ and $\sigma$.
It is impossible to exactly solve this integral and obtain a closed-form solution for the total quasi-local energy. However, one may evaluate this on special surfaces such as the outer event horizon ($R=R^{+}$) and on the sphere at spatial infinity with some assumption on the charge and mass of the black hole. However, before moving to explicit asymptotic expansion, we need to solve the isometric embedding equation in order to fix $\tau$, the time function of the embedding. The following lemma states that $\tau=$constant is a solution to the optimal embedding equation.\\
\textbf{Lemma 4:} \textit{$\tau(\theta,\varphi)$=constant is a solution to the optimal isometric embedding equation (\ref{eq:optimal}).}\\
\textbf{Proof:} The optimal isometric embedding equation reads
\begin{eqnarray}
-(\hat{H}\hat{\sigma}^{ab}-\hat{\sigma}^{ac}\hat{\sigma}^{bd}\hat{h}_{cd})\frac{\nabla[\sigma]_{a}\nabla_{b}\tau}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}}+\nabla[\sigma]^{a}(\frac{\nabla_{a}\tau \cosh\psi}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}}|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\\\nonumber -\nabla_{a}\psi-(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{a})=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\psi$ is given by the usual expression (\ref{eq:psi})
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi=\sinh^{-1}(-\frac{\Delta \tau}{|\mathbf{H}|_{\hat{g}}\sqrt{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}}).
\end{eqnarray}
It obvious that for $\tau=$constant, all of these terms except the the last term $\nabla[\sigma]^{a}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{a}$ vanishes. Therefore, it is sufficient to show that $\nabla[\sigma]^{a}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{a}=0$ for an axis-symmetric spacetime such as the one in the current context. Using the definition (\ref{eq:connection}) of the connection $1-$form $(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})$ of the normal bundle of $\Sigma$ in the Kerr-Newman spacetime, we may write
\begin{eqnarray}
(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{a}=\langle\nabla[\hat{g}]_{\partial_{a}}\hat{e}_{3},\hat{e}_{4}\rangle_{\hat{g}}=\frac{(\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\Gamma^{\mu}_{ar}\hat{g}_{\mu t}-\hat{g}_{t\varphi}\Gamma^{\mu}_{ar}\hat{g}_{\mu\varphi})}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\hat{g}_{tt})}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Component-wise these read
\begin{eqnarray}
(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\theta}=\frac{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\Gamma^{t}_{\theta r}\hat{g}_{tt}+\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\Gamma^{\varphi}_{\theta r}\hat{g}_{\varphi t}-\hat{g}_{t\varphi}\Gamma^{t}_{\theta r}\hat{g}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{t\varphi}\Gamma^{\varphi}_{\theta r}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\hat{g}_{tt})}},\\
(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\varphi}=\frac{\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\Gamma^{t}_{\varphi r}\hat{g}_{tt}+\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\Gamma^{\varphi}_{\varphi r}\hat{g}_{\varphi t}-\hat{g}_{t\varphi}\Gamma^{t}_{\varphi r}\hat{g}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{t\varphi}\Gamma^{\varphi}_{\varphi r}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}}{\sqrt{\hat{g}_{rr}\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}(\hat{g}^{2}_{t\varphi}-\hat{g}_{\varphi\varphi}\hat{g}_{tt})}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Explicit calculations yield $\Gamma^{t}_{\theta r}=\Gamma^{\varphi}_{\theta r}=0$ for Kerr-Newman spacetime yielding
\begin{eqnarray}
(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\theta}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Now since Kerr-Newman spacetime is axis-symmetric, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\varphi}=(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\varphi}(R,\theta;a,M,Q)
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{\varphi}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\varphi}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore the last term yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla[\sigma]^{a}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{a}=\sigma^{ab}\nabla[\sigma]_{a}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{b}=\sigma^{ab}(\partial_{a}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{b}-\Gamma[\sigma]^{c}_{ab}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{c})\\\nonumber
=\sigma^{\theta\theta}(\partial_{\theta}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\theta}-\Gamma[\sigma]^{c}_{\theta\theta}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{c})+\sigma^{\varphi\varphi}(\partial_{\varphi}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\varphi}-\Gamma[\sigma]^{c}_{\varphi\varphi}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{c})
\end{eqnarray}
and since $(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\theta}=0=\partial_{\varphi}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{e}})_{\varphi}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla[\sigma]^{a}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{a}=-\sigma^{\theta\theta}\Gamma[\sigma]^{\varphi}_{\theta\theta}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\varphi}-\sigma^{\varphi\varphi}\Gamma[\sigma]^{\varphi}_{\varphi\varphi}(\alpha_{\hat{e}_{3}})_{\varphi}=0
\end{eqnarray}
since $\Gamma[\sigma]^{\varphi}_{\theta\theta}=\Gamma[\sigma]^{\varphi}_{\varphi\varphi}=0$. This concludes the proof of the lemma. ~~~~~~$\Box$\\
However, this does not imply that $\tau=0$ is either local or a global minimum of the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy functional (see \cite{chen2014minimizing} for a detailed analysis). It was proven in \cite{chen2014minimizing} that an optimal isometric
embedding is locally unique if the quasi-local mass density is point-wise positive (which is the case here since the Maxwell field satisfies the dominant energy condition). At any rate, the energy corresponding to $\tau=$constant \textit{is} a valid quasi-local energy. One may always perturb $\tau$ about a fixed $\tau=$constant to obtain a local minimum for the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy functional. Since we focus on $\tau=$constant solution now, we need to ensure that the compatibility condition
$K_{\Sigma}+\frac{\det(\nabla[\sigma]_{a}\nabla_{b}\tau)}{1+|\nabla\tau|^{2}_{\sigma}}>0$ which for $\tau=$constant reduces to $K_{\Sigma}>0$ (such that theorem of Pogorelov \cite{pogorelov1952regularity} applies). This is not obvious since the constant radii surfaces in Kerr-Newman spacetime may develop cone singularity at the pole if the black hole starts rotating rapidly. In such a scenario, the embedding of a closed $2-$surface into the $\tau=$constant Euclidean slice may not be possible since the region near the pole develops negative Gauss curvature. We explicitly compute the Gauss curvature of $\Sigma$ to obtain the necessary condition for which such a problem is avoided. We observe that if $a<\frac{R}{\sqrt{3}}$ for any constant radius surface $\Sigma$, then $K_{\Sigma}>0$ for that surface. We are interested in the region $R\geq R^{+}=M+\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}-Q^{2}}>M$ for physical sub-extremal black holes. Therefore if we simply choose $a<\frac{M}{\sqrt{3}}$, then $K_{\Sigma}>0$ everywhere allowing an embedding into a $\tau=$constant Euclidean slice $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. This makes the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy for $\tau=$constant well defined.
Of course, as mentioned previously, the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy for $\tau=$constant is impossible to evaluate exactly. However, if we assume the smallness condition $a\ll M$ (which satisfies the compatibility condition $a<\frac{M}{\sqrt{3}}$), then we may expand several entities such as the metric components and their derivatives in powers of $a/R$ ($R\geq R^{+}>M$). On $R=R^{+}$, several metric components and their derivatives may be expressed in powers of $a/R^{+}$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:expansion1}
\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}|_{R=R^{+}}=\frac{(R^{+2}+a^{2})^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}{R^{+2}}(1-\frac{a^{2}}{R^{+2}}\cos^{2}\theta+O(a^{4}/R^{+4})),\\
\frac{\partial\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}}{\partial \theta}|_{R=R^{+}}=\frac{(R^{2}+a^{2})^{3}\sin2\theta}{R^{4}}(1-\frac{2a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}{R^{+2}}+O(a^{4}/R^{+4})),\\
\label{eq:expansion4}
\frac{\partial^{2}\sigma_{\varphi\varphi}}{\partial\theta^{2}}|_{R=R^{+}}=(R^{+2}+a^{2})^{2}\left(\frac{2a^{2}\sin^{2}2\theta}{R^{+4}}(1-\frac{2a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}{R^{+2}}+O(a^{4}/R^{+4}))\right.\\\nonumber
+\frac{2\cos2\theta}{R^{+2}}(1-\frac{a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}{R^{+2}}+O(a^{4}/R^{+4}))+\frac{\sin^{2}\theta}{R^{+2}}(\frac{2a^{2}\cos2\theta}{R^{+2}}+O(a^{4}/R^{+4})).
\end{eqnarray}
Utilizing this expansion and the equation of the horizon $2R^{+}M-Q^{2}=R^{+2}+a^{2}$ (and therefore replacing $Q$ in favor of $a$, $R^{+}$, and $M$), we evaluate the quasi-local energy expression. For the Schwarzschild black hole, the quasi-local energy is globally minimized by $\tau=$constant and equals $2M$ (where $M$ is the ADM mass) at the horizon. In such a case, it monotonically decays to the usual ADM mass $M$ at infinity. However, in the current context, one would not expect the quasi-local energy to be equal to $2M$ at the horizon (for $\tau=$constant) due to the presence of ergo region (or equivalently due to the non-zero charge and angular momentum of the black hole). From the physical ground, one would expect that at the outer horizon, the gravitational part of the quasi-local energy (i.e., $\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}$) should equal to twice of the irreducible mass $2M_{irr}=\sqrt{2M^{2}-Q^{2}+2M\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}-Q^{2}}}$ \cite{christodoulou1970reversible, christodoulou1971reversible} of the black hole and it should decay to the usual ADM mass $M$ at infinity (note that $2M_{irr}\geq M$ for sub-extremal and extremal black holes). Assuming a small angular momentum approximation, we indeed obtain that such a result holds. For $a\ll M$, utilizing (\ref{eq:expansion1}-\ref{eq:expansion4}), we obtain the following asymptotic expansion for the quasi-local energies
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}|_{R=R^{+}}=\sqrt{R^{+2}+a^{2}}(1+O(a^{4}/R^{+4})),\\
\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}|_{R+R^{+}}=\frac{Q^{2}(R^{+2}+a^{2})}{2R^{+3}}(1-\frac{4a^{2}}{3R^{+2}}+O(a^{4}/R^{+4)})
\end{eqnarray}
and therefore $\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}=\sqrt{R^{+2}+a^{2}}$ modulo higher-order terms on the outer horizon. On the outer horizon, $\sqrt{R^{2}+a^{2}}$ is equal to the twice of the irreducible mass $M_{irr}$. Therefore, for a sufficiently small angular momentum $a$, the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy corresponding to $\tau=$constant is approximately equal to twice the irreducible at the outer horizon. At spatial infinity, we recover the usual ADM mass i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}=M~as~R\to\infty.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $2M_{irr}\geq M$, a natural expectation would be that the total energy exhibits monotonic decay for sub-extremal Kerr-Newman black holes at least in the small angular momentum approximation. This is indeed the case. The $\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{R}\mathcal{QLE}_{gauge}(R)<0,~R\in (R^{+},\infty)
\end{eqnarray}
for all values of angular momentum $a<M$. Since it is in general difficult to evaluate the gravity contribution of the quasi-local energy functional (even for trivial embedding function $\tau=$constant as we have seen previously), we make the approximation $a\ll M$. Using the expansions of type (\ref{eq:expansion1}), we explicitly evaluate $\partial_{R}\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}$ to yield
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{R}\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}(R)<0,~R\in (R^{+},\infty).
\end{eqnarray}
From a physical ground, one obvious obstruction to the monotonicity of the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy is the negativity of the gravitational binding energy (true for a general spacetime) and the presence of an ergo region. However, since at the outer horizon (which already lies within the ergo-sphere), the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy already accounts for the possible energy loss at the ergo region by assuming a value of $2M_{irr}$ instead of $2M$ (which would be the case for Schwarzschild black hole where an ergo region is absent). In other words, the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy essentially encodes the information of the energy that can not be extracted from a Kerr-Newman (or Kerr) black hole via Penrose type process. Once this negative energy contribution is accounted for, it is natural to expect that the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy should exhibit a monotonic decay and we confirm such a notion.
Now if we specialize to the case of zero angular momentum i.e., spherically symmetric static solution (Reissner Nordstrom), then $\tau=$constant is a global minimizer of the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy and in such case, the total energy can be explicitly evaluated and expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}|_{a=0}=R\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{2M}{R}+\frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}}}\right)+\frac{Q^{2}}{2R}\\\nonumber
\forall R\geq R^{+}= M+\sqrt{M^{2}-Q^{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $R\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{2M}{R}+\frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}}}\right)>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}|_{a=0}>\frac{Q^{2}}{2R}
\end{eqnarray}
for all values of $R$ on or outside the horizon. Therefore, In the limit of zero angular momentum, we recover the exact form of a weak Bekenstein's inequality. One may compute explicitly on the horizon
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}(R^{+})|_{a=0}=M+\sqrt{R^{2}-Q^{2}}+\frac{Q^{2}}{2R}\geq Q+\frac{Q^{2}}{2R}
\end{eqnarray}
since $Q\leq M$ for \textit{physical} black holes. Therefore, the equality $\mathcal{QLE}|_{a=0}=\frac{Q^{2}}{2R}$ is never attained. The results obtained so far yield the following theorem regarding the energy content of a Kerr-Newman black hole.
\textbf{Theorem:} \textit{Let $\Sigma$ be a surface of constant radius $R$ in the Ker-Newman spacetime (\ref{eq:kerr-newman}) such that $R\geq R^{+}=M+\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}-Q^{2}}, ~a^{2}+Q^{2}\leq M^{2}$. Then the total quasi-local energy associated with the membrane $\Sigma$ satisfies the following strict inequality for all $R\in [R^{+},\infty)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}(R)>\frac{1}{8} Q^{2}R(R^{2}+a^{2})\left(\frac{a^{2}+3R^{2}}{R^{2}(a^{2}+R^{2})^{2}}+\frac{1}{aR^{3}}\tan^{-1}(\frac{a}{R})\right),
\end{eqnarray}
which for large $R$ reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}(R)>\frac{Q^{2}}{2R}+a^{2}Q^{2}O(R^{-3}).
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, the residual embedding parameter $\tau=$constant satisfies the optimal isometric embedding equation (\ref{eq:optimal}). In such case, the total quasi-local energy ($\mathcal{QLE}$) is expressible in the following form at the outer horizon $R=R^{+}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}(R^{+})=2M_{irr}(1+O(a^{4}/R^{+4}))+\frac{Q^{2}(R^{+2}+a^{2})}{2R^{+3}}(1-\frac{4a^{2}}{3R^{+2}}\\\nonumber+O(a^{4}/R^{+4)})~~~~~for~~a\ll M,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{R\to\infty}\mathcal{QLE}=M~~~~for~all~a<\frac{M}{\sqrt{3}}.
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, $\frac{\partial\mathcal{QLE}}{\partial R}<0~$ for all $R\in (R^{+},\infty)$ and $a\ll M$. Here $M_{irr}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2M^{2}-Q^{2}+2M\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}-Q^{2}}}$ is the irreducible mass of the black hole. In addition, if the angular momentum vanishes then $\tau=$constant globally minimizes the total quasi-local energy and in such case, it is exactly evaluated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{QLE}|_{a=0}=R\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{2M}{R}+\frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}}}\right)\nonumber+\frac{Q^{2}}{2R},~R\geq R^{+}= M+\sqrt{M^{2}-Q^{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
Here we have explicitly obtained an expression of the Wang-Yau quasi-local energy for constant radii surfaces in Kerr-Newman black holes. As we have mentioned previously, obtaining a closed-form expression for the Wang-Yau quasi-local mass for a general constant radial surface is almost impossible due to the presence of the embedding function $\tau$ that is to be obtained through solving an elliptic equation the so-called optimal embedding equation. In this particular case, if one assumes an axis-symmetric embedding, one can obtain $\tau=$constant as a solution to the optimal isometric embedding equation. However, such a solution may not be a global or even a local minimum for the quasi-local energy functional \cite{chen2014minimizing}. However, since $\tau=$constant is rigorously obtained as a solution, the associated energy functional the Liu-Yau mass \cite{liu2003positivity, liu2006positivity} still describes a notion of energy bounded by the constant radius membrane. Since $\tau=$constant essentially implies the isometric embedding into a Euclidean slice of the Minkowski space, one needs to ensure that the Gauss curvature of the $2-$ surface $\Sigma$ is everywhere positive. This is indeed guaranteed for an angular momentum that is bounded from above by a suitable factor of the ADM mass.
Since we are unable to find an explicit meaningful formula for the quasi-local mass for any constant radius surface, we evaluate it on the event horizon and for a large sphere. The total energy contained within the membrane constitutes the pure gravitational energy (may be described by the time component of the Bel-Robinson tensor), the energy of the gauge field coming from its stress-energy tensor as well as the additional pure gauge contribution. For a charged black hole such as the one in the current context, this additional pure gauge contribution does not vanish. This energy is positive everywhere outside the outer horizon (and on it) of the Kerr-Newman black hole and proportional to the square of the charge of the black hole. This contribution essentially provides evidence towards the validity of a weaker version of the Beckenstein type inequality for the Kerr-Newman family of black holes. Even though such an inequality demands $\mathcal{E}^{2}\geq \frac{Q^{4}}{4R^{2}}+\frac{\mathcal{J}^{2}}{R^{2}}$, where $\mathcal{J}$ is the angular momentum, we are able to deduce a version $\mathcal{QLE}_{total}> \frac{1}{8} Q^{2}R(R^{2}+a^{2})\left(\frac{a^{2}+3R^{2}}{R^{2}(a^{2}+R^{2})^{2}}+\frac{1}{aR^{3}}\tan^{-1}(\frac{a}{R})\right)$ since $\mathcal{QLE}_{gravity}> 0$ for a spacetime satisfying dominant energy condition (which is satisfied in the current context) \cite{Wangyau}. Moreover, on special surface such as the outer event horizon, we obtain improved inequality such as $\mathcal{QLE}_{total}\geq M+\frac{Q^{2}(R^{+2}+a^{2})}{2R^{+3}}(1-\frac{4a^{2}}{3R^{+2}}+O(a^{4}/R^{+4)})$ (assuming $a\ll M$) since for a \textit{physical} black hole, $a^{2}+Q^{2}\leq M^{2}$ and $M\geq 0$ by the positive mass theorem of Schoen and Yau \cite{schoen1979proof, schoen1981proof}. While a weaker version of Bekenstein's inequality is really a non-negative definiteness of the entropy of a physical object, the definition of the energy involved is certainly non-unique. In fact, different notions of energy give rise to different coefficients multiplied by the square of the charge. Therefore, a safe conclusion on the physical basis would be that the total energy dominates the square of the charge multiplied by a suitable positive function (of the size of the object under consideration) of the appropriate dimension. A drawback of our study is that we still need to compute the angular momentum contribution in the inequality. However, since Chen, Wang, and Yau \cite{chen2015conserved} have defined a generalized notion of angular momentum associated with a $2-$ surface enclosing a space-like domain in s physical spacetime, we intend to extend this study in the future by adopting their technique to explicitly compute the angular momentum contribution. We note that recently \cite{alaee2019geometric} proved several weak versions of the Bekenstein type inequalities through studying different notions of quasi-local energy.
Assuming a certain smallness condition on the angular momentum, we obtained an asymptotic expression of the total quasi-local energy on the outer horizon. This total energy remarkably agrees (to leading order) with the twice of the irreducible mass of the black hole ($M_{irr}$ \cite{christodoulou1970reversible}) and the pure gauge contribution arising due to electric charge. This result is promising since the notion of quasi-local energy that we adopt here provides a notion of the \textit{true} energy of the black hole that can not be extracted modulo the pure gauge contribution. At asymptotic space-like infinity, the total energy only recovers the ADM mass $M$ as expected (rigorously proven by \cite{wang2010limit} for asymptotically flat Einsteinian spacetimes). If, for the moment, we compare the current scenario with that of Schwarzschild spacetime, then for the latter the quasi-local energy (the one we adopt here) is $2M$ on the horizon and $M$ as one approaches the spatial infinity and decays monotonically from the event horizon to the space-like infinity. In the current context too, we find that the total quasi-local energy monotonically decays from its value $2M_{irr}$ at the outer horizon to the ADM mass $M$ at space-like infinity (notice that $2M_{irr}>M$ for $a,Q<M$). Unlike the Schwarzschild black hole, it does not decay from $2M$ at infinity rather from $2M_{irr}$ which provides an indication that the adopted quasi-local energy encodes the evolution of the true gravitational energy since the irreducible mass ($M_{irr}$) accounts for the energy that the black-hole may lose due to Penrose process \cite{wald1974energy} in the ergo region. Since $\tau=0$ is a solution to the optimal isometric embedding equation which may be perturbed to a local minimum, it is tempting to conjecture that the Wang-Yau quasi-local mass (that the for $\tau$ that truly minimizes the Wang-Yau energy functional) for the Kerr-Newman spacetime monotonically decays from outer horizon to the spatial infinity as well. A further involved study in this direction is left for the future.
Another important point we note here is that the additional contribution to the quasi-local energy that arises due to the presence of a gauge field is not a gauge independent entity (in the sense of Yang-Mills gauge). In the current context of a fixed stationary spacetime, this gauge dependent property does not make any difference since the \textit{non-physical} gauge variable $A_{0}$ of the Maxwell theory (U(1) gauge theory) is fixed and the presence of a horizon does not allow one to set it to zero through a gauge transformation. It would be worth studying this pure gauge contribution in greater detail in the future and attempting to define suitable gauge invariant energy functional for general spacetime with sources that are electrically charged.
\section{Acknowledgement} This work was supported by the Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications (CMSA) at Harvard University.
\section{Bibliography}
|
\section{Bulk and image states of Li$_{13}$ cluster}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{bandchul.jpg}
\caption{The comparison of energy eigenvalues obtained two different models.}
\label{band}
\end{figure}
In our theoretical calculations, as a first step, by performing temperature dependent molecular dynamic simulation of $5000$ Li atoms, we obtained a crystal of Li and choose the most appropriate icosahedral clusters in the crystal. We transferred the structure properties of this cluster to the Gaussian $09$ and we optimized again. We showed that the optimization has not changed the structure property of the cluster. We used the DFT technique in the frame of B3LYP scheme to obtain the electronic structure of the cluster. Then we solved the Schrödinger's equation to get the image states. The Fig. \ref{Li13wf} shows the molecular orbitals for different states of a metal cluster which has a perfect spherical symmetry. In order to obtain the radial profile and energy levels of surface and image states we solve the radial Schrödinger equation with the empirical potential introduced by Chulkov et. al. \cite{chulkov1997image,chulkov1999image,silkin2009image}. This model potential is the result of ab-initio
techniques and experimental observations, which can be
written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
V_1(r)&=A_{10}+A_1 \cos{\frac{2\pi}{a_s}r},\;\; r<0\\
V_2(r)&=-A_{20}+A_2 \cos{\beta r},\;\; 0<r<r_{im}\\
V_3(r)&=A_3 e^{-\alpha(r-r_1)},\;\; r_1<r<r_{im}\\
V_4(r)&=\frac{\exp[-\lambda(r-r_{im})]-1}{4(r-r_{im})},\;\; r_{im}<z
\label{Eq:potential}
\end{split}
\end{equation}%
This one-electron potential is a result of local density approximation. For $z>z_{im}$, image potential has been used instead of the LDA potential \cite{chulkov1999image}.
What we expect from the electronic band structure of a spherical cluster is to provide a consistency between the bulk levels obtained from DFT and solution of radial Schrödinger equation. The comparison of energy eigenvalues of the states obtained from two different methods has been shown in the Fig. \ref{band}. This figure indicates the consistency of the results obtained different methods. The wavefunctions obtained from Chulkov model will be used in image current density calculations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{WF1.jpg}
\caption{The radial potential and corresponding radial wave functions of bulk states of lithium cluster. These wavefunctions belong to the occupied electrons which are localized in the potential region.}
\label{Li13wf1}
\end{figure}
From the Fig. \ref{band}, we can see the possible excitation between the bulk and surface or image states. In the case of circularly polarized light, $p-s$ or $p-d$ excitations are possible. An electron excited to the $s$ state is not able to induce a ring current because $s$ state does not include magnetic quantum number as will be seen Eq. \ref{Eq:curden2}. An excitation of an electron to $d$ state has very low probability because of small overlapping function between $p$ and $d$ states. As a result of our calculations, we found that the highest overlapping value is obtained in $s-p$ transitions. Therefore, we decided to calculate the ring current induced by $1s-2p$ and $1s-3p$ transitions. Here, $1s$, $2p$ and $3p$ refer to the bulk, surface and image states.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{WF2.jpg}
\caption{The surface states for different $\ell$ values. In the case of $\ell=0$, the surface state wavefunction of this spherical cluster is very similar to that of flat surface. For different values of $\ell$, the surface states are pushed through the outer region of the surface by barrier potential. }
\label{Li13wf2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{WF3.jpg}
\caption{The image states of the spherical cluster for $\ell=0$. Here $4.$ image state is mostly localized in a distance which is almost $14$ times more than the radius of the cluster. In this case only believable value is first image state.}
\label{Li13wf3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{WF4.jpg}
\caption{The image states of the spherical cluster for $\ell>0$. We only use the image state $\psi_{|\ell=1;IS=1|}$}
\label{Li13wf4}
\end{figure}
In order to analyze the characteristics of the occupied and unoccupied states, we will give some attention to the figures which describe the bulk, surface and image states. Fig. \ref{Li13wf1} show the wavefunction of electrons in the occupied states. $l=0$, $l=1$ and $l=2$ refer to the $s$, $p$ and $d$ states. The radial distribution of the electron wavefunction falls within the radial potential region.
Fig. \ref{Li13wf2} indicates the surface electron states which are unoccupied. Because the surface and image states are broad in position space, the scale needs to be expanded as in the figure. The profile of the surface state for $l=0$ is very similar to that of the flat surface. For $l=1$, the surface state wavefunction is mostly localized out of the surface. And the position of the peak of this state is at $r=3.5\;a_s$. For $l=2$, the surface state wavefunction is localized far outside the surface. The peak position of $l=2$ wavefunction is almost $7\;a_s$.
Fig. \ref{Li13wf3} shows the wavefunctions of image states for $l=0$. The closer to the vacuum level, the further the localization moves away from the surface. Albeit fantastic is an electron traveling almost $10$ times the diameter of the sphere from the surface of a small metal sphere, a similar investigation \cite{granger2002highly} has reported that the image wavefunctions are localized at a distance which is $5$ times the diameter of a carbon nanotube. Fig. \ref{Li13wf4} shows other image state wavefunctions. In our calculations we only used the first image state for $l=1$.
In the study of Koksal et. al. \cite{koksal2012charge}, the ring currents have been calculated by using time-dependent perturbation theory. Referring the details to this work, we only mention the last equation which is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\mathbf{j_{\phi}}(\mathbf{r})=\mathbf{\Tilde{j}}_{\phi}\times \mathbf{M}_{n l m,n_0 l_0 m_0}\\
&\mathbf{\Tilde{j}}_{\phi}=\frac{m \hbar}{m_e} \frac{\left|\psi_{n l m}(r,\theta,\phi)\right|^2}{r \sin{\theta}} \mathbf{\hat{\phi}} \\
&\mathbf{M}_{n l m,n_0 l_0 m_0}=\frac{4}{\delta^2} A_0^2 (E_{n l m}-E_{n_0 l_0 m_0})^2 \times\\
& \left|\left<n l m \;|\; r \cos\theta (\cos\phi+i \sin\phi) \;|\;n_0 l_0 m_0\right>\right|^2
\label{Eq:curden2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\Tilde{j}}_{\phi}$ corresponds to the current density due to the excited electron. Other term $\mathbf{M}_{n l m,n_0 l_0 m_0}$ shows the transition probability. $A_0$ is the amplitude of the electric field, $E_{n l m}$ is energy of the excited states. $n$,$l$,$m$ are radial, orbital and magnetic quantum numbers, respectively. $\delta$ refers transition rate, $m_e$ and $\hbar$ are electron mass and Planck's constant, respectively. The expression in the parenthesis $(\cos\phi+i \sin\phi)$ refers to the spin polarization of the light.
In our calculations we only consider one electron transition between ground state into the image-potential state or surface state. The frequency of the light is tuned to be the same as the difference between the energies of intended bulk and surface/image states. Polarizarion vector is $\mathbf{\hat{e}}=(\cos \phi,i \sin \phi, 0)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{imagecurrentSS.jpg}
\caption{The photo-induced current is due to the transition of the bulk electron in the bulk state $\psi_{l=0;n=1}$ into the surface state $\psi_{l=1;SS}$ (please look at the Fig. \ref{Li13wf2}). The unit of the current is in the range of $\mu$A. The energy value of bulk and surface states are $-7.6859$ Hr and $-0.7141$ Hr, respectively.}
\label{imagecurrentSS}
\end{figure}
According to the scenario, spin polarized beam is applied to the Li$_{13}$ spherical cluster to manage the transfer of the photon spin into the electron in bulk state. In order to observe a net ring current, the electron should be kicked to an electronic level which has orbital $l\neq 0$ and magnetic $m\neq 0$ quantum numbers. An $s-p$ transition will be sufficient to observe a ring current and a circulation of an electron. When we manage to excite the electron surface or image state which are localized outside the surface, it is possible to observe a ring current in the region out of the surface.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{imagecurrentIS.jpg}
\caption{This current is due to the transition of an electron between bulk state $\psi_{l=0;n=1}$ and image potential state ${\psi_{l=1;IS1}}$ (please look at the Fig. \ref{Li13wf4}). The energy value of bulk and image states are $-7.6859$ Hr and $-0.1829$ Hr, respectively. $1 a.u.$ for the current means $6.6$ mA. The current here is almost $10$ $\mu$A flowing in clockwise direction. The maximum value of current density is 2.35 $\mu$A/nm$^2$. }
\label{imagecurrentIS}
\end{figure}
As seen from the Figs. \ref{imagecurrentSS} and \ref{imagecurrentIS}, the photo-induced image(surface) electron current density is distributed symmetrically outside the surface of the metal cluster. This current is the result of the excitation of an electron in bulk state into the surface or image state, $\psi_{l=1}$. Although overlap function between a bulk state and an image/surface state is small, the amount of obtained induced surface current is around $\mu$A, that of induced image current is around nA.
The properties of the image states are similar to those of the hydrogenic wavefunctions and there exists infinite Rydeberg-type series. According to this analogy and as a result of our calculations, a photo-induced image electron current refers to the electron rotating around a nucleus of which the constituent is Li$_{13}$ cluster instead of proton. We believe that this theoretical work can be conformed by well designed experimental studies.
|
\section{Introduction}
Bayesian and bandit optimization \cite{mockus1989bayesian, lattimore2020bandit}
are two well established frameworks for black-box
function optimization under uncertainty. They model the
optimization process as a sequential learning problem. For an unknown
function $f$ and a decision set $\mathcal{A}$ (e.g., $\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$) at each step $t$ the learner:
\\
(1) selects candidate $\mathbf{x}_t \in \mathcal{A}$ by maximizing an
acquisition function $u_t$ as a surrogate of $f$;\\
(2) receives a noisy feedback
\footnote{Actions or arms are also used for $\mathbf{x}_t$; and rewards for $y_t$.}
$y_t \triangleq f(\mathbf{x}_t) + \eta_t$ from the environment, where $\eta_t \stackrel{\text{i.i.d.}}{\sim} \mathcal{N}(0,\xi^2)$;\\[0.3em]
(3) uses $y_t$ to improve $u_t$'s approximation of $f$.
A common approach to measure the learner's convergence
is to study the \textit{cumulative regret}
$R_T \triangleq \sum_{t=1}^T f^{\star} - f(\mathbf{x}_t)$
of the learner's choice of candidates compared to the optimum of
the function $f^\star = \max_{\mathbf{x}} f(\mathbf{x})$. A learner is deemed
no-regret when it converges on average (i.e., $\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
R_T/T \rightarrow 0$). Thanks to their flexibility
and capability of modeling uncertainty, Gaussian processes (GP)
\cite{rasmussen_gaussian_2006} have emerged as an effective choice for regret minimization, jump-starting the field of GP optimization (GP-Opt\xspace).
Decision rules that leverage GPs to estimate upper confidence bounds (\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace
\cite{srinivas2010gaussian, chowdhury2017kernelized}) or expected
improvement (\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace
\cite{wang2014theoretical}) provably achieve a regret\footnote{The notation $\wt{\mathcal{O}}$ ignores $\polylog$ terms.}
$\wt{\mathcal{O}}(\gamma_T\sqrt{T})$ over $T$ steps. Here,~$\gamma_T$
is the so-called maximum information gain associated with $\mathcal{A}$
and the GP. It captures in a data-adaptive way the implicit number of parameters
of the non-parametric GP model, quantifying the
effective complexity of the optimization problem.
Under appropriate assumptions $\gamma_T$ grows slowly
in $T$ making GP based methods no-regret
\cite{srinivas2010gaussian,scarlett2017lower}.
However, as most non-parametric approaches, GP-Opt\xspace algorithms
face scalability issues when $T$ grows large, severely limiting
their applicability to large scale settings.
For example, in some
hyper-parameter optimization problems
the solutions can still improve even after tens of thousands of
candidate evaluations (e.g. the NAS-bench search \cite{ying2019bench} evaluated 5 million candidates).
Even more, for recommender systems
that continuously adapt to the users' behaviour, the horizon $T$ is unbounded
and the optimization process never ends (e.g. \cite{saito2020open,li2010contextual} record tens of millions of interactions with users).
Many approaches have been proposed to extend GP-Opt\xspace algorithms
to these settings.
\subsection{Approaches to scalable no-regret GP optimization}
GP's most commonly considered limitation is the \textbf{computational
bottleneck}, which stems from the high cost of quantifying uncertainty using
exact inference on the GP model. In particular, in the traditional
i.i.d.~learning setting the complexity of computing a GP posterior over $n$
training points is usually quantified as
$\wt{\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ time and $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ space \cite{rasmussen_gaussian_2006},
which makes training GPs on large dataset unfeasible in general.
A similar complexity analysis in the GP-Opt\xspace settings
replaces $n$ with the $T$ candidates chosen by the algorithm,
giving us a baseline complexity of $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T^3)$ time
and $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T^2)$ space complexity.
Two main approaches have emerged to reduce this complexity.
The most common can provably preserve no-regret guarantees, and is based on
approximating the GP model, using either inducing points
\cite{quinonero-candela_approximation_2007,calandriello_2019_coltgpucb} or
quadrature Fourier features \cite{mutny_efficient_2018}.
Another approach
is to use approximate posterior inference, e.g., using iterative solvers \cite{gardner2018gpytorch}, but without no-regret guarantees.
Beyond computations, vanilla GP-Opt\xspace algorithms suffer from a
\textbf{sequential experimentation bottleneck}, which stems from having to wait
for feedback at every step of the sequential interaction protocol.
Whenever each function evaluation is time consuming this bottleneck can actually dominate the computational one, and even computationally efficient
GP-Opt\xspace algorithms cannot scale as they spend most of their time waiting for feedback.
However, even in this slow evaluation setting scalability can be achieved by selecting batches of candidates at the same time and evaluating them in parallel.
Experimental parallelism greatly reduces total evaluation time, and millions of evaluations are possible resulting in much better final performance \cite{ying2019bench}.
The key trade-off is between batch sizes and regret, with larger batches increasing the potential for parallelism but also increase feedback delay and regret.
Several approaches have been proposed over the year to manage this trade-off \cite{desautels_parallelizing_2014,kathuria_batched_2016,daxberger17a}.
Overall, to match existing state of the art GP-Opt\xspace algorithms
in guarantees for
regret, computational cost and batching capability,
an algorithm should achieve
$\wt{\mathcal{O}}(\gamma_T\sqrt{T})$ regret with a $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T\gamma_T^3)$ time and
$\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T\gamma_T + \gamma_T^2)$ space complexity, and only $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(\gamma_T)$ rounds
of interactions (i.e., batches).
\subsection{Contributions}
In this paper we propose a meta-algorithm, \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace, that we use to generate scalable versions of many popular GP-Opt\xspace algorithm.
Applying \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace to \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace
and \textsc{GP-EI}\xspace we obtain two new \textsc{mini}-variants, \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace and \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace, that
achieve performance comparable to existing state-of-the-art scalable GP-Opt\xspace algorithms, but
rely on very different underlying principles to achieve scalability.
There are two main building blocks in \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace. The first
is a reformulation of the posterior of a GP
that highlights that scalability in a GP does not depend on
the number of points in the GP, but rather on the number of \emph{unique}
(i.e., different from all others) points.
Indicating with $q_t$ the number of unique points up to time $t$, the time complexity
of computing a GP can then be reduced from $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T^3)$ to $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(q_T^3)$.
This is an elementary property of GPs, but its applicability
greatly depends on the underlying task. It has little impact and is not used in i.i.d.\,learning settings
where duplicates in the
training data are exceedingly rare.
It can bring more benefits in settings were
multiple evaluations of the same candidate
are naturally part of the solution,
and it has been leveraged
when possible in stochastic optimization \cite{picheny2013quantile} and active learning \cite{binois2019replication}.
In this paper we show that this approach can be taken a step further in GP-Opt\xspace tasks. In particular, the second building block of \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace is a meta-strategy that given a GP-Opt\xspace algorithm as input, modifies the candidate selection strategy of the input learner to explicitly
minimize $q_t$ to improve performance while preserving the same regret rate guarantees as the original candidate selection strategy.
Out of the many meta-strategies that one can consider, a simple
yet effective approach that we advocate is to limit the number of times
the candidate selection strategy is allowed to switch candidates,
since the number of candidate switches clearly bounds $q_t$. This can be done
transparently for many input learners by using the selection strategy, and then
sticking to the same candidate for multiple steps before invoking the selection
strategy again.
Furthermore, the rule we derive to decide when to switch candidate
does not depend on the function feedback.
Therefore the algorithm can first select a candidate,
then choose how many steps it should stick to it, and finally evaluate
the candidate multiple times in parallel. In other words,
our meta-approach can not only retro-fit existing GP-Opt\xspace
algorithms to be computationally scalable, but also experimentally
scalable thanks to batching.
Theoretically, we study the impact of this generic modification
both under the lenses
of model freezing in the linear bandits~\cite{abbasi2011improved} and
delayed feedback in batch GP-Opt\xspace
\cite{desautels_parallelizing_2014,calandriello2020near}.
Using these tools we derive strong guarantees for two new variants of \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace
and \textsc{GP-EI}\xspace that balance between minimizing unique actions and achieving low
regret, hence dubbed minimize-unique-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace (\textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace) and
minimize-unique-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace (\textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace). Thanks to a careful balancing of the
trade-off, both algorithms match the $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(\gamma_T\sqrt{T})$ regret of
their traditional counterparts, while evaluating a number of unique candidates
$q_t \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}(\gamma_t)$ that scales only with the maximum
information gain. Moreover, these algorithms are extremely scalable,
requiring only $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T + Aq_T^3) \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}(T + A\gamma_T^3)$ time,
where $A$ is the time required to optimize $q_t$,
$\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T\gamma_T + \gamma_T^2)$ space, and $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(\gamma_T)$ rounds
of interaction.
Our approach also highlights an even less studied family of scalability bottlenecks for GPs, the \textbf{candidate switch bottlenecks}.
Similar to the sequential experimentation bottleneck, this is an experimental bottleneck that stems from the fact
that in some cases, changing the candidate being evaluated can be time or cost expensive
(e.g.,\xspace even if testing a chemical might be fast, re-calibrating instruments for different chemicals might be expensive).
Finally, our approach is unique in the scalable GP literature in the
sense that it completely side-steps the necessity of approximating
inference or the GP model;
avoiding the need of inducing points, randomized sketching, or iterative solvers.
Instead, algorithms based on
\textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace can use exact inference on an exact GP
model thanks to the efficient posterior reformulation and the
different optimization path chosen to minimize unique
candidates. This greatly simplifies the algorithm, making it more
broadly applicable.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminaries}
\textbf{Notation.} We denote with $[t]=\{1,\ldots,t\}$ the set of integers up
to $t$. At step $t$, the matrix $\mathbf{X}_t \triangleq [\mathbf{x}_1, \dots,
\mathbf{x}_t]^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} \in \mathbb{R}^{t \times d}$ contains all the candidates selected so
far, and $\mathbf{y}_t \triangleq [y_1, \dots, y_t]^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}$ their
corresponding feedbacks. We define a batch as a sequence of steps between $t
\leq t'$ such that the learner must select all candidates $\mathbf{x}_t, \dots
\mathbf{x}_{t'}$ before observing the corresponding feedback $y_t,\dots,y_{t'}$. To
connect steps and batches we adopt a standard notation
\cite{desautels_parallelizing_2014,calandriello2020near} where $\fb{t}$
indicates the last step of the previous batch, i.e.,\xspace at step $t$ the learner has
access only to feedback $\mathbf{y}_{\fb{t}}$ up to step $\fb{t}$.
\textbf{Gaussian processes.}
GPs \cite{rasmussen_gaussian_2006} are usually described using a mean function $\mu$, which we assume to be zero, and a (bounded) covariance or kernel function $\mathrm{k}: \mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow [0,\kappa^2]$.
Based on the prior $\mu$ and~$\mathrm{k}$, the posterior of the GP conditioned on some data $\mathbf{X}_t, \mathbf{y}_t$ is traditionally formulated as
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
{\mu}_t(\mathbf{x}_i) &= \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{X}_t)(\mathbf{K}_t + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathbf{K}_t\mathbf{y}_t,\\
{\sigma}_t^2(\mathbf{x}_i) &= \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_i) - \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{X}_t)(\mathbf{K}_t + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_t, \mathbf{x}_i),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:post-gp}
\end{align}
where we shortened $\mathbf{K}_t = \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_t, \mathbf{X}_t)$, and use
only the subscript $t$ to indicate that
${\mu}_t$ and $\sigma_t$ are conditioned on all data up to time $t$.
Note also that $\mu_t$ and $\sigma_t$ are only proper Bayesian
GP posterior when $\lambda = \xi^2$, but we leave here
$\lambda$ as a free parameter as it will be useful in frequentist
regret analysis.
Given prior and posterior of the GP, we can also define the information gain
between them as
\vspace{-.25\baselineskip}
\begin{align*}
\textstyle
\gamma(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{y}) \triangleq \tfrac{1}{2}\logdet(\mathbf{I} + \xi^{-2}\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{X})).
\end{align*}
Based on $\gamma(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{y})$ we can also define the maximum information gain
$\gamma_t \triangleq \max_{\mathbf{X}: |\mathbf{X}| = t} \gamma(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{y})$ at step $t$ as a
worst-case bound on the complexity of the optimization process.
Large amounts of research have been dedicated to characterizing how $\gamma_T$
behaves under different assumptions on $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathrm{k}$ \cite{srinivas2010gaussian,scarlett2017lower}. This includes sufficient conditions for
$\gamma_T$ to be sublinear, both with polynomial and logarithmic rates in $T$.
We leave the reader to recent surveys \cite{pmlr-v130-vakili21a} for more results, and treat here
$\gamma_T$ as a desirable data-adaptive measure of the intrinsic
complexity of the problem.
\textbf{Optimistic Gaussian process optimization.}
Given a GP posterior, we can construct an \textit{acquisition function} $u_t(\cdot): \mathcal{A} \to \mathbb{R}$
to guide us in the candidate selection.
We focus specifically on acquisition functions based on upper confidence bounds (\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace~\cite{srinivas2010gaussian})
and expected improvement (\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace \cite{mockus1989bayesian})
\begin{align}
&u_t^{\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace}(\mathbf{x}) = \mu_t(\mathbf{x}) + \beta_t^{\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace}\sigma_t(\mathbf{x}),\label{eq:acq-gpucb}\\
&u_t^{\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}(\mathbf{x}) = \beta_t^{\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}\sigma_t(\mathbf{x})\left[\big(\tfrac{z}{\beta_t^{\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}}\big)
\textrm{CDF}_{\mathcal{N}}\big(\tfrac{z}{\beta_t^{\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}}\big) + \textrm{PDF}_{\mathcal{N}}\big(\tfrac{z}{\beta_t^{\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}}\big)\right]\nonumber,
\end{align}
where
$z = \tfrac{\mu_t(\mathbf{x}) - \max_{\mathbf{x}'}\mu_t(\mathbf{x}')}{\sigma_t(\mathbf{x})}$,
$\textrm{CDF}_{\mathcal{N}}(\cdot)$ and $\textrm{PDF}_{\mathcal{N}}(\cdot)$ are the cumulative and probability density functions of a standard Gaussian, and $\beta_t \in \mathbb{R}_+$ must be appropriately chosen.
{
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{0cm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\setstretch{1.1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{Set of candidates $\mathcal{A}$, acq.~func.~$u_0$}
\STATE Initialize $t = 0$
\FOR{$t=\{1, \dots, T\}$}
\STATE Select $\mathbf{x}_{t+1} = \argmax_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{A}}u_{t}(\mathbf{x})$\;
\STATE Get feedback $y_{t+1}$
\STATE Update $\mu_t$, $\sigma_t$, $\beta_t$ and $u_t$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Optimistic GP optimization\label{alg:opt-gp}}
\end{algorithm}
}
Given an acquisition function $u_t$, a standard way to obtain a GP-Opt\xspace algorithm
based on it is to apply the meta-algorithm reported in \Cref{alg:opt-gp}.
In particular, the acquisition function is used by the meta-algorithm
to choose candidates optimistically/greedily w.r.t.~$u_t$.
Applying \Cref{alg:opt-gp} to the \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace and \textsc{GP-EI}\xspace acquisition function
we obtain exactly the \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace and \textsc{GP-EI}\xspace algorithm,
which are guaranteed to
achieve low regret \cite{srinivas2010gaussian,wang2014theoretical,chowdhury2017kernelized}.
Unfortunately, optimizing $u_t$ or even evaluating it is computationally inefficient, as
it involves evaluating $\sigma_t(\mathbf{x})$ which requires at least $\mathcal{O}(t^2)$ time due to the
multiplication $(\mathbf{K}_t + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_t, \mathbf{x}_j)$.
Moreover, the sequential nature of the optimization protocol precludes the possibility
of running experiments in parallel, which is also necessary to achieve true scalability.
We propose now a new approach to address both bottlenecks.
\section{Efficient GP Optimization With Few Unique Candidates}\label{sec:bbkb}
Our approach to achieve scalability will be composed by two main ingredients.
The first ingredient is a reformulation of the GP posterior that can be efficiently
computed when the GP is supported on a small number $q_t$ of unique candidates (i.e.,\xspace
the history $\mathbf{X}_t$ contains $t$ rows with repetitions, of which only
$q_t$ are unique). To leverage this first ingredient we then need
a second ingredient, a generic approach
to guarantee that $q_t$ stays small. This takes the form
of a modification of the usual GP-Opt\xspace loop of \Cref{alg:opt-gp}
to reduce the number of candidate switches, which acts as an upper bound on
$q_t$. Since our switching
rule is agnostic to $u_t$, our approach remains a flexible meta-algorithm
that can be applied to different acquisition functions to obtain different
efficient GP-Opt\xspace algorithms.
As an added bonus, we also show how these choices allow to seamlessly incorporate
candidate batching in the resulting algorithm, which improves experimental scalability.
{
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{0cm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\setstretch{1.1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{Set of candidates $\mathcal{A}$, acq.~func.~$u_0$, threshold $C$}
\STATE Initialize $t = 0$
\FOR{$h=\{1, \dots\}$}
\STATE Select $\mathbf{x}_{t+1} = \argmax_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{A}}u_{t}(\mathbf{x})$\;
\STATE Evaluate $\mathbf{x}_{t+1}$ for $B_{h} = \lfloor (C^2 - 1)/\sigma_{t}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t+1}) \rfloor$ times (i.e.,\xspace $\mathbf{x}_{s} = \mathbf{x}_{t+1}$ for all $s \in [t+1, t+B_{h}]$)
\STATE Get feedback $\{y_s\}_{s=t+1}^{t+B_{h}}$
\STATE Set $t = t + B_{h}$, update posteriors $\mu_t$, $\sigma_t$ and acquisition function $u_t$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Meta-algorithm to minimize unique candidates (\textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace)\label{alg:meta-mini}
}
\end{algorithm}
}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{A meta-algorithm to select few unique candidates}
\vspace{-0.05in}
To control the number of candidate switches
we generalize and improve the rarely switching OFUL (\textsc{RS-OFUL}\xspace) algorithm \cite{abbasi2011improved}.
In particular, we extend \textsc{RS-OFUL}\xspace from euclidean to Hilbert spaces, modify it
to operate with acquisition functions different than the \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace one,
and replace \textsc{RS-OFUL}\xspace's switching rule with an improved criteria recently
proposed for batched GP optimization \cite{calandriello2020near}.
Our final meta-algorithm \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace is reported in \Cref{alg:meta-mini}.
We refer to it as a meta-algorithm
because it can generate different GP-Opt\xspace algorithms
using different
acquisition functions $u_0(\cdot)$ as input. As an example,
if we use $u_{t}^{\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace}(\cdot)$ (\Cref{eq:acq-gpucb}) we obtain an algorithm
similar to \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace that we call minimize-unique-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace or \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace for short.
Similarly, we can use \Cref{alg:meta-mini} to convert \textsc{GP-EI}\xspace into \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace.
Moreover, all of the
algorithms generated by \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace can compute posteriors efficiently
using a reformulation of $\mu_t$ and~$\sigma_t$ introduced later in
\Cref{eq:mu-post-gp}
rather than the standard formulation of \Cref{eq:post-gp}.
The meta-algorithm operates in epochs/batches indexed by $h$, where each epoch is delimited by a
candidate switch.
Inside each epoch, the meta-algorithm selects the next candidate $\mathbf{x}_{t+1}$ to
be evaluated by maximizing the acquisition function $u_t$, and we discuss more
in detail later how easy or hard this inner optimization problem can be based
on properties of $u_t$ and $\mathcal{A}$.
Then, after selecting the epoch's candidate
the meta-algorithm must choose the length of the epoch.
Since we do not switch candidate until the end of the epoch, this amounts to selecting
how many times the candidate $\mathbf{x}_{t+1}$ will be repeatedly evaluated. The main trade-off here is between long epochs that
improve scalability and short epochs that make it easier to switch often and explore/exploit efficiently.
Specializing an approach used in the \textsc{BBKB}\xspace algorithm \cite{calandriello2020near} to our setting, we propose to select $B_{h} = \lfloor ({C^2} - 1)/\sigma_{t}(\mathbf{x}_{t+1}) \rfloor$,
which as we prove achieves both goals.
Finally, at the end of the epoch we collect the feedback, and use it to update
the GP posterior and the chosen acquisition function. The loop is then repeated
forever or until a desired number of epochs/steps is reached.
We also highlight that not all epoch-based GP-Opt\xspace algorithms
are also batched GP-Opt\xspace algorithms. In particular, in batched GP algorithms
candidates in a batch can be evaluated in parallel before feedback of previous candidates is available.
Since there is no dependency on the feedback
neither in our candidate selection (it is always the same candidate)
nor in the epoch termination rule, our meta-algorithm
can transform a sequential GP optimization algorithm to a batch variant,
e.g.,\xspace \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace is a batch algorithm even though \textsc{GP-EI}\xspace is not.
\subsection{GPs supported on few unique candidates.}
We can now show that if $h$ is small, all the relevant quantities from \Cref{alg:meta-mini} can be computed efficiently.
In particular, after running \Cref{alg:meta-mini} for $h$ epochs let $\mathbf{X}_{h}$ indicate the $h \times d$ matrix containing
the $h$ candidates selected so far.
To simplify exposition, we will assume all $h$ candidates are distinct,
and comment in the appendix how removing this assumption just involves
slightly harder book-keeping to merge
feedbacks coming from two identical candidates selected in different epochs.
Given $\mathbf{X}_h$, let $\mathbf{W}_{h} \in \mathbb{R}^{h \times h}$ be a diagonal matrix;
where $[\mathbf{W}_{h}]_{i,i} = B_i$ contains the number of times the candidate of the $i$-th epoch
is contained in $\mathbf{X}_t$ (i.e.,\xspace number of times it is selected),
and let $t_i$ denote the starting time-step of the $i$-th epoch.
Then, we have
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
&{\mu}_{t_h}(\mathbf{x}) = \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{X}_{h})(\mathbf{K}_{h} + \lambda\mathbf{W}_{h}^{-1})^{-1}\mathbf{y}_{h},\\
&
{\sigma}_{t_h}^2(\mathbf{x}) = \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}) - \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{X}_{h})(\mathbf{K}_{h} + \lambda\mathbf{W}_{h}^{-1})^{-1}\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_{h}, \mathbf{x})
\end{aligned}\label{eq:mu-post-gp}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{K}_{h} = \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_{h}, \mathbf{X}_{h}) \in \mathbb{R}^{h \times h}$,
and $\mathbf{y}_{h} \in \mathbb{R}^{h}$ is such that $[\mathbf{y}_{h}]_i = \sum_{s=t_i}^{t_i + B_i} y_s$,
Using the feature-space view of GPs, it is straightforward to prove using
basic linear algebra identities that the posterior
\Cref{eq:mu-post-gp} is equal
to \Cref{eq:post-gp}, i.e.,\xspace that these are not
approximations to the posterior but \emph{reformulations} of the posterior (see \Cref{sec:app-theory}).
However, when $h \ll t$, Eq.~\ref{eq:mu-post-gp}
can be computed efficiently in $\mathcal{O}(h^3)$, since it only involves
the inversion of an $h \times h$ matrix $\mathbf{K}_h$.
The reformulations of \Cref{eq:mu-post-gp}
are not completely new, e.g., \textcite{picheny2013quantile}
presented similar reformulations based on averaged feedbacks.
At a higher level, they can be seen as a special
case of the more generic framework of reformulating GPs posteriors
as distribution conditioned on a set of inducing points, also
known as sparse GP approximation \cite{quinonero-candela_approximation_2007}.
Traditionally, this framework has been designed to identify a small
number of inducing variables that could act as a bottleneck for the GP
model, reducing its number of parameters and accuracy, but also the
computational cost of inference. However, unlike previous approaches we propose
to utilize the \emph{whole optimization history} as inducing variables,
removing this bottleneck.
Therefore we are not approximating a full GP with a factorized GP, or a dense
GP with a sparse GP, but simply exploiting the intrinsic sparseness
and low number of implicit parameters that arise when GPs
are defined on few unique candidates.
Note that enforcing a candidate selection strategy that keeps $q_t$ under control is crucial
in creating a gap between \Cref{eq:post-gp} and \Cref{eq:mu-post-gp}.
This explains why historically this reformulation has not seen
success in fields such as the standard supervised GP regression setting,
where the selection process is not under the control of the learner.
In particular, when $\mathbf{X}_t$ is sampled i.i.d.~from some
distribution the rows are all different w.p.~1, and our method offers no
scalability improvement. Looking instead at the history of GP optimization
methods, this reformulation has been largely ignored because most approaches
try to evaluate a very diverse sets of candidates to improve initial
exploration. This increases the number of unique historical
candidates, and makes the impact of the reformulation negligible or
even detrimental since it prevents other kinds of efficient incremental
updates.
\section{Regret and computational meta-analysis}\label{sec:comparison}
\vspace{-0.1in}
Rather than designing a specialized analysis for every \textsc{mini}-variant,
we propose instead a meta-analysis that cover a generic $u_t$ acquisition
function, and then will instantiate this analysis at the end
of the section with $u_t^{\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace}$ and $u_t^{\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}$.
While the computational meta-analysis holds for any
$u_t$, the regret meta-analysis requires $u_t$ to satisfy a simple condition.
Given feedback up to step $t-1$, candidates selected
optimistically using the acquisition function $u_t$ at step $t$ must satisfy
w.h.p.~this bound on the instantaneous regret $r_t$
\begin{align}\label{eq:instant-regret}
r_t \triangleq f^{\star} - f(\mathbf{x}_t) \leq G_t\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t),
\end{align}
for some non-decreasing sequence $G_t$.
This condition is satisfied for example by \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace
\cite{srinivas2010gaussian,abbasi2011improved,chowdhury2017kernelized} and
\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace \cite{wang2014theoretical}.
Based on this condition, our paper's main result is the following meta-theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main-meta}
For any $1 < C$, set $\mathcal{A}$ and acquisition function $u_0$,
\Cref{alg:meta-mini} runs in
$\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T + \gamma_T\cdot(A + \gamma_T^3))$ time,
$\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T\gamma_T)$ space,
and $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(\gamma_T)$ epochs/batches,
where $A$ indicates the complexity of
solving the inner optimization problem
(i.e., $\argmax_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{A}}u_{t}(\mathbf{x})$).
Moreover, if $u_t$ satisfies w.p.~$1-\delta$ the condition
of \Cref{eq:instant-regret},
then for all steps $t$ the instantaneous regret $r_t^{\text{\textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace}}$ of the candidates selected by \Cref{alg:opt-gp}
satisfies $r_t^{\text{\textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace}} \leq C G_t \sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t)$
for the same sequence of $G_t$ and with the same probability.
\end{theorem}
Focusing on regret, \Cref{thm:main-meta} shows that restricting the number
of candidate switches does not greatly impact regret, just as in
\cite{abbasi2011improved}. Moreover \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace's improved
switching rule reduces the regret amplification factor from
$\mathcal{O}(2^C)$ of \textsc{RS-OFUL}\xspace to $\mathcal{O}(C)$.
Additionally, our result also highlights for the first time
that approximating the GP model is not necessary to achieve
scalability and no-regret,
and simply using a different candidate selection strategy
brings great computational savings.
Moreover, compared to existing methods based on efficient reformulations of GPs \cite{picheny2013quantile, binois2019replication} we explicitly target minimizing
unique candidates as a goal of our algorithm, and can
rigorously quantify the computational improvement
that we are guaranteed to achieve compared to a vanilla
GP inference approach.
On the computational side, we bound the number of switches and therefore
of unique candidates using the information gain $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(\gamma_T)$.
This, allows us to bound both the number of batches and the cost
of evaluating the GP posterior, but unfortunately without knowing
how expensive it is to optimize the acquisition function it is not
possible to fully characterize the runtime. We postpone this to a later
discussion. Nonetheless, an important aspect that can be already included
in the meta-theorem is that this maximization only needs to be performed
once per batch. Previous approaches tried to promote diverse batches,
and therefore this optimization had to be repeatedly performed with a runtime
of at least $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(TA)$, while for the first time we achieve a runtime $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T + A)$ linear in $T$.
However, this crucially relies on being able to
repeatedly evaluate the same candidate,
which is not possible in all optimization settings.
\subsection{Regret meta-analysis details}\label{sec:meta-regret}
Starting from the condition in \Cref{eq:instant-regret}, the meta-analysis is
based on well-established tools. First we have to deal with the fact that
\Cref{alg:opt-gp} only updates
the posterior and receives feedback
at the end of the batches.
In particular, this means that \Cref{eq:instant-regret} only applies
for the first evaluation of the candidate, and not across the batch.
Tools developed in the original \textsc{RS-OFUL}\xspace analysis \cite{abbasi2011improved}
and refined in the
context of batch GP optimization \cite{calandriello2020near} can be used to control this.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:instaregbound}
Let $u_t$ be an acquisition function that satisfies \Cref{eq:instant-regret} at
the beginning of each batch. Then running \Cref{alg:meta-mini} with parameter
$C$ and the same $u_t$ guarantees that
$r_t \leq C G_t \sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t)$
w.p.~$1-\delta$
for all steps $t$ (i.e., not only at the beginning of each batch).
\end{lemma}
\vspace{-.75\baselineskip}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of proof]
Let $t$ be the first step of epoch/batch $h$ (i.e., we received
feedback up to $t-1$). Then
\begin{align*}
r_{t'}
&\leq G_{t-1}\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_{t'})
= G_{t-1}\tfrac{\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_{t'})}{\sigma_{t'-1}(\mathbf{x}_{t'})}\cdot \sigma_{t'-1}(\mathbf{x}_{t'})\leq G_{t-1} C \cdot \sigma_{t'-1}(\mathbf{x}_{t'}),
\vspace{-.5\baselineskip}
\end{align*}
where the first inequality comes from applying \Cref{eq:instant-regret}
to step $t'$ since $\mathbf{x}_t = \mathbf{x}_{t'}$ (all candidates
in the batch are the same), and the second inequality comes from the fact
that the length of each batch $B_h$ is designed to
guarantee that for any $t' > t$ inside the batch we can bound the ratio
$\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x})/\sigma_{t'-1}(\mathbf{x}) \leq \mathcal{O}(C)$ (details in the appendix).
Therefore, simply by losing a constant factor $C$ we can recover the
regret $r_{t'}$ as if we applied \Cref{eq:instant-regret} with all the feedback
up to step $t'-1$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{-.5\baselineskip}
Established the $G_t C \sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t)$ bound, the rest of
each regret proofs slightly diverge depending on the acquisition function,
differing mostly on the specific sequence of $G_t$, and we discuss in
\Cref{sec:meta-apply} where we also discuss how the final regret of each of the
alternatives scales.
For now, we would like to highlight that the $1-\delta$ success probability
of \Cref{lem:instaregbound}, and therefore the probability of low regret, depends only on the randomness
of the candidate selection, i.e.,\xspace the same randomness present in the original variants.
This is in stark contrast with existing results for scalable GP optimization
where to provide guarantees on the regret the GP was approximated using
technique relying on some form of additional randomness (e.g., random projections). In other words, our $\mu$-variants are much more \emph{deterministic} compared to other scalable methods.
\subsection{Computational meta-analysis.}\label{sec:meta-comp}
Similarly to regret, we provide here a meta-analysis for a generic
$u_t$, parametrizing the analysis in terms of a
generic $A$ computational cost of optimizing $u_t$ (i.e., computing
$\argmax_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{A}}u_{t}(\mathbf{x})$)).
With this notation, the computational complexity of \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace is
$\mathcal{O}(T + h \cdot A + h \cdot h^3))$.
The $\mathcal{O}(T)$ term covers the time necessary to store/load
the $T$ feedbacks. The $h A$ term comes from the
$h$ optimizations of $u_t$, once for each loop.
Finally the $\mathcal{O}(h \cdot h^3)$ term is due to the computation of the length
$B_h$ of each batch, which requires at each loop to
computing the posterior $\sigma_t$
using the $\mathcal{O}(h^3)$ efficient reformulation.
We can refine this analysis along two axes:
bounding $h$, and bounding $A$.
Bounding the number of switches $h$
is fully part of the meta-analysis,
since our bound on the number of epochs does not directly depend
on the specific acquisition function $u_t$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:mu-switches}
After $T$ steps, \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace performs at most
$h \leq \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{C^2}{C^2-1}\gamma_T\right)$ switches.
\end{lemma}
Notice that once again this is a deterministic statement, since unlike existing
methods our approach does not depend on randomized methods to increase
scalability. Combining this result in the meta-analysis we obtain
an overall runtime of $\mathcal{O}(T + \gamma_T\cdot(A + \gamma_T^3))$.
Bounding the optimization cost $A$ can only be done
by making assumptions on $u_t$ and $\mathcal{A}$, since
in general maximizing the acquisition function is a non-convex
optimization problem, often NP-hard. In
the simpler case where $\mathcal{A}$ is finite with cardinality $|\mathcal{A}|$,
and $u_t$ is based only on $\mu_t$ and $\sigma_t$ of each candidate,
then the runtime becomes
$\mathcal{O}(T + h\cdot(|\mathcal{A}|h^2 + h^3)$.
Further combining
this with \Cref{lem:mu-switches} we obtain an overall runtime of
$\mathcal{O}(T + |\mathcal{A}|\gamma_T^3 + \gamma_T^4)$. We can compare this
result with the $\wt{\mathcal{O}}(T|\mathcal{A}|\gamma_T^2)$ runtime complexity
of the currently fastest no-regret algorithm, \textsc{BBKB}\xspace \cite{calandriello2020near}
to see that the potential runtime improvement is large (i.e., from
$\mathcal{O}(T|\mathcal{A}|)$ to $\mathcal{O}(T + |\mathcal{A}|h)$.
This is because \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace only needs to maximize $u_t$ once per batch,
while existing batched algorithms need multiple maximization per batch
to promote in-batch diversity, using different strategies such as feedback
hallucination \cite{desautels_parallelizing_2014}.
Even if we ignored the cost of optimizing $u_t$, our result would still be the first to decouple the the $\mathcal{O}(T)$ component from $\gamma_T$.
This is because for existing batching rule, even computing the batch length required to evaluate at least one $\sigma_t$ at each step, with each evaluation costing at least $\mathcal{O}(\gamma_T^2)$.
Instead, our batching rule is based only on $\sigma_t$ once at the beginning of the batch.
\subsection{Instantiating the meta-analysis}\label{sec:meta-apply}
Instantiating the results from the previous section we can now provide
bounds for two popular acquisition functions. For simplicity
and to guarantee that all steps of the algorithm can be implementable
in accord with the regret analysis, we restrict ourselves to
the assumption of finite $\mathcal{A}$ where the acquisition functions can be exactly
maximized.
For all of these variants, the run-time is bounded as
$\mathcal{O}(T + |\mathcal{A}|\gamma_T^3 + \gamma_T^4)$, so we will mainly discuss
regret in this section.
\paragraph{\textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace}
We consider frequentist ($\normsmall{f} \leq F$)
and Bayesian ($f \sim GP$) settings.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mu-gp-ucb-freq}
Assume $\normsmall{f} \leq F$. For any $1 < C$, $\delta \in [0, 1]$, run
\Cref{alg:opt-gp} with
$u_t = u_t^{\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace}$, $\lambda = \xi^2$, and
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle
& \beta_h = \Theta
\left(\sqrt{\logdet\left(\tfrac{\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{K}_h\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}}{\lambda} + \mathbf{I}\right) + \log(\tfrac{1}{\delta})} + F\right).
\end{align*}
Then w.p.~$1-\delta$,
$R_T \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}\left((\sqrt{\gamma_T} + F)C\sqrt{\gamma_T T}\right)$.
\end{theorem}
This result is a combination of \Cref{thm:main-meta} with {Thm.~1} in \cite{chowdhury2017kernelized}.
The proof of this result is straightforward using \Cref{thm:main-meta}.
In particular, the original \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace provides a bound on the regret of
the form $R_T \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}(\beta_T\sum_{t=1}^T\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t))$,
which using \cref{lem:instaregbound} easily becomes $R_T \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}(\beta_TC\sum_{t=1}^T\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t))$, only a $C$ factor worse but with a much
lower computational complexity.
Compared to other approximations of \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace, \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace achieve logarithmic
improvements due to a tighter $\beta_h$. In particular, all
previous approximate \textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace variants had to approximate
$\logdet(\mathbf{K}_t/\lambda + \mathbf{I})$ with a more or less loose upper bound, which
resulted in excessive exploration and worse regret. Instead, \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace
uses the exact log-determinant of the GP, since it only needs to be defined
on the unique candidates.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mu-gp-ucb-bayes}
Assume $f \sim GP$. For any $1 < C$, $\delta \in [0, 1]$, run
\Cref{alg:opt-gp} with $u_t = u_t^{\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace}$, setting $\lambda = \xi^2$ and $\beta_t = \sqrt{2 \log(|\mathcal{A}|t^2\pi^2
/(6\delta))}$. Then w.p.~$1-\delta$,
\begin{align*}
R_T \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}(C\sqrt{T\gamma_T})).
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
This result is a combination of \Cref{thm:main-meta} and {Thm.~1} of \cite{srinivas2010gaussian}.
The main advantage of the Bayesian tuning of \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace is that
computing $\beta_t$ does not require to know a bound on the norm of the function $F$ (which is often infinite
under the GP prior). However the algorithm still requires access
to the noise level $\xi$ to tune the $\lambda$ parameter.
\paragraph{\textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}
We can combine \Cref{thm:main-meta} with {Thm.~1} of \cite{wang2014theoretical} under frequentist assumptions.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mu-gp-ei-freq}
Assume $\normsmall{f} \leq F$. For any $1 < C$ and $\delta \in [0, 1]$, run
\Cref{alg:opt-gp} with $u_t = u_t^{\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}$, $\lambda = \xi^2$, and
$\beta_h =
\big(\logdet(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{K}_h\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}/\lambda + \mathbf{I}) + \sqrt{\logdet(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{K}_h\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}/\lambda + \mathbf{I})\log(\tfrac{t}{\delta})} +\log(\tfrac{t}{\delta})\big)^{1/2}$.
Then w.p.~$1-\delta$,
$R_T \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}\left((\sqrt{\gamma_T} + F)C\sqrt{\gamma_T T}\right)$.
\end{theorem}
Again we can easily integrate \Cref{thm:main-meta} in the original
proof. In particular, the original \textsc{GP-EI}\xspace analysis provides
a bound on the regret of the form
$R_T \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}\left(\left(\sqrt{\lambda}F + \beta_T\right)\sum_{t=1}^T\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t)\right)$,
which again using \cref{lem:instaregbound} easily becomes $R_T \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}\left(\left(\sqrt{\lambda}F + \beta_T\right)C\sum_{t=1}^T\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t)\right)$ recovering the original regret up to constants. Although the regret
of \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace and \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace are comparable, the underlying algorithms have important
differences. In particular, tuning $\beta_h$ in \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace does not require knowing
a bound $F$ on the norm of the function, which is hard to obtain in many cases.
However the analysis of \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace requires to set $\lambda = \xi^2$, which
might be as hard to estimate.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:exp}
\newcommand{\vcenteredinclude}[1]{\begingroup
\setbox0=\hbox{\includegraphics[height=.75\baselineskip]{#1}}%
\parbox{\wd0}{\box0}\endgroup}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\small{\vcenteredinclude{legend.pdf}}
\vspace{.5\baselineskip}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{nasbench_step_vs_regret.pdf}
\caption{$R_t/t$ against step $t$}
\label{fig:regret}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{nasbench_step_vs_unique.pdf}
\caption{$q_t$ against step $t$ }
\label{fig:unique}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{nasbench_time_vs_regret.pdf}
\caption{$R_T$ against wall-clock time (s) }
\label{fig:wallclock}
\end{subfigure}
\end{figure*}
We now evaluate our proposed approach empirically, focusing
here on real-world data and on synthetic data in the appendix.
In particular, following the approach taken in
\cite{calandriello2020near} we evaluate \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace
and \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace on NAS-bench \cite{ying2019bench}.
We compare \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace and \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace with \textsc{BBKB}\xspace \cite{calandriello2020near},
\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace \cite{srinivas2010gaussian}, \textsc{GP-BUCB}\xspace \cite{desautels_parallelizing_2014},
\textsc{GP-BTS}\xspace \cite{kandasamy2018parallelised}, and an epsilon greedy strategy.
For \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace, \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace, and \textsc{BBKB}\xspace hyperparameters that need to be tuned are
$C$, the bandwidth of the Gaussian kernel $\sigma$, while
$\lambda$ is set to the 90-th percentile of the standard deviation
of the target as an oracle for the noise level.
For epsilon greedy epsilon
is set as $a/t^b$ and $a \in \{0.1, 1, 10\}$ and $b \in \{1/3, 1/2, 1, 2\}$
is tuned via grid search.
For each experiment we repeat the run 40 times with
different seeds, and report mean and confidence intervals
for the hyperparameter configuration (searched in a grid)
that achieves lowest average regret (specific values reported in the appendix). All experiments are ran using a single, recent generation CPU core to avoid inconsistencies between some implementations using paralallel BLAS and some not.
The neural architecture search
setting is the same as \cite{calandriello2020near}. In particular,
the search space is the discrete combinatorial space of possible
1-hidden layer 4 node networks using either convolutions or max-pooling,
that is then used as a module in an inception-like architecture.
The final space $\mathcal{A}$ has $|\mathcal{A}| = 12416$ candidates in $d = 19$
dimensions.
In Fig.~(\subref{fig:regret}) we report average regret vs steps (i.e., $t$). To compensate
scale effect in the rewards, the average regret
is normalized by the average regret achieved by a completely exploratory
policy that selects candidates uniformly at random. Both \textsc{mini}-variants
are comparable to the current state of the art \textsc{BBKB}\xspace, and better than
a tuned epsilon greedy.
In Fig.~(\subref{fig:unique}) we report the number of unique candidates (note, not of switches)
selected by each algorithm. We note that despite not explicitly
being designed for this, \textsc{BBKB}\xspace does not select a very large number of
unique arms. However, \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace and \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace still select an even
smaller number of unique candidates.
In Fig.~(\subref{fig:wallclock}) we report average regret vs wallclock runtime rather than steps.
Therefore a more efficient algorithm will terminate faster and
achieve a lower average regret in the same span of time.
We see that both \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace and \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace are faster than \textsc{BBKB}\xspace,
terminating earlier.
However the empirical runtime gap does not seem to match the large theoretical runtime gap
(i.e., $\mathcal{O}(T + A)$ vs $\mathcal{O}(TA)$). In particular, the actual empirical diversity in \textsc{BBKB}\xspace's
batches seem to be limited, and allows for a large degree of lazy updates, which are not accounted for in the
worst-case complexity.
\section{Conclusions, limitations and open questions}
Our paper highlighted how existing tools can be combined
in a new effective approach, capable of positively impacting the GP optimization
setting both theoretically and empirically. Theoretically,
as to the best of our knowledge, our proposed \textsc{mini}-variants
achieve the tightest guarantees both in regret and runtime among
scalable GP optimization methods, using a very different approach
that does not require approximating the GP or other randomized approximations.
Empirically, because our method comes with a number of practical properties,
including scalability, adaptability to different acquisition functions,
and being suitable to batched settings
as well as settings where
switching costs are be significant.
However, there remain several limitations, which brings with them open questions.
Our \textsc{mini}-variants inherit the limitations of the
original methods and while some (e.g., scalability) are removed, others remain. In
particular, \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace and \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace still require knowledge of quantities that are hard to estimate,
such as the function norm, noise level, kernel choice, or kernel bandwidth. It is unclear how an on-line
tuning of these quantities might be done without losing the no-regret
guarantees. It would be interesting to see if
recent
approaches to tune these quantities for traditional GP optimization \cite{Berkenkamp2019,durand2018streaming}
can be transferred to \textsc{mini}-variants, leveraging their
unique property of being based on exact GP inference.
Furthermore, while \textsc{mini}-\textsc{META}\xspace could be applied to other acquisition functions, not all would result in a scalable
algorithm. For example \textsc{GP-TS}\xspace \cite{chowdhury2017kernelized} also satisfies
\Cref{eq:instant-regret}. However, sampling a TS
posterior is not scalable (i.e., $\mathcal{O}(|\mathcal{A}|^2)$
for finite $\mathcal{A}$) even for sparse posteriors,
and therefore a hypotetical \textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-TS}\xspace would remain not
scalable.
From a complexity perspective, optimizing the acquisition function exactly
remains one of the hardest obstacles in GP optimization,
and it is still not clear how the no-regret guarantees can be extended
to approximate maximization.
Generic
non-convex optimizers such as DiRECT \cite{mutny_efficient_2018,Jones2001} have an exponential
complexity,
and even considering the effective dimensionality reduction
induced by \Cref{eq:mu-post-gp}, which reduces
the parameter space from $\mathcal{O}(t)$ to $\mathcal{O}(q_t)$,
they might remain infeasible.
Despite not being explicitly optimized for this
task, we empirically observe that other approximate GP-Opt\xspace methods, such as \textsc{BBKB}\xspace, also tend
to select a small number of unique candidates. Indeed, any algorithm that quickly converges to a small set
of good candidates would evaluate a small number of unique candidates.
Therefore, it is an important open question
to try and bound the number of candidates evaluated by a generic
GP optimization algorithm without low-switching enforcement, as it might
show that the reformulations of \Cref{eq:mu-post-gp} might be more broadly applicable than expected.
Finally, looking at the applicability of our method, our whole approach is based on
the possibility of evaluating multiple times the same candidate without
affecting the outcome. While this is a strength in settings with high
switching costs, it also makes
it unsuitable in settings where this is impossible (e.g., repeated medical
testing of a single patient), or limited (e.g., news change over time and cannot be recommended over and over). More subtly, it also makes it poorly suited
to low or noiseless settings, where multiple evaluations of the same candidate
would not be very useful.
\section{Proofs of \Cref{sec:bbkb}}\label{sec:app-theory}
For several of the proofs in this section it will be useful
to introduce the so-called feature space formulation of a GP posterior
\cite{rasmussen_gaussian_2006}. In particular, to every kernel function
$\mathrm{k}$ we can associate a feature map $\varphi(\cdot) : \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{H}$
where $\mathcal{H}$ is the reproducing kernel Hilbert space associated with $\mathrm{k}$ and the GP.
The main property of $\varphi(\cdot)$ is that for any
$\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{x}'$ we have $\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') = \varphi(\mathbf{x})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{x}')$.
With a slight abuse of notation, we will also indicate with $\varphi(\mathbf{X}) =
[\varphi(\mathbf{x}_1), \dots, \varphi(\mathbf{x}_t)]^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}$ the linear operator obtained
by stacking together the various $\varphi(\cdot)$, such that
$\mathbf{K}_t = \varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}$. Note that this also
allows us to define the equivalent of $\mathbf{K}_t$ in $\mathcal{H}$ as
$\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t) : \mathcal{H} \rightarrow \mathcal{H}$.
Finally, to connect $\mathbf{K}_t$ and $\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)$ we will
heavily use this fundamental linear algebra equality
\begin{align}\label{eq:prim-dual-eq}
\mathbf{B}^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}(\mathbf{B}\bB^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{B}^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{B}^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{B} + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}
\end{align}
which can be easily shown to be valid for any linear operator $\mathbf{B}$ using its singular
value decomposition.
\subsection{Proof of equivalence between \Cref{eq:post-gp} and \Cref{eq:mu-post-gp}}
Assume for now that $t$ is the step at the end (i.e.,\xspace $\fb{t} = t$) of batch $h$.
We will relax this assumption at the end of the section to discuss
how this can be extended to intermediate steps.
Using the feature-space representation of a GP (see e.g., {Eq.~(2.11)}in \cite{rasmussen_gaussian_2006}),
and defining
$\mathbf{V}_t \triangleq \varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t) + \lambda\mathbf{I}$,
we can rewrite the posterior
variance as
\begin{align*}
{\sigma}_t^2(\mathbf{x}_i) &= \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_i) - \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{X}_t)(\mathbf{K}_t + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_t, \mathbf{x}_i)\\
&\stackrel{a}{=} \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i) - \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)\\
&\stackrel{b}{=} \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i) - \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t) + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)\\
&\stackrel{c}{=} \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i) - \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}(\underbracket{\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t) + \lambda\mathbf{I}}_{\mathbf{V}_t} - \lambda\mathbf{I})\underbracket{(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t) + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}}_{\mathbf{V}_{t}^{-1}}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)\\
&\stackrel{d}{=} \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i) - \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}(\mathbf{I} - \lambda\mathbf{V}_{t}^{-1})\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i) = \lambda\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{V}_{t}^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)
= \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{A}_{t}^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i),
\end{align*}
where in each passage
\begin{itemize}
\item[$a$)] we simply apply the definition of $\mathrm{k}$ and $\varphi$;
\item[$b$)] we apply \Cref{eq:prim-dual-eq} with $\varphi(\mathbf{X})$ as $\mathbf{B}$;
\item[$c$)] we add and subtract $\lambda\mathbf{I}$ to highlight
the presence of $\mathbf{V}_t$ in the reformulation;
\item[$d$)] we collect $\lambda$ to replace $\mathbf{V}_t$ with
$\mathbf{A}_t \triangleq \varphi(\mathbf{X})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X})/\lambda + \mathbf{I}$ as {Eq.~(2.11)} in \cite{rasmussen_gaussian_2006}.
\end{itemize}
Exploiting the fact that all candidate in a batch are identical
(i.e., $\mathbf{x}_{\fb{s} + 1} = \mathbf{x}_{s}$), and denoting with $\{\mathbf{x}_j\}_{j=1}^h$
the candidate in each batch we can rewrite $\mathbf{A}_t$ as
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{A}_t &= \mathbf{I} + \lambda^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{X})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X})
= \mathbf{I} + \lambda^{-1}\sum_{s=1}^t\varphi(\mathbf{x}_s)\varphi(\mathbf{x}_s)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\\
&= \mathbf{I} +\lambda^{-1}\sum_{s=1}^t\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{\fb{s}+1})\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{\fb{s}+1})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}
= \mathbf{I} + \lambda^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^h B_j\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{j})\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{j})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\\
&= \mathbf{I} + \lambda^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^h [\mathbf{W}_h]_{j,j}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{j})\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{j})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}
= \mathbf{I} + \lambda^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_{h})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h\varphi(\mathbf{X}_{h}),
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{W}_h$ is defined as described in \Cref{eq:mu-post-gp}. Applying
now steps $a-d$ in reverse,
with the only difference being the application of \Cref{eq:prim-dual-eq}
to $\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_{h})$ rather than $\varphi(\mathbf{X}_{t})$ in step $b$,
we obtain
\begin{align*}
{\sigma}_t^2(\mathbf{x}_i)
&= \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{A}_{t}^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)
= \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_{h})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h\varphi(\mathbf{X}_{h})/\lambda + \mathbf{I})^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)\\
&\stackrel{d,c}{=} \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i) - \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t) + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)\\
&\stackrel{b}{=} \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i) - \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2} + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)\varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)\\
&\stackrel{a}{=}
\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_i) - \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{X}_t)\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{K}_t\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2} + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_t, \mathbf{x}_i)\\
&=
\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_i) - \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{X}_t)(\mathbf{K}_t + \lambda\mathbf{W}_h^{-1})^{-1}\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_t, \mathbf{x}_i),
\end{align*}
where in the last equality we simply collected $\mathbf{W}_h$ to obtain the formulation
of \Cref{eq:mu-post-gp}. The reasoning for the mean is identical,
with one minor difference. After rewriting $\mu_t$ in its feature-space view,
and applying the fundamental equality
\begin{align*}
{\mu}_t(\mathbf{x}_i) &= \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{X}_t)(\mathbf{K}_t + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathbf{K}_t\mathbf{y}_t\\
&= \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{y}_t\\
&\stackrel{a}{=} \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t) + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{y}_t\\
&\stackrel{b}{=} \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h) + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{y}_t,
\end{align*}
where equality $a$ is once again due to \Cref{eq:prim-dual-eq},
and $b$ is due to the already proven equality
$\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t) = \varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)$.
To handle the last remaining term $\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{y}_t$ we can rewrite
\begin{align*}
\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{y}_t
&= \sum_{s=1}^t\varphi(\mathbf{x}_s)y_s
= \sum_{s=1}^t\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{\fb{s}+1})y_{s}\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^h \varphi(\mathbf{x}_{j})\sum_{s = t_j+1}^{t_j + B_h}y_s
= \sum_{j=1}^h \varphi(\mathbf{x}_{j})[\mathbf{y}_h]_j
= \varphi(\mathbf{X}_{h})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{y}_h,
\end{align*}
where once again $t_j$ is the step before the beginning of the $j$-th epoch,
that is $\fb{t} = t_j$ for all steps in the $j$-th epoch and the candidate
$\mathbf{x}_{t_j + 1}$ is the one evaluated multiple times in the $j$-th epoch.
Putting it all together, and re-applying \Cref{eq:prim-dual-eq} we obtain
\begin{align*}
{\mu}_t(\mathbf{x}_i) &= \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h) + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{y}_h\\
&= \varphi(\mathbf{x}_i)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2} + \lambda\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{y}_h\\
&= \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{X}_h)(\mathbf{K}_h + \lambda\mathbf{W}_h^{-1})^{-1}\mathbf{K}_h\mathbf{y}_h,
\end{align*}
which concludes the proof of the equivalence between \Cref{eq:post-gp}
and \Cref{eq:mu-post-gp}.
In this analysis we made two simplifications:
that the step $t$ was at the end of a batch, and that no two candidates
were the same in different batches.
To relax the first we can just consider extending $\mathbf{W}_h$ to contain not only
all past $B_j$, but also a partial count of the current batch. Similarly
$\mathbf{y}_h$ has to be extended to include the partial feedback received during
the epoch. Similarly, if the same candidate was selected in two batches $j$
and $j'$, we simply have to merge their contributions in the sum
$\sum_{j=1}^h B_j\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{j})\varphi(\mathbf{x}_{j})^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}$ e.g., by removing
the $j$-th term and account the $j'$-th term with $B_j + B_{j'}$ multiplicity.
\subsection{Proof of \Cref{lem:mu-switches}}
We begin with the following result from \cite{calandriello2020near}.
\begin{proposition}[{{Lem.~4} in \cite{calandriello2020near}}]\label{prop:ratio-bound-orig}
For any kernel $\mathrm{k}$, set of points $\mathbf{X}_t$, $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{A}$
and $t < t'$
\begin{align*}
1 \leq \frac{\sigma_{t}^2(\mathbf{x})}{\sigma_{t'}^2(\mathbf{x})} \leq 1 + \sum_{s=t+1}^{t'}\sigma_{t}^2(\mathbf{x}_s).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
Using \Cref{prop:ratio-bound-orig} it is also very easy to show the following
known property of the one-step ratio between posteriors (i.e., $t' = t+1$)
\begin{align}\label{eq:one-step-ratio}
1 \leq \frac{\sigma_{t}^2(\mathbf{x})}{\sigma_{t+1}^2(\mathbf{x})}
\leq 1 + \sigma_{t}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t+1})
\leq 1 + \sigma_{0}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t+1})
= 1 + \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}_{t+1}, \mathbf{x}_{t+1})/\lambda \leq 1 + \kappa/\lambda,
\end{align}
where the first inequality is due to \Cref{prop:ratio-bound-orig},
the second due to the monotonicity of the posterior in $t$, and the
third due to our assumption $\mathrm{k}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}) \leq \kappa^2$.
Applying \Cref{prop:ratio-bound-orig} to our setting, where $\mathbf{x}_s$ does not change for the whole batch,
and our epoch termination rule from \Cref{alg:meta-mini} we obtain
the following corollary
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:ratio-bound}
During epoch $h$, let $t_h$ be the step before the beginning of the batch,
and let
$\mathbf{x}_{t_h + 1}$ be the candidate selected for the whole batch at step $t_h + 1$.
Then for any kernel $\mathrm{k}$, set of points $\mathbf{X}_{t_h}$,
$\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{A}$,
and $t_h + 1 = \fb{t} + 1 \leq t \leq \fb{t} + B_{h}$
we have
\begin{align*}
1 \leq \frac{\sigma_{\fb{t}}^2(\mathbf{x})}{\sigma_t^2(\mathbf{x})} \leq 1 + B_h\sigma_{\fb{t}}^2(\mathbf{x}_{\fb{t}+1}).
\end{align*}
Moreover, selecting $B_{h} = \lfloor (C^2 - 1)/\sigma_{t_h}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_h+1}) \rfloor$
we have $\frac{\sigma_{\fb{t}}(\mathbf{x})}{\sigma_t(\mathbf{x})} \leq C$.
\end{corollary}
To bound the number of epochs and prove \Cref{lem:mu-switches}
we follow a blueprint from
\cite{calandriello2020near}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{lem:mu-switches}]
To bound the number of epoch we start from the fundamental inequality based
on the choice of $B_h$ and the properties of the floor function. Consider
an arbitrary $B_j$,
\begin{align*}
&B_j \geq \frac{C^2 - 1}{\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_j+1})} - 1\\
&\Rightarrow
\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_j+1})(B_j + 1) \geq C^2 - 1\\
&\Rightarrow
2\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_j+1})B_j \geq C^2 - 1.
\end{align*}
Note that due to the construction of the batch
$\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_j+1}) = \sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_j+2}) = \dots = \sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_j+B_j})$,
and therefore $\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_j+1})B_j = \sum_{s=t_j + 1}^{t_j + B_j}\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})$.
Summing across batches up to batch $h$ we have
\begin{align*}
h(C^2 - 1) &\leq 2\sum_{j=1}^h\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{t_j+1})B_j
=
2\sum_{j=1}^h\sum_{s=t_j + 1}^{t_j + B_j}\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})\\
&=2\sum_{j=1}^h\sum_{s=t_j + 1}^{t_j + B_j}\frac{\sigma_{t_j}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})}{\sigma_{s-1}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})}\sigma_{s-1}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})
\stackrel{\text{\Cref{cor:ratio-bound}}}{\leq} 2\sum_{j=1}^h\sum_{s=t_j + 1}^{t_j + B_j}C^2\sigma_{s-1}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})\\
&= 2C^2\sum_{s=1}^T\sigma_{s-1}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s}).
\end{align*}
Now that we obtain the sum of posterior variances we need to connect this
quantity to $\gamma_T$. In order to do this we will use
a standard bound (see e.g., \cite{hazan_logarithmic_2006}) on the summation
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s=1}^T\sigma_{s}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s}) \leq \logdet(\mathbf{I} + \mathrm{k}(\mathbf{X}_t, \mathbf{X}_t)/\lambda)
= 2\gamma(\mathbf{X}_t,\mathbf{y}_t) \leq 2\gamma_T.
\end{align*}
All that is left is to use \Cref{eq:one-step-ratio} to bound
$\sigma_{s-1}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})$ in terms of $\sigma_{s}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})$ and rearrange
appropriately all the derived results to obtain
\begin{align*}
h &\leq \frac{2C^2}{C^2 - 1}\sum_{s=1}^T\sigma_{s-1}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})
\leq \frac{2C^2}{C^2 - 1}(1 + \kappa^2/\lambda)\sum_{s=1}^T\sigma_{s}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})
\leq \frac{4C^2}{C^2 - 1}(1 + \kappa^2/\lambda)\gamma_T
\leq \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{C^2}{C^2 - 1}\gamma_T\right)
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of \Cref{lem:instaregbound}}
The proof of this result follows directly from the sketch of proof in
\Cref{sec:meta-regret}, combined with \Cref{cor:ratio-bound} here in the appendix.
\subsection{Proofs of \Cref{sec:meta-apply}}
We indicate here how each original regret proofs can be modified to obtain
\Cref{thm:mu-gp-ucb-freq,thm:mu-gp-ucb-bayes,thm:mu-gp-ei-freq}.
All proof will depend on a standard blueprint \cite{srinivas2010gaussian,abbasi2011improved,chowdhury2017kernelized,calandriello2020near} that we present first.
For simplicity we also assume again that step $T$ is exactly at the end of batch
$h$. This is without loss of generality as we can always artificially truncate
the current batch at step $T$ for the sake of the analysis without increasing
the regret. (i.e., \Cref{cor:ratio-bound} and all other results will still
hold).
First we leverage results from the original analyses to show
that the instantaneous regret $r_{t_j + 1}$ at the beginning of
batch $j$ is bounded (i.e., \Cref{eq:instant-regret}) as
\begin{align*}
r_{t_j + 1} \leq G_{t_j}\sigma_{t_{j}}(\mathbf{x}_{t_j + 1}).
\end{align*}
Moreover, the same candidate is selected at all steps in the batch, so it holds
as well that for all $t' \in [t_j+1, t_j + B_j]$ we have
\begin{align*}
r_{t'}
= r_{t_j + 1} \leq G_{t_j}\sigma_{t_{j}}(\mathbf{x}_{t_j + 1})
= G_{t_j}\sigma_{t_{j}}(\mathbf{x}_{t'})
\end{align*}
Then, leveraging again \Cref{cor:ratio-bound} to bound the posterior ratios we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s=t_j+1}^{t_j+ B_j}
r_{s} \leq G_{t_j}\sum_{s=t_j+1}^{t_j+ B_j}\sigma_{t_{j}}(\mathbf{x}_{s})
\stackrel{\text{\Cref{cor:ratio-bound}}}{\leq} G_{t_j}C\sum_{s=t_j+1}^{t_j+ B_j}\sigma_{s-1}(\mathbf{x}_{s}).
\end{align*}
Finally, using the fact that $G_t$ is non-decreasing, and summing across batches
\begin{align*}
R_T &= \sum_{t=1}^T r_t
= \sum_{j=1}^h \sum_{s=t_j+1}^{t_j+ B_j} r_{s}\\
&\leq \sum_{j=1}^h G_{t_j}\sum_{s=t_j+1}^{t_j+ B_j}\sigma_{t_{j}}(\mathbf{x}_{s})
\leq \sum_{j=1}^h G_{t_j}C\sum_{s=t_j+1}^{t_j+ B_j}\sigma_{s-1}(\mathbf{x}_{s})\\
&\leq G_T C \sum_{j=1}^h \sum_{s=t_j+1}^{t_j+ B_j}\sigma_{s-1}(\mathbf{x}_{s})
\leq G_T C \sum_{s=1}^T \sigma_{s-1}(\mathbf{x}_{s}).
\end{align*}
Putting it all together and expressing everything in terms of $\gamma_T$ we derive
\begin{align*}
R_T &\leq G_T C \sum_{s=1}^T \sigma_{s-1}(\mathbf{x}_{s})\\
&\stackrel{a}{\leq} G_T C \sqrt{T}\sqrt{\sum_{s=1}^T \sigma_{s-1}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})}\\
&\stackrel{b}{\leq} G_T C \sqrt{T}\sqrt{\left(1 + \tfrac{\kappa^2}{\lambda}\right)\sum_{s=1}^T \sigma_{s}^2(\mathbf{x}_{s})}\\
&\stackrel{c}{\leq} G_T C \sqrt{T}\sqrt{\left(1 + \tfrac{\kappa^2}{\lambda}\right)\gamma_T},
\end{align*}
where $a$ is due to Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
$b$ due to \Cref{eq:one-step-ratio}, and $c$ due to the usual bounding
of posterior variances with the $\logdet$ and information gain \cite{hazan_logarithmic_2006}.
Now that we have this blueprint, all that is left is to look at results in the
literature on how $G_t$ can be bounded under different assumptions and acquisition
functions.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{thm:mu-gp-ucb-freq}]
For this theorem we leverage the assumptions $\normsmall{f} \leq F$
with $u_{t}^{\text{\textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace}}$ as acquisition function. Already Theorem 1
from \cite{chowdhury2017kernelized} showed that if $\lambda = \xi^2$ and
$\beta_t$
is tuned as $\beta_t = \Theta(\sqrt{\logdet(\mathbf{K}_t/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I}) + \log(1/\delta)} + F)$
we obtain that $G_t \leq \beta_t$ suffices to guarantee \Cref{eq:instant-regret}.
Note however that in our case we can efficiently compute
$\logdet(\mathbf{K}_t/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I})$ leveraging the few unique candidates. In particular,
since we only need to compute $\beta_{t_h}$ at the beginning of a batch,
we can rewrite
\begin{align*}
\logdet(\mathbf{K}_t/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I})
&= \logdet(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I})\\
&\stackrel{a}{=} \logdet(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_t)/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I})\\
&\stackrel{b}{=} \logdet(\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\mathbf{W}_h\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I})\\
&\stackrel{c}{=} \logdet(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}\varphi(\mathbf{X}_h)\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I})\\
&= \logdet(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{K}_h\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I}),
\end{align*}
where $a$ is due to Sylvester's determinant identity, $b$ is our usual re-writing,
and $c$ is Sylvester's determinant identity again.
Not that since this a strict equality, we still have that at the last batch $h$
\begin{align*}
\logdet(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{K}_h\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I})
= \logdet(\mathbf{K}_T/\xi^2 + \mathbf{I}) \leq \gamma_T,
\end{align*}
which gives the second half of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{thm:mu-gp-ucb-bayes}]
This is a direct consequnce of Theorem 1 from \cite{srinivas2010gaussian}.
In particular, they once again show that $G_t \leq \beta_t$ suffices
to guarantee \Cref{eq:instant-regret}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{thm:mu-gp-ei-freq}]
For this combination our starting point is Equation (38) in \cite{wang2014theoretical},
which states that for
\begin{align*}
\nu_t =
\sqrt{\logdet(\mathbf{K}_t/\lambda + \mathbf{I}) + \sqrt{\logdet(\mathbf{K}_t/\lambda + \mathbf{I})\log(t/\delta)} +\log(t/\delta)},
&& \lambda = \xi^2,
\end{align*}
running a standard GP-Opt\xspace loop (i.e., \Cref{alg:opt-gp}) with $u_t = u_t^{\text{\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace}}$
guarantees
\begin{align*}
r_t \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}\left( \left(\sqrt{F^2 + \gamma_t} + \nu_t\right)\sigma_{t-1}(\mathbf{x}_t)\right),
\end{align*}
where we greatly simplified their notation by ignoring constant and logarithmic
terms. Noticing now that at each batch $j$ the values of $\beta_j$ and
$\nu_{t_j}$ are equal thanks again to the equivalence
$\logdet(\mathbf{K}_t/\lambda + \mathbf{I}) = \logdet(\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}\mathbf{K}_h\mathbf{W}_h^{1/2}/\lambda + \mathbf{I})$,
we can obtain a bound on $G_t$ that satisfies \Cref{eq:instant-regret} as
\begin{align*}
G_t \leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}\left( \left(\sqrt{F^2 + \gamma_t} + \beta_t\right)\right)
\leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}\left( \left(\sqrt{F^2 + \gamma_t} + \sqrt{\gamma_t}\right)\right)
\leq \wt{\mathcal{O}}\left( \left(F + \sqrt{\gamma_t}\right)\right).
\end{align*}
Putting this together with the usual blueprint to bound the error incurred by
batching and the bound on the sum of posterior variances with $\gamma_T$
we obtain our result.
\end{proof}
\section{Extended experimental results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace & $\sigma = 455.56$, $C = 1.1$\\
\textsc{mini}-\textsc{GP-EI}\xspace & $\sigma = 455.56$, $C = 1.1$\\
\textsc{BBKB}\xspace & $\sigma = 277.78$, $C = 1.1$\\
\textsc{BKB}\xspace & $\sigma = 455.56$\\
\textsc{GP-UCB}\xspace & $\sigma = 500.00$\\
\textsc{GP-BUCB}\xspace & $\sigma = 455.56$, $C = 1.1$\\
$\varepsilon$-\textsc{greedy} & $a = 1$, $b = 0.5$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Optimal hyper-parameters found for the NAS-bench experiment.}\label{tab:hyperparm}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\small{\vcenteredinclude{legend.pdf}}
\vspace{.5\baselineskip}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{nasbench_step_vs_batch.pdf}
\caption{Batch/epoch number $h$ against step $t$}
\label{fig:batch}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{nasbench_step_vs_unique_mod.pdf}
\caption{$q_t$ against step $t$ }
\label{fig:unique-mod}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
We report here additional details on the NAS-bench experiments, as well
as an evaluation on synthetic functions.
\subsection{Additional details on NAS-bench experiments}
All the implementations are based on the code released by \cite{calandriello2020near}
for \textsc{BBKB}\xspace and \textsc{BKB}\xspace, available at \url{https://github.com/luigicarratino/batch-bkb}.
For each algorithm we run the experiment 40 times with different seeds,
and select the hyper-parameters that achieves the lowest average regret.
Hyper-parameters for all algorithms based on GPs are searched among
\begin{align*}
\sigma^2 &= \{100.00, 144.45, 188.89, 233.33, 277.78, 322.22, 366.67, 411.11, 455.56, 500.00\}\\
C &= \{1.1, 1.2\}
\end{align*}
where $C$ is the threshold used for batching, and $\sigma$ is the bandwidth
of the Gaussian kernel.
For $\varepsilon$-\textsc{greedy} the exploration rate is
is optimized as $\varepsilon = a/t^b$ over $a \in \{0.1, 1, 10\}$ and $b \in \{1/3, 1/2, 1, 2\}$.
The empirically optimal values are reported in \Cref{tab:hyperparm}.
Beyond regret, runtime and unique candidates reported in \Cref{sec:exp}, another interesting figure to empirically measure is the difference between the number $h$
of batches/switches at step $T$ and the number of unique candidates $q_T$
selected. As we know, $h$ is an upper bound for $q_T$, but looking
at \Cref{fig:batch} and \Cref{fig:unique-mod} we see that especially in the later
stages of the optimization these two quantities have a significant gap between them.
This can be explained by noticing that as the optimization progresses the
algorithm tend to focus on a few good candidates, switching back and forth between
them which increases $h$ but not $q_T$.
\subsection{Evaluation on synthetic functions}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\small{\vcenteredinclude{legend.pdf}}
\vspace{.5\baselineskip}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{ellipsoid_step_vs_regret}
\caption{Ellipsoid}
\label{fig:ellipsoid}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{rastigrin_step_vs_regret}
\caption{Rastigrin}
\label{fig:rastigrin}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{rosenbrock_step_vs_regret}
\caption{Rosenbrock}
\label{fig:rosenbrock}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{schaffers_step_vs_regret.pdf}
\caption{Schaffer}
\label{fig:schaffer}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{$R_t/t$ against step $t$}
\end{figure}
We also evaluate our method on common benchmark functions from the noisy
BBOB benchmark suite \cite{hansen2010real}.
In particular we focus on the Rosenbrock ($f_{104}$), ellipsoid ($f_{116}$),
and Schaffer ($f_{122}$) functions, all with moderate Gaussian noise.
We also include an extra function, the separable Rastigrin function, to
add another more complex separable function with the ellipsoid.
All functions are defined on $\mathbb{R}^3$, with each coordinate
split into 21 sections with the same length by 22 evenly spaced points
placed between $[-5, 5]$.
The resulting discrete grid of points represent our candidate set
and contains $|\mathcal{A}| = 22^3 = 10648$ unique candidates.
Similarly to the NAS-bench experiments, $\sigma$ of the Gaussian kernel,
$C$ and the $\varepsilon$-\textsc{GREEDY} parameters are selected optimally
over a grid search.
The results on regret against steps are reported in
\Cref{fig:ellipsoid,fig:rastigrin,fig:rosenbrock,fig:schaffer}
and on regret against time in
\Cref{fig:ellipsoid-t,fig:rastigrin-t,fig:rosenbrock-t,fig:schaffer-t}.
As we can see, our approach achieve comparable runtime and regret to other
state of the art GP-Opt\xspace methods. However, on more complex problem like the
Rosenbreck function, even the flexibility of a GP is not capable of capturing
the underlying shape of the optimization problem, and all GP-Opt\xspace methods,
including ours, only perform roughly as well as a tuned $\varepsilon$-\textsc{GREEDY}
exploration.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\small{\vcenteredinclude{legend.pdf}}
\vspace{.5\baselineskip}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{ellipsoid_time_vs_regret}
\caption{Ellipsoid}
\label{fig:ellipsoid-t}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{rastigrin_time_vs_regret}
\caption{Rastigrin}
\label{fig:rastigrin-t}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{rosenbrock_time_vs_regret}
\caption{Rosenbrock}
\label{fig:rosenbrock-t}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim=.2cm .2cm 4cm .2cm,clip]{schaffers_time_vs_regret.pdf}
\caption{Schaffer}
\label{fig:schaffer-t}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{$R_t/t$ against time (in seconds)}
\end{figure}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This material is based upon work supported by the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines (CBMM), funded by NSF STC award CCF-1231216, and the Italian Institute of Technology. L. R. acknowledges the financial support of the European Research Council (grant SLING 819789), the AFOSR projects FA9550-18-1-7009, FA9550-17-1-0390 and BAA-AFRL-AFOSR-2016-0007 (European Office of Aerospace Research and Development), and the EU H2020-MSCA-RISE project NoMADS - DLV-777826.
\printbibliography
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is a continuation of \cite{DPS}, which proves that the locally analytic vectors of many $p$-adic Banach representations of global origin have an infinitesimal character, which can be explicitly computed from
$p$-adic Hodge-theoretic data. Here we are concerned with applications of those ideas to a very specific problem: the study of the $p$-adic Jacquet-Langlands correspondence between $p$-adic Banach representations of
$G:=\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and of $D^{\times}$, where $D$ is a quaternion division algebra over $\mathbb {Q}_p$. Along the way, we prove a new upper bound for the Gelfand--Kirillov dimension of admissible Banach representations whose locally analytic vectors have an infinitesimal character, which plays a key role in our main result concerning the $p$-adic Jacquet--Langlands correspondence.
This bound also gives a proof of the fact that Hecke eigenspaces in the (rational) completed cohomology of the tower of modular curves have finite length, independent of the $p$-adic local Langlands correspondence and of the classification of irreducible mod
$p$ smooth representations of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$.
Let us fix a finite extension $L$ of $\mathbb{Q}_p$, with ring of integers $\mathcal{O}$ and residue field $k$, which will serve as
coefficient field for all representations that we deal with. Let $C$ be the completion of a fixed algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ of $\mathbb {Q}_p$.
A candidate for the $p$-adic Jacquet--Langlands correspondence was constructed\footnote{We stick to the $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ case here: Scholze's constructions are more general, but very little is known beyond the case of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, which is already far from being completely understood.} by Scholze in a purely geometric way in \cite{scholze}, using the cohomology of the infinite-level Lubin-Tate space $\mathcal{LT}_{\infty}$, which is a pro-\'etale $G$-torsor over the analytic projective line $\mathbb{P}^1_C$.
More precisely, he constructed functors
$\mathcal S^i$ (for $0\leq i\leq 2$) from smooth $\mathcal{O}$-torsion $\mathcal{O}[G]$-modules to smooth $\mathcal{O}$-torsion
$\mathcal{O}[D^{\times}]$-modules by setting
$$\mathcal S^i(\pi)=H^i_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\mathbb{P}^1_C, \mathcal{F}_{\pi}),$$
where $\mathcal{F}_{\pi}$ is the descent of the
constant sheaf $\underline{\pi}$ along the
pro-\'etale $G$-torsor $\mathcal{LT}_{\infty}\to \mathbb{P}^1_C$. The most interesting case is $i=1$, and we let
$\JL(\pi)=\mathcal S^1(\pi)$.
Despite the simple-looking definition,
it seems very hard to compute $\JL(\pi)$ or even to establish some of its basic properties (for instance whether it is nonzero...). Here we depart from the torsion situation and study what happens in characteristic $0$, exploiting the action of the Lie algebra of $D^{\times}$, more precisely of its centre.
Let $\Pi$ be an admissible unitary $L$-Banach space representation of $G$, and let $\Theta\subset \Pi$ be an open and bounded $G$-invariant lattice in $\Pi$.
Define\footnote{In the main text $\JL$ will be denoted by $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1$.}
$$\JL(\Pi)=(\varprojlim_{n} \JL(\Theta/p^n\Theta))_{\rm tf}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}} L,$$
where the subscript tf refers to the maximal Hausdorff torsion-free quotient.
By one of the main results of Scholze's paper \cite{scholze}, $\JL(\Pi)$ is an admissible unitary $L$-Banach space representation of $D^{\times}$
(there is also an action of the absolute Galois group of $\mathbb {Q}_p$ on $\JL(\Pi)$, commuting with $D^{\times}$, but we will not make use of it in this paper).
Let $\widehat{G}_{\rm ss}$ be the set of (isomorphism classes of) absolutely irreducible unitary, admissible $L$-Banach space representations of $G$, which are \textit{non-ordinary} (also known as
\textit{supersingular}), i.e. which are not subquotients of the parabolic induction of a unitary character. The $p$-adic local Langlands correspondence \cite{CDP} gives a bijection
$$ V: \widehat{G}_{\rm ss} \to {\rm Irr}_2(\Gal_{\Qp})$$
between $\widehat{G}_{\rm ss}$ and the set of (isomorphism classes of) $2$-dimensional absolutely irreducible representations
of $\Gal_{\Qp}:={\rm Gal}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p/\mathbb {Q}_p)$ over $L$.
\begin{thm}\label{one_one} If $p>2$ then
for all $\Pi\in \widehat{G}_{\rm ss}$ the $D^{\times}$-representation
$\JL(\Pi)^{\mathrm{la}}$ has ``the same'' infinitesimal character as $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$.
\end{thm}
Even though all objects involved in the statement of the above theorem are of local nature, its proof uses heavily global methods. We use the results of \cite{forum}, which in turn make use
of the $p$-adic Langlands correspondence for $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, to show that every non-ordinary
$\Pi$ occurs as a subquotient in a Hecke eigenspace of the patched $0$-th cohomology of
certain quarternionic Shimura sets. We then show, following Scholze \cite{scholze}, that
if we apply his functor to this Hecke eigenspace we obtain a Hecke eigenspace in the
patched $1$-st cohomology of certain Shimura curves. The results of
our previous paper \cite{DPS} allow us to conclude that the infinitesimal characters obtained
from the action of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and the action of $D^{\times}$ on the locally analytic vectors
in the respective eigenspaces is the same. We refer to Corollary \ref{the_end_is_nigh} for a more precise statement; in Remark \ref{unitary} we explain how some of our arguments can be extended to ${\rm GL}_n(F)$
using the results of Caraiani and Scholze \cite{CS} and Kegang Liu \cite{kegang_liu}. The
assumption $p>2$ enters when we globalize the local Galois representation and carry out the patching argument.
The previous theorem is one of the key inputs in the proof of our main result:
\begin{thm} Assume that $p>2$ and
let $\Pi\in \widehat{G}_{\rm ss}$ be a representation such that
the difference of the Hodge--Tate--Sen weights of $V(\Pi)$ is not a nonzero integer. Then
$\JL(\Pi)$ is a Banach representation of finite length, more precisely its restriction to any compact open subgroup of $D^{\times}$ has finite length.
\end{thm}
\begin{remar}
We expect that the result still holds when the difference of the Hodge--Tate--Sen weights of $V(\Pi)$ is a nonzero integer, but have no evidence supporting our expectation.
The following basic question should shed light on what is happening in the complicated case excluded by the Theorem, but we could make no progress on it: is there an admissible Banach representation $\Pi$ of $D^{\times}$ such that its smooth vectors form an infinite dimensional vector space and such that $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ has an infinitesimal character?
\end{remar}
\begin{remar}
It is probably not unreasonable to think that ${\rm Hom}_{\Gal_{\Qp}}(V(\Pi), \JL(\Pi))$ is irreducible as a representation of $D^{\times}$, at least when $\Pi$ is ``generic'', but we cannot establish this.
\end{remar}
The second key input (and maybe the most surprising result of the paper) in the proof of the previous theorem is a new upper bound for the Gelfand--Kirillov (or canonical) dimension of Banach space representations $\Pi$ for which $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ has an infinitesimal character. In order to avoid too many repetitions, let us call a Banach representation $\Pi$ \textit{quasi-simple} if $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ has an infinitesimal character.
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $\mathbb {Q}_p$, let $H$ be an open subgroup of $G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and let $d_G$ be the dimension of the flag variety of
$G_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. It is not difficult\footnote{Schmidt and Strauch \cite[Proposition 7.2]{SS} established this bound under assumptions on the prime $p$ and the group $G$, as a consequence of deep work of Ardakov and Wadsley \cite{awannals}. In section \ref{proof_a} we give an elementary proof of this result, see Theorem \ref{astuce} (a), without imposing these assumptions and without making use of \cite{awannals}.} to see that
the GK-dimension of
any admissible locally analytic representation $\Pi$ of $H$ with an infinitesimal character cannot exceed $2d_G$. When $H$ is compact, it is also quite easy to see that this upper bound is optimal. Even when $H$ is not compact, this upper bound can be optimal (for instance, if $H=\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ one can cook up examples using the completed cohomology of the tower of modular curves). The next Theorem shows that in the presence of an admissible {\it{Banach}} representation, this upper bound $2d_G$ is never attained. We refer the reader to Theorem \ref{astuce} for a more general statement.
\begin{thm}\label{GKdim}
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $\mathbb {Q}_p$ and let
$\Pi$ be an admissible quasi-simple Banach representation of an open subgroup of $G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$. Then
the Gelfand--Kirillov dimension of $\Pi$ is {\emph{strictly}} less than twice the dimension of the flag variety of
$G_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$.
\end{thm}
It is an interesting and intriguing problem to find the maximal possible value of the Gelfand--Kirillov dimension of an admissible quasi-simple Banach representation $\Pi$. It is maybe too optimistic to conjecture that the result is $d_G$, but we have no counter-example so far.
We mention the following simple consequence of the previous theorem.
\begin{cor}\label{funcor}
Let $\Pi$ be an admissible, unitary, quasi-simple Banach representation of
$G:=\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ over $L$, having a central character. Let $\Theta$ be an $\mathcal O$-lattice in
$\Pi$ stable under $G$. Then $\Theta\otimes_{\mathcal O} k$ has finite length, in particular $\Pi$ itself has finite length.
\end{cor}
\begin{remar}
This result combined with \cite{DPS} (Section 9.7 and Theorem 9.20) gives a proof \emph{independent} of the
$p$-adic local Langlands correspondence for $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ or the classification of irreducible smooth mod $p$ representations of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ that Hecke eigenspaces (corresponding to weakly non-Eisenstein maximal ideals of the Hecke algebra, in the sense of section 9.7 of \cite{DPS}) in the completed cohomology of the tower of modular curves are Banach representations of finite length, and that their reduction modulo $p$ has finite length as well (but we cannot show using this method that Hecke eigenspaces modulo $p$ have finite length).
\end{remar}
\begin{remar} Let $G=\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and let $Z(\mathfrak{g})$ be the centre of the enveloping algebra of
${\rm Lie}(G)$. It follows from the $p$-adic local Langlands correspondence that for an admissible unitary
$L$-Banach representation $\Pi$ of $G$, with a central character, the following statements are equivalent:
$\bullet$ $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ is $Z(\mathfrak{g})$-finite, i.e. killed by an ideal of finite codimension in $Z(\mathfrak{g})$.
$\bullet$ the ``reduction mod $p$'' of $\Pi$ has finite length, i.e. there is (equivalently for any) a
$G$-stable open and bounded $\mathcal O$-lattice $\Theta\subset \Pi$ such that $\Theta\otimes_{\mathcal O} k$ has finite length as a
$k[G]$-module.
Neither of these statements seems to be easy to establish directly, but it is probably more approachable to establish the characteristic zero result. The Corollary above would then allow one to get the characteristic $p$ statement as well.
\end{remar}
Let us mention two other consequences of the bound on the Gelfand--Kirillov dimension. Let
$K$ be a finite extension of $\mathbb {Q}_p$ and let $D$ be a quaternion algebra (we allow $D$ to be split) over
$K$. Let $G=D^{\times}$ and let $H$ be an open $K$-uniform subgroup of $G$, see section \ref{lazard_iso}. The space $\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}$ of $K$-locally analytic vectors in $\Pi$ has an increasing filtration by $H$-Banach space representations $\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}_{r_n}$ defined by radius of analyticity, see
section \ref{rad_an}. (These subrepresentations are neither unitary nor admissible, and are not
closed in $\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}$.)
\begin{cor}
Keep the above notations and let $\Pi$ be an admissible, quasi-simple Banach representation of $G$, with a central character.
a) The $H$-representation $\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}_{r_n}$
is topologically of finite length.
b) If $K=\mathbb {Q}_p$ and if $\Pi$ has no finite dimensional $H$-stable subquotient, then $\Pi$ has finite length as a topological $H$-representation. This is the case if the infinitesimal character of $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ is not algebraic.
\end{cor}
\begin{remar} When $\Pi$ is unitary and irreducible and $G=\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ Andrea Dotto has obtained
more refined results \cite{dotto} on the structure of $\Pi$ as $H$-representation for $H=\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)$
or Iwahori subgroup with characteristic $p$ methods.
\end{remar}
The proof of Theorem \ref{GKdim} relies on a fine study of the central reductions
$$D(H, L)_{\chi}:=D(H, L)\otimes_{Z(\mathfrak{g}_L), \chi} L$$
and some of their completions, where
$H$ is a uniform pro-$p$ group in $G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, $\mathfrak{g}={\rm Lie}(H)$, $D(H,L)$ is the algebra of $L$-valued distributions on $H$ and
$\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$ is a morphism of $L$-algebras. Moreover, in order to exploit the
fact that we deal with Banach space representations, it is crucial to understand the relation between the above rings and the Iwasawa algebra $L[[H]]$. Roughly speaking, the argument goes as follows: if
$\Pi$ has Gelfand--Kirillov dimension exactly $d_G$, then standard results in homological algebra and work of Schneider--Teitelbaum show that $${\rm Hom}_{L[[H]]}(\Pi^*, D(H, L)_{\chi})\ne 0.$$
Here we are allowed to take $H$ as small as we like. Next,
$\Pi^*$ is a torsion $L[[H]]$-module, thus we get a contradiction if $D(H, L)_{\chi}$ is a torsion-free $L[[H]]$-module. For this it suffices to ensure that $D(H, L)_{\chi}$ is an integral domain and that the natural map
$L[[H]]\to D(H, L)_{\chi}$ is injective. We cannot really prove these statements, but we prove just enough to make a version of the previous argument work. The actual argument is a bit painful, in particular there are some nontrivial
reductions to the case where $G$ is semisimple, simply connected. In that case, we show that the required properties of the rings are consequences of the work of Ardakov \cite{ardakovast} and Ardakov--Wadsley \cite{awannals}, \cite{awverma} on localization theory for locally analytic representations (in order to show that certain rings are integral domains), as well as on affinoid Verma modules (in order to show that the map from the Iwasawa algebra to certain central reductions of completions of distribution algebras is injective).
Since the most innovative result (Theorem \ref{astuce}) gets proved in the middle of the paper we feel
the need to justify why we spend so much space on patching and Scholze's functor instead of
just referring to \cite{scholze}. We correct a minor error in \cite{scholze}: although Scholze
in \cite[Footnote 7]{scholze} writes \textit{It would be enough to assume that they have perfect resolutions by injective $H$-representations which are of `bounded complexity' in a suitable sense. As in our application, they will actually be injective, we restrict to this simpler setup}, in the actual application \cite[Corollary 9.3]{scholze} the representations are not injective, because in the setting
of Shimura curves the global units in the centre have to act trivially on the cohomology groups. One way to avoid this issue is to work with unitary groups, but
this would be inconvenient for us, as we would like to use the results of \cite{ludwig} proved in the setting of Shimura curves. We fix the issue in Theorem \ref{main_ultra}; again all the fundamental ideas in its proof are due to Scholze. The second issue is that Scholze in \cite[Section 9]{scholze} patches
cohomology instead of homology and to get the objects analogous to the patched module in \cite{6auth}
we would like to patch homology, so we spend some time in Section \ref{sec_ultra} discussing how Pontryagin duality interacts with localization with respect to an ideal defined by an ultrafilter. We patch following
Dotto--Le \cite{dotto-le}, who in turn follow Gee--Newton \cite{gee_newton}; both of these papers
use a variation of Scholze's idea to patch using ultrafilters. The third issue is that in Kisin's paper on the Fontaine--Mazur conjecture \cite{kisin_fmc} there is a problem, fixed in \cite[Appendix B]{gee-kisin}, when $p=3$ and the image of Galois representation is not 'big' enough. For this reason and mostly convenience Scholze assumes in \cite[Section 9]{scholze} that $p\ge 5$.
Since the statement in Theorem \ref{one_one} is local we are free to choose a global setting to prove it, and we globalize the local Galois representation, using \cite[Appendix A]{gee-kisin}, so that it has
`big image', and then the problem goes away and we can handle $p=3$, see Lemma \ref{diagonal} and the remark following it. We wrote out the details
of these arguments since the results are needed in the forthcoming work of Colmez--Dospinescu--Niziol.
\emph{Notations}: We fix in all the article a prime $p$. We let $q=p$ if $p>2$ and $q=4$ otherwise and for $n\geq 0$ we let $r_n=p^{-1/p^n}$.
We fix a finite extension $L$ of $\mathbb {Q}_p$,
the coefficient field of all representations considered in this paper. We let $\mathcal{O}$ be the ring of integers of
$L$, $\varpi\in\mathcal{O}$ a uniformiser and
$k=\mathcal{O}/(\varpi)$ the residue field of $L$. The norm on $L$ extending the
$p$-adic norm on $\mathbb {Q}_p$ is denoted $|\cdot|$.
If $X$ is a topological $L$-vector space then we let $X^*$ be its topological
$L$-dual.
\subsection{Acknowledgements} We would like to thank Yongquan Hu for pointing out
a blunder in an earlier draft. We would like to thank Toby Gee, Lue Pan and Peter Scholze for their comments on a preliminary version of the paper.
\section{Distribution algebras and completed enveloping algebras}
The proof of Theorem \ref{astuce} below requires some acrobatics with distribution algebras and their interpretation in terms of completed enveloping algebras, and the purpose of this paragraph is to recall some basic results and constructions concerning them.
\subsection{Distribution algebras of $p$-adic groups}\label{distri} Let $K\subset L$ be finite extensions of $\mathbb {Q}_p$. If $G$ is a compact locally $K$-analytic group we let
$D(G,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ be the algebra of $L$-valued locally
$K$-analytic distributions on $G$, i.e. the strong dual of the space of
$L$-valued locally $K$-analytic functions on $G$.
When
$K=\mathbb {Q}_p$ we drop the corresponding superscript. There is a natural embedding $L\otimes_K U(\mathfrak{g})\to D(G,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$, where $\mathfrak{g}={\rm Lie}(G)$ is the associated $K$-Lie algebra.
Let
$G_0$ be the $\mathbb {Q}_p$-analytic group obtained from $G$ by restriction of scalars
and let $\mathfrak{g}_0={\rm Lie}(G_0)$. There is a natural isomorphism of $\mathbb {Q}_p$-Lie algebras
$\iota: \mathfrak{g}\simeq \mathfrak{g}_0$
and we let $I$ be the kernel of the $\mathbb {Q}_p$-linear map $K\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} \mathfrak{g}_0\to \mathfrak{g}$ sending $k\otimes X$ to $k \iota^{-1}(X)$.
There are natural surjective maps of $L$-algebras
$$D(G_0, L)\to D(G, L)^{K\text{-}\la}, \quad L\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} U(\mathfrak{g}_0)\to
L\otimes_{K} U(\mathfrak{g})$$
compatible with the embeddings $L\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} U(\mathfrak{g}_0)\to D(G_0, L)$ and
$L\otimes_{K} U(\mathfrak{g})\to D(G, L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ and one shows \cite[lemma 5.1]{SchmidtAR}
that $I$ generates the kernel of these maps.
From now on we assume that $G_0$ is a uniform pro-$p$ group and we let $g_1,\dots,g_d$ be topological generators of $G_0$, with $d=\dim_{\mathbb {Q}_p} G_0$.
Letting $$b^{\alpha}=(g_1-1)^{\alpha_1}\dots(g_d-1)^{\alpha_d}\in \mathbb{Z}_p[G]$$ for
$\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_d)\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^d$, each $\lambda\in D(G_0,L)$ has a unique convergent expansion $\lambda=\sum_{\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^d} c_{\alpha} b^{\alpha}$, where $c_{\alpha}\in L$ are such that $\lim_{|\alpha|\to\infty} |c_{\alpha}|\cdot r^{|\alpha|}=0$ for all $0\leq r<1$ (here $|\alpha|=\alpha_1+\dots+\alpha_d$).
If $n\geq 0$ set
$r_n=p^{-1/p^n}$, and let $q=p$ if $p>2$ and $q=4$ if $p=2$. The following results are proved in \cite{adm} and \cite{SchmidtAR}. One defines a multiplicative norm
$||\cdot||_{r_n}$ on $D(G_0,L)$ by setting
$$||\sum_{\alpha} c_{\alpha} b^{\alpha}||_{r_n}=\sup_{\alpha} |c_{\alpha}| q^{-\frac{|\alpha|}{p^n}}.$$ The $L$-Banach algebra $D_{r_n}(G_0,L)$ obtained by completing
$D(G_0,L)$ with respect to this norm turns out to be Noetherian, the natural map
$D(G_0,L)\to D_{r_n}(G_0,L)$ is injective and we have an isomorphism of
$L$-Fr\'echet algebras
$$D(G_0,L)\simeq \varprojlim_{n} D_{r_n}(G_0,L).$$
The elements of $D_{r_n}(G_0,L)$ have unique expansions
$\sum_{\alpha} c_{\alpha} b^{\alpha}$ with $c_{\alpha}\in L$ satisfying
$|c_{\alpha}| q^{-\frac{|\alpha|}{p^n}}\to 0$. Modding out by the ideal
$I=\ker(K\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} \mathfrak{g}_0\to \mathfrak{g})$ one obtains algebras
$D_{r_n}(G,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ and an isomorphism $D(G,L)^{K\text{-}\la}\simeq
\varprojlim_{n} D_{r_n}(G,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$. The algebras $D(G,L)$ and $D(G,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ are Fr\'echet-Stein algebras in the sense of \cite{adm}.
\subsection{Lazard's isomorphism}\label{lazard_iso}
Recall that one can attach a $\mathbb{Z}_p$-Lie algebra $L_H$ to any uniform
pro-$p$ group $H$, with underlying set $L_H=H$ and operations induced\footnote{More precisely $g+h=\lim_{n\to \infty} (g^{p^n}h^{p^n})^{p^{-n}}$ and
$[g,h]=\lim_{n\to\infty} (g^{-p^n}h^{-p^n}g^{p^n}h^{p^n})^{p^{-2n}}$}
by those in
$H$. For psychological reasons we prefer to distinguish between $L_H$ and $H$, so we write
$X_h\in L_H$ for the element corresponding to $h\in H$. The construction $H\mapsto L_H$
induces an equivalence of categories between uniform pro-$p$ groups and $\mathbb{Z}_p$-Lie algebras $\mathfrak{g}$ which are finite free $\mathbb{Z}_p$-modules and satisfy $[\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}]\subset q\mathfrak{g}$, using the standard notation $q=p$ for $p>2$ and $q=4$ if $p=2$. In particular $q^{-1}L_H$ is a $\mathbb{Z}_p$-Lie algebra for any uniform pro-$p$ group $H$. The logarithm map of the Lie group
$H$ combined with the bijection between $H$ and $L_H$ induce an injective map of
$\mathbb{Z}_p$-Lie algebras $L_H\to {\rm Lie}(H)$, which in turn induces an isomorphism
$\mathbb{Q}_p\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_p} L_H\simeq {\rm Lie}(H)$.
As above, let $K\subset L$ be finite extensions of $\mathbb {Q}_p$.
The locally $K$-analytic group $H$ is
called $K$-uniform if $H$ is a uniform pro-$p$ group and if $L_H$ is a sub-$\mathcal O_K$-module of ${\rm Lie}(H)$. Let $H$ be a $K$-uniform group and write for simplicity\footnote{As everywhere in this paper $\mathcal O=\mathcal O_L$.}
$$\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O}=\mathcal O\otimes_{\mathcal O_K} q^{-1}L_H,$$
an $\mathcal O$-Lie algebra, finite free over $\mathcal O$ of rank equal to the dimension of the locally $K$-analytic group $H$. The natural embedding $\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O}\to L\otimes_K {\rm Lie}(H)$ yields a map $$\iota: U(\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})\to L\otimes_K U({\rm Lie}(H))\to D(H, L)^{K\text{-}\la}\to D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}.$$
Explicitly, for $h\in H$ we have (by identifying $h$ with the associated Dirac distribution)
$$\iota(1\otimes q^{-1}X_h)=q^{-1} \log(h):=-q^{-1}\sum_{n\geq 1} \frac{(1-h)^n}{n}.$$
Using this formula, one easily checks that the image lands in the unit ball of $D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ and so the map $\iota$ extends by continuity to a map of
$L$-Banach algebras
$$\iota: \widehat{U(\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p]\to D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la},$$
the completion involved here being $p$-adic. The construction is functorial in
$H$. The following result is classical, at least if $p>2$, and we refer to \cite[th. 6.5.3]{ardakovast}
for the general case.
\begin{prop}\label{Laz} (Lazard's isomorphism) The map $\iota$ constructed above is an isomorphism of
$L$-Banach algebras
$$\widehat{U(\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p]\simeq D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{remar} a) Note that $H^{p^n}$ is also $K$-uniform and $\mathfrak{g}_{H^{p^n},\mathcal O}=p^n \mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O}$. Applying Lazard's isomorphism to $H^{p^n}$ we obtain compatible isomorphisms of $L$-Banach algebras
$$D_{1/p}(H^{p^n}, L)^{K\text{-}\la}\simeq \widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p].$$
b) There is a natural map $L[[H]]\to D(H,L)\to D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$, and the composite with Lazard's isomorphism $L[[H]]\to \widehat{U(\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p]$ is uniquely determined by the fact that the image of
$h\in H$ (seen as Dirac measure in $L[[H]]$) is
$$e^{q\cdot \frac{X_h}{q}}:=\sum_{n\geq 0} \frac{q^n}{n!} \left(1\otimes \frac{X_h}{q}\right)^n.$$
\end{remar}
We end this paragraph with another very useful and standard (at least for $p>2$, see \cite[th. 6.5.11]{ardakovast} for the general case) result.
\begin{prop}\label{distrib} For any $K$-uniform group $H$
there are compatible embeddings
$L[[H^{p^n}]]\to L[[H]]$ and $D_{1/p}(H^{p^n}, L)^{K\text{-}\la}\to D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ for
$n\geq 1$, making the right-hand side a finite free module over the left-hand side with basis given by (the Dirac measures of) any system of representatives of $H/H^{p^n}$.
\end{prop}
Combining this proposition and the previous discussion, we deduce that for any $K$-uniform group
$H$ we have a natural embedding $\widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p]\to D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ inducing an isomorphism of left $\widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p]$-modules
$$D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}\simeq \bigoplus_{h\in H/H^{p^n}} \widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p] \delta_h.$$
\subsection{Radius of analyticity}\label{rad_an} Let $\Pi$ be an admissible Banach representation of a locally $\mathbb{Q}_p$-analytic group $G$ over $L$ and fix an open pro-$p$ uniform subgroup $H$ of $G$. If $g_1,\ldots, g_d$ is a minimal system of topological generators of $H$, we let $\Pi_{r_n}^{\mathrm{la}}$ be the subspace of $\Pi$ consisting of those vectors $v\in \Pi$ "of radius of analyticity $r_n$", i.e. such that (the notation $b^{\alpha}$ is the one introduced in paragraph \ref{distri}) the sequence $(q^{\frac{|\alpha|}{p^n}} b^{\alpha}v)_{\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^d}$ is
bounded in $\Pi$.
It is a Banach space for the norm
$$||v||_{r_n}=\sup_{\alpha} q^{\frac{|\alpha|}{p^n}} ||b^{\alpha}v||,$$
where $||\cdot||$ is the norm on $\Pi$.
One can check (by using the same arguments as in chapter IV of \cite{CD}) that $\Pi_{r_n}^{\mathrm{la}}$ does not depend on the choice of the global coordinates $g_1,\ldots,g_d$ on $H$, but we warn the reader that $\Pi_{r_n}^{\mathrm{la}}$ \emph{does depend} on
the subgroup $H$, thus the notation is slightly misleading. By construction $\Pi_{r_n}^{\mathrm{la}}$ is a
topological $D_{r_n}(H,L)$-module and one checks that
there is a natural isomorphism of topological $D_{r_n}(H,L)$-modules
$$(\Pi_{r_n}^{\mathrm{la}})^*\simeq D_{r_n}(H,L)\otimes_{L[[H]]} \Pi^*.$$
If $G$ is a locally $K$-analytic group and $H$ is a $K$-uniform open subgroup of $G$, we define
$\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}_{r_n}$ as $\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}\cap \Pi^{\mathrm{la}}_{r_n}$, where $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}_{r_n}$ is defined with respect to $H$ seen as a uniform pro-$p$ subgroup of $G$. One then has an isomorphism of topological $D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$-modules
$$(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}_{r_n})^{*}\simeq D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}\otimes_{L[[H]]} \Pi^*.$$
The reader who prefers working with modules over the distribution algebras can simply ignore the previous discussion and take the last isomorphism as a definition of the left-hand side.
\section{Dimension theory}\label{GK} We recall in this rather long paragraph some standard results
concerning the dimension theory of finitely generated modules over Auslander-regular and
Aus\-lan\-der--Gorenstein rings. We will use these results systematically in the next paragraphs, so we decided to make the presentation relatively self-contained.
\subsection{Auslander--Gorenstein rings and the dimension filtration}
We start by recalling some of the main features of (non commutative) Auslander--Gorenstein rings. All rings below will be associative, unital and Noetherian, the only exception being paragraph \ref{STdim}, where non Noetherian rings will appear. We write ${\rm Mod}^{fg}(A)$ for the category of finitely generated (left) $A$-modules.
If $A$ is a ring and $M$ is an $A$-module, we set $E^q(M)=E_A^q(M)={\rm Ext}^q_A(M,A)$ and
$$j(M)=j_A(M)=\inf \{q| \,E^q(M)\ne 0\}\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\cup \{\infty\}.$$
Clearly $j(0)=\infty$. On the other hand, if $A$ has finite injective dimension $d$, which will always be the case in our applications below, one has $j(M)\leq d$ for all nonzero $M\in {\rm Mod}^{fg}(A)$. The following result is standard.
\begin{lem}\label{Rees} (Rees' lemma) If $x\in A$ is central and not a zero-divisor, then
for all $M\in {\rm Mod}^{fg}(A/xA)$ and all $q\geq 0$ we have $E_A^{q+1}(M)\simeq E^{q}_{A/xA}(M)$, in particular $j_{A/xA}(M)=j_A(M)-1$.
\end{lem}
We say that $A$ is Auslander--Gorenstein of dimension $d<\infty$ if
${\rm injdim}(A)=d$ and for all $M\in {\rm Mod}^{fg}(A)$, all $q\geq 0$ and all
$A$-submodules $N\subset E^q(M)$ we have $j(N)\geq q$. If moreover the global homological dimension of $A$ is finite, we say that $A$ is Auslander regular. When $A$ is commutative,
$A$ is Auslander--Gorenstein (resp. Auslander-regular) if and only if $A$ is Gorenstein (resp. regular). The following result summarizes standard properties of Auslander--Gorenstein rings and we refer the reader to sections 2 and 4 of \cite{levasseur} for the proofs. The filtration appearing in part b) is called the dimension filtration of $M$.
\begin{prop}\label{toolbox}
Let $A$ be an Auslander--Gorenstein ring of dimension $d$ and let
$M\in {\rm Mod}^{fg}(A)$.
a) For any sub-module $N$ of $M$ we have
$j(M)=\min(j(N), j(M/N))$.
b) Suppose that $M\ne 0$ and let $F^qM$ be the largest sub-module $X$ of $M$ such that
$j(X)\geq q$. Then $F^{d+1}M=0$, $j(M)$ is the largest $q$ such that $M=F^qM$ and there are exact sequences with $j(Q(q))\geq q+2$
$$0\to F^qM/F^{q+1}M\to E^q(E^q(M))\to Q(q)\to 0.$$
c) If $\dots\subset M_1\subset M_0=M$ is a chain of sub-modules of $M$, then $j(M_{i}/M_{i+1})\geq j(M)+1$ for all $i$ large enough.
d) If $x\in A$ is central and not a zero-divisor, then $A/xA$ is Auslander--Gorenstein of dimension $\leq d-1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{remar} Under stronger assumptions on $A$ one can say more, cf. Theorem 3.6 and Corollary 4.4 in \cite{levasseur}: if $A=\oplus_{n\geq 0} A_n$
is positively graded, $x\in A_k$ (for some $k>0$) is a central non zero-divisor, then
$A$ is Auslander--Gorenstein of dimension $d$ if and only if $A/xA$ is Auslander--Gorenstein of dimension $d-1$, and then for any $M\in {\rm Mod}^{fg}(A)$ on which $x$ is regular (i.e. injective) we have $j_A(M/xM)=j_A(M)+1$.
\end{remar}
\subsection{Filtrations and deformations}\label{Fildef}
By convention all filtrations
$FA=(F_nA)_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$ on a ring $A$ will be {\it{increasing}}, exhaustive (i.e. $A=\cup_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} F_nA$)
and such that $1\in F_0A$ (thus $F_0A$ is a subring of $A$). Denote by
$${\rm Gr}(A)=\bigoplus_{n} F_nA/F_{n-1}A, \quad R(A)=\bigoplus_{n} F_nA \cdot T^n\subset A[T,T^{-1}]$$ the associated graded, respectively Rees ring. We say that $FA$ is a Zariskian filtration
if $R(A)$ is (left and right) Noetherian
and if $F_{-1}A$ is contained in the Jacobson radical of $F_0A$. This is the case when
${\rm Gr}(A)$ is noetherian and $FA$ is complete (e.g. positive or more generally discrete\footnote{A filtration $FM$ on an $A$-module $M$ is called positive if
$F_nM=0$ for all $n<0$, and it is called discrete if there is $n_0$ such that $F_nM=0$ for all $n<n_0$.}), which is the only case we really need. A filtration $FM$ on $M\in {\rm Mod}^{fg}(A)$ is called \textit{good}
if one can find $m_1,...,m_k\in M$ and integers
$i_1,\dots,i_k$ such that $F_nM=F_{n-i_1}A\cdot m_1+\dots+F_{n-i_k}A\cdot m_k$ for all integers $n$.
When the filtration on $A$ is Zariskian
any good filtration on a finitely generated $A$-module is separated and induces a good filtration on any sub-module. If the filtration on $A$ is complete, a separated filtration
$FM$ on $M$ is good if and only if ${\rm Gr}(M)$ is finitely generated over ${\rm Gr}(A)$.
See \cite{zarfilt} for these standard results.
The following fundamental result is due to Bjork, cf. Theorem
3.9 in \cite{Bjork} and its proof.
\begin{thm}\label{beurk}
If $A$ is a ring with a Zariskian filtration for which ${\rm Gr}(A)$ is Aus\-lan\-der--Go\-ren\-stein (resp. Auslander-regular), then $A$ is Aus\-lan\-der--Go\-ren\-stein (resp. Aus\-lan\-der-re\-gu\-lar) and for any good filtration $FM$ on a finitely generated
$A$-module $M$ we have $j_A(M)=j_{{\rm Gr}(A)}({\rm Gr}(M))$.
\end{thm}
Before giving some concrete applications of the previous theorem, we recall that
Ardakov and Wadsley introduced and studied in \cite{awannals} certain categories of filtered and doubly filtered $\mathcal O$-algebras. We will restrict here to certain sub-categories, which seem to be the ones naturally encountered in practice.
The first category\footnote{This is a sub-category of the category of {\it{deformable}} $\mathcal O$-algebras introduced in \cite{awannals} (we impose the extra condition that ${\rm Gr}(A)$ is commutative and Noetherian).} ${\rm Def}(\mathcal O)$ is that of
positively filtered $\mathcal O$-algebras $A$ such that
$F_0A$ is an $\mathcal O$-sub-algebra of $A$ and
${\rm Gr}(A)$ is a commutative, Noetherian, flat $\mathcal O$-algebra, morphisms being defined in the obvious way. For instance $U(\mathfrak{g})\in {\rm Def}(\mathcal O)$ with its natural PBW filtration for any Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ over $\mathcal O$, which is finite free as $\mathcal O$-module (indeed, ${\rm Gr}(U(\mathfrak{g}))\simeq S(\mathfrak{g})$ by the PBW Theorem). Another example used later on is that of the ring of crystalline
differential operators $\mathcal{D}(X)$ on a smooth affine scheme
$X/\mathcal O$. This is a ring generated by $\mathcal O(X)$ and the global vector fields
$\mathcal{T}(X)$, subject to obvious relations. For the natural filtration by order of differential operators on $\mathcal{D}(X)$ we have a natural isomorphism
${\rm Gr}(\mathcal{D}(X))\simeq {\rm Sym}_{\mathcal O(X)}(\mathcal{T}(X))$, showing that indeed $\mathcal{D}(X)\in {\rm Def}(\mathcal O)$.
Ardakov and Wadsley proved in \cite{awannals} the existence of an endo-functor for each $n\geq 0$, called the $n$th order deformation functor
$${\rm Def}(\mathcal O)\to {\rm Def}(\mathcal O),\quad A_n=\sum_{i\geq 0} \varpi^{in} F_iA,$$
coming with a natural isomorphism ${\rm Gr}(A)\simeq {\rm Gr}(A_n)$ (we endow $A_n$ with the induced filtration from $A$). For instance, for $\mathfrak{g}$ as above we have
$U(\mathfrak{g})_n=U(\varpi^n \mathfrak{g})$.
Consider now the category\footnote{For any $A\in CDF(\mathcal O)$ the $L$-algebra $A[1/\varpi]$ is a complete doubly filtered $L$-algebra in the sense of \cite[def. 3.1]{awannals}, explaining our exotic notation $CDF(\mathcal O)$.}
$CDF(\mathcal O)$ of flat $\mathcal O$-algebras
$A$ which are separated and complete for the $\varpi$-adic topology,
together with a complete filtration $F(A/\varpi A)$ on $A/\varpi A$ such that
${\rm Gr}(A/\varpi A)$ is Noetherian and commutative. Any
$A\in CDF(\mathcal O)$ is left and right Noetherian, since the filtration on
$A/\varpi A$ is Zariskian (thus $A/\varpi A$ is a
left and right Noetherian ring, and then so is $A$).
Morphisms in $CDF(\mathcal O)$ are defined in the obvious way\footnote{i.e. morphisms of $\mathcal O$-algebras inducing filtered
morphisms between the reductions mod $\varpi$.}. There is a natural functor
$${\rm Def}(\mathcal O)\to CDF(\mathcal O), \quad A\mapsto \hat{A}:=\varprojlim_{n} A/\varpi^n A,$$
where
$\hat{A}/\varpi\hat{A}\simeq A/\varpi A$ is endowed with the quotient filtration from
$A$, so that, using the $\mathcal O$-flatness of ${\rm Gr}(A)$, ${\rm Gr}(\hat{A}/\varpi \hat{A})\simeq {\rm Gr}(A)/\varpi {\rm Gr}(A)$.
The next result is essentially \cite[th. 3.3]{awannals}, but we give a proof for the reader's convenience.
\begin{prop}\label{Bjork} Let $A\in CDF(\mathcal O)$ be such that ${\rm Gr}(A/\varpi A)$ is Gorenstein (resp. regular). Then
a) $A$ is Auslander--Gorenstein (resp. Auslander-regular).
b) If $M\in {\rm Mod}^{fg}(A)$ is
flat over
$\mathcal O$ and if $F(M/\varpi M)$ is a good filtration on $M/\varpi M$, then
$$j_{A}(M)=j_{A[1/p]} (M[1/p])=j_{A/\varpi A}(M/\varpi M)=j_{{\rm Gr}(A/\varpi A)}({\rm Gr}(M/\varpi M)).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} a) The filtration on $A/\varpi A$ being Zariskian, Theorem
\ref{beurk} shows that $A/\varpi A$ is Auslander--Gorenstein (resp. Auslander-regular) under the asserted hypothesis. Apply now the same result to $A$ endowed with the Zariskian $\varpi$-adic filtration, observing that
${\rm Gr}(A)\simeq (A/\varpi A)[T,T^{-1}]$ since $A$ is $\mathcal O$-flat and that
$R[T,T^{-1}]$ is Auslander--Gorenstein (resp. Auslander-regular) whenever $R$ is so.
b) The last equality follows directly from Theorem \ref{beurk}.
Let
$a=j_A(M)$.
Since $E_{A[1/p]}^q(M[1/p])\simeq E_A^q(M)[1/p]$, we have
$j_{A[1/p]}(M[1/p])\geq a$ and in order to show that we
have equality it suffices to show that $E_A^a(M)$ is
$\mathcal O$-flat. The long exact sequence associated to $0\to
M\to M\to M/\varpi M\to 0$ reduces this to showing that
$E^a(M/\varpi M)=0$, which holds since $j_{A}(M/\varpi
M)\geq 1+j_A(M)$ by part c) of Proposition \ref{toolbox}. Next, we have $j_{A/\varpi A}(M/\varpi M)=j_A(M/\varpi M)-1$ by lemma \ref{Rees}, so we are done if we prove that $j_{A}(M/\varpi M)\geq 1+j_A(M)=1+a$ is an equality. But if $j_A(M/\varpi M)>1+a$ then $E_A^{a+1}(M/\varpi M)=0$ and the long exact sequence above gives $E_A^a(M)=\varpi E_A^a(M)$, which by Nakayama's lemma yields $E_A^a(M)=0$, a contradiction. \end{proof}
\begin{examp}\label{example1} Letting
$A=U(\mathfrak{g})$ with $\mathfrak{g}$ as above, we have
$$\widehat{A_n}=\{\sum_{i\in \mathbb{N}^d} a_i X^i| \,
a_i\in \varpi^{n|i|}\mathcal O, \lim_{|i|\to\infty} a_i\cdot
\varpi^{-n|i|}=0\},$$
where $X_1,\dots,X_d$ is an $\mathcal O$-basis of $\mathfrak{g}$, $X^i=X_1^{i_1}\dots X_d^{i_d}$ and $|i|=i_1+\dots+i_d$ for $i=(i_1,\dots,i_d)\in \mathbb{N}$. The previous discussion shows that $${\rm Gr}(\widehat{A_n}/\varpi \widehat{A_n} )\simeq S(\mathfrak{g})\otimes_{\mathcal O} k\simeq S(\mathfrak{g}\otimes_{\mathcal O} k),$$
and Theorem \ref{beurk}
yields that $\widehat{A_n}$ are Auslander-regular. One can show \cite[chap. 9]{awannals}
that its global homological dimension is $1+{\rm rk}_{\mathcal O}(\mathfrak{g})$.
\end{examp}
\begin{examp}\label{example2}
Consider a uniform pro-$p$ group $G$ and let $A=\mathcal O[[G]]$ be its Iwasawa algebra, a local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$, the augmentation ideal. Endow
$A/\varpi A=k[[G]]$ with the $\mathfrak{m}$-adic filtration.
By a fundamental theorem of Lazard
$${\rm Gr}(A/\varpi)\simeq k[X_1,\dots,X_d], \quad d:=\dim G,$$
in particular
$A\in CDF(\mathcal O)$ is Auslander-regular (a result of Venjakob, cf. \cite[th. 3.26]{venjakob}) and one can show that its global homological dimension is $1+\dim G$. Also $k[[G]]$ and $L[[G]]:=L\otimes_{\mathcal O} A$ are Auslander-regular of dimension
$\dim G$.
\end{examp}
\subsection{Dimension theory for Fr\'echet-Stein algebras}\label{STdim}
Consider a two-sided Fr\'e\-chet--Stein algebra $A=\varprojlim_{n} A_n$ over $L$ and a nonzero coadmissible $A$-module $M$ (see \cite{adm} for the definition). Let
$M_n=A_n\otimes_A M$ be the associated $A_n$-modules, so that $M\simeq \varprojlim_n M_n$. Schneider and Teitelbaum prove in \cite[chap. 8]{adm} the following results. First of all, the module $E^l(M)={\rm Ext}_A^l(M,A)$ is a coadmissible right $A$-module and there are natural isomorphisms
$$E^l(M)\otimes_A A_n\simeq {\rm Ext}^l_{A_n}(M_n, A_n)$$
for all $n$. Assume from now on that $A_n$ are Auslander-regular
of global dimension uniformly (in $n$) bounded by some $d\geq 0$. Then the sequence $(j_{A_n}(M_n))_{n\geq 0}$ is nonincreasing and eventually constant with value
$j_A(M)\leq d$, for any coadmissible $A$-submodule $N$ of $M$ we have
$j_A(M)=\min(j_A(N), j_A(M/N))$ and any coadmissible submodule $L$ of $E^l(M)$ satisfies
$j_A(L)\geq l$. Finally, $M$ has a canonical dimension filtration
$0=M^{d+1}\subset\dots\subset M^1\subset M^0=M$ by coadmissible $A$-modules such that
$(A_n\otimes_A M^i)_{0\leq i\leq d+1}$ is the dimension filtration of the $A_n$-module
$M_n$ over the Auslander-regular ring $A_n$. In other words $A$ itself has all key properties of an Auslander-regular ring (but it is not necessarily noetherian).
The previous conditions are satisfied by the Fr\'echet-Stein algebra $D(G,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ for any compact locally $K$-analytic group $G$, by a result of Schmidt \cite{SchmidtAR} (the case $K=\mathbb {Q}_p$ being one of the main results of \cite{adm}).
\subsection{Dimensions of mod $p$, Banach and locally analytic representations}\label{Dim}
Let $G$ be a locally $\mathbb{Q}_p$-analytic group and let $\pi$ be an admissible smooth representation of
$G$ over $k$. Then $\pi^*$ is a finitely generated module over $k[[H]]$ for any open uniform pro-$p$ subgroup
$H$ of $G$ (which exists by classical results of Lazard) and we call
$$d(\pi)=\dim H-j_{k[[H]]}(\pi^*)$$
the dimension of $\pi$. This is independent of the choice of $H$ and should not be confused with the dimension of $\pi$ as a $k$-vector space since the latter is
infinite in almost all applications.
One can also interpret $d(\pi)$ as a sort of Gelfand--Kirillov dimension (see \cite[prop. 5.4]{ardakov_brown}, \cite[th. 1.18]{CE}
and \cite[prop. 2.17]{capture}): given an open pro-$p$ uniform subgroup $H$ of $G$, there are constants
$a,b>0$ such that for all $n$ big enough
$$b\cdot p^{d(\pi) n}\leq \dim_{k} \pi^{H_n}\leq a\cdot p^{d(\pi)n},$$
where $H_n$ is the closed subgroup of $H$ generated by the
$h^{p^n}$, $h\in H$. This interpretation clearly shows that $\dim_k(\pi)<\infty$ if and only if $d(\pi)=0$, but the latter result also follows easily from proposition \ref{Bjork} and example
\ref{example2}.
Note that $[H: H_n]=p^{n\dim H}$, so the previous result yields
$$\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{\log \dim_k \pi^{H_n}}{\log [H:H_n]}=\frac{d(\pi)}{\dim H}.$$
Similarly, if $\Pi$ is an admissible Banach representation of $G$ over $L$ we set
$$d(\Pi)=\dim H-j_{L[[H]]}(\Pi^*),$$
a number independent of $H$.
If $\Theta$ is an $H$-stable lattice in $\Pi$, which always exists by compactness of $H$, then
$\pi:=\Theta\otimes_{\mathcal O} k$ is an admissible smooth representation of $H$ over $k$ and we have
$d(\Pi)=d(\pi)$, as follows from prop. \ref{Bjork}. In particular $\dim_{L} (\Pi)<\infty$ if and only if
$d(\Pi)=0$.
Finally, if $\Pi$ is an admissible locally analytic representation of $G$ over $L$, we set
$$d(\Pi)=\dim H-j_{D(H,L)}(\Pi^*)=\dim H-\min_{n} j_{D_{r_n}(H,L)}(D_{r_n}(H,L)\otimes_{D(H,L)} \Pi^*),$$
the second equality being a consequence of results recalled in the previous paragraph. One subtle difference with respect to the mod $p$ and Banach setting is that one may have
$d(\Pi)=0$ and yet $\dim_{L} (\Pi)=\infty$. Actually $d(\Pi)=0$ if and only if $D_{r_n}(H,L)\otimes_{D(H,L)} \Pi^*$ are all finite dimensional over $L$. In somewhat more concrete terms, the subspace of vectors of a given radius of analyticity in $\Pi$ is finite dimensional. For instance $d(\Pi)=0$ for any admissible smooth representation $\Pi$ of $G$ over $L$. If $\Pi$ is an admissible Banach representation of $G$, then the space of locally analytic vectors $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ in $\Pi$ is an admissible locally analytic representation
of $G$ and we have an isomorphism $(\Pi^{\mathrm{la}})^*\simeq D(H,L)\otimes_{L[[H]]} \Pi^*$. Moreover, the ring map
$L[[H]]\to D(H,L)$ is faithfully flat (these last two statements are the main results of \cite{adm}), so that standard homological algebra yields
$d(\Pi)=d(\Pi^{\mathrm{la}})$.
Let us summarise some of the observations above:
\begin{lem}\label{usefullater}
If $\Pi$ is an admissible Banach representation of a locally $\mathbb {Q}_p$-analytic group, then
$d(\Pi)=d(\Pi^{\mathrm{la}})$, and we have $d(\Pi)=0$ if and only if $\dim_{L}(\Pi)<\infty$.
\end{lem}
From now on we assume moreover that $G$ is a
locally $K$-analytic group and $\Pi$ is an admissible locally $K$-analytic representation of $G$. Set
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
d^K(\Pi)&=\dim_K H-j_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}}(\Pi^*)\\
&=\dim_K H-\min_{n} j_{D_{r_n}(H,L)}(D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}\otimes_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}} \Pi^*),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $H$ is an open $K$-uniform pro-$p$-subgroup of $G$ and $\dim_KH$ is the dimension of $H$ as a locally $K$-analytic variety. When $\Pi$ is a locally analytic representation of $G$ we have the following relation between $d^K(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})$ and $d(\Pi)$.
\begin{lem}\label{commm} Let $R\twoheadrightarrow S$ be a surjection of regular commutative noetherian domains and let $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-module. Then
$$ \dim M -(\dim R - \dim S)\le \dim (M\otimes_R S)\le \dim M ,$$
where $\dim$ denotes the Krull dimension.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} By localizing at maximal ideals of $S$ we may assume that $R$ and $S$
are both local. Since $R$ and $S$ are both regular the kernel of $R\twoheadrightarrow S$
is generated by a regular sequence $x_1, \ldots, x_r$ with $r= \dim R - \dim S$. Since
$\dim M/xM$ is equal to either $\dim M$ or $\dim M -1$ we obtain the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lemm:comp_dim}
Let $\Pi$ be an admissible locally analytic representation of $G$. We have
$$ d(\Pi)-(\dim H-\dim_K H)\le d^K(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})\leq d(\Pi).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We may pick $r=r_n$ such that $ j_{D(H,L)}(\Pi^*)=j_{D_{r}(H,L)}(D_{r}(H,L)\otimes_{D(H,L)} \Pi^*)$ and $j_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}}(\Pi^*)=j_{D_{r}(H,L)}(D_{r}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}\otimes_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}} \Pi^*)$. We may further replace $H$ with $H^{p^m}$ for $m\ge 1$,
since $D_{r}(H,L)$ is a finitely generated $D_{s}(H^{p^m}, L)$-module, where $s=r^{p^m}$,
see \cite[Lemma 7.4]{SchmidtAR}. If we choose $m$ large enough then
the map $\mathrm{gr}^{\bullet}D_{s}(H^{p^m}, L)\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{gr}^{\bullet} D_{s}(H^{p^m}, L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ is a surjection between polynomial rings by \cite[Proposition 5.6]{SchmidtAR}.
Thus the assertion follows from Lemma \ref{commm}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lafindim} If $M$ is a finitely generated $D_{r_n}(H, L)^{K\text{-}\la}$-module such that
$j(M)=\dim_K H$, then
$M$ is a finite dimensional $L$-vectors space.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The ring $A:=\widehat{U(p^n \mathfrak{g}_{H, \mathcal O})}$ is in $CDF(\mathcal O)$ and
${\rm Gr}(A/\varpi A)$ is a polynomial ring in $\dim_K H$ variables over $k$ (see
example \ref{example1}).
Since $D_{r_n}(H, L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ is a finite free module over $A[1/p]$ (see the discussion after proposition \ref{distrib}), we also have $j_{A[1/p]}(M)=\dim_K H$. Let $N\subset M$ be a finitely generated $A$-module such that $M=N[1/p]$ and let
$F(N/\varpi N)$ be a good filtration on $N/\varpi N$.
Proposition \ref{Bjork} shows that ${\rm Gr}(N/\varpi N)$
is finite dimensional over $k$, thus
$N$ is finitely generated over $\mathcal O$ and $\dim_L M<\infty$.
\end{proof}
\section{A $p$-adic analogue of Conze's embedding}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a complex semisimple Lie algebra and let $\mathfrak{b}$ be a Borel subalgebra of
$\mathfrak{g}$. If $J$ is the annihilator of an arbitrary Verma module with respect to $\mathfrak{g}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$, Conze \cite{conze} constructed an injective algebra homomorphism
$U(\mathfrak{g})/J\to D(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{b})$, where $D(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{b})$ is the ring of differential operators of the $\mathbb{C}$-vector space $\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{b}$ (if $x_i$ form a basis of $\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{b}$, then $D(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{b})$ is the algebra of differential operators on $\mathbf{C}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ generated by $x_i$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$). In particular
$U(\mathfrak{g})/J$ is an integral domain, since it is a standard result that $D(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{b})$ is one. It follows that for any character $\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g})\to \mathbb{C}$ the ring $U(\mathfrak{g})_{\chi}:=U(\mathfrak{g})\otimes_{Z(\mathfrak{g}), \chi} \mathbb{C}$ is an integral domain.
A more conceptual way of proving this is via the Beilinson--Bernstein localization theory \cite{Bebe}, which identifies $U(\mathfrak{g})_{\chi}$ with the ring of global sections of a suitable sheaf of twisted differential operators on the flag variety of $\mathfrak{g}$, and then, modulo Duflo's annihilation theorem, Conze's embedding is essentially the restriction of global sections to those on the big Bruhat cell (making this statement precise and proving it requires work, cf. \cite{SH}).
In this section we will establish a $p$-adic analogue of the above result by using the $p$-adic version of Beilinson--Bernstein localization theory due to Ardakov and Wadsley \cite{awannals} (when the prime $p$ is very good with respect to the ambient group), extended by Ardakov in \cite{ardakovast}. We are very grateful to Ardakov for suggesting the proof below, much easier than ours and which avoids any assumption on the prime $p$. Theorem \ref{domaineasy} below is one of the key ingredients in the proof of Theorem \ref{astuce}.
Let
$\bold{G}$ be a connected, split semisimple and simply connected group scheme over
$\mathcal O$, with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. Let $\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$ be
an $L$-algebra homomorphism. Let
$$H_n=\ker(\bold{G}(\mathcal O)\to \bold{G}(\mathcal O/p^{n+1}\mathcal O)),$$
an open subgroup of $\bold{G}(\mathcal O)$ and a
$L$-uniform pro-$p$ group if $n\geq 2$, with $L_{H_n}=p^{n+1}\mathfrak{g}$. Therefore by Lazard's isomorphism (prop. \ref{Laz}) we have a canonical isomorphism of $L$-Banach algebras
$$D_{1/p}(H_n, L)^{L\text{-}\la}\simeq \widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g})}[1/p].$$
If $C$ is a $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$-algebra, write
$$C_{\chi}=C/\ker(\chi)C=C\otimes_{Z(\mathfrak{g}_L), \chi} L.$$
\begin{thm}\label{domaineasy}
With the previous notation, for all sufficiently large $n$ the ring
$$D_{1/p}(H_n, L)^{L\text{-}\la}_{\chi}\simeq \widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g})}[1/p]_{\chi}$$ is
an integral domain.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Let $U=U(\mathfrak{g})$ and $A_n=\widehat{U(\varpi^n\mathfrak{g})}[1/p]_{\chi}$, where $\varpi$ is a uniformizer of $L$. It suffices to prove that
$A_n$ is an integral domain for $n$ sufficiently large.
Fix a split maximal torus $\bold{T}$ in $\bold{G}$ and a Borel $\mathcal O$-subgroup scheme $\bold{B}\subset \bold{G}$ containing $\bold{T}$, with unipotent radical
$\bold{N}$. Let $W$ be the Weyl group of $\bold{G}$ and let $\mathfrak{b}, \mathfrak{t},\mathfrak{n}$ be the corresponding
$\mathcal O$-Lie algebras.
By the (untwisted) Harish-Chandra isomorphism, the character
$\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$ corresponds to a $W$-orbit (for
the dot action) of weights
$\lambda: \mathfrak{t}_L\to L$. We choose in the sequel an element
$\lambda$ of this $W$-orbit such that $\lambda+\rho$ is dominant, where
$\rho$ is the half-sum of positive roots. We will only consider positive integers $n$ for which $\lambda(\varpi^n \mathfrak{t})\subset \mathcal O$. Clearly all sufficiently large $n$ have this property.
Let
$X:=\bold{G}/\bold{B}$ be the associated flag variety and let $U_1,...,U_m$ be the Weyl translates of the big cell in $X$. Each $U_i$ is an affine space of dimension
$\dim X$ and an affine open dense subscheme of $X$, and the $U_i$'s cover $X$.
Ardakov and Wadsley (see \cite[par. 6.4]{awannals}) construct a ${\rm Def}(\mathcal O)$-valued (cf. par. \ref{Fildef} for the category ${\rm Def}(\mathcal O)$) sheaf $\mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda}$ on $X$ associated to $n$ and $\lambda$ and having the following properties:
$\bullet$ there is a natural isomorphism of sheaves of graded $\mathcal O$-algebras on $X$
$${\rm Sym}_{\mathcal O_X}(\mathcal{T}_X)\simeq {\rm gr} (\mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda}),$$
where $\mathcal{T}_X$ is the tangent sheaf of $X$;
$\bullet$ for each $1\leq i\leq m$ there is an isomorphism of sheaves of filtered $\mathcal O$-algebras
$$\mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda}|_{U_i}\simeq (\mathcal{D}_X)_{n}|_{U_i},$$
where $\mathcal{D}_X=U(\mathcal{T}_X)$ is the sheaf of crystalline differential operators\footnote{Recall that this is a sheaf of rings generated by $\mathcal O_{X}$ and
$\mathcal{T}_{X}$ with the obvious relations.} on
$X$, cf. \cite[def. 4.2]{awannals}.
$\bullet$ Let $U_n=U(\varpi^n \mathfrak{g})$ be the $n$th deformation of $\mathfrak{g}$ and define similarly
$(U^{\bold{G}})_n$. Let $HC: U^{\bold{G}}\to U(\mathfrak{t})$ be the untwisted\footnote{Thus $HC$ is obtained by restricting to $U^{\bold{G}}$ the linear projection $U\to U(\mathfrak{t})$ induced by the decomposition
$U=U(\mathfrak{t})\oplus (\mathfrak{n}U+U\mathfrak{n}^+)$.} Harish-Chandra homomorphism. By definition of $\lambda$ the map
$\lambda\circ HC_n: (U^{\bold{G}})_n\to U(\mathfrak{t})_n\simeq U(\varpi^n \mathfrak{t})\to \mathcal O$ is simply the restriction of
$\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$ to $(U^{\bold{G}})_n$ via the natural isomorphism $(U^{\bold{G}})_n[1/p]\simeq Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$. In particular
$\chi( (U^{\bold{G}})_n)\subset \mathcal O$. Ardakov and Wadsley prove the existence of a homomorphism of sheaves of $\mathcal O$-algebras
$$\varphi_n^{\lambda}: U_n\otimes_{(U^{\bold{G}})_n, \chi} \mathcal O\to \mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda},$$
the sheaf on the left being the constant one.
Define
$$\mathcal{F}_n:=(\varprojlim_{k} \mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda}/\varpi^k \mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda})\otimes_{\mathcal O} L.$$
This is denoted $\widehat{\mathcal{D}_{n,K}^{\lambda}}$ in \cite{awannals}. By passing to $\varphi$-adic completions and inverting $p$ (using also \cite[lemma 6.5]{awannals}) we obtain from $\varphi_n^{\lambda}$ a morphism of $L$-algebras
$$\widehat{U_n}[1/p]\otimes_{Z(\mathfrak{g}_L),\chi} L\to H^0(X, \mathcal{F}_n),$$
which is an isomorphism by a
fundamental Theorem of Ardakov--Wadsley \cite[th. 6.10]{awannals} and Ardakov \cite[th. 5.3.5]{ardakovast}.
In other words we have
$A_n\simeq \Gamma(X, \mathcal{F}_n)$.
With these results in hand, we can finally start doing business.
Let
$W=U_1\cap...\cap U_m$ be the intersection of the Weyl translates of the big cell in $X$, an affine dense open subset of $X$. For each $i$ the isomorphism
$\mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda}|_{U_i}\simeq (\mathcal{D}_X)_n|_{U_i}$ above induces an isomorphism
$\mathcal{F}_n|_{U_i}\simeq \widehat{(\mathcal{D}_X)_n}[1/p]|_{U_i}$, the completion being $p$-adic. In particular
$\mathcal{F}_n(U_i)\simeq \widehat{\mathcal{D}_X(U_i)_n}[1/p]$ (one can exchange sections over $U_i$ and
$p$-adic completion since we work over an affine open subscheme of $X$ and $\mathcal{D}_X$ is a quasi-coherent $\mathcal O_X$-module) and this is an integral domain. Indeed,
it suffices to check that $A_i:=\widehat{\mathcal{D}_X(U_i)_n}$ (which is an affinoid Weyl algebra) is an integral domain, and for this it suffices to check that
$A_i/\varpi A_i$ is a domain, and finally that ${\rm gr}(A_i/\varpi A_i)$ is a domain, but this is clear since the latter is naturally identified with
$O_{T^*X_k}(q^{-1}(U_i))$, where $q: T^*X_k\to X_k$ is the cotangent bundle of $X_k$. A similar argument shows that
the natural map $\mathcal{F}_n(U_i)\to \mathcal{F}_n(W)$ is injective (reduce mod $\varpi$ and pass to graded pieces, then use the density of $W$ in $U_i$). It follows that all $\mathcal{F}_n(U_i)$ embed in $\mathcal{F}_n(W)$. We claim that
$\Gamma(X, \mathcal{F}_n)$ embeds in $\Gamma(U_i, \mathcal{F}_n)$ for any $i$, which will show that
$\Gamma(X, \mathcal{F}_n)$ is a domain. But if a global section $s$ on $X$ restricts to $0$ on $U_i$, then its restriction to
$U_j$ is $0$ (since the image of that restriction in $\Gamma(W, \mathcal{F}_n)$ is the same as the image of $s|_{U_i}$, thus it is $0$) for any $j$ and so $s=0$. This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remar}
If $p$ is very good for $\bold{G}$, one can prove
the above result in a slightly different way, by showing that (for $n$ large enough as in the above proof) the reduction mod
$\varpi$ of the unit ball in $A_n$ has a natural filtration (induced by the PBW filtration on the
enveloping algebra) whose associated graded is isomorphic to the algebra of regular functions on the nilpotent cone of $\mathfrak{g}^*_k$ (this is a deep Theorem of Ardakov and Wadsley \cite[th. 6.10 c)]{awannals}, fully using results from invariant theory in characteristic $p$). This latter algebra is a domain since the nilpotent cone is irreducible, and by standard arguments we deduce that the unit ball in $A_n$ is a domain.
\end{remar}
\begin{conj}\label{condomain}
Let $\mathfrak{h}$ a semi-simple $L$-Lie algebra and
$\mathfrak{h}_0\subset
\mathfrak{h}$ an $\mathcal O$-Lie lattice. Let $\chi: Z(\mathfrak{h})\to L$ be an $L$-algebra homomorphism. For all sufficiently large $n$ the ring
$\widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{h}_0)}[1/p]_{\chi}$ is a domain.
\end{conj}
Standard arguments reduce the proof to the case when
$\mathfrak{h}_0$ is an $\mathcal O$-Lie lattice in $\mathfrak{g}_L$, where
$\bold{G}, \mathfrak{g}$, etc are as above. Choose $c>0$ such that
$\varpi^c\mathfrak{h}_0\subset \mathfrak{g}$, so that
$U(\varpi^{n+c}\mathfrak{h}_0)\subset U(\varpi^n \mathfrak{g})$.
One might then be tempted to imitate the above proof and realize
$\widehat{U(\varpi^{n+c}\mathfrak{h}_0)}[1/p]_{\chi}$ as global sections of some sub-sheaf
$\mathcal{G}_{n}$ of the sheaf $\mathcal{F}_n$ on the flag variety $X$, which would imply that
$\widehat{U(\varpi^{n+c}\mathfrak{h}_0)}[1/p]_{\chi}$ embeds in
$\widehat{U(\varpi^n \mathfrak{g})}[1/p]_{\chi}$ and so it is itself a domain thanks to the Theorem above. Naturally one would like to consider the sub-sheaf $\mathcal{H}_n$ of $\mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda}$ generated by $\mathcal O_X$ and $p^{n+c}\mathfrak{h}_0$. Quite a bit of work (consisting in adapting the proof of \cite[th. 5.3.5]{ardakovast} for the sheaf $\mathcal{H}_n$) shows that the global sections of $\mathcal{G}_n:=\widehat{\mathcal{H}_n}\otimes_{\mathcal O} L$ are indeed $\widehat{U(\varpi^n\mathfrak{h}_0)}[1/p]_{\chi}$. The problem is that it is by no means clear that the embedding $\mathcal{H}_n\to \mathcal{D}_n^{\lambda}$ stays an embedding after passage to $p$-adic completion, i.e. that $\mathcal{G}_n$ is a subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}_n$.
\section{An application of affinoid Verma modules}
The aim of this paragraph is to establish a technical result which is the second key ingredient in the proof of Theorem \ref{astuce}. Only the first Theorem below will be needed in the proof of Theorem \ref{astuce}, but we found the other statements interesting in their own right.
We fix throughout this section a finite extension $L$ of $\mathbb {Q}_p$, with ring of integers $\mathcal O$. Let $G$ be a connected reductive group defined over a sub-extension
$K$ of $L$, with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ (a $K$-Lie algebra). We let $\mathfrak{g}_L:=\mathfrak{g}\otimes_K L$.
If
$\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$ is an $L$-algebra homomorphism and
$H$ is a compact open subgroup of $G(K)$, then
${\rm Lie}(H)={\rm Lie}(G(K))=\mathfrak{g}$, hence
$D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ is an $U(\mathfrak{g}_L)$-module and we can define
$$D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}_{\chi}=D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}\otimes_{Z(\mathfrak{g}_L),\chi} L.$$
There is a natural map $L[[H]]:=L\otimes_{\mathcal O} \mathcal O[[H]]\to D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}_{\chi}$ (recall that $D_{1/p}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ is a quotient of
$D_{1/p}(H,L)$, which contains $D(H,L)$ and so also $L[[H]]$).
The following theorem is a re-interpretation of the main result of \cite{awverma}. Compared to loc.\,cit., we drop the hypothesis that $p$ is a very good prime for the group $\bold{G}$ below,
and we explain how one can adapt the arguments in loc.\,cit. to avoid this hypothesis.
\begin{thm}\label{affverma} Suppose that $\bold{G}$ is a connected, split semisimple and simply connected group scheme over $\mathcal O$ with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. Given a compact open subgroup $H$ of $\bold{G}(L)$ and a character
$\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$, for all
$n$ large enough the natural map
$$L[[H_n]]\to D_{1/p}(H_n, L)^{L\text{-}\la}\simeq \widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g})}[1/p]_{\chi}$$
is injective, where $H_n=\ker(\bold{G}(\mathcal O)\to \bold{G}(\mathcal O/p^{n+1}\mathcal O))$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Fix a maximal split torus $\bold{T}$ in
$\bold{G}$ and a pair of opposite Borel subgroups
$\bold{B}$, $\bold{B}^+$ containing $\bold{T}$. If
$\lambda: \mathfrak{t}_L\to L$ is a weight (where
$\mathfrak{t}={\rm Lie}(\bold{T})$, $\mathfrak{b}={\rm Lie}(\bold{B})$, etc.), consider the Verma module $V^{\lambda}=U(\mathfrak{g}_L)\otimes_{U(\mathfrak{b}^+_L), \lambda} L$, where
the map $U(\mathfrak{b}^+_L)\to L$ is induced by the natural projection
$\mathfrak{b}^+_L\to \mathfrak{t}_L$. It is a standard result that
$V^{\lambda}$ has an infinitesimal character, and it follows from the Harish-Chandra isomorphism that we can find $\lambda$ such that this infinitesimal character is precisely $\chi$. Fix such
$\lambda$ and consider only $n$ for which $\lambda(p^n\mathfrak{t})\subset \mathcal O$.
Consider the completion (an affinoid Verma module in the terminology of \cite{awverma})
$$\widehat{V^{\lambda}}=\widehat{U(p^n \mathfrak{g})}[1/p]\otimes_{\widehat{U(p^n \mathfrak{b}^+)}[1/p], \lambda} L$$
of $V^{\lambda}$, a $\widehat{U(p^n \mathfrak{g})}[1/p]$-module. By continuity and density,
$Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$ still acts by $\chi$ on this module. By the main result of \cite{awverma} (Theorem 5.4 in loc.\,cit., see however the discussion below for a slightly subtle point) $L[[H_n]]$ acts faithfully on
$\widehat{V^{\lambda}}$. It follows immediately that the map
$ L[[H_n]]\to\widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g})}[1/p]_{\chi}$ is injective (any element in the kernel must kill $\widehat{V^{\lambda}}$ by the above remarks).
In order to properly finish the proof, we still have to
explain why Theorem 5.4
in \cite{awverma} still holds without the assumption that $p$ is a very good prime for
$\bold{G}$.
The reader is advised to have a copy of that paper with him when reading the following argument, since we will freely use the notations introduced there.
In particular $B$ and $B^+$ are $L$-uniform subgroups of $\bold{B}(\mathcal O)$ and $\bold{B}^+(\mathcal O)$ with associated $\mathcal O$-Lie algebras $p^n \mathfrak{b}$
and $p^n\mathfrak{b}^+$, and $RB$ is the Iwasawa algebra $\mathcal O[[B]]$.
Without any assumption on
$p$ the proof of Theorem 5.4 shows that $\widehat{V^{\lambda}}$ is a faithful
module over $RB$ (with the notations in loc.\,cit.). The only point where the fact that
$p$ is very good for $\bold{G}$ is used is in citing prop. 4.8 of loc.\,cit.
to deduce that $\widehat{V^{\lambda}}$ is faithful as $RB^+$-module.
The proof of that proposition seems to use their deep Theorem 4.6, a
$p$-adic analogue of the famous Duflo theorem, stating that the annihilator
$I$ of $\widehat{V^{\lambda}}$ is generated by $\ker(\chi)$, and that proof really uses the hypothesis on $p$. However, we can argue alternatively (and very closely to the proof of prop. 4.8 in loc.\,cit.) as follows: since $I$ is a two-sided ideal of $\widehat{U(p^n \mathfrak{g})}[1/p]$, by Corollary 4.3 a) in loc.\,cit. $I$ is stable under the adjoint action of $\bold{G}(\mathcal O)$. Thus if $w\in \bold{G}(\mathcal O)$ is such that $w.\mathfrak{b}^+=\mathfrak{b}$, we have
$w. B^+=B$ and
$$w.{\rm Ann}_{RB^+} (\widehat{V^{\lambda}})=w.RB^+\cap w.I\subset RB\cap I={\rm Ann}_{RB}(\widehat{V^{\lambda}})=0,$$
thus ${\rm Ann}_{RB^+} (\widehat{V^{\lambda}})=0$ and we are done. \end{proof}
\begin{remar}
It is unreasonable to expect such injectivity properties to hold without some assumptions. Indeed, it is easy to see that
for any $n$ the natural map $L[[p^n \mathbb{Z}_p]]\to D_{1/p}(p^n\mathbb{Z}_p, L)/tD_{1/p}(p^n\mathbb{Z}_p, L)$ is not injective, where $T=\delta_1-1$ and
$t=\log(1+T)$ (so that $D(\mathbb{Z}_p,L)$ is the ring of $L$-rational
analytic functions of the variable $T$ in the open unit disc). For instance,
$(1+T)^{p^{n+1}}-1\in L[[p^n \mathbb{Z}_p]]$ is divisible by $t$ in $D_{1/p}(p^n\mathbb{Z}_p, L)$.
\end{remar}
In the following result we drop the hypothesis that the group is split and simply connected.
\begin{prop}\label{inj} For any connected semisimple group $G$ over
$\mathbb {Q}_p$, with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and any $L$-algebra homomorphism
$\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$
there is an open uniform pro-$p$ subgroup $H$ of $G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ such that the natural map
$L[[H]]\to D_{1/p}(H, L)_{\chi}$
is injective.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We first reduce to the case when $G$ is simply connected.
Note that if $H$ is such a subgroup, then $L[[H']]\to D_{1/p}(H',L)_{\chi}$ is still injective for any open uniform pro-$p$ subgroup
$H'$ of $H$ (indeed, it suffices to test that the composition with the natural map
$D_{1/p}(H',L)_{\chi}\to D_{1/p}(H, L)_{\chi}$ is injective, but this is simply the restriction of
$L[[H]]\to D_{1/p}(H, L)_{\chi}$ to $L[[H']]\subset L[[H]]$). We deduce immediately from this that if
the result holds for the simply connected cover of $G$, then it also holds for $G$, by projecting the corresponding $H$ for the simply connected cover down to $G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$.
Next, suppose that $L'$ is a finite extension of $L$. Then $Z(\mathfrak{g}_{L'})=L'\otimes_L Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$, thus $\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$ induces an
$L'$-algebra map $\chi': Z(\mathfrak{g}_{L'})\to L'$ with $\ker(\chi')=L'\otimes_L \ker(\chi)$, so that $D_{1/p}(H, L')_{\chi'}\simeq L'\otimes_L D_{1/p}(H,L)_{\chi}$ and the map $L'[[H]]\to D_{1/p}(H, L')_{\chi'}$ is the base change from $L$ to $L'$ of the map $L[[H]]\to D_{1/p}(H,L)_{\chi}$. In particular, one of these maps is injective if and only if the other one is so. We are therefore allowed to replace $L$ by a finite extension and so we may assume that $G_L:=G\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} L$ is split over $L$ and $L/\mathbb {Q}_p$ is Galois.
Let $\bold{G}$ be the canonical split semisimple and simply connected model of $G_L$ over $\mathcal O$ and, as above, set
$$H_n=\ker(\bold{G}(\mathcal O)\to \bold{G}(\mathcal O/p^{n+1}\mathcal O)).$$
Then $H_n$ is an open $L$-uniform pro-$p$ subgroup of
$\bold{G}(\mathcal O)$, thus also of $\bold{G}(L)\simeq
G(L)=G_L(L)$. By the previous theorem the natural
map
$$L[[H_n]]\to D_{1/p}(H_n, L)^{L\text{-}\la}_{\chi}$$ is injective for $n\gg 0$ and since
$D_{1/p}(H_n, L)^{L\text{-}\la}_{\chi}$ is a quotient of $D_{1/p}(H_n, L)_{\chi}$, it follows that the natural map
$L[[H_n]]\to D_{1/p}(H_n, L)_{\chi}$ is injective for $n$ large enough.
Thus we can find an open uniform pro-$p$ subgroup $H'$ of $G(L)=G_L(L)$
such that the natural map $L[[H']]\to D_{1/p}(H', L)_{\chi}$ is injective.
Set $\Gamma={\rm Gal}(L/\mathbb {Q}_p)$. Since $G$ is defined over $\mathbb {Q}_p$, $\Gamma$ acts naturally on $G(L)$ and $G(L)^{\Gamma}=G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$.
Set $H''=(H')^{\Gamma}$. It is clearly a compact subgroup of $G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and we claim that $H''$ is also open in $G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$. Indeed, ${\rm Lie}(H'')=({\rm Lie}(H'))^{\Gamma}$ and
${\rm Lie}(H')\simeq {\rm Lie}(G(L))\simeq {\rm Lie}(G)\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} L$, thus
${\rm Lie}(H'')={\rm Lie}(G)={\rm Lie}(G(\mathbb {Q}_p))$. Choose any open uniform pro-$p$ subgroup $H$ of $H''$. We claim that the natural map $L[[H]]\to D_{1/p}(H, L)_{\chi}$ is injective. It suffices to check that the composite $L[[H]]\to D_{1/p}(H,L)_{\chi}\to D_{1/p}(H',L)_{\chi}$ is injective, but this map is simply the composite $L[[H]]\to L[[H']]\to D_{1/p}(H',L)_{\chi}$, and both maps are injective.
\end{proof}
\section{A bound for the dimension of $Z(\mathfrak g)$-finite Banach representations}
In this rather long section we prove that the existence of an infinitesimal character on the locally analytic vectors of an admissible Banach representation of a $p$-adic group has a serious impact on its dimension.
\subsection{The main result and some consequences}
Let $G$ be a locally $K$-analytic group with Lie
algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and let $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$
be the center of the universal enveloping algebra
$U(\mathfrak g_L)$. Here we consider $\mathfrak{g}$ as
a $\mathbb {Q}_p$-Lie algebra. We say,
that a locally analytic representation
$\Pi$ of $G$ over $L$ is {\it $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$-finite} (resp. {\it quasi-simple}) if the
$Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$-annihilator of $\Pi$ is of finite codimension in $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$
(resp. a maximal ideal of $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$). The term {\it quasi-simple} is motivated
by the representation theory of real groups.
We say that a Banach representation $\Pi$ of $G$ is {\it $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$-finite} (resp. {\it quasi-simple})
if
$\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ (the space of locally $\mathbb {Q}_p$-analytic vectors in $\Pi$) is
$Z(\mathfrak g_L)$-finite (resp. quasi-simple) as locally analytic representation of $G$. The key result of this chapter is the following (see paragraph \ref{Dim} for the notation $d(\Pi)$ and $d^K(\Pi)$.)
\begin{thm}\label{astuce}
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $K$,
$H$ a compact open subgroup of $G(K)$ and $\mathcal{N}$
the nilpotent cone in the Lie algebra of $G_{\overline{K}}$.
a) If $\Pi$ is a $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$-finite
admissible locally $K$-analytic representation of
$H$, then $$d^K(\Pi)\leq \dim \mathcal{N}.$$
b) If $\Pi$ is a $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$-finite
admissible
Banach representation of $H$, then
$$d^K(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})<\dim \mathcal{N}.$$
\end{thm}
We recall that $\dim \mathcal{N}$ is twice the
dimension of the flag variety of $G_{\overline{K}}$
(with respect to a Borel subgroup). Part a) was
already observed by Schmidt and Strauch \cite[prop
7.3]{SS}, under some assumptions on $p$ depending on
$G$, as a consequence of deep results of
Ardakov--Wadsley \cite{awannals}. We give here a much
easier proof, which also works uniformly with respect
to the prime $p$. We note that the bound in part a) is
optimal. On the other hand, part b) is new, slightly
surprising and requires quite a bit more work than
part a).
\begin{remar}
Note that the dimension of the nilpotent cone of
$\Res_{K/\mathbb {Q}_p}G$ is $[K:\mathbb {Q}_p]\dim\mathcal{N}$. Therefore
Theorem \ref{astuce} b) implies
\[ d(\Pi)=d(\Pi^{\mathrm{la}})<[K:\mathbb {Q}_p]\dim\mathcal{N}.\]
This inequality is far from being optimal. Based on
the archimedean case, it is natural to ask if, for
$\Pi$ a $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$-finite admissible
Banach representation of $G(K)$, we have
\begin{gather*}
d(\Pi)\leq\frac{1}{2}[K:\mathbb {Q}_p]\dim\mathcal{N}, \quad
d^K(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})\leq\frac{1}{2}\dim\mathcal{N}.
\end{gather*}
\end{remar}
\begin{cor}\label{gltwoqp}
Let $\Pi$ be an admissible, unitary, quasi-simple Banach representation of
$G:=\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ over $L$, having a central character. Let $\Theta$ be an $\mathcal O$-lattice in
$\Pi$ stable under $G$. Then $\Theta\otimes_{\mathcal O} k$ has finite length (and so $\Pi$ also has finite length).
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} By the previous Theorem $d(\Pi)\leq
1$. If $d(\Pi)=0$ then $\Pi$ is finite dimensional
over $L$ (lemma \ref{usefullater}) and everything is clear, so assume that
$d(\Pi)=1$ and hence $d(\pi)=1$ where
$\pi=\Theta\otimes_{\mathcal O} k$, an admissible smooth
representation of $G$ over $k$. Assume that $\pi$
has infinite length. Then we can construct a
strictly increasing sequence $(\pi_n)_{n\geq0}$
subspaces of $\pi$ which are $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$-stable and
such that $\pi_0=0$. It follows from Proposition
\ref{toolbox} c) that there exists $N\geq0$ such
that $d((\pi_{n+1}/\pi_{n})^*)=0$ for all $n\geq N$
so that $\pi_{n+1}/\pi_{n}$ is finite dimensional
for all $n\geq N$ and $\pi_m/\pi_n$ is finite
dimensional for all $m\geq n\geq N$. As
$\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ is a simple group acting trivially on irreducible smooth finite dimensional
representations of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, it must act trivially on $\pi_m/\pi_n$ for all
$m\geq n\geq1$. Let $Z_1$ be the pro-$p$-Sylow
subgroup of the center of $\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)$. As $\pi$ has
a central character, so has each subquotient
$\pi_m/\pi_n$ and we deduce that the group
$Z_1\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ acts trivially on $\pi_m/\pi_n$ for
$m\geq n\geq N$. As $\pi/\pi_N$ is an admissible smooth
representation of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and $Z_1\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$
is an open subgroup of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, the $k$-vector
space $(\pi/\pi_N)^{Z_1\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)}$ is finite
dimensional so that $\pi=\pi_m$ for $m$ big
enough. This contradicts our assumption so that
$\pi$ has finite length.
\end{proof}
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $\mathbb {Q}_p$, with Lie algebra
$\mathfrak{g}$. Let $\mathfrak{z}$ be the center of
$\mathfrak{g}$ and $\mathfrak{g}_{ss}$ its derived
subalgebra. We have a decomposition
$\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{z}\oplus\mathfrak{g}_{ss}$
which induces an isomorphism of $L$-algebras
$Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\simeq
U(\mathfrak{z}_L)\otimes_LZ(\mathfrak{g}_{ss,L})$. We say that an $L$-algebra homomorphism $\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$ is {\it algebraic} if
its restriction to $Z(\mathfrak{g}_{ss,L})$ is the
infinitesimal character of an irreducible algebraic
representation of the derived subgroup of $G$. If the
derived group of $G$ is simply connected, this is
equivalent to the statement that this character is the infinitesimal character of a
finite dimensional simple
$\mathfrak{g}_{ss,L}$-module. If $\chi$ is algebraic,
there exists a continuous character $\psi$ of
$G$, and
an algebraic irreducible representation $V$
of $G$ such that $\chi$ is the infinitesimal
character of $V\otimes\psi$.
\begin{lem}\label{ST_Ugfin} Let $G=\mathbf G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, where $\mathbf G$
is an algebraic group over $\mathbb {Q}_p$,
such that $\mathbf G_L $ is split semi-simple and simply connected.
Let $H$ be a compact open subgroup of $G$ and let $\Pi$ be a continuous representation
of $H$ on a finite dimensional $L$-vector space.
Then the action of $H$ on $\Pi$ is locally analytic. Moreover, we have
an isomorphism of $D(H, L)$-modules
$$ \Pi^*\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^m W_i^* \otimes_L V_i^*,$$
where $V_i$ are irreducible algebraic representations of $\mathbf G$, and $W_i$ are
smooth irreducible representations of $H$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The action of $H$ on $\Pi$ is locally analytic by
\cite[Part II, Ch.\,V.9, Thm.\,2]{serre_lie}. The proof of
\cite[Proposition 3.2]{Ugfin} carries over to our setting.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{remix} Let $G$ be as in the previous lemma and let $H$ be an open
uniform pro-$p$ subgroup of $G$. Let $M$ be an irreducible $D_{r_n}(H,L)$-module
on a finite dimensional $L$-vector space, with $n\geq 1$. Then $M\cong W^*\otimes_L V^*$, where
$W$ is an irreducible smooth
representation of $H$ and $V$ an irreducible representation of $\mathbf G_L$. Moreover,
$H^{p^{n}}$ acts trivially on $W$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} If we let $\Pi=M^*$ then $\Pi$ is a continuous representation of $H$
on a finite dimensional $L$-vector space. Hence (using the irreducibility of $M$) $\Pi= W\otimes V$ by the previous lemma, with
$W$ an irreducible smooth representation of $H$ and $V$ an irreducible representation of $\mathbf G_L$. We define a new action, denoted by $\Pi_1$, of $H$ on $W\otimes_L V$ by letting
$H$ act trivially on $W$. We note that $\Pi_1$ is isomorphic to a finite direct
sum of copies of $V$. Then $\Pi\cong \Pi_1$ as $U(\mathfrak{g}_L)$-modules and hence
as $\widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p]$-modules.
We have
$$\widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p]\cong
D_{1/p}(H^{p^n},L)\subset D_{r_n}(H,L)\subset
D_r(H,L),$$
and thus $\Pi|_{H^{p^n}}\cong \Pi_1|_{H^{p^n}}$. This implies that
$\Hom_{H^{p^n}}(V,\Pi)= \Hom_{U(\mathfrak g_L)}(V, \Pi)$ and so $H^{p^n}$ acts trivially
on $W$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:fin_length} Let $D$ be a
quaternion algebra over $\mathbb {Q}_p$,
let $G=D^*$ and let $G'$ be the derived subgroup of $G$. Let
$\Pi$ be an admissible, quasi-simple Banach representation of
$G$, with a central character. Let $H$ be a compact open subgroup of $G'$.
a) If $\Pi$ has no finite dimensional $H$-stable subquotient, then $\Pi$ has finite length as a topological $H$-representation. This is the case if the infinitesimal character of $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ is not algebraic.
b) Assume that $H$ is uniform pro-$p$. For any $n\geq 1$
the $D_{r_n}(H, L)$-module
$(\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}_{r_n})^*:=D_{r_n}(H,L)\otimes_{L[[H]]}\Pi^*$ is of finite length.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} Since $Z(G)H$ is open in $G$ and the centre $Z(G)$ acts on $\Pi$
by a character by assumption, $\Pi$ is an admissible Banach space representation
of $H$. Theorem \ref{astuce} yields $d(\Pi)\leq 1$. If $d(\Pi)=0$ then $\Pi$ is a finite
dimensional $L$-vector space by lemma \ref{usefullater} and the assertion follows.
We assume from now on that $d(\Pi)=1$.
a) If $\Pi$ is not of finite length as a topological $H$-representation, then dually $\Pi^*$
has an infinite (strictly) decreasing sequence of
sub-$L[[H]]$-modules $M_0,M_1,...$. Part c) of Proposition \ref{toolbox} yields
$d(M_i/M_{i+1})=0$ for $i$ large enough, and so $(M_i/M_{i+1})^*$ is a finite dimensional
continuous
representation of $H$ over $L$ for $i$ large enough.
It follows from Lemma \ref{ST_Ugfin} that any finite dimensional subquotient of $\Pi$ will
also be a subquotient of $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ and will have an
an algebraic infinitesimal character. Thus if
the infinitesimal character of $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ is not
algebraic, then $\Pi$ cannot have a finite dimensional
subquotient.
b) Assume that $(\Pi_{r_n}^\mathrm{la})^*$ has infinite length as a $D_{r_n}(H,L)$-module. Then there
exists a strictly decreasing sequence $(M_i)_{i\geq0}$
of $D_{r_n}(H,L)$-submodules in $(\Pi_{r_n}^\mathrm{la})^*$. As
before, part c) of Proposition \ref{toolbox} combined with lemma \ref{lafindim} shows
that there exists $i_0\geq 0$ such that $M_i/M_{i+1}$
is a finite dimensional $L$-vector space for
$i\geq i_0$. Let $\chi: Z(\mathfrak g'_L)\rightarrow L$ be the infinitesimal character of $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$.
If $\chi$ not algebraic then $M_i=M_{i+1}$ for
$i\geq i_0$ as in a) and we obtain a
contradiction. Therefore we assume that $\chi$ is
algebraic and let $V$ be the unique
irreducible algebraic representation of $G'$ with infinitesimal character $\chi$.
Let $W_1, \ldots, W_s$ be the set of isomorphism classes
of irreducible representations
of the finite group $H/H^{p^n}$. It follows from Lemmas \ref{ST_Ugfin} and \ref{remix} that
for all $j\ge i \ge i_0$,
$$M_i/M_j\cong \bigoplus_{k=1}^s (W_k^*\otimes_L V^*)^{m_{jk}},$$
where $m_{jk}\ge 0$.
As $D_{r_n}(H,L)$ is noetherian, the
$D_{r_n}(H,L)$-module $M_i$ is generated by a finite
number, let say $d$, of elements. For a simple
$D_{r_n}(H,L)$-module $N$ which is finite dimensional over
$L$, we have, for all $j\geq i\geq i_0$,
\begin{multline*}
\dim_L\Hom_{D_{r_n}(H,L)}(M_i/M_j,N)\leq\dim_L\Hom_{D_{r_n}(H,L)}(M_i,N)\\
\leq\dim_L\Hom_{D_{r_n}(H,L)}(D_{r_n}(H,L)^d,N)=d\dim_L
N.\end{multline*} As all the
$M_i/M_j$ are isomorphic to direct sums of simple
$D_{r_n}(H,L)$-modules finite
dimensional over $L$ and varying in a finite number of isomorphism
classes, the dimension of the
$M_i/M_j$ is bounded, which gives a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We have a similar version with locally $K$-analytic
vectors.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:finite_length_K} Let $K$ be a finite extension of $\mathbb {Q}_p$ and
let $D$ be a quaternion division algebra over
$K$. Let $G=\GL_2(K)$ or $G=D^*$. Let $\Pi$ be an
admissible, quasi-simple Banach representation of
$G$, with a central character. Let $H$ be a compact
open subgroup of $G$.
a) We have $d^K(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})\leq1$.
b) For any $n\geq 1$ the $H$-representation
$\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}_{r_n}$ is topologically of finite
length.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Part a) is a particular case of b) in Theorem
\ref{astuce}. Part b) follows exactly as b) in
Corollary \ref{cor:fin_length}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of part a) of Theorem \ref{astuce}}\label{proof_a}
The key input is the following result
\begin{prop}\label{prop:flat}
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $K$, with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. Suppose that
$G_L$ is split, of rank $r$, and let
$H$ be an open $K$-uniform pro-$p$ subgroup of $G(K)$. Let
$J$ be an ideal of $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$ of finite codimension.
a) There are $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_r\in J$
forming a regular sequence in $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$.
b) For any $n\geq 1$, $D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ is flat over $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$ and
$x_1,x_2,\dots, x_r$ also form a regular sequence in $D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$, consisting of central elements.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} a)
We claim that $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\simeq L[t_1,...,t_r]$ as $L$-algebras. Let $W$ be the Weyl group of $G_L$. The Harish-Chandra isomorphism identifies $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$ with $S(\mathfrak{t}_L)^W$, where
$\mathfrak{t}_L$ is the Lie algebra of a maximal split torus in $G_L$. It is a standard fact that
this is a polynomial algebra over the algebraic closure of $L$,
and we claim it is already the case over $L$. Indeed, the key input in the proof is the Chevalley--Sheppard--Todd Theorem, which holds whenever the characteristic of the base field is prime to $|W|$, see \cite[th.\,7.2.1]{benson}. Thus
$Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$ is a polynomial algebra over $L$, of rank necessarily equal to
$r=\dim \mathfrak{t}_L$ since $S(\mathfrak{t}_L)$ is integral over $S(\mathfrak{t}_L)^W$.
Since $J$ is of finite codimension in $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$ the quotient $Z(\mathfrak g_L)/J$ is artinian, and using
Hilbert's Nullstellensatz we may find non-zero polynomials $p_1(T), \ldots, p_r(T)\in L[T]$, such that
$p_1(t_1), \ldots, p_r(t_r)\in J$. Letting $x_i=p_i(t_i)$ for $1\le i \le r$ gives the required sequence.
b) The $x_i$ are central in $D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ since they are invariant under the adjoint action of $G(K)$ and so they commute with all Dirac distributions, which span a dense subspace of $D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$. It suffices to prove that $D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ is flat over $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$, as this automatically implies that they still form a regular sequence in $D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$.
We have a decomposition of left $U(\mathfrak{g}_L)$-modules
$$D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}=\bigoplus_{h\in H/H^{p^n}} A_n\delta_h,$$
where $A_n=\widehat{U(p^n \mathfrak{h})}[1/p]$ and
$\mathfrak{h}=\mathcal O_L\otimes_{\mathcal O_K} q^{-1} L_H$ is an $\mathcal O_L$-Lie lattice in
$\mathfrak{g}_L$ (see Proposition \ref{distrib} and the discussion following it). By Kostant's Theorem $U(\mathfrak{h}[1/p])=U(\mathfrak{g}_L)$ is flat (even free) over its centre $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$, so it suffices to prove that $A_n$ is flat over $U(\mathfrak{h}[1/p])=U(p^n\mathfrak{h})[1/p]$.
This follows easily from the fact that
$U(p^n\mathfrak{h})$ is noetherian (cf. \cite[par. 3.2.3]{berthelot}).
\end{proof}
\begin{remar} We note that if $J$ is the kernel of a homomorphism of $L$-algebras
$\chi: Z(\mathfrak g_L)\rightarrow L$ then the proof of Proposition shows that
$J$ is generated by
a regular sequence $x_1, \ldots, x_r$ in $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$.
\end{remar}
\begin{cor}\label{HomExt} Let $\Pi$ be an admissible locally $K$-analytic representation of
$H$. Assume that $\Pi$ is annihilated by a regular sequence $\underline{x}=(x_1, \ldots, x_r)$
in $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$. Then there is a canonical isomorphism
$${\rm Ext}^{\bullet+r}_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}}(\Pi^*, D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la})\simeq {\rm Ext}^{\bullet}_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}/(\underline{x})} (\Pi^*, D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}/(\underline{x})).$$
In particular
$$j_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}}(\Pi^*)=j_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}/(\underline{x})}(\Pi^*)+r\geq r$$
and so $d^K(\Pi)\leq \dim_K \mathfrak{g}-r=\dim_K \mathcal{N}$, where $\mathcal{N}$ is the nilpotent cone in $\mathfrak{g}_{\overline{K}}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} The second part is a consequence of the first. Set
$A=B/(\underline{x})$, where
$B=D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$. These are
"two-sided" Fr\'echet-Stein algebras with presentations $A=\varprojlim_{n} A_n$ and $B=\varprojlim_n B_n$, where
$A_n=B_n/(\underline{x})$ and $B_n=D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ (cf. \cite[prop. 3.7]{adm}). By
the results recalled in paragraph \ref{STdim} we obtain
$${\rm Ext}^{\bullet}_{A} (\Pi^*, A)\simeq
\varprojlim_{n} {\rm Ext}^{\bullet}_{A} (\Pi^*, A)_A
\otimes A_n\simeq\varprojlim_n {\rm Ext}^{\bullet}_{A_n}(A_n\otimes_A \Pi^*, A_n).$$
We have a similar isomorphism for ${\rm Ext}^{\bullet+r}_{B}(\Pi^*, B)$, thus it suffices to construct canonical (in particular compatible with $n$) isomorphisms
$${\rm Ext}^{i}_{A_n}(A_n\otimes_A \Pi^*, A_n)\simeq {\rm Ext}^{i+r}_{B_n}(B_n\otimes_{B} \Pi^*, B_n).$$ Letting
$M_n=A_n\otimes_A \Pi^*$, we have a canonical isomorphism
$M_n\simeq B_n\otimes_{B} \Pi^*$. The desired isomorphisms are then consequences of
the result established in the previous Proposition and of the Rees lemma \ref{Rees}. \end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of part b) of Theorem \ref{astuce}: reduction to the semisimple case}
Let
$G'$ be the derived group of $G$, a connected semisimple group defined over
$K$, and let $Z$ be the centre of $G$. Using the central isogeny
$G'\times Z\to G$ and general results on the finiteness of Galois cohomology we deduce that $G'(K)Z(K)$ has finite index in $G(K)$. Moreover
$G'(K)\cap Z(K)$ is finite. We deduce that if
$H_1,H_2$ are compact open and $K$-uniform pro-$p$ subgroups of
$G'(K)$ and $Z(K)$ respectively, then $H_1H_2$ is a compact open subgroup of
$G(K)$ and it is isomorphic to $H_1\times H_2$ since elements of
$H_2$ commute with $G(K)$ and since $H_1\cap H_2=\{1\}$ (since the intersection is finite and contained in $H_1$, which is torsion-free).
The next result reduces then the proof of part b) of Theorem \ref{astuce} to the
case when $G$ is semisimple:
\begin{prop}\label{painful}
Let $H_1,H_2$ be $K$-uniform pro-$p$ groups, with $H_2$ commutative. Let
$\Pi$ be an admissible $L$-Banach representation of
$H:=H_1\times H_2$ such that ${\rm Lie}(H_2)$ and $Z({\rm Lie}(H_1)_L)$ act by scalars on
$\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}$. There is an open $K$-uniform subgroup $H_1'$ of $H_1$ and an admissible quasi-simple $L$-Banach representation
$\Pi_1$ of
$H_1'$ such that $d_H^K(\Pi)\leq d_{H_1'}^K(\Pi_1)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We write for simplicity $D(?)=D(?,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ in the sequel, and similarly for the completions of this distribution algebra. We are allowed to replace $H_1$ and $H_2$ by open $K$-uniform pro-$p$ subgroups.
Let $(X_1,\dots,X_d)$ be an $\mathcal O_K$-basis of $L_{H_2}$.
By assumption $X_i$ acts by a scalar $c_i$ on $\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}$.
Choosing $N$ large enough such that $p^Nc_i\in p^2\mathcal O$ for all $1\leq i\leq d$ and
replacing $H_2$ by $H_2^{p^N}$, we may assume that
$c_i\in p^2\mathcal O$. Let $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m)$ be a $\mathbb{Z}_p$-basis of $\mathcal O_K$ and let, for all $1\leq i\leq d$, $1\leq j\leq m$, $g_{i,j}\in H$ be such that $X_{g_{i,j}}=\alpha_jX_i$.
We obtain a character
$\delta: H=H_1\times H_2\to \mathcal O^{\times}$ by setting $\delta(h_1, g^x)=e^{\sum_{i,j} x_{i,j}\alpha_jc_i}$ for $g^x=\prod_{i,j} g_{i,j}^{x_{i,j}}\in H_2$, $x_{i,j}\in\mathbb{Z}_p$, and
$h_1\in H_1$.
Consider the $H$-representation $\Pi_0=\Pi\otimes \delta^{-1}$. By construction
$X_i$ acts by $0$ on $\Pi_0^{K\text{-}\la}$ and since $\delta$ is trivial on $H_1$,
$Z({\rm Lie}(H_1)_L)$ still acts by scalars on $\Pi_0^{K\text{-}\la}$. Moreover
$d_H(\Pi)=d_H(\Pi_0)$ and $d_H^K(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})=d_H^K(\Pi_0^{K\text{-}\la})$, so replacing $\Pi$ by $\Pi_0$ we may assume that
$\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}$ is smooth as representation of $H_2$.
For $n\geq 1$ let
$$M_n=D_{r_n}(H)\otimes_{L[[H]]} \Pi^*=D_{r_n}(H)\otimes_{D(H)} (\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^*.$$
By paragraphs \ref{STdim} and \ref{Dim} we know that the sequence $(j_{D_{r_n}(H)}(M_n))_{n\geq 1}$ is nonincreasing
and eventually equal to $j_{D(H)}((\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^*)$. Fix once and for all
$n$ such that
$$j_{D_{r_n}(H)}(M_n)=j_{D(H)}((\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^*)$$
and set
$$\Pi_1=\{v\in \Pi|\, g^{p^n}.v=v,\,\, \forall g\in H_2\}=\Pi^{H_2^{p^n}}.$$
We will show that $\Pi_1$ satisfies all required properties. It is clear that
$\Pi_1$ is a closed subspace of $\Pi$ stable under $H$, thus it is an admissible representation of
$H$. Let $\Gamma=H_2/H_2^{p^n}$, a finite group. The action of
$H$ on $\Pi_1$ factors by $H_1\times \Gamma$, so
$\Pi_1$ is already admissible as $H_1$-representation.
It is clear that $\Pi_1$ is quasi-simple, so it suffices to show that
$d_{H}^K(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})\leq d_{H_1}^K(\Pi_1^{K\text{-}\la})$, or equivalently
$$j_{D(H_1)}((\Pi_1^{K\text{-}\la})^*)+d\leq j_{D(H)}((\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^*)=j_{D_{r_n}(H)}(M_n).$$
Then
$D_{r_n}(H_1\times\Gamma)\simeq D_{r_n}(H_1)\otimes_L L[\Gamma]\simeq D_{r_n}(H)/(\iota(X_1),\dots,\iota(X_d))$. Moreover
it follows from the flatness of $D_{r_n}(H)$ over $U(\Lie(H)_L)$ (see the proof of Prop.~\ref{prop:flat}) that $(\iota(X_1),\dots,\iota(X_d))$
is a regular sequence of central elements in $D_{r_n}(H)$. By Rees' lemma and a Hochschild-Serre type argument combined with the vanishing of cohomology in characteristic zero for $\Gamma$ we obtain
$$ j_{D_{r_n}(H)}(M_n)=j_{D_{r_n}(H_1)\otimes_L L[\Gamma]}(M_n)+d=j_{D_{r_n}(H_1)}(M_n)+d.$$
It suffices therefore to prove that $j_{D_{r_n}(H_1)}(M_n)\geq j_{D(H_1)}((\Pi_1^{K\text{-}\la})^*)$.
The isomorphisms $D_{r_n}(H)/(\iota(X_1),\dots,\iota(X_d))\simeq D_{r_n}(H_1)\otimes_L L[\Gamma]$ and the fact that $(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^*$ is killed by $\iota(X_i)$ induce isomorphisms of
$D_{r_n}(H_1)$-modules
\begin{align*}M_n&\simeq (D_{r_n}(H)/(\iota(X_1),\dots,\iota(X_d)))\otimes_{D(H)} (\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^* \\
&\simeq (D_{r_n}(H_1)\otimes_L L[\Gamma])\otimes_{L[[H]]} \Pi^* \\
&\simeq (D_{r_n}(H_1)\otimes_L L[\Gamma])\otimes_{L[[H_1\times\Gamma]]} \Pi_1^*\\
&\simeq D_{r_n}(H_1)\otimes_{D(H_1)} (\Pi_1^{K\text{-}\la})^*\end{align*}
and using again the results recalled in paragraph \ref{STdim} we finally obtain
$$j_{D_{r_n}(H_1)}(M_n)=j_{D_{r_n}(H_1)}(D_{r_n}(H_1)\otimes_{D(H_1)} (\Pi_1^{K\text{-}\la})^*)\geq j_{D(H_1)}((\Pi_1^{K\text{-}\la})^*),$$
as desired. \end{proof}
\subsection{End of the proof}
Replacing $L$ by a finite extension, we may assume that $G_L$ is split of rank $r$.
It suffices to rule out the case
$j_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}}((\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^*)=r$. Assume that this holds and let
$J$ be the $Z(\mathfrak g)$-annihilator of $\Pi^{K\text{-}\la}$. It is of finite
codimension by assumption.
Without loss of generality we may assume that the subgroup $H$ of $G(K)$
in Theorem \ref{astuce} is $K$-uniform pro-$p$ subgroup and
let $\underline{x}=(x_1, \ldots, x_r)$ be a regular sequence in $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$
contained in $J$ as in Proposition \ref{prop:flat}. Applying Corollary
$\ref{HomExt}$ yields
$${\rm Hom}_{D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}}( (\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^*, D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}/(\underline{x}))\ne 0.$$
Since $(\Pi^{K\text{-}\la})^*\simeq D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}\otimes_{L[[H]]} \Pi^*$ (as recalled in par. \ref{Dim}, this is one of the main results of \cite{adm}), we obtain
$${\rm Hom}_{L[[H]]}(\Pi^*, D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}/(\underline{x}))\ne 0.$$
Since $Z(\mathfrak g_L)/(\underline{x})$ is an artinian $L$-algebra, after possibly
replacing $L$ by a finite extension we may assume that all the maximal ideals
of $Z(\mathfrak g_L)/(\underline{x})$ have residue field $L$. Since $D(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ is flat over
$Z(\mathfrak g_L)$ by Proposition \ref{prop:flat}, there is an $L$-algebra homomorphism
$\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$, such that
$${\rm Hom}_{L[[H]]}(\Pi^*, D(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la})\ne 0.$$
As $\Pi$ is $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$-finite
we have
$d(\Pi)<\dim H$, so that $\Pi^*$ is a
torsion $L[[H]]$-module. We obtain a
contradiction using the following
result.
\begin{prop}\label{key}
Let $G$ be a connected semisimple group over $K$, with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, and let $H$ be an open subgroup of $G(K)$ which is $K$-uniform pro-$p$. Let $\chi: Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)\to L$ be an $L$-algebra homomorphism.
For any admissible $L$-Banach representation $\Pi$ of $H$ such that
$\Pi^*$ is a torsion $L[[H]]$-module we have
$${\rm Hom}_{L[[H]]}(\Pi^*, D(H, L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la})=0.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} For simplicity we assume $p>2$ (the argument is identical for $p=2$, but one needs to replace some ocurrences of $p$ by $q$ below). By replacing $L$ by a finite extension of $K$, we may assume that
$G$ is split over $L$. Choose a simply connected, semisimple split algebraic group scheme
$\bold{G}$ over $\mathcal O$ as well as an isomorphism $L\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\mathfrak{g}\simeq L\otimes_{\mathcal O}\mathfrak{g}_0$, where $\mathfrak{g}_0={\rm Lie}(\bold{G})$. From now on we consider this isomorphism of $L$-Lie algebras as an identification, so that $\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O}:=\mathcal O\otimes_{\mathcal O_K} p^{-1}L_H$
(an $\mathcal O$-Lie lattice in $L\otimes_{K} \mathfrak{g}$) becomes an $\mathcal O$-Lie lattice in
$L\otimes_{\mathcal O}\mathfrak{g}_0$. Fix a positive integer $c$ such that
$$p^{c} \mathfrak{g}_0\subset \mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O}\subset p^{-c} \mathfrak{g}_0.$$
For $n>0$ let
$$H_n=\ker(\bold{G}(\mathcal O)\to \bold{G}(\mathcal O/p^{n+1}\mathcal O)),$$
an open $L$-uniform subgroup of $\bold{G}(\mathcal O)$ with $L_{H_n}=p^{n+1}\mathfrak{g}_0$.
Denote
$$A_n=\widehat{U(p^n \mathfrak{g}_0)}[1/p]\simeq D_{1/p}(H_n, L)^{L\text{-}\la},$$
$$B_n=\widehat{U(p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O})}[1/p]\simeq D_{1/p}(H^{p^n},L)^{K\text{-}\la},$$
the isomorphisms being induced by Lazard's isomorphism (prop. \ref{Laz}).
By the equivalence of categories between powerful $\mathbb{Z}_p$-Lie algebras and uniform pro-$p$ groups,
the embedding of powerful $\mathbb{Z}_p$-Lie algebras
$$L_{H^{p^n}}\simeq p^n L_H\subset p^n L_H\otimes_{\mathcal O_K} \mathcal O\subset p^{n+1-c} \mathfrak{g}_0=L_{H_{n-c}}$$
induces
a map of uniform pro-$p$ groups $H^{p^n}\to H_{n-c}$.
By functoriality of Lazard's isomorphism,
the composite map $$B_n\simeq D_{1/p}(H^{p^n},L)^{K\text{-}\la}\to D_{1/p}(H_{n-c}, L)^{K\text{-}\la}\to
D_{1/p}(H_{n-c}, L)^{L\text{-}\la}\simeq A_{n-c}$$ is induced by the composite
$$\mathcal O\otimes_{\mathcal O_K} p^{-1} L_{H^{p^n}}\to \mathcal O\otimes_{\mathcal O_K} p^{-1} L_{H_{n-c}}\to
\mathcal O\otimes_{\mathcal O} p^{-1}L_{H_{n-c}}\simeq p^{-1}L_{H_{n-c}}=p^{n-c}\mathfrak{g}_0,$$
which in turn is induced (by carefully unwinding definitions) by the
inclusion $p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O}\subset p^{n-c}\mathfrak{g}_0$, and so it is injective.
Similarly, the inclusion
$p^{n+c} \mathfrak{g}_0\subset p^n\mathfrak{g}_{H,\mathcal O}$ yields a map
$A_{n+c}\to B_n$ and the composite $A_{n+c}\to B_n\to A_{n-c}$
is the natural inclusion $A_{n+c}\subset A_{n-c}$.
Finally, we have natural maps
$$L[[H^{p^n}]]\to D_{1/p}(H^{p^n},L)^{K\text{-}\la}\simeq B_n, \quad L[[H_{n-c}]]\to D_{1/p}(H_{n-c}, L)^{L\text{-}\la}\simeq A_{n-c}$$ and they are compatible with the
maps $L[[H^{p^n}]]\to L[[H_{n-c}]]$ and $B_n\to A_{n-c}$. In particular, since $B_n\to A_{n-c}$ and $L[[H^{p^n}]]\to B_n$ are injective, so is the map $L[[H^{p^n}]]\to L[[H_{n-c}]]$.
Next, for $m\geq n$ the injective maps
$D_{r_m}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}\to D_{r_n}(H,L)^{K\text{-}\la}$ and $B_{m}\to B_n$ induce maps
$$\pi_{m,n}: D_{r_m}(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}\to D_{r_n}(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}, \quad \pi_{m,n}: B_{m,\chi}\to B_{n,\chi}.$$
If $C$ is a $Z(\mathfrak{g}_L)$-algebra, write $C_{\chi}=C/\ker(\chi)C$.
Let $\varphi: \Pi^*\to D(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}$
be a nonzero $L[[H]]$-morphism and let $\varphi_n: \Pi^*\to D_{r_n}(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}$ be the composite of
$\varphi$ with the natural projection $D(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}\to D_{r_n}(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}$. Consider the decomposition of $B_n$-modules, in particular of $L[[H^{p^n}]]\subset B_n$-modules (cf. discussion following prop. \ref{distrib}), where $S_n=H/H^{p^n}$
$$D_{r_n}(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}\simeq \bigoplus_{h\in S_n} B_{n,\chi}\delta_h.$$
In terms of this decomposition the maps $\pi_{m,n}$ introduced above are described by
$$\pi_{m,n}(\sum_{h\in S_{m}} b_h \delta_h)=\sum_{g\in S_n} (\sum_{h\in S_{m}, \bar{h}=g} \pi_{m,n}(b_h)) \delta_g,$$
where $\bar{h}$ is the image of $h\in S_{m}=H/H^{p^{m}}$ in $S_n=H/H^{p^n}$.
We deduce the existence and uniqueness of $L[[H^{p^n}]]$-linear maps
$\varphi_{n,h}: \Pi^*\to B_{n,\chi}$
such that for all $x\in \Pi^*$
$$\varphi_n(x)=\sum_{h\in S_n} \varphi_{n,h}(x) \delta_h.$$
Since the morphisms $\varphi_n$ are compatible with respect to the maps
$$\pi_{m,n}: D_{r_{m}}(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}\to D_{r_n}(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la},$$
we have the ``distribution relation'' for $m\geq n$
$$\varphi_{n,g}=\sum_{h\in S_{m}, \bar{h}=g} \pi_{m,n}\circ \varphi_{m,h}.$$
\begin{lem} For $n$ large enough and any $h\in S_n$ the composite
$$\Pi^*\to B_{n,\chi}\to A_{n-c,\chi}$$
is $0$, where the first map is $\varphi_{n,h}$ and the second is the one induced by
$B_n\to A_{n-c}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We first claim that for $n$ sufficiently large the ring $A_{n-c,\chi}$ is a domain and
the map $L[[H^{p^n}]]\to B_n\to A_{n-c}\to A_{n-c,\chi}$ is injective. The first part follows from Theorem
\ref{domaineasy}. For the second one, we observe that the map $L[[H^{p^n}]]\to B_n\to A_{n-c}\to A_{n-c,\chi}$ is the composite
$L[[H^{p^n}]]\to L[[H_{n-c}]]\to A_{n-c,\chi}\simeq D_{1/p}(H_{n-c}, L)^{L\text{-}\la}_{\chi}$. We have already seen that the first map is injective, and the second one is injective for $n$ large enough by Theorem
\ref{affverma}. We work with such $n$ in the sequel.
Let
$h\in S_n$ and $l\in \Pi^*$. Since $\Pi^*$ is torsion as
$L[[H^{p^{n}}]]$-module, there is $\lambda\in L[[H^{p^{n}}]]$ nonzero such that $\lambda l=0$. Since $\varphi_n$ is $L[[H^{p^n}]]$-linear, we have $\lambda \varphi_n(l)=0$ and so
$\lambda \varphi_{n,h}(l)=0$ by the above decomposition of $B_n$-modules. Let $x=\varphi_{n,h}(l)\in B_{n,\chi}$ and let
$\bar{\lambda}\in B_{n,\chi}$ be the image of $\lambda$ in $B_{n,\chi}$, thus
$\bar{\lambda}\cdot x=0$ in $B_{n,\chi}$. Now project this relation in the domain $A_{n-c,\chi}$ via the
map $B_{n,\chi}\to A_{n-c,\chi}$. It follows that the image of $\bar{\lambda}$ is $0$ or the image of
$x$ is $0$. The first is impossible, since the map $L[[H^{p^n}]]\to A_{n-c,\chi}$ is injective. Thus the image of
$x=\varphi_{n,h}(l)$ in $A_{n-c,\chi}$ is $0$ and we are done since $l$ was arbitrary.
\end{proof}
We continue the proof. By the previous lemma for $n$ large enough the composite
$\Pi^*\to B_{n,\chi}\to A_{n-c,\chi}\to B_{n-2c,\chi}$ is $0$ for all $h\in S_n$, the first map being
$\varphi_{n,h}$. Since the composite $B_{n,\chi}\to A_{n-c,\chi}\to B_{n-2c,\chi}$ is nothing but
$\pi_{n,n-2c}$, we deduce that $\pi_{n, n-2c}\circ \varphi_{n,h}=0$ for all
$h\in S_n$. Using the distribution relation above we obtain for
$n$ big enough and $g\in S_{n-2c}$
$$\varphi_{n-2c, g}=\sum_{h\in S_n, \bar{h}=g} \pi_{n, n-2c}\circ \varphi_{n,h}=0.$$
Thus $\varphi_{n,g}=0$ for all $n$ big enough and all $g\in S_{n}$, which in turn yields
$\varphi=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remar}
The proof would be much easier if we could prove that
$D(H,L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}$ is a domain (when $H$ is sufficiently small) or at least that $D_{1/p}(H^{p^n},L)_{\chi}^{K\text{-}\la}$ is
a domain for $n$ large enough. This second result would be a consequence of conjecture \ref{condomain}.
\end{remar}
\section{Scholze's functor}
We continue to denote by $L$ a (sufficiently large) finite extension of $F$ with the ring of integers $\mathcal O$, uniformiser $\varpi$ and residue field $k$.
We fix an algebraic closure $\overline{F}$ of $F$ and let $\Gal_F=\Gal(\overline{F}/ F)$. Let $\mathbb C_p$ be the completion of $\overline{F}$ and
let $\breve{F}$ be the completion of the maximal unramified extension of $F$ in $\overline{F}$. Let $G=\GL_n(F)$ and let $D/F$ be a central division algebra over $F$ with invariant $1/n$.
To a smooth representation $\pi$ of $G$ on an
$\mathcal O$-torsion module, Scholze associates a Weil-equivariant sheaf $\mathcal F_{\pi}$ on the \'etale site of the adic space $\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\breve{F}}$, see \cite[Prop. 3.1]{scholze}.
If $\pi$ is admissible
then he shows that for any $i\ge 0$ the \'etale cohomology groups $H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$ carry a continuous $D^{\times}\times \Gal_F$-action, which make them into
smooth admissible representations of $D^{\times}$.
Recall that a smooth representation of $G$ or $D^{\times}$ on an $\mathcal O$-torsion module is \textit{locally admissible} if it is equal to the union of its admissible subrepresentations.
We denote the respective categories by $\Mod^{\mathrm{l.adm}}_G(\mathcal O)$ and $\Mod^{\mathrm{l.adm}}_{D^\times}(\mathcal O)$. The functors $\pi\mapsto H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$ commute with direct limits and thus
sends locally admissible representations of $G$ to locally admissible representations of $D^{\times}$, see \cite[Section 3.1]{ludwig} for details.
Let $\dualcat_G(\mathcal O)$ be the category anti-equivalent to $\Mod^{\mathrm{l.adm}}_G(\mathcal O)$
via Pontryagin duality and let $\dualcat_{D^\times}(\mathcal O)$ be the category anti-equivalent to $\Mod^\mathrm{l.adm}_{D^\times}(\mathcal O)$ via the Pontryagin duality. We define a covariant homological $\delta$-functor $\{ \check{\mathcal S}^i\}_{i\ge 0}$ by
$$\check{\mathcal S}^i: \dualcat_G(\mathcal O)\rightarrow \dualcat_{D^\times}(\mathcal O), \quad
M\mapsto H^i_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\mathbb P^{1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{M^{\vee}})^{\vee}$$
where $M^\vee=\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O}(M, L/\mathcal O)$ denotes the Pontryagin dual of $M$. Note that
$(M^{\vee})^{\vee}\cong M$. We introduce these dual categories, because it is much more convenient to work with compact torsion-free $\mathcal O$-modules than with discrete divisible $\mathcal O$-modules. Since $\pi\mapsto H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$ commutes with direct limits, the functor $\check{\mathcal S}^i$ commutes with projective limits. We also note that $\check{\mathcal S}^i(M)$ carries a continuous $\mathcal O$-linear action of $\Gal_F$, which commutes with the action of $D^{\times}$.
\begin{lem}\label{natural} Let $R$ be a complete local noetherian $\mathcal O$-algebra with residue field
$k$. Let $M\in \dualcat(\mathcal O)$ with a ring homomorphism $R\rightarrow \End_{\dualcat(\mathcal O)}(M)$.
Let $\mathrm m$ be a compact $R$-module then for all $i\ge 0$ there is a natural map:
$$ \mathrm m\wtimes_R \mathcal{\check{S}}^i(M)\rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^i(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M),$$
which is an isomorphism if $\mathrm m=\prod_{i\in I} R$ for some set $I$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}For every $x\in \mathrm m$ we have morphism $\phi_x: M\rightarrow \mathrm m\wtimes_R M$,
$v\mapsto x\wtimes v$. Moreover, we have $\phi_{\lambda x}= \lambda \phi_x= \phi_x \lambda$
for all $\lambda\in R$. This induces a map $\mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(\phi_x): \mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(M)\rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M)$ and hence an element in
$$\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_R(\mathrm m, \Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_R(\mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(M), \mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M))),$$ which by adjunction is isomorphic to
$\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_R(\mathrm m\wtimes_R \mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(M), \mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M))$. Hence, we
obtain a natural map $\mathrm m\wtimes_R \mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(M)\rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M)$.
This map is an isomorphism if $\mathrm m=R$. Since both $\mathcal{\check{S}}^i$ and $\wtimes_R M$
commute with projective limits, we deduce that the map is an isomorphism if $\mathrm m=\prod_{i\in I} R$
for some set $I$.
\end{proof}
We will denote by $\widehat{\Tor}^R_i(\mathrm m, M)$ the $i$-th right derived functor
of $\mathrm m \mapsto \mathrm m\wtimes_R M$.
\begin{lem}\label{yh} Let $R$, $M$ and $\mathrm m$ be as in Lemma \ref{natural}. Assume that
$\widehat{\Tor}^R_i(\mathrm m, M)=0$ for all $i\ge 1$. Suppose that $\mathcal{\check{S}}^{i}(M)=0$ for $0\le i < q_0$.
Then
there is a natural isomorphism
$$\mathrm m\wtimes_R \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(M) \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M)$$
and $\mathcal{\check{S}}^i(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M)=0$ for $0\le i <q_0$.
In particular, if $R\rightarrow R'$ is a map of complete local
$\mathcal O$-algebras with residue field $k$ and either $R'$ or $M$ are $R$-flat
then $R'\wtimes_R \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(M)\overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow}
\mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(R'\wtimes_R M)$ is an isomorphism of $R'$-modules.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We choose a resolution $F_{\bullet}\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm m$ of compact $R$-modules,
such that $F_n= \prod_{i\in I_n} R$ for some set $I_n$ for all $n\ge 0$. Let $\mathrm m_n$ be the image
of $F_{n}\rightarrow F_{n-1}$ for all $n\ge 1$ and let $\mathrm m_0=\mathrm m$. Since $F_n$ are projective in the category of compact
$R$-modules, $\widehat{\Tor}^R_{i}(F_n, M)=0$ for $i\ge 1$ and $n\ge 0$. By considering exact sequences
$0\rightarrow \mathrm m_{n+1}\rightarrow F_n \rightarrow \mathrm m_n \rightarrow 0$ for $n\ge 0$ and arguing by induction on $n$
we deduce that $\widehat{\Tor}^R_{i}(\mathrm m_n, M)=0$ for $i\ge 1$ and
we have exact sequences
$$0\rightarrow \mathrm m_{n+1} \wtimes M \rightarrow F_{n}\wtimes_R M \rightarrow \mathrm m_{n} \wtimes_R M\rightarrow 0,$$
for all $n\ge 0$.
The assumption $\mathcal{\check{S}}^i(M)=0$ for $0\le i< q_0$ and Lemma \ref{natural} imply that
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^i( F_{n}\wtimes_R M)$ vanishes for $1\le i <q_0$ and all $n\ge 0$. We obtain
$$ \mathcal{\check{S}}^i(\mathrm m_{n}\wtimes_R M)\cong \mathcal{\check{S}}^{i-1}(\mathrm m_{n+1}\wtimes_R M)\cong \ldots \cong \mathcal{\check{S}}^0(\mathrm m_{n+i}\wtimes_R M)=0$$
by devissage, and right exactness of $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0$. Hence, we also obtain exact sequences
$$\mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\mathrm m_{n+1}\wtimes_R M)\rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(F_{n}\wtimes_R M)\rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\mathrm m_n\wtimes_R
\mathrm m)\rightarrow 0.$$
We deduce that the sequence
$$ \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(F_1\wtimes_R M)\rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(F_0\wtimes_R M)\rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M)\rightarrow 0$$
is exact. Using Lemma \ref{natural} we deduce that the map
$\mathrm m \wtimes_R \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(M)\rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\mathrm m\wtimes_R M)$ is an isomorphism. The
last part follows from \cite[Lemma 3.8]{ludwig}.
\end{proof}
Let $\pi$ be a smooth representation of $G$ on an $\mathcal O$-torsion module. We define two actions of $F^{\times}$ on $H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$ as follows.
We may identify $F^{\times}$ with the centre of $G$ and every $z\in F^{\times}$ defines $\varphi_z\in \End_G(\pi)$, $\varphi_z(v):= \pi(z) . v$. Since
$\pi \mapsto \mathcal F_{\pi}$ and $H^i_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}$ are functors this induces an action of $F^{\times}$ on $H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$. The second action
is obtained by identifying $F^{\times}$ with the centre of $D^{\times}$ and restricting the action of $D^{\times}$ on $H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$ to $F^{\times}$.
\begin{lem}\label{central} The two actions of $F^{\times}$ on $H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$ defined above coincide. In particular, if the center of $G$ acts on
$\pi$ by a character then the centre of $D^{\times}$ acts on $H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$ by the same character.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $z.s$ denote the action of $z\in F^{\times}=Z(D^{\times})$ on a local section of $\mathcal F_{\pi}$, and let
$z*s$ denote the action of $z\in F^{\times}=Z(G)$ induced by functoriality of the construction
$\pi\mapsto \mathcal F_{\pi}$ and the endomorphism $v\mapsto \pi(z).v$ of $\pi$. It suffices to prove that these two actions are the same. If $U\to \mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}$ is \'etale, with pullback
$U_{\infty}\to \mathcal{LT}_{\infty}$ (where $\mathcal{LT}_{\infty}$ is the infinite level Lubin-Tate space), then by definition
$\mathcal F_{\pi}(U)=\mathcal{C}_G(|U_{\infty}|, \pi)$, the space of continuous $G$-equivariant maps from the topological space attached to
$U_{\infty}$ to $\pi$. If $s: |U_{\infty}|\to \pi$ is such a map, then $(z.s)(x)=s(z^{-1}.x)$ for $z\in F^{\times}\subset Z(D^{\times})$. On the other hand, it follows from the modular description of $\mathcal{LT}_{\infty}$ that $\{(x,x)|\, x\in F^{\times}\}\subset Z(G)\times Z(D^{\times})$ acts trivially on $\mathcal{LT}_{\infty}$, thus $s(z^{-1}.x)=s(z*x)$, where
$*$ denotes the action of the center of $G$ on $\mathcal{LT}_{\infty}$. But $s$ is $G$-equivariant, so $s(z*x)=z*s(x)$, hence
$z.s=z*s$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{olivertwist}
For any continuous character $\delta: F^{\times}\to \mathcal O^{\times}$, any $i\geq 0$ and any smooth representation $\pi$ of $G$ on an
$\mathcal O$-torsion module there is a natural isomorphism of
$\Gal_F\times D^{\times}$-representations
$$H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi\otimes \delta})\simeq H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})\otimes (\delta^{-1}\boxtimes \delta).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We first construct a natural map $\mathcal F_{\pi}\otimes_{\mathcal O} \mathcal F_{\pi'}\to \mathcal F_{\pi\otimes_{\mathcal O}\pi'}$ for any
smooth representations $\pi,\pi'$ on $\mathcal O$-torsion modules. If $U\to\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}$ is an \'etale map with pullback
$U_{\infty}\to \mathcal{LT}_{\infty}$ to the infinite-level Lubin-Tate space, we need to construct a natural map
$\mathcal{C}_G(|U_{\infty}|, \pi)\otimes_{\mathcal O} \mathcal{C}_G(|U_{\infty}|, \pi')\to \mathcal{C}_G(|U_{\infty}|, \pi\otimes_{\mathcal O} \pi')$. We simply map $f\otimes f'$ to the map $x\mapsto f(x)\otimes f'(x)$, where $f\in \mathcal{C}_G(|U_{\infty}|, \pi), f'\in \mathcal{C}_G(|U_{\infty}|, \pi')$.
The above map combined with cup-product induces a map $$H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})\otimes_{\mathcal O} H^j_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi'})\to H^{i+j}_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi\otimes_{\mathcal O} \pi'}).$$ Suppose now that $\pi'=\delta$ is a continuous character, and take $j=0$. We obtain a $D^{\times}\times \Gal_F$-equivariant map $$\iota_{\delta}:
H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})\otimes_{\mathcal O} H^0_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\delta})\to H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi\otimes \delta}).$$ On the other hand, $$H^0_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\delta})=H^0(\mathcal{LT}_{\infty}, \underline{\delta})^G={\rm Hom}_G(\delta^{-1}, H^0(\mathcal{LT}_{\infty}, \mathbb{Z}_p))$$ is isomorphic to $\delta^{-1}\boxtimes \delta$ as $\Gal_F\times D^{\times}$-representations, as follows from Strauch's computation of $\pi_0(\mathcal{LT}_{\infty})$,
\cite[Theorem 4.4]{strauch}. We obtain therefore a $\Gal_F\times D^{\times}$-equivariant map
$j_{\delta}: H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})\otimes (\delta^{-1}\boxtimes \delta)\to H^i_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi\otimes \delta})$. It is an isomorphism since an inverse can be constructed by using the same construction for $\delta^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
We extend the functors $\mathcal{\check{S}}^i$ to the category of admissible unitary $L$-Banach space representations of $G$, which we denote by $\Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{G}(L)$. If $\Pi\in \Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{G}(L)$
then we choose an open bounded $G$-invariant $\mathcal O$-lattice $\Theta$ in $\Pi$. Its Schickhof
dual $\Theta^d:=\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O}(\Theta, \mathcal O)$ is in $\dualcat_G(\mathcal O)$ and hence
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^i(\Theta^d)$ is in $\dualcat_{D^{\times}}(\mathcal O)$. We let $\mathcal{\check{S}}^i(\Pi):= \mathcal{\check{S}}^i(\Theta^d)^d \otimes_{\mathcal O}L$. Then $\mathcal{\check{S}}^i(\Pi)\in \Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{D^{\times}}(L)$ and $\{\mathcal{\check{S}}^i\}_{i\ge 0}$ define
a cohomological $\delta$-functor from $\Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{G}(L)$ to $\Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{D^{\times}}(L)$,
see \cite[Section 3.3]{ludwig} for more details.
\subsection{Ultrafilters}\label{sec_ultra}
Let $(A, \mathfrak m_A)$, $(B, \mathfrak m_B)$ be local artinian $\mathcal O$-algebras with residue field $k$. Let $I$ be an indexing set, and let $A_I:=\prod_{i\in I} A$. According
to \cite[Lemma 2.2.2]{gee_newton}, there is bijection between the set of ultrafilters on $I$ and prime ideals of $A_I$
given by taking an ultrafilter $\mathfrak F$ to the ideal whose elements $(a_i)$ satisfy $\{i : a_i \in \mathfrak m_A\}\in \mathfrak F$. If
$x\in \Spec A_I$ then we let $A_{I,x}$ be the localization of $A_I$ at $x$ and $\mathfrak F_x$ be the corresponding ultrafilter.
It follows from \cite[Lemma 2.2.2]{gee_newton} that the diagonal map $A\rightarrow A_I$ induces an isomorphism $A\cong A_{I, x}$. If $M$ is a finite $A$-module we let $M_I=\prod_{i\in I} M$ then by considering a presentation of $M$ over $A$ we also obtain
that the diagonal map $M\rightarrow M_I$ induces an isomorphism $M\cong M_{I, x}$.
Let $M$ and $N$ be finite $A$-modules and let $N^{\vee}:=\Hom_{\mathcal O}(N, L/\mathcal O)$ be the Pontryagin dual of $N$. Then
$\Hom_A(M, N^{\vee})\cong \Hom_{\mathcal O}( M\otimes_A N, L/\mathcal O)=(M\otimes_A N)^{\vee}$. Applying this observation with $N=A$ we get that
\begin{equation}\label{vee}
\Hom_A(M, N^{\vee})\cong (M\otimes_A N)^{\vee}\cong (M\otimes_A N \otimes_A A)^{\vee}\cong \Hom_A(M\otimes_A N, A^{\vee})
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}\label{ultra1} Let $\{M_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a family of $A$-modules such that $|M_i| \le t$ for some $t\ge 1$ and all $i\in I$. Then there is a canonical isomorphism of
$A_{I, x}$-modules $$ (\prod_{i\in I} M_i^{\vee})\otimes_{A_I} A_{I, x}\cong((\prod_{i\in I} M_i)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I, x})^{\vee}.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $c_i: M_i^{\vee}\otimes_A M_i\rightarrow A^{\vee}$ be the image of the identity map
under \eqref{vee} applied with $M=M_i^{\vee}$ and $N=M_i$. This yields a canonical map of $A_I$-modules
$$ (\prod_{i\in I} M_i^{\vee})\otimes_{A_I} (\prod_{i\in I} M_i)\overset{\prod c_i}{\longrightarrow} \prod_{i\in I} A^{\vee}.$$
By localizing at $x$, using the fact explained above that $( \prod_{i\in I} A^{\vee})\otimes_{A_I} A_{I, x}\cong A^{\vee}\cong A_{I, x}^{\vee}$ and \eqref{vee} we obtain a canonical
map of $A_{I, x}$-modules
\begin{equation}\label{vee2}
(\prod_{i\in I} M_i^{\vee})\otimes_{A_I} A_{I, x} \rightarrow ((\prod_{i\in I} M_i)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I, x})^{\vee}
\end{equation}
Moreover, this map is an isomorphism if all $M_i$ are equal. In particular, it is an isomorphism if $M_i=A^m$ for a fixed $m$ and all $i\in I$.
Let $m$ be the cardinality of $A$. Then for each $i\in I$ we may choose a presentation $A^{tm}\rightarrow A^t\rightarrow M_i\rightarrow 0$.
Using these presentations we deduce that the map \eqref{vee2} is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{useful} Let $R, S$ be two rings, $E$ a left $R$-module, $F$ a left $S$-module and $G$ an $(R, S)$-bimodule.
If $E$ is finitely presented over $R$ and $F$ is $S$-flat then the canonical map
\begin{equation}\label{brbki}
\Hom_R(E, G)\otimes_S F \rightarrow \Hom_R(E, G\otimes_S F)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We apply the functor $\Hom_R(\cdot, G)\otimes_S F$ to a resolution $R^n \rightarrow R^m \rightarrow E\rightarrow 0$. Since $F$ is $S$-flat the sequence
$$0\rightarrow \Hom_R(E, G)\otimes_S F\rightarrow \Hom_R(R^m, G)\otimes_S F\rightarrow \Hom_R(R^n, G)\otimes_S F$$
is exact. If $E$ is a free $R$-module of finite rank then \eqref{brbki} is an isomorphism. The assertion follows
from a diagram chase.
\end{proof}
Let $K$ be a compact $p$-adic analytic group. This assumption implies that the completed group
algebra $A\br{K}$ is noetherian. Let $\{M_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a family of compact
modules over $A\br{K}$, such that for each open subgroup $H$ of $K$ there
is a constant $t(H)$, such that for all $i\in I$ the cardinality of $H$-coinvariants $(M_i)_{H}$ is bounded
above by $t(H)$. Let $\pi_i:= M_i^{\vee}$ and let $\Pi$ be the subset of smooth vectors in $\prod_{i\in I} \pi_i$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{define_Pi}
\Pi= \bigcup_H \prod_{i\in I} \pi_i^H,
\end{equation}
where the union is taken over all open (normal) subgroups $H$ of $K$. Then $\Pi$ is an $A_I$-module with a smooth action of $K$.
\begin{lem}\label{invariants} If $H$ is an open subgroup of $K$ then
$$(\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})^H\cong \Pi^H \otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}= (\prod_{i\in I} \pi_i^H)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Since $H$ is also $p$-adic analytic, $A\br{H}$ is noetherian. Thus $A$ with the trivial action of
$H$ is a finitely presented $A\br{H}$-module. Since localizations are flat Lemma \ref{useful} implies that
$$\Hom_{A\br{H}}(A, \Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})\cong \Hom_{A\br{H}}(A, \Pi)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x},$$
where we consider $\Pi$ as an $A$-module via diagonal map $A\rightarrow A_I$. This implies the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{ultra2} There is a canonical isomorphism of $A_{I,x}\br{K}$-modules
$$ (\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})^{\vee} \cong \varprojlim_H \bigl((\prod_{i\in I} (M_i)_H)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}\bigr),$$
where the projective limit is taken over all open normal subgroups $H$ of $K$. Moreover,
$$ ((\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})^{\vee})_H \cong (\prod_{i\in I} (M_i)_H)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Since tensor products commute with direct limits we have
$$\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}\cong \varinjlim_{H} \bigl( (\prod_{i\in I} \pi_i^H)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}\bigr).$$
The isomorphism $M_i\overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} (M_i^{\vee})^{\vee}$ induces an isomorphism
$(\pi_i^H)^{\vee}\cong (M_i)_H$. Since the functor $(\cdot)^{\vee}$ converts direct limits to projective limits the first assertion
follows from Lemma \ref{ultra1}. The second assertion follows from Lemma \ref{invariants}.
\end{proof}
Let $\varphi: R\rightarrow A$ be a map of local $\mathcal O$-algebras and let $N$ be a finitely generated $\mathcal O\br{K}$-module.
We equip $N$ with the canonical topology for which the action of $\mathcal O\br{K}$ is continuous.
Then $R$ acts on $\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(M_i, N)$ via its action on $M_i$ via $\varphi$.
\begin{lem}\label{pst_quotient} If the action of $R$ on $\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(M_i, N)$ for all $i\in I$
factors through the quotient $R\twoheadrightarrow R'$ then the action of $R$ on
$$\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}( (\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})^{\vee}, N)$$
also factors through $R\twoheadrightarrow R'$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The isomorphism $N\cong \varprojlim_J N/J N$, where $J$ runs over open two-sided ideals of $\mathcal O\br{K}$, induces an isomorphism
$$\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}( (\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})^{\vee}, N)\cong \varprojlim_J \Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}( (\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})^{\vee}, N/JN).$$
Thus it is enough to prove the assertion when $N$ is finite (as a set), which we now assume. Then $N^{\vee}$ is also finite, thus finitely generated over
$A\br{K}$, and since $A\br{K}$ is noetherian, $N^{\vee}$ is finitely presented over $A\br{K}$. Pontryagin duality and Lemma \ref{useful} give us
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}( (\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})^{\vee}, N)&\cong \Hom_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(N^{\vee}, \Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})\\ &\cong
\Hom_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(N^{\vee}, \Pi)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let $H$ be an open normal subgroup of $K$ which acts trivially on $N^{\vee}$. We have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Hom_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(N^{\vee}, \Pi)&\cong \Hom_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(N^{\vee}, \Pi^H)\cong \prod_{i\in I} \Hom_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(N^{\vee}, \pi_i^H)\\
& \cong \prod_{i\in I}\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}((M_i)_H, N)\cong \prod_{i\in I}\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(M_i, N).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We conclude that for finite $N$ we have an isomorphism of $R$-modules
$$\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}( (\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x})^{\vee}, N)\cong \bigl (\prod_{i\in I}\Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O\br{K}}(M_i, N)\bigr)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}.$$
Since the action of $R$ on the right-hand-side factors through $R\twoheadrightarrow R'$ we obtain the assertion.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Scholze's functor and ultrafilters}
\begin{lem}\label{smooth_exact} Let $0\rightarrow \sigma\rightarrow \pi \rightarrow \tau\rightarrow 0$ be an
exact sequence in $\Mod^{\mathrm{adm}}_{G'}(\mathbb Z/p^s)$, where $G'$ is an open subgroup of $G$. Then the sequence:
$$0\rightarrow (\prod_{i\in I} \sigma)^{\mathrm{sm}}\rightarrow (\prod_{i\in I} \pi)^{\mathrm{sm}}\rightarrow
(\prod_{i\in I} \tau)^{\mathrm{sm}}\rightarrow 0$$
is exact.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
(\prod_{i\in I} \pi)^{\mathrm{sm}}&\cong \varinjlim_H \prod_{i\in I} \pi^H \cong
\varinjlim_H ( \pi^H \otimes_{\mathbb Z/p^s} (\mathbb Z/p^s)_I)\\&\cong
( \varinjlim_H \pi^H)\otimes_{\mathbb Z/p^s} (\mathbb Z/p^s)_I \cong \pi \otimes_{\mathbb Z/p^s} (\mathbb Z/p^s)_I,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the limit is taken over open subgroups of $G'$. Since $\mathbb Z/p^s$ is noetherian, it is coherent, and hence $(\mathbb Z/p^s)_I$ is a flat
$\mathbb Z/p^s$-module, which implies the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{resolution}Let $\{\pi_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a family in $\Mod^{\mathrm{adm}}_G(\mathbb Z/p^s)$ and
let $\Pi= (\prod_{i\in I} \pi_i)^{\mathrm{sm}}$. If for some compact open subgroup $H$ of $G$ there
is $\pi\in \Mod^{\mathrm{adm}}_H(\mathbb Z/p^s)$ and integers $m_i$ for $i\in I$, bounded independently of $i$, such that
$\pi_i|_H \cong \pi^{m_i}$
then there is a resolution of $(\mathbb Z/p^s)_I[H]$-modules:
$$0\to \Pi|_H\to \Pi_1\to\ldots\to \Pi_j\to \ldots$$
where each $\Pi_j$ is a direct summand of $\mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s)^{n_j} \otimes_{\mathbb Z/p^s} (\mathbb Z/p^s)_I$ for some $n_j$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Since $\pi$ is admissible $\pi^{\vee}$ is a finitely generated $\mathbb Z/p^s\br{H}$-module.
Since $H$ is $p$-adic analytic $\mathbb Z/p^s \br{H}$ is noetherian and thus $\pi^{\vee}$ has a projective
resolution by free $\mathbb Z/p^s \br{H}$-modules of finite rank. Since $(\mathbb Z/p^s\br{H})^{\vee}\cong
\mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s)$ by taking Pontryagin dual we obtain a resolution of $\mathbb Z/p^s\br{H}$-modules:
$$0\rightarrow \pi \rightarrow \mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s)^{k_0}\rightarrow \ldots \rightarrow \mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s)^{k_j}\rightarrow \ldots$$
This yields an exact sequence of $\mathbb Z/p^s[H]$-modules:
$$0\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} \pi \rightarrow (\prod_{i\in I} \mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s))^{k_0}\rightarrow \ldots
(\prod_{i\in I} \mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s))^{k_j}\rightarrow \ldots$$
It follows from Lemma \ref{smooth_exact} that the sequence remains exact after applying
the functor of smooth vectors. Since $(\prod_{i\in I} \mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s))^{\mathrm{sm}}\cong \mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s)\otimes_{\mathbb Z/p^s} (\mathbb Z/p^s)_I$, we obtain a resolution of $\mathbb Z/p^s\br{H}$-modules
$0\rightarrow (\prod_{i\in I} \pi)^{\mathrm{sm}} \rightarrow F^{\bullet}$, where $F^j= \mathcal{C}(H, \mathbb Z/p^s)^{k_j}\otimes_{\mathbb Z/p^s} (\mathbb Z/p^s)_I$ for all $j\ge 0$.
Let us suppose that $m_i\le m$ for all $i\in I$. For each $0\le k\le m$
let $e_k=(e_{ik})_{i\in I}\in (\mathbb Z/p^s)_I$ be the idempotent with
$e_{ik}=1$ if $m_i=k$ and $e_{ik}=0$ otherwise then
$\Pi|_H\cong \bigoplus_{k=0}^m e_k ((\prod_{i\in I} \pi)^{\mathrm{sm}})^k$ and thus
$\bigoplus_{k=0}^m e_k (F^{\bullet})^k$ is the required resolution.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{main_ultra}Let $\{\pi_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a family in $\Mod^{\mathrm{adm}}_G(\mathbb Z/p^s)$
and let $\Pi=(\prod_{i\in I} \pi_i)^{\mathrm{sm}}$. Assume that for some compact open subgroup $H$ of $G$ there
is $\pi\in \Mod^{\mathrm{adm}}_H(\mathbb Z/p^s)$ and integers $m_i$ for $i\in I$, bounded independently of $i$, such that
$\pi_i|_H \cong \pi^{m_i}$ for all $i\in I$.
Then for all $j\ge 0$ and all compact open subgroups $K\subset D^{\times}$ we have
$$H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\Pi})\cong \prod_{i\in I} H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i}),$$
where the cohomology groups are defined in \cite[Section 2]{scholze}.
\end{thm}
We first list some consequences of the Theorem.
\begin{cor}\label{cor1} Assume, additionally to the assumptions of Theorem \ref{main_ultra}, that each $\pi_i$ has an action of a local artinian $\mathcal O$-algebra $(A, \mathfrak m_A)$
with finite residue field, which commutes with the action of $G$, then for all $x\in \Spec A_I$ and all $j\ge 0$ we have
an isomorphism
$$ H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}})\cong
\bigl (\prod_{i\in I} H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i})\bigr)\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}.$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} As in the proof of \cite[Corollary 8.5]{scholze} this follows from Theorem
\ref{main_ultra} as the topos $(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}$ is coherent and so cohomology commutes
with direct limits.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor2} Let us assume the setup of Theorem \ref{main_ultra}. Let $\Pi'_j$ be the subset of smooth vectors
in $\prod_{i\in I} H^j_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}( \mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i})$ for the action of $D^{\times}$. Then
$$ H^j_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\Pi})\cong \Pi'_j.$$
Moreover, if we have an action of ring $A$ as in Corollary \ref{cor1} then for all $x\in \Spec A_I$
and all $j\ge 0$ we have
$$ H^j_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\Pi\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}})\cong \Pi'_j\otimes_{A_I} A_{I,x}.$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} We have
$$ H^j_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\Pi})=\varinjlim_K H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\Pi}),$$
$$ H^j_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i})=\varinjlim_K H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i}),$$
where the limit is taken over open normal subrgoups $K$ of $D^{\times}$ by \cite[Proposition 2.8]{scholze}. Since $K$ acts trivially on $H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i})$ we obtain
$$\Pi_j'= \varinjlim_K \bigl(\prod_{i\in I} H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i})\bigr)$$
and the first assertion follows from Theorem \ref{main_ultra}. The second assertion
is proved in the same way as Corollary \ref{cor1}.
\end{proof}
Let us start proving Theorem \ref{main_ultra}.
\begin{lem}\label{induction_step} It is enough to prove Theorem \ref{main_ultra} for $s=1$ (i.e.~under assumption that
$\pi_i\in \Mod^{\mathrm{adm}}_G(\mathbb F_p)$, for all $i\in I$).
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The proof is by induction on $s$, using the assumption as the start
of induction. For each $i\in I$ let $x_i\in \Spec ((\mathbb Z/p^s)_I)$ be the prime
corresponding to the projection to the $i$-th component followed by the
map to the residue field. If $M$ is any $(\mathbb Z/p^s)_I$-module then
we have a functorial map $M\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} M_{x_i}$.
If $M=H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\Pi})$ then $M_{x_i}=H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i})$
since $\Pi_{x_i}\cong \pi_i$ and cohomology commutes with localization.
We have an exact sequence
$$ 0\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} \sigma_i\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} \pi_i \rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} \pi_i/p\rightarrow 0,$$
where $\sigma_i=\Ker( \pi_i \rightarrow \pi_i/p)$. Assume that $0\le m_i\le m$ for all $i\in I$.
Let $\sigma=\Ker (\pi\rightarrow \pi/p)$ then we may rewrite the restriction of the above sequence
to $H$ as
$$ 0\rightarrow \bigoplus_{k=0}^m \prod_{i\in I_k} \sigma^k \rightarrow \bigoplus_{k=0}^m \prod_{i\in I_k}
\pi^k
\rightarrow \bigoplus_{k=0}^m \prod_{i\in I_k}
(\pi/p)^k\rightarrow 0,$$
where $I_k=\{ i\in I: m_i=k\}$. It follows
from Lemma \ref{smooth_exact} that
the sequence
$$0\rightarrow (\prod_{i\in I} \sigma_i)^{\mathrm{sm}}\rightarrow (\prod_{i\in I} \pi_i)^{\mathrm{sm}} \rightarrow (\prod_{i\in I} \pi_i/p)^{\mathrm{sm}}\rightarrow 0$$
remains exact. Let $\Sigma= (\prod_{i\in I} \sigma_i)^{\mathrm{sm}}$ and let $P=(\prod_{i\in I} \pi_i/p)^{\mathrm{sm}}$. The exact
sequence $0\rightarrow \Sigma\rightarrow \Pi\rightarrow P\rightarrow 0$ induces an
exact sequence of sheaves $0\rightarrow \mathcal F_{\Sigma}\rightarrow \mathcal F_{\Pi}\rightarrow \mathcal F_P\rightarrow 0$
and a long exact sequence in cohomology.
Since $\sigma_i|_H \cong \sigma^{m_i}$ and $(\pi_i/p)|_H \cong (\pi/p)^{m_i}$ are killed by $p^{s-1}$,
the induction
hypothesis implies that the maps
$$ H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\Sigma})\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\sigma_i})$$
$$ H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{P})\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} H^j((\mathbb P^{n-1}_{\mathbb C_p}/K)_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}, \mathcal F_{\pi_i/p})$$
are isomorphisms for all $j\ge 0$. An application of (short) $5$-lemma implies the assertion.
\end{proof}
From now on we will assume that $\pi_i\in \Mod^{\mathrm{adm}}_G(\mathbb F_p)$ and will prove Theorem
\ref{main_ultra} following the proof of \cite[Theorem 8.3]{scholze}.
\begin{lem}\label{cartan-serre}
Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer and let $d=(m+1)3^{m+1}$. Let
$$E_{*, (k)}^{i,j}\Longrightarrow M_{(k)}^{i+j},\,\, 0\leq k\leq d$$
be upper-right quadrant spectral sequences of $(\mathbb F_p)_I\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p} \mathcal O_{\mathbb C_p}/p$-modules
together with maps of spectral sequences between the $k$-th and the $(k+1)$-th spectral sequence for $0\leq k<d$. Suppose that for some $r$ the map
$E_{r, (k)}^{i,j}\to E_{r, (k+1)}^{i,j}$ factors over an almost finitely presented
$(\mathbb F_p)_I\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p} \mathcal O_{\mathbb C_p}/p$-module for all $i,j,k$. Then
$M_{(0)}^{k}\to M_{(d)}^k$ factors over an almost finitely presented $(\mathbb F_p)_I\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p} \mathcal O_{\mathbb C_p}/p$-module for $k\leq m$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Follow the proof of Lemma 10.5.6 in \cite{scholzeberk} with the ring $R^+/p$ in loc.\,cit. replaced by $(\mathbb F_p)_I\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p} \mathcal O_{\mathbb C_p}/p$ (the key point being that this ring is almost coherent by Corollary 8.7 in \cite{scholze}, and this is what is used in the proof of the 10.5.6).
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{key_lemma}
For any $m\geq 0$ there is a compact open subgroup $K_0\subset D^{\times}$ stabilizing
$V,U$ and the section $V\to \mathcal{M}_{\rm LT, 0, C}$ such that for all
$K\subset K_0$ the map
$$H^j((V/K)_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}, \mathcal{F}_{\Pi}\otimes \mathcal{O}^+/p)\to H^j((U/K)_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}, \mathcal{F}_{\Pi}\otimes \mathcal{O}^+/p)$$
factors over an almost finitely presented $(\mathbb F_p)_I\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p} \mathcal O_{\mathbb C_p}/p$-module for $0\leq j\leq m$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $\Pi_j$ be as in Lemma \ref{resolution} above.
The proof of Lemma 8.8 in \cite{scholze} (see also Remark 10.5.7 in \cite{scholzeberk}) shows that the desired result holds with $\Pi_j$ instead of
$\Pi$, so we only need to explain how to deduce it for $\Pi$.
By exactness of the functor $\pi\mapsto \mathcal{F}_{\pi}$ we have a spectral sequence
$$E_{1,U}^{i,j}=H^j((U/K)_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}, \mathcal{F}_{\Pi_i}\otimes \mathcal{O}^+/p)\Longrightarrow
H^{i+j}((U/K)_\mathrm{\acute{e}t}, \mathcal{F}_{\Pi}\otimes \mathcal{O}^+/p).$$
Let $d=(m+1)3^{m+1}$ and pick a sequence of strict inclusions $V=U_0\subset U_2\subset...\subset U_d=U$. This induces $d+1$ spectral sequences $E_{\ast, U_k}^{\bullet, \bullet}$ as above, to which we will apply Lemma \ref{cartan-serre}. It suffices therefore to check that the maps $E_{1,U_k}^{i,j}\to E_{1,U_{k-1}}^{i,j}$ factor over almost finitely presented $(\mathbb F_p)_I\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p} \mathcal O_{\mathbb C_p}/p$-modules for all $i,j$ and $k$. As we have already mentioned, this is exactly what is proved in Lemma 8.8 of \cite{scholze}, for the strict inclusion $U_{k-1}\subset U_{k}$ and the representation $\Pi_j$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main_ultra}] It follows from Lemma \ref{induction_step}
that it is enough to prove the Theorem for $s=1$. Lemma \ref{key_lemma} is a substitute
for \cite[Lemma 8.8]{scholze}. Given this, the proof of \cite[Theorem 8.3, Corollary 8.5]{scholze}, where
Scholze assumes that $\pi_i$ are injective as $H$-representations,
carries over verbatim to our more general setting.
\end{proof}
\section{Global arguments}
In this section we assume that $p>2$. We fix a continuous representation $\bar{\rho}: \Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\rightarrow \GL_2(\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p)$. We will first globalise $\bar{\rho}$ following Appendix A in \cite{gee-kisin}.
\begin{prop}\label{globalize} Let $\mathbb{F}$ be a non-trivial finite extension of $\mathbb F_p$, such that $\GL_2(\mathbb{F})$ contains the image of $\bar{\rho}$. There is a totally real field $F$ and a regular algebraic cuspidal automorphic weight $0$ representation
$\pi$ of $\GL_2(\mathbb A_F)$, such that the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the Galois representation $r_{\pi}: \Gal_F\rightarrow \GL_2(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p)$ associated to $\pi$ is unramified outside $p$;
\item $p$ splits completely in $F$ and $\bar{r}_{\pi}|_{\Gal_{F_v}}\cong \bar{\rho}$ for all $v\mid p$;
\item $\SL_2(\mathbb{F})\subset \bar{r}_{\pi}(\Gal_F)\subset \GL_2(\mathbb F)$;
\item $[F:\mathbb Q]$ is even.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Using \cite[Cor.\,A.3]{gee-kisin} we may find a totally real field $F'$ and a regular algebraic cuspidal automorphic representation
$\pi'$ of $\GL_2(\mathbb A_{F'})$ such that (2) holds, the conductor of $\pi'$ is potentially prime to $p$, $\bar{r}_{\pi'}(\Gal_{F'})=\GL_2(\mathbb{F})$.
Since the conductor of $\pi'$ is potentially prime to $p$ using solvable base change we replace $F'$ by a totally real solvable extension $F$,
and $\pi$ with the base change of $\pi'$ to $F$ so that (1), (2) and (4) hold. Since $\mathbb F$ has at least $4$ elements $\SL_2(\mathbb{F})$ is equal to its own derived subgroup and thus it will be contained in $\bar{r}_{\pi'}(\Gal_{F''})$ for any abelian extension $F''$ of $F'$. Thus $\SL_2(\mathbb{F})$ will be contained in $\bar{r}_{\pi}(\Gal_F)=\bar{r}_{\pi'}(\Gal_{F})$.
\end{proof}
We fix $\mathbb{F}$, $F$ and $\pi$ as in Proposition \ref{globalize} and assume that $[\mathbb F:\mathbb F_p]\ge 3$ and let $\bar{r}:=\bar{r}_{\pi}$.
\begin{lem}\label{diagonal} Let $N$ be a positive integer.
Then there is a finite place $w_1$ of $F$ such that the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{part_1} the ratio of eigenvalues of $\bar{r}(\Frob_{w_1})$ is not in $\{1, \mathbf{N}(w_1), \mathbf N(w_1)^{-1}\}$;
\item\label{part_2} $\mathbf{N}(w_1)\not\equiv 1 \pmod{p}$;
\item\label{part_3} $\mathbf{N}(w_1)$ is prime to $2Np$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $E$ be the fixed field of $\Ker \bar{r}$ and let $\zeta_p$ be
a primitive $p$-th root of unity in $\overline{E}$. We claim that we may
may choose
$g\in \Gal(E(\zeta_p)/F)$ such that the image of $g$ in $\Gal(E/F)$ satisfies \eqref{part_1}
and the image of $g$ in $\Gal(F(\zeta_p)/F)$ is non-trivial.
Granting the claim, by Chebotarev density there will exist infinitely many $w_1$ such that $\Frob_{w_1}|_{E(\zeta_p)}$
is conjugate to $g$ in $\Gal(E(\zeta_p)/F)$. All such $w_1$ satisfy \eqref{part_2}.
Since there are infinitely many we may choose $w_1$ as above
with $\mathbf{N}(w_1) > (Np)^{[F:\mathbb Q]}$. Then $\mathbf{N}(w_1)$ is
a power of a prime $\ell$ such that $\ell> Np$. In particular \eqref{part_3} holds.
To prove the claim we let $\xi$ be a multiplicative generator of $\mathbb F^{\times}$.
If $\zeta_p\not\in E$ then pick any $g\in \Gal(E(\zeta_p)/F)$, which maps to
$\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \xi & 0 \\ 0 & \xi^{-1}\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ in $\SL_2(\mathbb F)\subset
\Gal(E/F)$. Since $[\mathbb F:\mathbb F_p]\ge 3$, $\xi^2\not \in \mathbb F_p$ and thus any such $g$ will satisfy (1).
If the image of $g$ in $\Gal(F(\zeta_p)/F)$ is trivial then replace $g$ by $gk$ for
any non-trivial $k\in \Gal(E(\zeta_p)/E)$. The images of $g$ and $gk$ in $\Gal(E/F)$ are equal and the
image of $gk$ in $\Gal(F(\zeta_p)/F)$ is equal to the image of $k$ and is non-trivial.
If $\zeta_p\in E$
then $F(\zeta_p)$ is contained in $E^{\SL_2(\mathbb F)}$, since $F(\zeta_p)/F$ is abelian and
$\SL_2(\mathbb F)$ is its own derived subgroup. Since $\Gal(E/F)$ is a subgroup
of $\GL_2(\mathbb F)$ by construction, $\Gal(E/F)/\SL_2(\mathbb F)$ is a subgroup
of $\mathbb F^{\times}$. Thus it is generated by $\xi^d$ for some divisor $d$ of $|\mathbb F^{\times}|$. Thus $g= \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \xi^{d+1} & 0 \\ 0 & \xi^{-1}\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)\in \GL_2(\mathbb F)$ lies in $\Gal(E/F)$.
The ratio of its eigenvalues is equal to $(\xi^{d+2})^{\pm 1}$. If $\xi^{d+2}\in \mathbb F_p$ then
$p^f-1$ divides $(d+2)(p-1)$, where $f=[\mathbb F:\mathbb F_p]$, and hence $d$ divides $(d+2)(p-1)$. If $d$ is odd then $d$ and $d+2$ are coprime and so $d$ has to divide $p-1$ and so $p^f-1\le (p+1)(p-1)$. If $d$ is even then greatest common divisor of $d$ and $d+2$ is $2$ and so $d/2$ divides $p-1$. Thus $p^f-1\le 2p (p-1)$.
In both cases we obtain a contradiction to $[\mathbb F: \mathbb F_p]\ge 3$. The image of $g$ will generate $\Gal(F(\zeta_p)/F)$, which is non-trivial as $F$ is totally real.
\end{proof}
\begin{remar}\label{kisin_ok} Let $w_1$ be any place of $F$ satisfying
the conditions of Lemma \ref{diagonal} and let $\Sigma_p$ be the set of places of $F$ above
$p$. If we let $S$ be a finite set of places of $F$ containing
$w_1$, $\Sigma_p$ and all the places above $\infty$ then
$\bar{r}$, $S$, $\Sigma_p$ satisfies
all the conditions of section (2.2) in \cite{kisin_fmc}. In particular, the issues discussed
in Appendix B of \cite{gee-kisin} do not
arise in our situation.
\end{remar}
\subsection{Completed cohomology}
Let $D_0$ be a quaternion algebra with center $F$ ramified at all infinite places and
split at all finite places. Let $\mathcal O_{D_0}$ be a maximal order in $D$ and we fix an isomorphism
$(\mathcal O_{D_0})_v\cong M_2(\mathcal O_{F_v})$ for every finite $v$. Then
$U_{\mathrm{max}}:= \prod_{v\nmid \infty} \GL_2(\mathcal O_{F_v})$
is an open subgroup of $(D_0\otimes_F \mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}$.
One may write $(D_0\otimes_F \mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}$ as a finite union of double cosets
of the form $D_0^{\times} t_i U_{\mathrm{max}} (\mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}$, where we have identified
$(\mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}$ with the center of $(D_0\otimes_F \mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}$.
Moreover, the groups
$(U_{\mathrm{max}} (\mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}\cap t_i D_0^{\times} t_i^{-1})/F^{\times}$
are finite. Let $w_1$ be a finite place of satisfying the conditions of Lemma \ref{diagonal}
with $N$ equal to the product of the orders of these groups. Let $U:=\prod_{w\nmid \infty} U_w$, $U^p:=\prod_{w\nmid p\infty} U_w$,
where $U_w= \GL_2(\mathcal O_{F_w})$ if $w\neq w_1$ and let
$U_{w_1}= \{ g\in \GL_2(\mathcal O_{F_{w_1}}): g\equiv \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & \ast\\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)\pmod{\varpi_{w_1}}\}$. It follows from \cite[Lem.\,3.2]{2adic} that
\begin{equation}\label{schnitt}
(U (\mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}\cap t D^{\times}_0 t^{-1})/F^{\times}=1,
\quad \forall t\in (D_0\otimes_F \mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}.
\end{equation}
If $A$ is a topological $\mathcal O$-module, such as $\mathcal O$, $L$ with the $p$-adic topology or $\mathcal O/\varpi^n$, $L/\mathcal O$ with the discrete topology, we denote by $S(U^p, A)$ be
the space of continuous functions
$$ f: D_0^{\times}\backslash (D_0\otimes_F \mathbb{A}_F^{\infty})^{\times}/U^p\rightarrow A.$$
The groups $(D_0\otimes\mathbb {Q}_p)^\times$ and $(\mathbb{A}_F^{\infty})^{\times}$ acts continuously on $S(U^p, A)$ by right translations.
Let $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_{S}=\mathcal O[ T_v, S_v]_{v\not\in S}$
be a commutative polynomial ring in the indicated formal variables, where $v$ ranges over all finite places of $F$ not in the subset $S$ defined in Remark \ref{kisin_ok}.
The algebra $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_{S}$ acts on $S(U^p, A)$ with
with $S_v$ acting via the double coset
$U_v \bigl ( \begin{smallmatrix} \varpi_v & 0 \\ 0 & \varpi_v\end{smallmatrix}\bigr) U_v$ and $T_v$ acting via the double coset
$U_v \bigl ( \begin{smallmatrix} \varpi_v & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\bigr) U_v$. This action commutes with the action of $(D_0\otimes\mathbb {Q}_p)^\times$ and $(\mathbb{A}_F^{\infty})^{\times}$.
Let $G_{F,S}=\Gal(F_S/F)$ be
the Galois group of the maximal extension of $F$ in $\overline{F}$ which is unramified outside $S$. Let $r_{\pi}: G_{F, S}\rightarrow \GL_2(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p)$ be the
Galois representation associated to the automorphic form $\pi$ in Proposition \ref{globalize}. After conjugating (and possibly replacing $L$ by a finite extension), we may
assume that $r_{\pi}$ takes values in $\GL_2(\mathcal O)$. Let $\mathfrak m_{r_{\pi}}$ be the ideal of $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_{S}$ generated by $T_v -\tr r_{\pi}(\Frob_v)$,
$\mathbf{N}(v) S_v - \det r_{\pi}(\Frob_v)$ for all $v\not \in S$ and let $\mathfrak m:= \mathfrak m_{\bar{r}_{\pi}}:= (\varpi, \mathfrak m_{r_{\pi}})$. We have
$\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_{S}/ \mathfrak m_{r_{\pi}}=\mathcal O$ and $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S/\mathfrak m=k$.
Let $\psi: G_{F, S}\rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times}$ be a character such that $\det r_{\pi} = \psi \varepsilon^{-1}$, where
$\varepsilon$ is the $p$-adic cyclotomic character, so that $\psi(\Frob_v)\equiv S_v \pmod{ \mathfrak m_{r_{\pi}}}$ for all $v\not \in S$. We consider $\psi$ as a character of $(\mathbb{A}_F^{\infty} )^{\times}/F^{\times}$ via the class field theory normalized so that the uniformizers are sent to geometric Frobenii. We will denote the restriction of $\psi$ to a decomposition subgroup at $v$ by
$\psi_{v}$, and we will also consider $\psi_{v}$ as a character of $F_v^{\times}$ via local class field theory.
Let $S_{\psi}(U^p, A)$ be the submodule\footnote{VP would like to thank Yongquan Hu for pointing out that in the statement of \cite[Lemma 5.3]{ludwig} and in the last line of its proof $\chi_{\mathrm{cyc}}$ should
be replaced by its inverse.}
of $S(U^p, A)$ on which $(\mathbb{A}_F^{\infty} )^{\times}$ acts by $\psi$. Since the actions of $(\mathbb{A}_F^{\infty} )^{\times}$, $(D_0\otimes_{\mathbb Q} \mathbb {Q}_p)^{\times}$ and $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S$ on $S(U^p, A)$ commute, $S_{\psi}(U^p, A)$ is a $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S[ (D_0\otimes_\mathbb Q \mathbb {Q}_p)^{\times}]$-module.
\begin{prop}\label{happy_prop} Let $\mathfrak m=\mathfrak m_{\bar{r}_{\pi}}$ and $\psi$ be as above. The localization $S_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}$ is non-zero. Moreover,
it is admissible and injective in $\Mod^{\mathrm{sm}}_{\psi_p}(U_p)$, where $U_p= (\mathcal O_{D_0}\otimes \mathbb{Z}_p)^{\times}= \prod_{v\mid p} \GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ and
$\psi_p$ is restriction of $\psi$ to the center $Z_p$ of $U_p$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We pick an isomorphism between the algebraic closure $\overline{L}$ and $\mathbb C$. Then we may write $\pi^{\infty}=\otimes'_v \pi_v$, where the restricted tensor product is taken over the finite places of $F$, and each $\pi_v$ is a smooth representation
of $(D_0\otimes_F F_v)^{\times}=\GL_2(F_v)$ on an $\overline{L}$-vector space. Let us choose an open normal subgroup $U'_p=\prod_{v\mid p} U_v'$ of $U_p$ such that $\pi_v^{U'_v}\neq 0$ for all $v\mid p$, and let $U'= U'_p \times \prod_{v\nmid p} U_v$. It follows from \cite[Lemma 1.3 (4)]{taylor} that
$S_{\psi}(U^p, L)^{U_p'}\otimes_L \overline{L}$ contains $\pi^{U'}$ as a $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S[U_p]$-submodule. More precisely, $\pi^{U'}$ is identified with the Hecke eigenspace
$(S_{\psi}(U^p, L)^{U_p'}\otimes_L \overline{L})[\mathfrak m_{r_{\pi}}]$. In particular, $(S_{\psi}(U^p, L)^{U_p'})[\mathfrak m_{r_{\pi}}]$ is a non-zero finite dimensional $L$-vector space.
It follows from \eqref{schnitt} that if $A=L$, $\mathcal O$ or $k$ then $S_{\psi}(U^p, A)^{U_p'}$ can be identified as an $U_p$-representation with a finite direct sum of copies of $\Ind_{Z_p U'_p}^{U_p}{ \psi_p \otimes_{\mathcal O} A}$. In particular, $S_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O)^{U_p'}$ is an $\mathcal O$-lattice in $S_{\psi}(U^p, L)^{U_p'}$ and its reduction modulo $\varpi$ is equal to $S_{\psi}(U^p, k)^{U_p'}$. Hence, $(S_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O)^{U_p'})[\mathfrak m_{r_{\pi}}]$ and $(S_{\psi}(U^p, k)^{U_p'})[\mathfrak m]$ are both non-zero. Since localization is an exact functor
the inclusion $(S_{\psi}(U^p, k)^{U_p'})[\mathfrak m]\hookrightarrow S_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)$ implies that $S_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}\neq 0$. The assertion about injectivity and admissibility
follows from \cite[Lemmas 5.1, 5.2]{ludwig}.\footnote{ In Equation (26) in the proof of \cite[Lemma 5.1]{ludwig}
$\lambda^{\vee}$ should be $\Hom_{\mathcal O}(\lambda, \mathcal O)$.}
\end{proof}
\begin{remar} Let $\mathbb T'$ be a $\mathbb T_S^{\mathrm{univ}}$-algebra, (for example obtained by adding
the Hecke operator corresponding to the double coset $U_{w_1} \bigl ( \begin{smallmatrix} \varpi_{w_1} & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\bigr) U_{w_1}$) and let $\mathfrak m'_{r_{\pi}}$ be an ideal of $\mathbb T'$
containing $\mathfrak m_{r_{\pi}}\mathbb T'$, such that $\mathbb T'/\mathfrak m'_{r_{\pi}}=\mathcal O$ and let $\mathfrak m'=(\varpi, \mathfrak m'_{r_{\pi}})$. If $\mathbb T'$ acts
on $S_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)$ and the action extends the action of $\mathbb T_S^{\mathrm{univ}}$, and commutes
with the action of $(D_0\otimes\mathbb {Q}_p)^\times$ then the argument of Proposition \ref{happy_prop}
shows that $S_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m'}$ is non-zero.
\end{remar}
We fix a place $\mathfrak p$ of $F$ above $p$ and let $U^{\mathfrak p}_p= \prod_{v\mid p, v\neq \mathfrak p} U_v$. If $\lambda$ is a continuous representation of
$U^{\mathfrak p}_p$ on a free $\mathcal O$-module of finite rank, such that $(\mathbb{A}_F^{\infty})^\times\cap U^{\mathfrak p}_p$ acts
on $\lambda$ by the restriction of $\psi$ to this group then we let
$$S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, A):= \Hom_{U^\mathfrak p_p}(\lambda, S_\psi(U^p, A)).$$
Since $p>2$ for each $v\mid p$ we may pick a smooth character $\theta_v: \mathcal O_{F_v}^{\times} \rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times}$ such that
$\psi_v(x)=\theta_v(x)^2$ for all $x\in 1+(\varpi_v)$. Let $\theta: (\mathcal O_F\otimes \mathbb{Z}_p)^{\times}\rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times}$ be the product of $\theta_v$.
\begin{lem}\label{alt_bier} We may choose $\lambda=\otimes_{v\mid p, v\neq \mathfrak p} \lambda_v$ such that $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}\neq 0$ and
$\lambda_v= \sigma_v^0 \otimes (\theta_v\circ \det)$ such that the central character of $\lambda_v$ is equal to $\psi_v$ and
$\sigma_v^0$ is an $\mathcal O$-lattice in an inflation of an irreducible non-cuspidal representation $\sigma_v$ of $\GL_2(\mathbb F_p)$ to $U_v$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} After twisting by the inverse of $\theta\circ \det$ we may assume that $\psi_v(x)=1$ for all $x\in 1+(\varpi_v)$ for all $v\mid p$.
Let $U'_v$ be a subgroup of $U_v= \GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ consisting of upper-triangular unipotent matrices modulo $p$, and let $U'_p=\prod_{v\mid p} U_v$.
Let $Z_p'$ be the centre of $U'_v$. It follows from Proposition \ref{happy_prop} that $S_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}$ is an admissible injective representation
of $U'_p/ Z'_p$. Since $U'_p/ Z'_p$ is pro-$p$, $S_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}$ as a representation of $U'_p$ is isomorphic to a finite direct sum of
copies of $\mathcal C(U'_p/ Z'_p, L/\mathcal O)$, where $\mathcal C$ denotes continuous functions. The Pontryagin dual of $\mathcal C(U'_p/ Z'_p, L/\mathcal O)$ is the completed group algebra
$\mathcal O\br{U'_p/ Z'_p}$, and its Schikhof dual is isomorphic to $\mathcal C(U'_p/ Z'_p, \mathcal O)$. It follows from \cite[Equation (27)]{ludwig} that
$S_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}|_{U'_p}$ is isomorphic to a finite direct sum of copies of $\mathcal C(U'_p/ Z'_p, \mathcal O)$. In particular, $(S_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m})^{U'_p}$
is a non-zero $\mathcal O$-module of finite rank. Let $W$ be the $U_p^{\mathfrak p}$-invariant subspace of $S_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m} \otimes_{\mathcal O} L$ generated by $(S_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m})^{U'_p}$ and let $\sigma$ be any irreducible subquotient of $W$.
The centre of $U_p^{\mathfrak p}$ acts on $\sigma$ via
$\psi_p^{\mathfrak p}$. We may write $\sigma= \otimes_{v\mid p, v\neq \mathfrak p} \sigma_v$, such that
$\sigma_v$ is an irreducible representation of $U_v$ satisfying $\sigma_v^{U_v'}\neq 0$.
In particular, $\sigma_v$ is an inflation of an irreducible non-cuspidal representation
of $\GL_2(\mathbb F_p)$ to $U_v$. Let $\sigma_v^0$ be any $U_v$-invariant $\mathcal O$-lattice
in $\sigma_v$ and let $\lambda=\otimes_{v\mid p, v\neq \mathfrak p} \sigma_v^0$. Then by construction
$\lambda$ is an $\mathcal O$-lattice in $\sigma$, hence $\Hom_{U^{\mathfrak p}_p}(\lambda, S_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m})$ is a non-zero $\mathcal O$-module of finite rank. This implies that
$\Hom_{U^{\mathfrak p}_p}(\lambda, S_{\psi}(U^p, k)_{\mathfrak m})$ is also non-zero, which implies that
$\Hom_{U^{\mathfrak p}_p}(\lambda, S_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m})$ is non-zero.
\end{proof}
\begin{remar} Standard arguments with Serre weights show that if $\bar{r}_{\pi}|_{G_{F_v}}$ is
not tr\`es ramifi\'ee then one may choose $\sigma_v$ in Lemma \ref{alt_bier} to be either a character or a principal series
representation of $\GL_2(\mathbb F_p)$.
\end{remar}
\begin{lem}\label{non-Eis} Let $\lambda$ be a continuous representation of $U_p^{\mathfrak p}$ with a central character $\psi_p^{\mathfrak p}$ on a
free finite rank $\mathcal O$-module. Let $G_{\mathfrak p}'$ be
the derived subgroup of $(D_0\otimes_F F_{\mathfrak p})^{\times}$. Then
$S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, k)_{\mathfrak m}^{G_{\mathfrak p}'}=0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We identify $(D_0\otimes_F F_{\mathfrak p})^{\times}$ with $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and
$G_{\mathfrak p}'$ with $\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$. We may assume that $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, k)_{\mathfrak m}\neq 0$.
We may further assume that $\psi_{\mathfrak p}(-1)=1$.
If $K$ is a compact open subgroup of $\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ containing $\{\pm 1\}$ then it follows from \cite[Lemma 5.3]{ludwig}
and the argument explained in the proof of Proposition \ref{happy_prop} that
$$S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)|_K \cong C( K/\{\pm 1\}, \mathcal O)^{\oplus m}$$
for some $m\ge 1$. Since $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}$ is a direct summand
of $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)$, we obtain an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{inv_modp}
(S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}^K)\otimes_{\mathcal O} k \cong S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, k)_{\mathfrak m}^K.
\end{equation}
Let $\alpha= \bigl (\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1\\ p & 0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. Since $\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$
is generated by its subgroups $K_0:=\SL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ and $K_1:=\alpha \SL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)\alpha^{-1}$
for any $\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$-representation $\pi$ we have an exact sequence
$$0\rightarrow \pi^{\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)}\rightarrow \pi^{K_0} \oplus \pi^{K_1} \rightarrow \pi^{K_0\cap K_1}.$$
Applying this observation to $\pi=S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}$, $\pi= S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, k)_{\mathfrak m}$ and using \eqref{inv_modp}
gives us an isomorphism
$$(S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}^{\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)})\otimes_{\mathcal O} k \cong
S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, k)_{\mathfrak m}^{\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)},$$
which implies that $(S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}^{\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)})\otimes_{\mathcal O} L$ is a
non-zero finite dimensional $L$-vector space. Thus it will contain a non-zero Hecke eigenspace
corresponding to an $\mathcal O$-algebra homomorphism $x: (\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S)_{\mathfrak m}\rightarrow \overline{L}$.
Since the action of $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S$ preserves the $\mathcal O$-lattice $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}^{\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)}$, after enlarging $L$, we may assume that $x$ takes values in $\mathcal O$.
Since local factors of cuspidal automorphic representations are generic, it follows from \cite[Lemma 1.3 (4)]{taylor} that there is a continuous character $\chi: (\mathbb{A}_F^{\infty})^{\times}/F^{\times}\rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times}$
such that $x(T_v)= (\mathbf{N}(v)+1)\chi(\varpi_v)$ and $x(S_v)= \chi(\varpi_v)^2$ for all $v\not\in S$.
This implies that $\tr \bar{r}(\Frob_v)= (\mathbf{N}(v)+1)\bar{\chi}(\varpi_v)$ and $\det \bar{r}(\Frob_v)=
\mathbf{N}(v)\bar{\chi}(\varpi_v)^2$ for all $v\not \in S$, where $\bar{\chi}$ is the reduction of
$\chi$ modulo $\varpi$. Hence, the ratio of eigenvalues of $\bar{r}(\Frob_v)$ is equal to $\mathbf{N}(v)^{\pm 1}$ for all $v\not \in S$, which contradicts Lemma \ref{diagonal}.
\end{proof}
We fix an infinite place $\infty_F$ of $F$ and let $D$ be the quaternion algebra over $F$, which is
ramified at $\mathfrak p$, split at $\infty_F$ and has the same ramification behaviour as $D_0$ at all the other places.
We fix an isomorphism
$$ D_0\otimes_F \mathbb A_F^{\mathfrak p, \infty_F}\cong D \otimes_F \mathbb A_F^{\mathfrak p, \infty_F}.$$
This allows us to view the subgroup $U^{\mathfrak p}$ of $(D_0\otimes_F \mathbb{A}_F^{\infty})^\times$, considered above, as a subgroup of $(D \otimes_F \mathbb{A}_F^{\infty})^{\times}$. Let $D_{\mathfrak p}:=D\otimes_F F_{\mathfrak p}$. Then $D_{\mathfrak p}$ is the non-split quaternion algebra over $F_\mathfrak p=\mathbb {Q}_p$.
If $K$ is an open subgroup of $\mathcal O_{D_\mathfrak p}^{\times}U^\mathfrak p$ then we let $X(K)$ be the corresponding Shimura curve for $D/F$ defined over $F$. We let
$$\widehat{H}^i(U^p, \mathcal O/\varpi^n):=\varinjlim_{K_{p}}
H^i_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(X(K_{p} U^{p})_{\overline{F}}, \mathcal O/\varpi^n),$$
where the limit is taken over open subgroups of $U_{p}^{\mathfrak p} \mathcal O_{D_\mathfrak p}^{\times}$.
This group carries commuting actions of the Hecke algebra $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S$, $\Gal_{F, S}$,
$(D\otimes_{\mathbb Q} \mathbb {Q}_p)^{\times}$ and the centre $(\mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}$.
We let $\widehat{H}^i(U^p, \mathcal O/\varpi^n)_{\mathfrak m}$ be the localisation of
$\widehat{H}^i(U^p, \mathcal O/\varpi^n)$ at $\mathfrak m$ and let
$\widehat{H}^i_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O/\varpi^n)_{\mathfrak m}$ be the submodule on which
$(\mathbb A_F^{\infty})^{\times}$ acts by $\psi$, and for $\lambda$ as in Lemma \ref{non-Eis} we let
$$\widehat{H}^i_{\psi,\lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O/\varpi^n)_{\mathfrak m}:=\Hom_{U^{\mathfrak p}_p}(\lambda, \widehat{H}^i_{\psi}(U^p, \mathcal O/\varpi^n)_{\mathfrak m}).$$
After identifying $\frac{1}{\varpi^n}\mathcal O/\mathcal O \subset L/\mathcal O$ with $\mathcal O/\varpi^n$, we obtain an isomorphism of $\mathcal O$-modules $\varinjlim_n \mathcal O/\varpi^n \cong L/\mathcal O$ and use the same transition maps to define
$$\widehat{H}^i_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}:= \varinjlim_n \widehat{H}^i_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O/\varpi^n)_{\mathfrak m}.$$
It is explained in \cite[Lemma 6.2]{ludwig} that Scholze's results in \cite{scholze} imply that
there is a natural isomorphism of $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S[G_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\times D_\mathfrak p^{\times}]$-representations:
\begin{equation}\label{scholze_0}
\mathcal{S}^1( S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m})\cong \widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}.
\end{equation}
We let
$$\widehat{H}^i_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}:= \varprojlim_n \widehat{H}^i_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O/\varpi^n)_{\mathfrak m},$$
equipped with the $p$-adic topology. The module $\widehat{H}^i_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}$
is $\mathcal O$-torsion free and by inverting $p$ we obtain an admissible unitary Banach space representation of $D_{\mathfrak p}^{\times}$. Moreover, we have natural isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{dual_0}
(\widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m})^d \cong (\widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m})^{\vee}
\end{equation}
compatible with $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S[G_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\times D_\mathfrak p^{\times}]$-action. To ease the notation
we will omit the outer brackets, when taking the duals. It is proved in
\cite[Proposition 6.3]{ludwig} that \eqref{scholze_0} and \eqref{dual_0} induce a natural isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{sch1}
\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}^d)\cong \widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}^d
\end{equation}
compatible with $\mathbb T^{\mathrm{univ}}_S[G_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\times D_\mathfrak p^{\times}]$-action.
\subsection{Patching}
If $R$ is a complete local noetherian $\mathcal O$-algebra with residue field $k$ and $G$ is a $p$-adic analytic group then, following the notational scheme of \cite{ord1},
we let $\Mod^{\mathrm{fg.aug}}_G(R)$ be the category of $R[G]$-modules $M$, such that for some open compact subgroup $H$ of $G$, the action of
$R[H]$ on $M$ extends to the action of $R\br{H}$, and $M$ is a finitely generated $R\br{H}$-module with respect to this action. We note that
$M$ carries a canonical topology for which the action of $R\br{H}$ on $M$ is continuous.
Restriction of deformations to the decomposition subgroup at $\mathfrak p$ induces a map $R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}} \rightarrow R^{\square, \psi}_{F, S}$.
Since the image of $\bar{r}$ contains $\SL_2(\mathbb F)$, $\bar{r}$ is absolutely irreducible and the map $R^{\psi}_{F, S}\rightarrow R^{\square, \psi}_{F, S}$, induced by forgetting the framings, is formally smooth
and we may non-canonically identify $R^{\square, \psi}_{F, S}\cong R^{\psi}_{F, S}\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}}$. By quotienting out the variables
we obtain a surjection $R^{\square, \psi}_{F, S}\twoheadrightarrow R^{\psi}_{F, S}$, which makes $R^{\psi}_{F, S}$ into a $R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}$-algebra.
\begin{defi}\label{thick} Let $G$ be a $p$-adic analytic group and let $M\in \Mod^{\mathrm{fg.aug}}_G(R^{\psi}_{F, S})$. A thickening of $M$ consists of the data
$(R_{\infty}, M_\infty, \underline{x}, \varphi)$, where
\begin{enumerate}
\item $R_{\infty}$ is a complete local noetherian faithfully flat $R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}$-algebra with residue field $k$;
\item $M_{\infty}\in \Mod^{\mathrm{fg.aug}}_G(R_{\infty})$;
\item\label{part3} $\underline{x}=(x_1, \ldots, x_h)$ is an $M_{\infty}$-regular sequence contained in the maximal ideal of $R_{\infty}$, such that
$$ M_{\infty}/(\underline{x})M_{\infty}\cong M;$$
\item $\varphi: R_{\infty}/(\underline{x})\twoheadrightarrow R^{\psi}_{F, S}$ is a surjection of $R^{\square, \psi_\mathfrak p}_{\bar{\rho}}$-algebras, such that the
action of $R_{\infty}$ on $M_{\infty}/(\underline{x})M_{\infty}$ factors through $\varphi$ and the resulting action of $R^{\psi}_{F, S}$ on $M_{\infty}/(\underline{x})M_{\infty}$
is compatible with the isomorphism in \eqref{part3}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defi}
Recall that $\theta_{\mathfrak p}: \mathbb{Z}_p^{\times}\rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times}$ is a character, such that
$\psi_{\mathfrak p}\theta_{\mathfrak p}^{-2}$ is trivial on $1+p\mathbb{Z}_p$, and hence we may consider $\psi_{\mathfrak p}\theta_{\mathfrak p}^{-2}$ as a character of $\mathbb F_p^{\times}$.
Let $\mu: \mathbb F_{p^2}^{\times} \rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times}$ be a character such that the restriction of $\mu$ to $\mathbb F_p^{\times}$ is equal to $\psi_{\mathfrak p}\theta_{\mathfrak p}^{-2}$ and $\mu\neq \mu^p$. Let
$\sigma(\mu)$ be the cuspidal representation of $\GL_2(\mathbb F_p)$ corresponding to the
orbit $\{ \mu, \mu^p\}$, we also denote by $\sigma(\mu)$ its inflation to $\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ and let $\lambda_{\mathfrak p}:=\sigma(\mu)\otimes (\theta_{\mathfrak p}\circ \det)$. We inflate $\mu$ to the character of
$\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}$ via $\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}/(1+\mathfrak m_{D_{\mathfrak p}})\cong \mathbb{F}_{p^2}^{\times}$.
Let $\lambda'_{\mathfrak p}:= \mu (\theta_{\mathfrak p} \circ \mathrm{Nrd})$ be a character of $\mathcal O_{D^{\times}_{\mathfrak p}}$.
We note that $\lambda_{\mathfrak p}$ and $\lambda_{\mathfrak p}'$ have central character $\psi_{\mathfrak p}$, and it follows
from \cite{BH} that the classical Jacquet--Langlands correspondence induces a bijection between the
isomorphism classes of irreducible smooth representations $\pi_{\mathfrak p}$ of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ on
$\overline{L}$-vector spaces such that $\Hom_{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)}(\lambda_{\mathfrak p}, \pi_{\mathfrak p})\neq 0$ and
the isomorphism classes of irreducible smooth representations $\pi_{\mathfrak p}'$ of $D_{\mathfrak p}^{\times}$ on
$\overline{L}$-vector spaces such that
$\Hom_{\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}}(\lambda_{\mathfrak p}', \pi_{\mathfrak p}')\neq 0$. Moreover, all representations
$\pi_{\mathfrak p}$ as above are supercuspidal and their isomorphism classes correspond bijectively to
the isomorphism classes of irreducible representations
of the Weil group $W_{\mathbb {Q}_p}$ of $\mathbb {Q}_p$ of the form
$\Ind^{W_{\mathbb {Q}_p}}_{W_{\mathbb{Q}_{p^2}}}\chi$, such that $\chi(\Art_{\mathbb{Q}_{p^2}}(x))= \mu(x) \theta_{\mathfrak p}(N^{\mathbb{Q}_{p^2}}_{\mathbb {Q}_p} x)$ for all $x\in \mathbb Z_{p^2}^{\times}$, under
the classical local Langlands correspondence.
Let $a> b$ be integers, and let $\sigma_{a, b}:=\lambda_{\mathfrak p} \otimes \Sym^{a-b-1} L^2 \otimes \det^{b+1}$ and let $\sigma_{a, b}^0$ be a $\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)$-equivariant $\mathcal O$-lattice
in $\sigma_{a, b}$. If $M_{\infty}$ is a thickening of $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m}$ with central character $\psi_{\mathfrak p}^{-1}$
then we let
$$M_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b}^0):= \Hom_{\mathcal O\br{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)}}^{\mathrm{cont}}( M_{\infty}, (\sigma_{a, b}^0)^d)^d$$
where $(\cdot)^d:=\Hom_{\mathcal O}^{\mathrm{cont}}(\cdot, \mathcal O)$. If $a+b+1=0$ then the central character of $\sigma_{a,b}$ is equal to $\psi_{\mathfrak p}$ and $(\varpi, \underline{x})$ is a regular
system of parameters $M_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b}^0)$, see \cite[Proposition 2.40]{duke_bm} for details. In particular, $M_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b}^0)$ is a finitely generated Cohen--Macaulay $R_{\infty}$-module. If $b+a+1\neq 0$ then $M_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b}^0)=0$, since the centre acts on $M_{\infty}$ by $\psi_{\mathfrak p}^{-1}$, which
is smooth. The $R_{\infty}[1/p]$-module
$M_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b}):= M_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b}^0)\otimes_{\mathcal O} L$ does not depend on the choice of lattice $\sigma_{a,b}^0$. Let $R_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b})$
be the quotient of $R_{\infty}$, which acts faithfully on $M_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b})$.
Similarly, we let $\sigma'_{a,b}= \lambda'_{\mathfrak p} \otimes \Sym^{a-b-1} L^2 \otimes \det^{b+1}$ and if $M_{\infty}'$ is a thickening of $\widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m}$ with central character $\psi_{\mathfrak p}^{-1}$ then we define $M'_{\infty}(\sigma'_{a,b})$ and $R_{\infty}(\sigma'_{a,b})$ analogously by replacing $\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ with $\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}$.
Let $R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}(\sigma_{a,b})$ be a reduced and $\mathcal O$-torsion free quotient of $R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}$ parameterizing
potentially semi-stable lifts of $\bar{\rho}$ with Hodge--Tate weights $(a, b)$ and inertial Galois type defined by $\lambda_{\mathfrak p}$. Since the determinant in the deformation problem is fixed and is equal to $\psi_{\mathfrak p} \varepsilon^{-1}$, the ring $R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}(\sigma_{a,b})$ is
zero, unless $a+b=-1$.
\begin{thm}\label{the_patch} There is a thickening $(R_{\infty}, M_\infty, \underline{x}, \varphi)$ of $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m}$ and a thickening $(R_{\infty}, M'_\infty, \underline{x}, \varphi)$ of
$\widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m}$ such that the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{ptch1} $M_{\infty}$ is projective in $\Mod^{\mathrm{pro}}_{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p), \psi_{\mathfrak p}}(\mathcal O)$;
\item \label{ptch2}$M_{\infty}'$ is projective in $\Mod^{\mathrm{pro}}_{\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}(\mathcal O)$;
\item \label{ptch3}for all integers $b>a$ the rings $R_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b})$, $R_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b}')$ are reduced and their spectra are equal to
a union of irreducible components of $$\Spec (R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}(\sigma_{a,b})\otimes_{R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}} R_{\infty});$$
\item \label{ptch4} $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M_{\infty})\cong M_{\infty}'$;
\end{enumerate}
where $\lambda$ is as in Lemma \ref{alt_bier}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} A thickening of $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m}$ satisfying \eqref{ptch1} and \eqref{ptch3} has been constructed by Dotto--Le in the proof of \cite[Theorem 6.2]{dotto-le} by using
Scholze's improvement with ultrafilters of the patching argument in \cite{6auth} in the setting of quaternionic Shimura sets. Parts \eqref{ptch1} and \eqref{ptch3} correspond to \cite[Proposition 2.10]{6auth} and \cite[Lemma 4.17 (1)]{6auth}, respectively. Dotto--Le also carry out the patching in the setting of Shimura curves. They assume that the quaternion algebra is split at $p$. However, this doesnot play a role
in their arguments in the proof of \cite[Theorem 6.2]{dotto-le}, and hence we also obtain a thickening $(R_{\infty}, M'_\infty, \underline{x}, \varphi)$ of
$\widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m}$ satisfying \eqref{ptch2} and \eqref{ptch3}. The main point of the Proposition is that
if we take the same utrafilter in these constructions then \eqref{ptch4} holds, so that $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M_{\infty})\cong M'_{\infty}$ as $R_{\infty}[\Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\times D^{\times}_p]$-modules. To prove that we need to unravel the construction of $M_{\infty}$
and $M_{\infty}'$ in \cite{dotto-le}. We employ the notations
of \textit{loc.\,cit.}, albeit their $L$ is our $\mathbb {Q}_p$, their $E$ is our $L$ and their $K^v$, $K(N)^v$, $K_v$ is our $U^{\mathfrak p}$, $U(N)^{\mathfrak p}$, $U_{\mathfrak p}$. Moreover, when
defining spaces of automorphic forms $S(K^v K_v, V)$ on definite quaternion algebras in \cite[Section 6.1]{dotto-le} they take functions with values in the Pontryagin dual of $V$ and
we take functions with values in $V$, so that their $S(K^v K_v, \mathcal O)$ is our $S(U^{\mathfrak p} U_{\mathfrak p}, L/\mathcal O)$.
The ring $R_{\infty}$ is denoted by $R_{\infty}^{\psi}$ in \cite{dotto-le}. They show
that $M_{\infty}$ is a finitely generated $S_{\infty}\br{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)}$-module, where $S_{\infty}$ is a subring of $R_{\infty}$ of the form
$S_{\infty}=\mathcal O\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}, y_1, \ldots, y_q}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{kill_patching_var}
M_{\infty}/(z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}, y_1, \ldots, y_q)M_{\infty}\cong S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m}.
\end{equation}
We let $\underline{x}=(z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}, y_1, \ldots, y_q)$. It is shown in \cite{dotto-le} that $M_{\infty}$ is a projective $S_{\infty}\br{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)}$-module
in the category of compact $S_{\infty}\br{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)}$-modules with central charachter $\psi_{\mathfrak p}^{-1}$. This implies that $\underline{x}$ is $M_{\infty}$-regular.
The ring $R_{\infty}$ is a power series ring over $R^{\square,\psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}\wtimes_{\mathcal O} \widehat{\bigotimes}_{v\mid p, v\neq \mathfrak p} R^{\square, \psi_v}_{\bar{r}_v}(\lambda_v)$ in carefully chosen number of variables, where $\bar{r}_v$ is the restriction of $\bar{r}$ to the decomposition group at $v$ and the completed tensor product is taken over $\mathcal O$. For each $N\ge 1$, $Q_N$ is a set of cardinality $q$ of
Taylor--Wiles primes, see \cite[Section 6.2.3]{dotto-le}. Let $\Delta_{Q_N}=\prod_{w\in Q_N} k_w^{\times}(p)$, where $k_w^{\times}(p)$ is the Sylow $p$-group
of the multiplicative group of the residue field at $w$. Then by construction of $Q_N$, $p^N$ divides the order of $k_w^{\times}$ and hence is a surjection $\Delta_{Q_N} \twoheadrightarrow (\mathbb Z/p^N)^q$. Let $\mathcal O_{L, N}=\mathcal O[\Delta_{Q_N}]$ be the group ring of $\Delta_{Q_N}$.
By choosing surjections $\mathbb{Z}_p^q\twoheadrightarrow \Delta_{Q_N}$ we obtain surjections
$\mathcal O_{L, \infty}:=\mathcal O\br{y_1, \ldots, y_q}=\mathcal O\br{\mathbb{Z}_p^q} \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal O_{L, N}$ for all $N\ge 1$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{ten}
\begin{split}
M(N):&= S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}} \wtimes_{R^{\psi}_{F, S_{Q_N}}} R^{\square, \psi}_{F, S_{Q_N}}\\
&\cong
S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}} \wtimes_{\mathcal O} \mathcal O\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
M'(N):&= \widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}} \wtimes_{R^{\psi}_{F, S_{Q_N}}} R^{\square, \psi}_{F, S_{Q_N}}\\
&\cong
\widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}} \wtimes_{\mathcal O} \mathcal O\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we have fixed an isomorphism $R^{\psi, \square}_{F, S_{Q_N}}\cong R^{\psi}_{F, S_{Q_N}}\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}}$ as in \cite[Section 6.2.4]{dotto-le}.
The ring $S_{\infty}=\mathcal O_{L, \infty}\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}}$ acts on $M(N)$ and $M'(N)$ and
the action factors through the quotient $S_N= \mathcal O_{L,N}\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}}$.
If $J$ is an open ideal of $\mathcal O_{L, \infty}$ and $\mathfrak a$ is an open ideal of $\mathcal O\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}}$ then we let
$$M(\mathfrak a, J, N):= M(N)/(\mathfrak a, J) M(N), \quad M'(\mathfrak a, J, N):= M'(N)/(\mathfrak a, J) M'(N).$$
If $U_{\mathfrak p} \subset \GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, $U_{\mathfrak p}' \subset D^{\times}_v$ are compact open subgroups then we
let
$$M(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}, N):= M(\mathfrak a, J, N)_{U_{\mathfrak p}}, \quad
M'(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}', N):= M(\mathfrak a, J, N)_{U_{\mathfrak p}'}.$$
denote the coinvariants. Note that the modules $M(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}, N)$ and $M'(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}', N)$ are of finite cardinality.
For each open ideal $J$ of $\mathcal O_{L, \infty}$ let $I_J$ be a cofinite subset of $I$ such that the kernel of $\mathcal O_{L, \infty}\rightarrow \mathcal O_{L, N}$ is contained in
$J$. We fix a non-principal ultrafilter $\mathfrak F$ on the set of natural numbers. Then we let
$$ M(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}, \infty):=(\mathcal O_{L, \infty}/J)_{I_J, x} \otimes_{(\mathcal O_{L, \infty}/J)_{I_J}} \prod_{N\in I_J} M(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}, N),$$
$$ M'(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}', \infty):=(\mathcal O_{L, \infty}/J)_{I_J, x} \otimes_{(\mathcal O_{L, \infty}/J)_{I_J}} \prod_{N\in I_J} M'(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}', N),$$
where $x\in \Spec (\mathcal O_{L, \infty}/J)_{I_J}$ corresponds to the ultrafilter $\mathfrak F$. Finally, we let
$$M(\mathfrak a, J, \infty)=\varprojlim_{U_{\mathfrak p}} M(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}, \infty), \quad M'(\mathfrak a, J, \infty)=\varprojlim_{U_{\mathfrak p}'} M'(\mathfrak a, J, U_{\mathfrak p}', \infty),$$
$$ M_{\infty} =\varprojlim_{\mathfrak a, J} M(\mathfrak a, J, \infty ),\quad M'_{\infty} =\varprojlim_{\mathfrak a, J} M'(\mathfrak a, J, \infty ),$$
where the limits are taken over open ideals $\mathfrak a$ of $\mathcal O\br{z_1, \ldots, z_{4|S|-1}}$, $J$ of $\mathcal O_{L, \infty}$, and compact open subgroups $U_{\mathfrak p}$ of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and
$U_{\mathfrak p}'$ of $D_v^\times$.
It follows \cite[Corollary 7.5]{KW2} that $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}$ is a
flat $\mathcal O_{L,N}$-module and if we base change it along the map $\mathcal O_{L,N}\rightarrow \mathcal O$,
which sends all the elements of $\Delta_{Q_N}$ to $1$, then we obtain an isomorphism.
$$\mathcal O\otimes_{\mathcal O_{L,N}}S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}\cong S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}^d.$$
Since $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}^d$ is projective in $\Mod^{\mathrm{pro}}_{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p), \psi_{\mathfrak p}}(\mathcal O)$, the above isomorphism and flatness over $\mathcal O_{L,N}$ imply that $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}$ is projective in the category $\Mod^{\mathrm{pro}}_{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p), \psi_{\mathfrak p}}(\mathcal O_{L,N})$.
We deduce that if $A$ is an artinian quotient of $\mathcal O_{L, N}$ then
$A\otimes_{\mathcal O_{L,N}} S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}$ is projective
in $\Mod^{\mathrm{pro}}_{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p), \psi_{\mathfrak p}}(A)$. For a fixed $A$ we may choose
a sufficiently small open pro-$p$ subgroup $H$ of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, so that
$\psi_{\mathfrak p}: H\cap Z \rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times} \rightarrow A^{\times}$ is trivial,
then $A\otimes_{\mathcal O_{L, N}} S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}$ is a projective $A\br{H/H\cap Z}$-module.
Since
\begin{equation}\label{fibre}
k\otimes_{\mathcal O_{L, N}} S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}\cong S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, k)^{\vee}_{\mathfrak m},
\end{equation}
the claim implies that
$$A\otimes_{\mathcal O_{L, N}} S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}\cong A\br{H/H \cap Z}^m,$$
where $m=\dim_k (S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, k)^{\vee}_{\mathfrak m})_{H}=\dim_k S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}H, k)_{\mathfrak m}$. This implies that if we fix $\mathfrak a$ and $J$ then there is an open subgroup
$H$ of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ such that
$M(\mathfrak a, J, N)$
are isomorphic as $\mathcal O\br{H}$-modules for all $N\in I_J$.
Lemma \ref{non-Eis} with \cite[Proposition 4.7]{scholze} imply that
that $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, k)^{\vee}_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}})$ and
hence
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}})$ are equal to $0$.
Since
$$\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}})\cong \widehat{H}^1_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}$$
by \cite[Proposition 6.3]{ludwig} and $R^{\square, \psi}_{F, S_{Q_N}}$ is flat over $R^{\psi}_{F, S_{Q_N}}$, Lemma \ref{yh}
implies that
that $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M(N))\cong M'(N)$. Since $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}$
is flat over $\mathcal O_{L,N}$, we deduce using \eqref{ten} that $M(N)$ is flat over $S_N$. Since
the action of $S_{\infty}$ on $M(N)$ factors through $S_N$, for all compact $S_{\infty}$-modules
$\mathrm m$ we have
$$\mathrm m\wtimes_{S_{\infty}} M(N)\cong (\mathrm m\wtimes_{S_{\infty}} S_N)\wtimes_{S_N} M(N)$$
and hence $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\mathrm m\wtimes_{S_{\infty}} M(N))\cong \mathrm m\wtimes_{S_{\infty}} M'(N)$ by Lemma
\ref{yh}. We apply this observation to $\mathrm m=S_{\infty}/(\mathfrak a, J)$ to deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{fedup}
\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M(\mathfrak a, J, N))\cong M'(\mathfrak a, J, N).
\end{equation}
Let $\Pi=\bigl ( \prod_{N\in I_J} M(\mathfrak a, J, N)^{\vee}\bigr)^{\mathrm{sm}}$. It follows from Lemma \ref{ultra2} that
$$ M(\mathfrak a, J, \infty)^{\vee} \cong (\mathcal O_{L, \infty}/J)_{I_J, x} \otimes_{(\mathcal O_{L, \infty}/J)_{I_J}} \Pi.$$
Since the restrictions of $M(\mathfrak a, J, N)^{\vee}$ to $H$ are all isomorphic, Corrollary \ref{cor2} together with \eqref{fedup}
imply that
$$\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M(\mathfrak a, J, \infty))\cong M'(\mathfrak a, J, \infty).$$
Since $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1$ commutes with projective limits we obtain $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M_{\infty})\cong M'_{\infty}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remar} Let us point out how a part of the proof of \cite[Lemma 4.17 (1)]{6auth} can be rewritten using ultrafilters. It follows from local-global compatibility that the action of $R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}$ on
$$\Hom_{\mathcal O\br{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)}}^{\mathrm{cont}}( M(N), (\sigma_{a, b}^0)^d), \quad \Hom_{\mathcal O\br{\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}}}^{\mathrm{cont}}( M'(N), ((\sigma'_{a, b})^0)^d)$$
factors through the quotient $R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}(\sigma_{a,b})$. Lemma \ref{pst_quotient} implies that the same holds for the modules $M_{\infty}(\sigma_{a,b})$, $M_{\infty}'(\sigma'_{a,b})$.
\end{remar}
\begin{lem}\label{Sch00} $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M_{\infty})=0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We give two proofs of the claim. It follows from \eqref{kill_patching_var} that
$M_{\infty}\wtimes_{R_{\infty}} k \cong S_{\psi, \lambda}(U^{\mathfrak p}, k)_{\mathfrak m}^{\vee}\wtimes_{R^{\psi}_{F, S}}k$. It follows from Lemma \ref{non-Eis} that $\SL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$-coinvariants of $M_{\infty}\wtimes_{R_{\infty}} k$ are zero and thus $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M_{\infty}\wtimes_{R_{\infty}} k)=0$.
Since
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^0$ is right exact we obtain $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M_{\infty})\wtimes_{R_{\infty}} k\cong \mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M_{\infty}\wtimes_{R_{\infty}}k)=0$. Since $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M_{\infty})$ is a compact $R_{\infty}$-module we deduce
that $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M_{\infty})=0$.
The second proof (which is an overkill for $\GL_2$, but would also work in the setting of unitary groups,
see Remark \ref{unitary}, and show the vanishing
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^i(M_\infty)$ for $i$ up to the middle degree) uses the non-Eisenstein property of the ideal $\mathfrak m$ after applying the functor $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0$. It follows from \cite[Theorem 6.2]{scholze} that
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}})= \widehat{H}^0_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}$. Since $\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}$ is non-Eisenstein this implies
that the group is zero. Using Lemma \ref{yh} and the flatness arguments explained in the course
of the proof of Theorem \ref{the_patch}, we obtain that $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M(N))=0$ and $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M(\mathfrak a, J, N))=0$. It then follows from Corollary \ref{cor2} that $\mathcal{\check{S}}^0(M_{\infty})=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Sch11} Let $I$ be an ideal of $R_{\infty}$ then the natural map
\begin{equation}\label{Itorsion}
\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M_{\infty})\otimes_{R_{\infty}} R_{\infty}/I \rightarrow \mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M_{\infty}\otimes_{R_{\infty}} R_{\infty}/I)
\end{equation} is surjective. The kernel is a finitely generated $R_{\infty}/I$-module on
which the subgroup of reduced norm $1$ elements in $\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}$ acts trivially.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The proof of \cite[Proposition 7.7]{scholze} goes through verbatim here with
Lemma \ref{Sch00} as an input to show that \eqref{Itorsion} is surjective and the norm $1$
subgroup of $\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}$ acts trivially on the kernel, which we denote by
$K$. Moreover, it follows
from \cite[Theorem 4.4]{scholze} that $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(M_{\infty})$ is a finitely generated
$R_{\infty}\br{\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}}$-module. Since the ring is noetherian,
$K$ is also a finitely generated $R_{\infty}\br{\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}}$-module.
Since the center of $\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}$ acts on $K$ by $\psi_{\mathfrak p}^{-1}$ and
the norm $1$ subgroup acts trivially we deduce that $K$ is a finitely generated
$R_{\infty}$-module. Since $I$ acts trivially on $K$ we deduce that $K$ is a finitely
generated $R_{\infty}/I$-module.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Infinitesimal character}
Let $\mathfrak g$ be the $\mathbb {Q}_p$-Lie algebra of $D^{\times}_{\mathfrak p}$. Then we may identify $\mathfrak g$
with $D_{\mathfrak p}$, $\mathfrak g\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} L= \mathfrak{gl}_2\otimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} L$ and $Z(\mathfrak g_L)=Z(\mathfrak{gl}_2)_L$.
The dual group $\widehat{G}$ in this case is $\GL_2$ and we identify its Lie algebra $\widehat{\mathfrak g}$ with $M_2(L)$, and let
$e=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$, $f= \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$,
$h= \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$, $z= \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$
be a basis of $\widehat{\mathfrak g}$ as an $L$-vector space and let $e^*, f^*, h^*, z^*$ be the dual basis of $\widehat{\mathfrak g}^*$.
If $A$ is an $L$-algebra then
a matrix $M= \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)\in M_2(A)$ defines
an $L$-algebra homomorphism $\mathrm{ev}_M: S(\widehat{\mathfrak g}^*)\rightarrow A$, which send $e^*\mapsto \beta$, $f^*\mapsto \gamma$,
$h^*\mapsto \alpha-\beta$, $z^*\mapsto \alpha+\beta$.
We may identify
$Z(\mathfrak g_L)$ with a polynomial ring in variables $C$ and $Z$, where $C$ is the Casimir operator and
$Z= \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)\in \mathfrak g_L$. The ring
homomorphism $Z(\mathfrak g_L)\rightarrow S(\widehat{\mathfrak g}^*)^{\widehat{G}} \subset S(\widehat{\mathfrak g}^*)$ used in \cite[Definition 4.19]{DPS}
sends $Z$ to $z^*$ and $C$ to $e^* f^* + f^* e^* +\frac{1}{2} (h^*)^2-\frac{1}{2}$, which is the unique element
$c\in S(\widehat{\mathfrak g}^*)^{\widehat{G}}$ such that $\mathrm{ev}_M(c)= \frac{1}{2}(\alpha-\delta-1)^2 +(\alpha-\delta-1)=
\frac{1}{2}(\alpha-\delta)^2 -\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}\tr(M)^2 -2 \det M -\frac{1}{2},$
for all $M=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & \delta\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$. We denote the
composition $Z(\mathfrak g_L)\rightarrow S(\widehat{\mathfrak g}^*)^{\widehat{G}}\overset{\mathrm{ev}_M}{\longrightarrow} R$ by $\varphi_M$.
Let $R$ be a complete local noetherian $\mathcal O$-algebra with finite residue field, and let $R^{\mathrm{rig}}$ be the ring of global functions
of the rigid analytic space $(\Spf R)^{\mathrm{rig}}$. Let $\rho: G_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\rightarrow \GL_2(R)$ be a continuous representation.
We let $\tilde{\delta}: \mathbb{G}_m\rightarrow \widehat{T}$, $t \mapsto \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1& 0 \\ 0& t^{-1} \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$,
where $\widehat{T}$ is the subgroup of diagonal matrices in $\widehat{G}$. The choice of $\tilde{\delta}$ allows us to define a
representation of $G_{\mathbb {Q}_p}$ into the $C$-group of $\GL_2$ :
$$\rho^C: G_F \rightarrow {^C}\GL_2(R), \quad g\mapsto ( \rho(g) \tilde{\delta}(\chi_{\mathrm{cyc}}(g))^{-1}, \chi_{\mathrm{cyc}}(g)),$$
see \cite[Sections 2.1, 4.7]{DPS} for more details. In \cite[Definition 4.23]{DPS} to $\rho^C$ we attach an $L$-algebra homomorphism
$\zeta^C_{\rho^C}: Z(\mathfrak g_L)\rightarrow R^{\mathrm{rig}}$. It follows from Equation (34) in \cite[Section 4.7]{DPS} that
for every open affinoid $U=\Sp(A)\subset (\Spf R)^{\mathrm{rig}}$
the composition $Z(\mathfrak g_L)\rightarrow R^{\mathrm{rig}} \rightarrow A\rightarrow \mathbb C_p\wtimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} A$ coincides
with $\varphi_M: Z(\mathfrak g_L)\rightarrow \mathbb C_p\wtimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} A$ with $M=\Theta_{U} +\frac{1}{2} \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$,
where $\Theta_{U} \in M_2( \mathbb C_p\wtimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} A)$ is the Sen operator of $\rho\otimes_{R} A$.
Let us spell out \cite[Lemma 5.12]{DPS} in our situation. If $R$ is a ring of integers in a finite extension of $L'$ of $L$ then $\rho$ is Hodge--Tate
with weights $a>b$ if and only if the Sen operator $\Theta\in M_2(\mathbb C_p\wtimes_{\mathbb {Q}_p} L')$ is conjugate to the matrix $\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} a & 0 \\ 0 & b\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$.
It follows from the above that in this case $\zeta^C_{\rho^C}(C)=\frac{1}{2}(a-b)^2-\frac{1}{2}$,
$\zeta^C_{\rho^C}(Z)= a+b+1$, and hence $\zeta^C_{\rho^C}$ coincides with the infinitesimal
character of $\Sym^{a-b-1}L^2\otimes \det^{b+1}$. Conversely, if $\zeta^C_{\rho^C}$ is infinitesimal
character of $\Sym^{a-b-1}L^2\otimes \det^{b+1}$ then $\Theta$ has eigenvalues $a$ and $b$ and hence $\rho$ is Hodge--Tate with weights $a, b$.
Let $\rho^{\mathrm{univ}}: \Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\rightarrow \GL_2(R_{\bar{\rho}}^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}})$ be the universal
framed deformation of $\bar{\rho}$ with the fixed determinant equal to $\psi_{\mathfrak p} \varepsilon^{-1}$.
Let $\rho_{\infty}:=\rho^{\mathrm{univ}}\otimes_{R_{\bar{\rho}}^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}}R_{\infty}$ and let
$$\zeta^C_{\rho_{\infty}^C}: Z(\mathfrak g_L)\rightarrow R_{\infty}^{\mathrm{rig}}$$
be the infinitesimal character defined above. If $x:R_{\infty}\rightarrow \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is an $\mathcal O$-algebra
homomorphism then we let $\rho_x: \Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\rightarrow \GL_2(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p)$ be the specialization of $\rho_{\infty}$
along $x$. The image of $\rho_x$ is contained in $\GL_2(\mathcal O')$,
where $\mathcal O'$ is the ring of integers in a finite extension $L'$ of $L$. The infinitesimal character
$\zeta^C_{\rho_x^C}: Z(\mathfrak g_L) \rightarrow L'$ coincides with a specialization of $\zeta^C_{\rho_{\infty}^C}$ at $x$.
If $M$ is a compact $\mathcal O$-module we let $\Pi(M)= \Hom^{\mathrm{cont}}_{\mathcal O}(M, L)$ be the
$L$-Banach space with the topology induced by the supremum norm. If $x: R_{\infty}\rightarrow \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is an $\mathcal O$-algebra homomorphism then we let $\mathfrak m_x$ be its kernel and
$$\Pi_x:= \Pi(M_{\infty})[\mathfrak m_x], \quad \Pi'_x:= \Pi(M'_{\infty})[\mathfrak m_x]$$
be the closed subspaces annihilated by $\mathfrak m_x$. Then $\Pi_x\in \Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p), \psi_{\mathfrak p}}(L)$ and $\Pi_x'\in \Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{D_{\mathfrak p}^{\times}, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}(L)$.
\begin{lem}\label{closed_subspace} $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi_x)$ is a closed subspace of $\Pi'_x$. Moreover, $\Pi'_x/\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi_x)$
is a finite dimensional $L$-vector space on which the norm $1$ subgroup of $\mathcal O_{D_{\mathfrak p}}^{\times}$
acts trivially.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} This follows from Lemma \ref{Sch11} applied with $I=\mathfrak m_x$ and Schikhof duality.
We note that $R_{\infty}/\mathfrak m_x$ is a compact $\mathcal O$-subalgebra in a finite extension of $L$, and hence a finitely generated
$\mathcal O$-module.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{inf_eigen} If $x: R_{\infty}\rightarrow \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is an $\mathcal O$-algebra homomorphism then
$Z(\mathfrak g_L)$ acts on $\Pi_x^{\mathrm{la}}$ and $(\Pi_x')^{\mathrm{la}}$ by the infinitesimal character
$\zeta^C_{\rho_x^C}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Theorem \ref{the_patch} shows that the conditions of \cite[Theorem 8.6]{DPS}
are satisfied, which implies the assertion. Let us explain why part (iii) of \cite[Theorem 8.6]{DPS}
holds in more detail. If $x$ is a closed point of $\Spec R_{\infty}(\sigma_{a, b})[1/p]$ (or $\Spec R_{\infty}(\sigma'_{a, b})[1/p]$) then
it follows from part \eqref{ptch3} of Theorem \ref{the_patch} that $\rho_x$ has Hodge--Tate weights
$(a,b)$, which implies that $\zeta^C_{\rho_x^C}$ is the infinitesimal character of $\Sym^{a-b-1} L^2 \otimes \det^{b+1}$.
\end{proof}
Until now we have not used in an essential way that $F_{\mathfrak p}=\mathbb {Q}_p$. The following two results
make use of this assumption in their use of $p$-adic Langlands correspondence for $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$
and the fact that the unipotent radical of a Borel subgroup of $\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ has dimension $1$ as a $p$-adic analytic group.
\begin{cor}\label{the_end_is_nigh} Let $\zeta: \mathbb {Q}_p^{\times}\rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times}$ be a character and
$\Pi\in \Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p), \zeta}(L)$ be absolutely
irreducible and non-ordinary and let $\rho: \Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\rightarrow \GL_2(L)$ be the absolutely
irreducible representation corresponding to $\Pi$. Then $Z(\mathfrak g_L)$ acts on $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ and
on $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi)^{\mathrm{la}}$ by the infinitesimal character $\zeta^C_{\rho^C}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} Let $\bar{\rho}: \Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p} \rightarrow \GL_2(k)$ the reduction of $\Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p}$-invariant lattice
in $\rho$. We globalize $\bar{\rho}$ and obtain $M_{\infty}$, $M_{\infty}'$, $\psi$ as above. Since
$\zeta \varepsilon^{-1}\cong \det \bar{\rho} \cong \psi_{\mathfrak p} \varepsilon^{-1}\pmod{\varpi}$, there exists
a character $\eta: \mathbb {Q}_p^{\times}\rightarrow \mathcal O^{\times}$ such that $\psi_{\mathfrak p} =\zeta\eta^2$. Since
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^1$ commutes with twisting by characters by Lemma \ref{olivertwist} we may replace $\Pi$ with
$\Pi \otimes\eta\circ \det$ and assume that $\psi_{\mathfrak p}=\zeta$.
Let $y: R_{\bar{\rho}}^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}\rightarrow L$ be an $\mathcal O$-algebra homomorphism corresponding to $\rho$.
Since $R_{\infty}$ is a faithfully flat $R_{\bar{\rho}}^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}$-algebra
there is an
$\mathcal O$-algebra homomorphism $x: R_{\infty}\rightarrow \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ extending $y$. It follows from
\cite[Theorem 7.1]{forum} that $\Pi_x\cong \Pi^{\oplus m}$ for some $m\ge 1$. Thus $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi_x)\cong \mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi)^{\oplus m}$.
Since $\mathcal{\check{S}}^{1}(\Pi_x)$ is a closed subspace of $\Pi_x'$ by Lemma \ref{closed_subspace} the assertion follows from Proposition \ref{inf_eigen}.
It remains to show that the conditions of \cite[Theorem 7.1]{forum} are satisfied.
Since $M_{\infty}$ is a thickening, $M_{\infty}$ is a finitely generated $R_{\infty}\br{\GL_2(\mathbb{Z}_p)}$-module.
We have to show that
$R_{\infty}$ acts faithfully on $M_{\infty}$; this can be verified as in \cite[Proposition 3.9]{tung}.
Let $R^{\mathrm{ps}, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\tr \bar{\rho}}$ be the pseudo-character deformation ring of $\tr \bar{\rho}$ with
fixed determinant equal to $\psi_{\mathfrak p}\varepsilon^{-1}$. We have to show that the two actions of $R^{\mathrm{ps}, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\tr \bar{\rho}}$ on $M_{\infty}$ coincide:
one action defined via
$R^{\mathrm{ps}, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\tr \bar{\rho}}\rightarrow R^{\square, \psi_{\mathfrak p}}_{\bar{\rho}}\rightarrow R_{\infty}$ and
the other action as the centre of certain subcategory of $\Mod^{\mathrm{l.adm}}_{\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p), \psi_{\mathfrak p}}(\mathcal O)$, see \cite{image}, \cite[Section 4.1]{forum}. This holds for $S_{\psi, \lambda}(U(N)^{\mathfrak p}, \mathcal O)^d_{\mathfrak m'_{Q_N}}$ by \cite[Proposition 5.5, Corollary 5.6]{ludwig} (a similar argument appears in \cite[Theorem 3.5.5]{lue_pan1}) and hence the two actions coincide on the modules $M(N)$ defined
in the course of the proof of Theorem \ref{the_patch}, by passing to the limit we obtain the same for $M_{\infty}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{the_same_inf} Let $\Pi\in \Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p), \zeta}(L)$ be absolutely irreducible and non-or\-di\-na\-ry
and let $\rho: \Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p}\rightarrow \GL_2(L)$ be the absolutely
irreducible representation corresponding to $\Pi$. Let $K$ be a compact open subgroup of
$\GL_2(\mathbb {Q}_p)$ and let $K'$ be a compact open subgroup of $D_{\mathfrak p}^{\times}$. If the difference
of the Hodge--Tate--Sen weights of $\rho$ is not a non-zero integer then $\Pi|_K$ is of finite length
in $\Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{K, \zeta}(L)$ and $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi)|_{K'}$ is of finite length
in $\Ban^{\mathrm{adm}}_{K', \zeta}(L)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} It follows from Corollary \ref{the_end_is_nigh} that $\Pi^{\mathrm{la}}$ and $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi)^{\mathrm{la}}$
have an infinitesimal character $\zeta_{\rho^C}^C: Z(\mathfrak g_L) \rightarrow L$. Since both
$\Pi$ and $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi)$ are admissible $L$-Banach space representations Theorem \ref{astuce}
implies that $d(\Pi)\le 1$ and $d(\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi))\le 1$.
The assumption that the difference of
the Hodge--Tate--Sen weights of $\rho$ is not a non-zero integer implies that that $\zeta^C_{\rho^C}$ is not algebraic and the assertion
follows from Corollary \ref{cor:fin_length} a).
\end{proof}
\begin{remar} We note that with our arguments we cannot show that the Banach spaces $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi)$ in Corollary \ref{the_end_is_nigh} are non-zero.
If the residual representation $\bar{\rho}: \Gal_{\mathbb {Q}_p} \rightarrow \GL_2(k)$ is reducible generic then one can deduce the non-vanishing of $\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi)$ from
the results of \cite{ludwig}. The results of \cite{ludwig} rely on vanishing of $H^2_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\mathbb P^{1}_{\mathbb C_p}, \mathcal F_{\pi})$, where $\pi$ is a mod $p$ principal series
representation, which is proved by Judith Ludwig in \cite{j_ludwig}. The same vanishing has been claimed by David Hansen for $\pi$ supersingular. This would imply that
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^1(\Pi)$ are non-zero when $\bar{\rho}$ is absolutely irreducible. The result has been recently
proved by Yongquan Hu and Haoran Wang in \cite{hu-wang}.
\end{remar}
\begin{remar} Most of the argument carries over if $p=2$: \cite[Theorem 7.1]{forum} is available for
$p=2$ and the patching argument is carried out in \cite{Tung2}, but one would have to rewrite
the proof of Theorem \ref{the_patch} to accommodate the subtleties that arise in $p=2$ case. However, the globalization result used in Proposition \ref{globalize} is not in the literature.\footnote{It was pointed out to us by Toby Gee that it might be feasible to carry out this globalization using \cite[Proposition 6.7]{thorne}.
We don't pursue this here, just note for the interested reader that since we twist by characters in the proof of
Corollary \ref{the_end_is_nigh}, one would have to produce a potentially automorphic lift $r_{\pi}$ with $(\det r_{\pi}) (\Art_{\mathbb{Q}_2}(-1))=1$
and also a potentially automorphic lift $r_{\pi}$ with $(\det r_{\pi})(\Art_{\mathbb{Q}_2}(-1))=-1$ to make our argument work. }
\end{remar}
\begin{remar}\label{unitary} The proofs of Theorem \ref{the_patch} and Proposition \ref{inf_eigen} carry over to
the setting of unitary groups using the recent results of Caraiani--Scholze \cite{CS} and Kegang Liu \cite{kegang_liu} under the assumption that $p$ does not divide $2n$. If $\bar{\rho}: \Gal_E\rightarrow \GL_n(\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ is a representation, where $E$ is a finite extension
of $\mathbb {Q}_p$, then we may globalize it following \cite[Section 2.1]{6auth}, and we may arrange that the resulting global Galois representation $\bar{r}$ will contain $\GL_n(\mathbb F_{p^m})$ for a given $m$. Using this and Chebotarev density Theorem one may show that this representation is decomposed generic in the sense of \cite{CS}, see \cite[Remark 1.4]{CS}. It follows from the main Theorem of \cite{CS} that the cohomology localized at the maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$ in the Hecke algebra corresponding
to $\bar{r}$ vanishes except in the middle degree $q_0$, which implies that the $q_0$-th completed
cohomology with $L/\mathcal O$ -coefficients localized at $\mathfrak m$ is injective in $\Mod^{\mathrm{sm}}_K(\mathcal O)$, where
$K$ is a maximal compact open subgroup of $G(\mathbb {Q}_p)$, with $G$ as in \cite{CS}. The group
$\widehat{H}^{q_0}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}$ is the analog of $\widehat{H}^1_{\psi}(U^p, L/\mathcal O)_{\mathfrak m}$ considered in this paper, except that when working with unitary groups we don't have to
fix a central character. Now Kegang Liu \cite[Theorem 1.1]{kegang_liu} has extended
Scholze's \cite[Theorem 1.3]{scholze} to the setting of unitary groups. Using this result one may
obtain an analog of \eqref{sch1} in the setting of unitary groups. One may then rewrite the patching
argument in \cite{6auth} using ultrafilters and obtain the analog of Theorem \ref{the_patch} using the same proof. We note that since the centre does not cause problems in the unitary group setting, \cite[Footnote 7]{scholze} applies here, so that the proof is slightly easier. Once we have the patched
modules we are in the situation of \cite[Section 9.11]{DPS} for $\GL_n(E)$ and the patched version
of \cite[Section 9.10]{DPS} for the division algebra over $E$ with invariant $1/n$. The proof of Proposition \ref{inf_eigen} carries over verbatim.
We note that if $M_{\infty}$ is flat over $R_{\infty}$
then it follows from Lemma \ref{yh} together with the second proof of Lemma \ref{Sch00} that
$\mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\Pi_x)\cong \Pi'_x$, and thus $\mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\Pi_x)^{\mathrm{la}}$ has the same infinitesimal
character as $(\Pi_x)^{\mathrm{la}}$. If we do not know that $M_{\infty}$ is flat over $R_{\infty}$ and $q_0>1$
then the relationship between $\mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\Pi_x)$ and $\Pi_x'$ is not as straightforward as described
by Lemma \ref{closed_subspace} and we cannot control the action of the centre of the universal
enveloping algebra on $\mathcal{\check{S}}^{q_0}(\Pi_x)^{\mathrm{la}}$.
\end{remar}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec: intro}
{ The observed white-light corona \edcom{contains} of K- and F-components formed due to scattered photospheric light by the free electrons and dust particles, respectively, with the later dominating beyond $\approx$\,3\,R$_\odot$ \citep{Hulst50, Morgan07}}. The shape of the white-light corona is governed by the density structures where the K-corona is associated with the magnetic-field configuration \citep{Woo2005SoPh}. { It has been found that the F-corona remains virtually constant throughout the solar cycle at heights more than $\approx$\,2.6\,R$_\odot$ \citep{Morgan07}. Large-scale transients, \edcom{coronal mass ejections} (CMEs), observed in white-light images are electron-density structures \citep{Howard11} that require a careful separation from the background \citep{Byrne12}. A general method to separate the F-corona is to subtract the minimum intensity obtained over a long period of time \citep{DeForest14, DeForest2018ApJ} or \edcom{use} a monthly minimum of daily median images \citep{Morrill2006SoPh}. \citet{Morgan2010ApJ} separated the transient component by estimating a background based on polynomial fitting in each radial direction. It was further developed using iterative methods for segregating the quiescent and dynamic corona while automatically detecting CMEs \citep{Morgan12}.} { Later \citet{Morgan2015} introduced a methodology based on radiometric calibration of LASCO-C2 images to subtract the background with suppressing the noise while separating the K-corona and the dynamic structures.}
One of the challenges in coronal observations,{ apart from separation of the two coronal components}, is that due to the decreasing electron and particle density with height there is a steep gradient in the observed intensity \citep{Baumbach37, Hulst50}. { The radial variation of the F- and K-corona has been quantified by \citet{Morgan07} over different phases of the solar cycle.} The analysis using coronagraph images becomes challenging unless some image-processing technique is used to reduce the brightness variation. Various methods, in the form of radial gradient filter (RGF) have been developed to overcome this difficulty. In this regard, RGF-based photography was \edcom{made} using a mechanical rotating sector to image the corona \citep{Owaki1967} or a radial density filter \edcom{was} placed in the optical path of \edcom{an} imaging instrument to photograph solar eclipses \citep{Newkirk1968SoPh}. Solar eclipse photographs were made as composite images, combining multiple exposure frames for the process. To enhance the high dynamic range of brightness in the corona during such event, different image-processing techniques were developed \citep{Koutchmy1992A&A, Espenak2000, Druckm2006}. These techniques enhance the structures with high spatial frequencies leading to the visibility of sharp features in the images. To identify the CMEs in the midst of such dynamic coronal intensity, \citet{Byrne2009A&A} introduced a method based on multi-scale filtering, thereby enhancing the visibility of CMEs.
\citet{NRGF2006SoPh} introduced \edcom{the} normalising-radial-gradient filter (NRGF), which subtracts the mean intensity followed by division \edcom{by the} standard deviation at each height to reduce the radial-intensity variation. This method has been extensively used to enhance the coronal structures with applications to eclipse images \citep{Pasachoff_2007, Habbal2010ApJ, Habbal2011ApJ, Boe2018Freezin}, automated detection of CMEs using the {\it Coronal Image Processing} (CORIMP) technique \citep{Byrne12, Morgan12}, Automated CME Triangulation \citep{ACT2017A&A}, identification of plasmoids in the corona \citep{Lee2020ApJ, patel2020A&A}, and identification of Alfv\'en waves in the solar atmosphere \citep{He2009A&A}.
An improvement on this algorithm was developed \edcom{known as} the {\it Fourier normalising-radial-graded filter} (FNRGF), based on finite Fourier series that takes a local average and standard deviation, \edcom{and this} was used to enhance the fine coronal structures in the low contrast regions \citep{FNRGF2011}. Recently, a new method called the {\it radial local multi-scale filter} (RLMF) was developed using multi-scale filtering on radial \edcom{vectors} extracted from coronagraph images followed by intensity normalisation leading to enhancement of coronal structures \citep{RLMF2020101383}. For the detection of inbound waves in the solar corona, \citet{DeForest14} normalised the radial intensity of the COR-2 images by subtracting the average intensity across a column and time from each row, followed by dividing each row by its standard deviation across column and time.
{Methods based on wavelets to enhance coronal features in extreme ultraviolet (EUV) images were developed by \citet{Stenborg2003A&A} and \citet{Stenborg2008ApJ}.} To enhance the off-disk coronal structures in EUV images of the {\it Atmospheric Imaging Assembly} \citep[AIA:][]{AIA} by improving the intensity variation radially, {IDL routines \textsf{aia\_rfilter.pro} and \textsf{aia\_rfilter\_jp2gen.pro} were developed ({see \urlurl{aia.cfa.harvard.edu/software.shtml}}). These add the off-limb component of many AIA images thereby increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The off-disk corona is then further divided into
concentric rings, which are scaled as a function of its radial distance, average intensity, and the intensity with respect to rings in the neighborhood \citep{Masson2014ApJ}. EUV coronal structures were also enhanced while reducing the dominance of noise based on a fuzzy algorithm \citep{NAFE2013ApJS} and using Gaussian filtering for bringing out features at different scales \citep{Morgan2014SoPh}.}
In another algorithm, {\it CMEs Identification in Inner Solar Corona} (CIISCO), a radial filter was applied on EUV images by dividing \edcom{each} individual image by a background \edcom{uniform in azimuth direction} generated using the radial intensity profile of the polar regions of the Sun \citep{ciisco2020}.
Each of the above-mentioned algorithms has its own advantages and limitations. Even though all of these succeed in enhancing the coronal structures and reducing the intensity variation, the processing time becomes large when the number of images to be analysed becomes large. Bulk image-processing is required for \edcom{such} cases, some of \edcom{that} include long-term study of CMEs, and long-term study of solar corona \citep{Lamy2020c2, Lamy2020c3}. { Therefore in this article we present an algorithm, {\it Simple Radial Gradient Filter} (SiRGraF), which works faster when hundreds of images have to be processed to reveal the dynamic coronal features}. The article is arranged as follows: the algorithm is introduced in Section \ref{sec: algo}, \edcom{and} the results of the application of SiRGraF on coronagraph images and comparison with NRGF in Section \ref{sec: results}. We then summarise our work and discuss the analysis in Section \ref{sec: summary}.
\section{Algorithm}
\label{sec: algo}
The observations of the white-light corona in coronagraph images \edcom{exhibit} a steep \edcom{outward} \citep{Hulst50, NRGF2006SoPh, Morgan07}. To analyse coronagraph images and study the associated physical process specially transient activities in detail, it is important to identify the coronal features throughout the FOV. { In this work we have used the Level-1 images of the white-light coronagraphs including {\it Large Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph} \citep[LASCO:][]{Brueckner95} onboard the {\it Solar and Heliospheric Observatory} (SOHO), {\it Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation} \citep[SECCHI:][]{Howard2008SSRv} of the {\it Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory} (STEREO), and the {\it KCoronagraph} \citep[KCor:][]{deWijn} of the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory (MLSO). The Level-1 images are the total brightness images calibrated to the mean solar disk brightness, flat and dark corrected with alignment and \edcom{with} corrections done for solar north up.}
{ We demonstrate in the following steps the methodology involved in the SiRGraF, using Level-1 STEREO/COR-1A data of \edcom{01 August 2010} taken at a cadence of \edcom{five} minutes:}
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item Level-1 images [$I$] of a single day are taken to produce a single image, called minimum background [$I_{\rm m}$], as shown in Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}a. This is generated such that each pixel in $I_{\rm m}$ corresponds to the minimum intensity { (with intensity greater than zero to avoid the outliers)} of all the images. This image consists of intensity from F-corona, less variable K-corona, and instrumental scattered light \citep{Morgan07}. { The minimum background is taken instead of the 1 percentile minimum to make the processing fast and efficient.}
\item { This minimum background is used to generate a radial-intensity profile such that the intensity at a certain height is an average of all of the intensities in the azimuthal direction at that height (Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}b). This smooths out the variation intensity in the azimuth direction. As one-day minimum background is used here, the presence or absence of long-lived streamers may contribute at those \edcom{distances above the limb}, which gets averaged out while creating the radial 1D-profile.}
\item The radial profile is then incorporated to produce a uniform background image [$I_{\rm u}$] with a circularly symmetric intensity gradient. Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}c shows a uniform background image made using the radial profile shown in Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}b. As the instrument background and scatter remains nearly uniform from Equator to polar regions \citep{Morgan07, Patel2018}, this will serve to normalise such contributors of the radial gradient along with inherent coronal-intensity variation.
\item After obtaining the background images, the Level-1 images are thereby filtered for the radial-intensity gradient using the following relation:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: sirgraf}
I' = \frac{I-I_\mathrm{m}}{I_\mathrm{u}}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.58\textwidth,clip=]{minbgLog.pdf}
\hspace*{0.002\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.58\textwidth,clip=]{radin2.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\centerline{
\hspace{0.2\textwidth} \color{black}{(a)}
\hspace{0.58\textwidth} \color{black}{(b)}
\hfill}
\vspace{0.005\textwidth}
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.58\textwidth,clip=]{newbgLog.pdf}
\hspace*{0.002\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.58\textwidth,clip=]{filtnorm.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\centerline{
\hspace{0.2\textwidth} \color{black}{(c)}
\hspace{0.58\textwidth} \color{black}{(d)}
\hfill}
\vspace{0.01\textwidth}
\caption{An outline of the SiRGraF algorithm on application to images of STEREO/COR-1A observed on \edcom{01 August 2010}; ({\bf a}) Minimum background image created from Level-1 images of whole day, ({\bf b}) Azimuth average radial-intensity plot generated from the minimum background image, ({\bf c}) A circularly symmetric uniform background generated from the radial-intensity array of ({\bf b}), ({\bf d}) Final image at 08:27\,UT after subtracting the minimum background and dividing the resultant image by uniform background. { The intensity in ({\bf a}) and ({\bf c}) are displayed on a log scale while normalised intensity is displayed in ({\bf d}).}}
\label{fig:algo_op}
\end{figure}
Equation \ref{eq: sirgraf} represents the core of the SiRGraF. The numerator shows the removal of the static and quasi-static components of the corona along with instrumental background bringing out the K-corona. { This minimum background subtraction is in contrast with the pipeline of the LASCO and STEREO coronagraphs where monthly minimum \edcom{background} of daily median images are used as background. One should note that the daily median image has a contribution from K-corona more than the daily minimum image \citep{Thompson2010SoPh}. For the objective of separating the dynamics and transients (CMEs), it is required to capture the maximum part of the K-corona signal.}
When the K-corona obtained after removing the background is divided by a uniform background, the radial variation of intensity is reduced, thereby allowing visualisation of coronal structures to greater heights uniformly in the azimuth direction. The filtered images with normalised intensities will thus visibly exhibit coronal structures as shown in Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}d.
{ The use of single-day minimum background brings out the more dynamic components of the K-corona, which in this case are the CMEs and dynamically changing streamers as seen in Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}d. The streamers on this day were either displaced by the CMEs or short-lived making them dynamic in nature. The use of a extended-period minimum background could bring out long-lived structures of the corona, which could not be extracted in the example presented here.}
\section{Results}
\label{sec: results}
\subsection{Application to Coronagraph Images}
\label{sec:coronagraphs}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.5\textwidth,clip=]{c2filt.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.5\textwidth,clip=]{cor2filt.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.5\textwidth,clip=]{kcorfilt.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\caption{Application of SiRGraF on successive images of LASCO-C2 taken on \edcom{07 July 2001}, STEREO/COR-2A taken on \edcom{01 August 2010}, and KCor taken on \edcom{02 July 2015} respectively in {\it top, middle and bottom panels}. Different parts of the CME and coronal structures could be clearly seen to the { outer edge} of FOV for C2 and COR-2A images and only CME structures in KCor images. The images are displayed with normalised intensity.}
\label{fig:c2filt}
\end{figure}
An application of SiRGraF \edcom{to} STEREO/COR-1A images is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:algo_op}. We also tested the algorithm on {Level-1 images of other white-light coronagraphs} of LASCO-C2, STEREO/COR-2A, and MLSO/KCor. Figure \ref{fig:c2filt} shows such an example where top panel shows radial-filtered LASCO-C2 images of \edcom{07 January 2001} using SiRGraF. { The backgrounds for the space-based coronagraphs have been prepared using the available whole-day images.} It can be seen that the different parts of the classic three-part-structured CME have been brought out clearly by SiRGraF throughout the FOV. It should be noted that an example of this CME using NRGF has been presented \edcom{by} \citet{NRGF2006SoPh} and a direct comparison could be made in the two processes. The middle panel of the same \edcom{figure} shows filtered successive images of STEREO/COR-2A of \edcom{01 August 2010,} which is the same CME example taken for COR-1A. For this instrument, CME and other coronal structures could be distinctly identified to considerably larger heights. { We could also notice faint rings near the outer edge of the FOV in COR-2A images. These rings are due to increased photon noise near the outer vignetting minimum of the instrument \citep{DeForest2018ApJ}.} These rings have intensity greater than the backgrounds we have used for filtering and hence are visible in the processed images. It should be noted that these are of instrumental origin and \edcom{it} will require advance processing to remove these artifacts \citep{DeForest2018ApJ}.
We also applied this algorithm on Level-1 images of KCor taken on \edcom{02 July 2015} with cadence of 15 \edcom{seconds}. { As KCor is ground-based coronagraph, we employed \edcom{only} the limited hours of observed data available for this day to create the required backgrounds.} In the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:c2filt} the output after the implementation of the algorithm could be seen in KCor images for three instances. It can be seen that inspite of the atmospheric contributions, the different parts of the CME can be identified almost to the { outer edge} of the FOV. Such enhancement is achieved without the need to add the images to improve the SNR or compromising on the cadence. KCor being a ground-based coronagraph, the minimum background suffers from the atmospheric contamination and hence could not be obtained as clearly as for space-based coronagraphs. As a result, the signatures of the streamers are lost for this case, limiting SiRGraF to mostly space-based coronagraph images and to only analysis involving erupting structures for ground-based coronagraph images. A longer period (ten days to one month) for minimum background creation could be considered for this instrument in the future for significantly bringing out the signal of streamer-like long-lived structures.
\subsection{Comparison with Extended Period Background}
\label{sec:7daymin}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,clip=]{cor1_7daysbg.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,clip=]{bgratios.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\centerline{
\hspace{0.15\textwidth} \color{black}{(a)}
\hspace{0.675\textwidth} \color{black}{(b)}
\hfill}
\caption{({\bf a}) COR-1A images of \edcom{01 August 2010} at 08:27\,UT processed with SiRGraF using backgrounds created with seven days intensity images, ({\bf b}) Intensity ratio of minimum backgrounds using one-day and seven-day images.}
\label{fig:7day_comp}
\end{figure}
{ We also created a seven-day background to identify the effects of long-period background while processing the coronagraph images. We used total-brightness images from \edcom{26 July 2010} to \edcom{01 August 2010} to process the COR-1A images of \edcom{01 August 2010}. The minimum background was created using this extended period of data and the uniform background was obtained based on this minimum image as mentioned in Section \ref{sec: algo}. Figure \ref{fig:7day_comp}a shows the output of the algorithm after application. When it is compared with Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}d, we can see that the transient CME is brought out clearly in both cases. In addition to CMEs, the streamers are more distinctly visible when an extended background is used in the algorithm. The streamers located near the north-west and western limb of the Sun are more pronounced, as suggested in Section \ref{sec: algo}.
We also compared the intensities of the minimum background created using one-day and seven-day images for the same dataset (Figure \ref{fig:7day_comp}b). One can notice that the background plays a small role for the majority of the regions where CME is present.
The ratio suggests an increased contribution from streamers is present for a single-day background than for the seven-day case. Hence, it is also reflected in the processed images. Even though this ratio only accounts for $\approx$\,5\,\% difference in the background determination, but its effect could be seen when long-lived structures such as streamers are considered. One needs to identify the science target while considering the period for creating the backgrounds.
}
\subsection{Comparison with NRGF}
\label{sec:nrgfcompare}
{The SiRGraF algorithm uses Equation \ref{eq: sirgraf} while NRGF is based on the following relation:}
\begin{equation}
I_{\mathrm{filt}}(r, \phi) = \frac{I(r, \phi)-I(r)_{\langle\phi\rangle}}{\sigma(r)_{\langle\phi\rangle}},
\label{eq:nrgf}
\end{equation}
{where $I_{\rm filt}(r, \phi$) is the NRGF processed image, $I(r, \phi$) is the original intensity image at height $r$ and position angle $\phi$, $I(r)_{\langle\phi\rangle}$ and $\sigma(r)_{\langle\phi\rangle}$ are the average and standard deviation of the intensities at the height {\it r} computed over all position angles. On comparing Equations \ref{eq: sirgraf} and \ref{eq:nrgf}, we see that SiRGraF performs matrix operation using the backgrounds at a \edcom{given} time whereas NRGF \edcom{performs row-wise operation} requiring the computation of mean and standard deviation at each height at a \edcom{given} time. Both \edcom{of} these methods subtract an average intensity, which is then normalised to flatten the radial-intensity variation.} We used 339 Level-1 total brightness images of STEREO/COR-1A of size 512$\times$512 pixels and processed with SiRGraF and NRGF on an i7 \edcom{computer} with a base clock speed of 1.8\,GHz and 8\,GB of RAM. { The application of SiRGraF is based on the steps mentioned in Section \ref{sec: algo} where the backgrounds are created using all 339 images. We used the IDL routine \textsf{nrgf.pro} to process the images with NRGF.}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.58\textwidth,clip=]{cor1_nrgfnorm.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\caption{Output of application of NRGF on COR-1A image of 01 August 2010 08:27\,UT. An animation is available in the \edcom{Electronic Supplementary Material}.}
\label{fig:nrgf}
\end{figure}
{ We found that SiRGraF takes a comparatively longer time { ($\approx$\,2.5 seconds)} to process a single image whereas NRGF takes only a fraction of a second. This is because the two backgrounds that need to be generated for SiRGRaF take the majority of the time in the process. At the same time, it should also be kept in mind that SiRGraF produces images where the coronal features are visually identified with relatively better clarity and ease. When the whole batch of 339 images is processed by the two filters, SiRGraF takes $\approx$\,three seconds to complete the whole process similar to NRGF when the inputs to Equation \ref{eq:nrgf} are kept constant over the batch of images. This defines the efficiency of this algorithm when hundreds of images have to be processed.
We used the Michelson contrast ratio \citep{michelson1927studies} to compare the intensity contrast in processed images. This parameter is defined as,
\begin{equation}
V = \frac{I_{\mathrm{max}}-I_{\mathrm{min}}}{I_{\mathrm{max}}+I_{\mathrm{min}}},
\end{equation}
where $I_{\rm max}$ and $I_{\rm min}$ are the maximum and minimum intensities in the image. We measured the contrast in individual images and then averaged for the whole batch. It turns out that the mean contrast produced by the two methods is close to unity and hence \edcom{they} are very similar in nature.}
After going through the quantitative assessments of the two methods, we looked for the visual differences in the outputs of the two. An animation is also available with Figure \ref{fig:nrgf} providing a side-by-side comparison of SiRGraF with NRGF \edcom{applied} to COR-1A images.
{ On comparing Figure \ref{fig:nrgf} with Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}d visually along with the animation, we found that both SiRGraf and NRGF reveal the coronal structures upto the { outer edge} of FOV in the images. We noticed that SiRGraF-processed COR-1 images appear to be uniformly illuminated as compared to the NRGF ones. In NRGF-processed images the features in the inner FOV appears brighter than those at the { outer edges}. Due to this the structures at the inner FOV in NRGF processed images are not distinctly visible when compared with SiRGraF processed ones.}
\subsection{Solar-Cycle Variations}
\label{sec:solcycle}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth,clip=]{cormaxima1.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth,clip=]{cormaxima2.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth,clip=]{cormaxima3.pdf}
}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\caption{A comparison of application of SiRGraF and NRGF on images of STEREO/COR-1A observed at the maximum period of the solar-cycle on \edcom{03 April 2014} presented in {\it left} and {\it right} panels respectively. (An animation is available in the \edcom{Electronic Supplementary Material}.)}
\label{fig:cor1max}
\end{figure}
We have applied SiRGraF to different datasets including LASCO-C2, STEREO/COR-1A and COR-2A, and KCor with observations covering different phases of the solar cycle. Figure \ref{fig:algo_op} shows the output of the algorithm when applied to COR-1A images near minimum of Solar Cycle 24. The result is also compared with the outcome of NRGF images in Figure \ref{fig:nrgf}. We also tested SiRGraF on COR-1A images for the observations of \edcom{03 April 2014} during the maximum phase of the solar cycle. The COR-1 images have resulted in poor SNR over the years with an uncertain jitter pattern in the images and hence degrading the image quality over Solar Cycle 24 ({see \urlurl{cor1.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/COR1\_status.pdf}}).
Application to such images with poor SNR served as a crucial test for our algorithm. This was also compared with application of NRGF on the same set of images as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cor1max}. The output of SiRGraF is in the left panel whereas NRGF \edcom{is shown} on the right. Both the algorithms appear to work \edcom{similarly} for the COR-1A images observed during the solar maximum. It is evident that the inner FOV appears brighter for NRGF images as compared to SiRGraF output, and \edcom{this} has already been mentioned in Section \ref{sec:nrgfcompare}. As a result, a difference could be observed in identification of the structures close to the inner FOV. The first appearance of the CME in the top panel appears to be obscured by the intensity in the NRGF-processed images whereas the same could be seen clearly for SiRGraF-filtered images. {This is an essential requirement for the study of kinematics of CMEs at the lower heights with only white-light observations. Any discrepancy in the identification of a tracked feature at the lower heights might \edcom{result} in leaving out the impulsive acceleration phase, or an erroneous measurement can lead to spurious results.} The evolution of the CME through the FOV could be seen in successive frames. It is observed that SiRGraF provides a uniform identification of different structures of the CME at all the heights, unlike NRGF. This could serve as an important application of our algorithm on COR-1 images enabling us to better observe CMEs close to the Sun. The usefulness of both of these algorithms is limited to the lower heights because SNR becomes low towards the { outer edge} of the FOV { (beyond $\approx$\,3.5\,R$_\odot$)} in COR-1 images, as evident in both cases.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centerline{\hspace*{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,clip=]{min_inty.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,clip=]{max_inty.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.01\textwidth}
\caption{Radial intensity variation after the application of SiRGraF to COR-1A images taken during solar minima ({\it left}) and maxima ({\it right}). The {\it upper panel} shows the images converted to polar coordinates while the {\it lower panel} shows the normalised intensities at the four heights marked in the images of the upper panel.}
\label{fig:radinty_comp}
\end{figure}
For the COR-1A images observed during solar maxima and minima and processed with SiRGraF, we compared the radial variation in the intensity at all the position angles (PAs) as shown in Figure \ref{fig:radinty_comp}. The top panel shows the images taken at the two phases of the solar cycle converted to polar coordinates while the bottom panel shows the normalised intensity variations at the four heights marked in the top panel. It can be seen that for both of the images the intensity in the processed images are close to each other at all the heights except at the bright streamer regions. In the intensity plot for \edcom{03 April 2014} image, there is a sharp dip in the intensity at 2\,R$_\odot$ at PA of $\approx$\,200$^\circ$. It should be noted that at this particular location there is some dark artifact in the corresponding image shown in the top panel, which is responsible for this dip. Other regions with \edcom{fewer} structures does not show a steep change in intensity from inner to outer FOV for both images. The performance of the algorithm on the images observed during different phases of the solar cycle enhances its utility for studying the coronal dynamics over long periods.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec: summary}
To study the dynamics of the solar atmosphere using coronagraph images, it is important to visualise the structures well throughout the FOV. The radial gradient in the intensity of the corona makes it difficult to observe the structures throughout the FOV with same brightness and contrast in the images.
To reduce the radial gradient in the intensity in such huge number of images in a faster manner and bring out the details of coronal transients, we have developed an algorithm, the {\it Simple Radial Gradient Filter} (SiRGraF). The algorithm requires two backgrounds for processing a coronagraph image. One is a minimum-background image prepared from atleast a day of images to filter out the constant background and another one is a uniform-intensity circularly symmetric background prepared using the \edcom{azimuthal} average radial-intensity profile from the minimum background. The minimum background is subtracted from individual images followed by division of the difference image by the uniform background. The images processed with this filter appear to show identification of the coronal structures throughout the coronagraph FOV with uniform intensity. {We found that this algorithm works well in identifying the coronal structures in the coronagraph images over different phases of the solar cycle. These include the ones with good SNR, such as LASCO-C2, STEREO/COR-2A, and poor SNR images of STEREO/COR-1A and KCor.}
{We illustrated the effect of different periods of background used in the SiRGraF that shows for transients such as CMEs one day background perform in similar way as the extended period one. The same is not applicable while considering long lived streamers.}
{ We also compared the performance of our algorithm with NRGF and found that SiRGraF is efficient and fast when \edcom{a large number} of coronagraph images have to be processes quickly.}
The processing time of SiRGraF could be further reduced by using the minimum backgrounds which has already been generated for instruments such as STEREO/COR-1. In addition, if uniform backgrounds could also be stored in a similar way, then SiRGraF works even faster for bulk processing of images. This performance of SiRGraF is achieved maintaining the intensity contrast similar to NRGF.
We notice in Figure \ref{fig:cor1max} that a faint halo is observed in SiRGraF processed images which is neither present in the NRGF ones nor in Figure \ref{fig:algo_op}. During the period of observation considered in the solar maxima case, STEREO/COR-1A is associated with high jitter and instrument related artifacts. Upon careful observation we found that the presence of rogue non-zero intensity values near the southwest limb outside the occulter has contributed to the background creation, which is reflected as halo in the filtered images. This does not impact the identification and tracking of CMEs in subsequent images, but it will be taken care of in a future version of the algorithm. {One needs to be careful while implementing this algorithm and generating the backgrounds for data when roll maneuvers are performed for the SOHO and STEREO spacecrafts where the FOV of the instruments are rotated.}
This kind of processing could be used while studying the kinematics and morphology of CMEs stretched over long periods of time. One should be careful \edcom{when using} this data product to estimate the CMEs mass. Such estimations require accurate intensity measurements that get flattened out in the radial-filtering process.
{It should be noted that among the existing white-light coronagraphs, STEREO/COR-1 observes the inner corona closest up to 1.4\,R$_\odot$ and KCor upto 1.05\,R$_\odot$.
The application of SiRGraF on large amount of COR-1 and KCor data could provide us an improvement in understanding the CME dynamics in the inner corona.} Moreover, it could also pave a path for the development of an automated CME-detection algorithm to work well with COR-1 and KCor images and generate statistics of CME properties during their early evolution.
Processing COR-1 and KCor images with SiRGraF will also be useful as
inputs to stereoscopic forward modelling using Graduated Cylindrical
Shell \citep{Thernisien2006ApJ, Thernisien2009SoPh, Thernisien2011ApJS,
Majumdar2020ApJM}. The application of the algorithm is not only
limited to CMEs, but also to analyse the dynamics
of streamers, blobs, current sheets/rays, etc... in this FOV, and long-term
coronal studies \citep{Lamy2020c2, Lamy2020c3}. The recently launched
{\it Multi Element Telescope for Imaging and Spectroscopy}
(METIS) onboard \textit{Solar Orbiter} \citep{2020A&A...642A...1M},
and future space-based missions including the {\it Visible Emission Line
Coronagraph} \citep[VELC: ][]{VELC17, Banerjee2017} \edcom{onboard} {\it Aditya-L1}
\citep{ADITYA2017}, and the {\it Association of Spacecraft for
Polarimetric and the Imaging Investigation of the Corona of the Sun} \citep[ASPIICS:][]{Proba3}
of the {\it Project for Onboard Autonomy-3} (PROBA-3)
will also observe the inner corona. The application of SiRGraF on their
data will be helpful to bring out processes occurring in the inner corona
thereby improving our understanding of the same.
\begin{acks}
We would like to thank the anonymous \edcom{reviewer} for \edcom{their} valuable suggestions, which have enabled us to improve the quality of the manuscript.
We would like to thank the IIA and ARIES for providing the required computational facilities.
The SECCHI data used here were produced by an international consortium of the Naval Research Laboratory (USA), Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Lab (USA), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (USA), Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (UK), University of Birmingham (UK), Max-Planck-Institut for Solar System Research (Germany), Centre Spatiale de Li\`ege (Belgium), Institut d'Optique Th\'eorique et Appliqu\'ee (France), and the Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale (France). SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. We also thank the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory, operated by the High Altitude Observatory for making KCor data available. We also thank NASA for making SOHO/LASCO data publicly available.
\end{acks}
\begin{fundinginformation}
R. Patel and S. Majumdar are supported by the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India for their research at the IIA and ARIES.
\end{fundinginformation}
\begin{dataavailability}
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
\end{dataavailability}
\begin{ethics}
\begin{conflict}
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
\end{conflict}
\end{ethics}
\bibliographystyle{spr-mp-sola}
|
\section*{ Le milieu des années soixante avec Jacques Roubaud}
\stepcounter{section}
Jacques Roubaud consacre quelques lignes intenses à Claude Chevalley dans \emph{`le grand incendie de londres', Branche 3 Mathématique :}
Au moment où il se place, Chevalley est professeur à la Faculté des Sciences de Paris.
\begin{quotation}\og L'année universitaire 64-65 le professeur Chevalley consacre son séminaire à la question de la `descente'. Il s'agit, dans son esprit, de donner un cadre catégorique épuré à la notion de `descente fidèlement plate' due à Grothendieck [...] J'ai admiré Chevalley énormément. Premièrement avant de le connaître, comme l'un des fondateurs de Bourbaki, particulièrement apprécié par moi parce que algébriste, et parce que j'ai lu la rédaction, par mon ami Pierre Lusson, de son cours de 1958 à l'institut Henri-Poincaré, sur les formes quadratiques\footnote{Formes quadratiques sur un corps quelconque : 1er semestre 1955-1956. Cours Chevalley, Claude (1909-1984) / Faculté des sciences de Paris, centre de polycopie / 1955, site de l'idRef.}. Je l'ai apprécié aussi pour sa contribution à la fameuse théorie du corps de classe\footnote{La théorie du corps de classes est au centre de l'intérêt mathématique de Chevalley pendant la première partie de sa carrière.}[sic], roman aux deux héroïnes mathématiques mystérieuses, mesdemoiselles Adèle et Idèle. Je l'ai admiré deuxièmement pendant l'année du séminaire sur la descente, où j'ai fait sa connaissance [...] Je l'ai admiré ensuite, troisièmement, comme homme remarquable. Je l'admire toujours, quatrièmement.\fg{} \cite{Rou09} \end{quotation}
Revenons sur les quatre points mis en évidence par Jacques Roubaud.
\textbf{Premièrement avant de le connaître \dots{}}
La découverte de Bourbaki par Jacques Roubaud est marquée par l'empreinte de Pierre Lusson\footnote{D'après \cite{Rou09} pour l'ensemble des deux premiers paragraphes.}. Pendant le début de l'année universitaire 1954 -1955, dans l'amphi Hermite de l'Institut Henri Poincaré, sans se connaître, ils assistent tous les deux au cours de Calcul différentiel et Intégral de \og M. G(ustave) Choquet, professeur\fg. A l'automne 1954, Henri Cartan avait proposé Gustave Choquet pour prendre la suite de Georges Valiron\footnote{Georges Valiron (1884-1955) enseignait, d'après Jacques Roubaud, suivant le \emph{Cours d'Analyse mathématique} de Goursat dont le premier volume parut en 1902.} qui, malade, ne pouvait plus assurer cet enseignement,
Choquet en modifia résolument le contenu et l’orientation, introduisant la construction des nombres réels, les espaces topologiques, les espaces de Hilbert, au grand désarroi d’ailleurs des redoublants effarés par la métamorphose du sujet \footnote{ D'après la \emph{Notice nécrologique de Gustave Choquet lue par Michel Talagrand} lors de la séance publique de l'Académie des sciences du 2 octobre 2007.}. Selon Jacques Roubaud, cet hiver là, l'auditoire était, sinon attentif, du moins particulièrement silencieux: \og ces silences avaient une densité et une tonalité particulières. Ils n'étaient indice ni d'émotion, ni d'enchantement, ni seulement de concentration appliquée. Ils marquaient avant tout la perplexité, ou même la stupéfaction. Je partageais cette stupéfaction\fg{}. Pourtant, un jour, alors que nul jamais n'interrompait le \og courant de la parole professorale magique\fg, une voix s'éleva faisant entendre un \og mais\fg{} début d'une intervention s'adressant au professeur Choquet. Choquet répondit et enchaîna, comme si tout cela était naturel.
Cependant, à l'issue du cours, cet épisode inhabituel suscita une discussion entre étudiants. A côté de celui qui avait créé l’événement surgit un autre protagoniste qui semblait détenir une clé. Pour lui, ce qui sous-tendait le cours de Choquet, ce qui au delà redonnait à \og \underline{La} Mathématique\fg{} son unité et son élan avait un nom : Bourbaki.
C'est ainsi que Bourbaki et Pierre Lusson firent irruption dans la vie de Jacques Roubaud. Dès les premiers mois de 1955, Jacques Roubaud passa dans un \og grand calme studieux\fg{} ses soirées à la bibliothèque de la Sorbonne s'imprégnant du livre \emph{Topologie générale} de Bourbaki. Dans le même temps \og Trois de ces étudiants, et trois seulement, sont devenus alors et sont longtemps restés\fg{} ses amis. Pierre Lusson est l'un deux. Amis et complices pendant de longues années, ils commencèrent presque ensemble leur carrière dans l'enseignement supérieur à Rennes, Pierre Lusson en 1957 et Jacques Roubaud en 1958.\begin{quotation}\og [Jacques Roubaud, est] 'entré dans la carrière'\dots{} universitaire à l'automne 1958, comme assistant délégué de mathématiques auprès de la faculté des sciences de l'université de Rennes.\fg {} \cite{Rou09}\end{quotation} En dehors des cours et des séances d'exercices consacrées aux étudiants, Jacques Roubaud fit \og beaucoup d'algèbre\fg{} - c'est bien l'algèbre qui l'\og attirait vers la mathématique\fg. Dans le droit fil du bourbakisme, il s'approprie entre autres \emph{ Formes quadratiques sur un corps quelconque} - grâce à \og{ un exemplaire ronéoté et dédicacé par le rédacteur\fg{} Pierre Lusson - premier cours de Chevalley à l'IHP \og revenu de son exil aux USA\fg.
Quant aux héroïnes Adèle et Idèle, ainsi nommées en 1968 dans le faire part de décès de Nicolas Bourbaki\footnote{Qui fut \og distribué en 1968 à la sortie de quelques amphis par un mathématicien contestataire.\fg \cite{Chou95}}, la première des deux notions introduites est celle d'\emph{idèle}\footnote{La notion d'\emph{adèle} est due à André Weil \cite{Dieu99}.} - au masculin - seule due à Chevalley et dont le premier nom fut \emph{élément idéal}. Chevalley définit l\emph{'élément idéal} en 1936 \cite{Che36}, le nom \emph{idèle} apparaissant officiellement en 1940 \cite{Che40}. D'après Iyanaga \cite{Iya06}, la dénomination \emph{idèle}\footnote{ Peut-être les premières lettres de \emph{ideal Element}?} lui aurait été suggérée par Helmut Hasse : effectivement, après avoir présenté la notion d'\emph{élément idéal} dès 1935 dans une lettre adressée à Hasse, le nom \emph{idèle} apparaît en 1937 dans un autre courrier de Chevalley à Hasse \cite{Roq13}.
\textbf{ Je l'ai admiré deuxièmement \dots{}}
La rencontre entre Jacques Roubaud et Claude Chevalley eut lieu pendant l'hiver 1964-65 lors de son séminaire pour lequel : \begin{quotation}\og Il sollicite la participation d'Adrien Douady, de Michèle Vergne\footnote{Elle a soutenu sa thèse \emph{Variétés des algèbres de Lie nilpotentes} en juin 66, avec Chevalley pour directeur de thèse, avant de passer son doctorat d'état en mai 1971. Elle a obtenu les prix Bordin et Ampère de l'Académie des Sciences. Elle est directeur de recherche émérite au CNRS et membre de l'Académie des sciences.}, de Jean Bénabou\footnote{Spécialiste des catégories, il a préparé sa thèse sous la direction d'Ehresmann. Grâce à l'impulsion de Chevalley, il finit par la passer en l'absence d'Ehresmann, parti pour une année sabbatique.}
et de moi-même, accessoirement. Nous acceptons, Jean et moi, avec empressement.\fg{} \cite{Rou09}\end{quotation} Jean Bénabou, nommé chargé d'enseignement au département de mathématiques de Rennes à la rentrée 63, est un passionné de mathématiques en quête à ce moment là d'une compréhension profonde de \og madame CATÉGORIE\fg{} \cite{Rou09}. Il entraîne Jacques Roubaud dans une \og exploration du monde catégorique\fg{} lui présentant, lors de fréquents échanges, le développement de ses idées mathématiques. Cela conduira Roubaud au séminaire Chevalley.
\begin{quotation}\og J'étais là. J'étais pénétré de l'honneur qui m'était fait de participer à ce séminaire. Je n'étais rien, en particulier mathématiquement rien. Même pas normalien. Jean s'était porté garant de moi. De toute façon, le professeur Chevalley n'accordait qu'une attention très distraite aux hiérarchies.\fg{} \cite{Rou09} \end{quotation}
Par ailleurs, Jean-Paul Benzécri\footnote{ Il soutint sa thèse en 1960 sur les variétés affines sous la direction d'Henri Cartan. Il est le fondateur de l'école française de l'analyse des données, développant des outils statistiques, notamment l'analyse factorielle des correspondances qui permet de traiter de grandes masses de données.},
nommé à la faculté de Rennes, y fait au début des années 60 un cours de linguistique mathématique, auquel assiste Jacques Roubaud.
C'est à la rencontre de cette \og théorie mathématique de la syntaxe des langues naturelles\fg{} de Benzécri et des catégories de Bénabou que Roubaud élabore tout au long de l'année 1965 un travail très personnel de recherche mathématique.
\begin{quotation} \og Mais qu'en faire? Encouragé par Jean, j'allais en tremblant présenter mes principaux objets et résultats à Chevalley, qui m'accueillit avec beaucoup de gentillesse, me conseilla de condenser le tout de façon à en faire deux notes aux \uline{Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences de Paris} qu'il se chargea de `présenter' [...] \fg {} \cite{Rou09}\end{quotation}
Pendant \og la rédaction de ce qui n'était encore qu'une rédaction sans finalité claire\fg, en novembre et décembre 1966, Roubaud expose ses travaux à la VIe section de l’École pratique des hautes études\footnote{Actuellement EHESS.}. C'est ensuite qu'il demande à Benzécri d'accepter son travail comme thèse, thèse soutenue le 17 février 1967.
Si pendant l'année universitaire 1964-65 lors de la préparation de ses exposés pour le séminaire, Roubaud se rend chez Chevalley, c'est une autre raison qui va l'y conduire par la suite: \begin{quotation}\og [...] j'eus de nombreuses occasions d'aller chez lui rue de Prony. Et je continuai à m'y rendre ensuite, jusqu'à la fin du séminaire et ensuite, parce qu'il me persuada de me mettre au jeu de go.\fg{} \cite{Rou09}\end{quotation}
\begin{quotation}\og \dots{} il se trouve qu'il avait appris à jouer au go au Japon et puis, à Paris, il ne trouvait pas de joueur [...] J'ai joué au go avec lui [...] et puis à un certain moment, on s'est dit, Pierre Lusson et moi-même, ça serait quand même bien de créer des circonstances telles que Chevalley puisse avoir des joueurs. Et donc, on a eu plein d'ambition, on s'est dit: "On va faire un traité de go, et à ce moment là plein de gens se mettront à jouer au go". \fg{} \cite{Dug14} \end{quotation}
C'est ainsi que vint au monde le \emph{Petit traité invitant à la découverte de l'art subtil du Go} \cite{Lus69} qui fut écrit, non sans humour, dans le jardin fleuri du moulin d'Andé \footnote{Le moulin d'Andé, situé dans un boucle de la Seine est un très beau lieu, qui accueille depuis 1962 des artistes en résidence qu’il s’agisse d’écrivains, de cinéastes, comédiens ou musiciens. Il servit de décor au film de Truffaut \emph{Jules et Jim}. C'est là que résidait Georges Perec à l'époque de la rédaction du \emph{Petit Traité invitant \dots}}, par Pierre Lusson, Georges Perec et Jacques Roubaud.
\textbf{ Je l'ai admiré ensuite, troisièmement \dots{}} Comment l'auteur du livre\emph{ `le grand incendie de londres'} a-t-il été touché par les qualités humaines de Claude Chevalley au point de nous dire qu'il est un homme remarquable ? C'est en revenant à la jeunesse de ses parents que nous connaîtrons la réponse de Jacques Roubaud.
A la fin des années vingt, les parents de Jacques Roubaud, Lucien Roubaud et Suzette Molino, lui, le philosophe, et elle, l’angliciste, se rencontrent à l'ENS de la rue d'Ulm. Ils sont tous les deux de la promotion 1927 et ont déjà passé auparavant une année de khâgne dans la même classe à Marseille, où: \og On ne se disait pas un mot, d'ailleurs: à ce moment là, les garçons appelaient les filles "mademoiselle". On ne se parlait pas. \fg{} \cite{Rou15} Ils étaient issus tous deux de milieux modestes. Pour l'un comme pour l'autre, l'entrée à l'ENS était un saut dans un autre milieu que le leur. Lucien Roubaud se souvient qu'au moment où certains de ses professeurs le poussaient vers les études, quelqu'un avait dit à son oncle, qui était son tuteur : \og La Rue d'Ulm? Mais ce n'est pas pour des gens de votre origine \dots{}\fg{} \cite{Rou15} Quant à Suzette Molino, elle est, avec Clémence Ramnoux et Simone Pétremont, l'une des trois premières jeunes filles reçues en lettres à l'ENS rue d'Ulm \cite{Eft03}. Simone Weil y entrera l'année suivante.
Jacques Roubaud dit de ses parents:
\begin{quotation}\og [...] ils n’avaient que peu de rapports avec les élèves scientifiques qu’ils trouvaient généralement prétentieux et méprisants envers les littéraires, à l’exception, disait mon père, de Claude Chevalley\footnote{Extrait de mails échangés avec J.Roubaud, ainsi que pour les citations du \emph{quatrièmement}.}.\fg\end{quotation}
La qualité du regard de Claude Chevalley évoquée au dessus, Jacques Roubaud l'appelle sa \og{} grande modestie\fg. Elle se trouvera confirmée pour lui, bien des années plus tard, lors de ses rencontres avec le \og professeur Chevalley\fg. C'est ce qui sous-tend le `troisièmement'.
\textbf{Je l'admire toujours, quatrièmement.}
A quelle source Jacques Roubaud a-t-il puisé la force de cette affirmation, venant après les trois précédentes? \begin{quotation}\og Parce que jusqu’à sa mort il est resté fidèle à lui-même, même quand les positions qui furent les siennes après 1968 ont été jugées défavorablement par le milieu mathématique.\fg\end{quotation}
Cette rupture avec le milieu mathématique\footnote{Rappelons que son exclusion du prix de l'Académie des sciences destiné au groupe
Bourbaki est encore très proche en 1968 - elle le touche directement de décembre 1966 à l'automne 1967 \cite{Cou19}.} dont parle Jacques Roubaud n'a pas été éludée par le milieu bourbakiste. Elle est évoquée par Jean Dieudonné dans son article de 1986 \cite{Dieu99}:\begin{quotation}\og Jusqu'à la fin de sa vie, il n'a cessé de s'enflammer pour les victimes d'injustices [...] avec le plus parfait dédain des inimitiés qu'il aurait pu ainsi encourir. Il n'avait d'ailleurs que mépris pour les "honneurs", et refusait ceux auxquels il eût pu légitimement prétendre.\fg \end{quotation}
Ceci nous amène tout naturellement à la période qui commence en 1968 et aux textes de Denis Guedj et d'Alexander Grothendieck.\\
\section*{ L'aventure de 1968 avec Denis Guedj}
Dans les années 80, Denis Guedj a réalisé des interviews de Claude Chevalley dont, pour le moment, seuls quelques extraits sont accessibles et servent de trame à ce paragraphe\footnote{ Voir \cite{Gue85}, \cite{Gue04}, \cite{Gue04b}, \cite{Gue06}.}.
\textbf{Printemps 1968}
En 1968, le travail de recherche que mène Denis Guedj sous la direction de Jean- Paul Benzécri concerne la théorie des grammaires formelles. Le Comité de grève s'installe alors dans le batiment où il travaille \cite{Pe09}. C'est dans ce contexte qu'il fait connaissance avec Claude Chevalley :
\begin{quotation}\og Dans la faculté des sciences de Jussieu encore endormie\footnote{Depuis le milieu des années 50, les bâtiments de la Sorbonne étant devenus trop petits, la faculté des sciences s'est implantée dans deux bâtiments situés sur le site de l'ancienne Halle aux vins, quai Saint-Bernard et rue Cuvier. Ce sont les premiers bâtiments du campus de Jussieu \cite{Del}.}, je passais devant le local du Comité de Grève. Un bruit. Dans la salle vide, avant les interminables réunions de la journée, un homme balayait consciencieusement le sol recouvert de mégots et de papiers: Claude Chevalley \dots{} Le Comité de grève avait pris place dans le laboratoire de linguistique mathématique un bâtiment préfabriqué, là où aujourd'hui s'élève l'Institut du Monde Arabe.\fg{} \cite{Gue04b}\end{quotation}
Dans ce monde là, Denis Guedj et Claude Chevalley se sont longuement côtoyés:
\begin{quotation}\og Claude Chevalley a été l'un des trois professeurs de la faculté des sciences à s'engager totalement dans l'aventure jusqu'à la fin, occupant les locaux avec les étudiants quai Saint-Bernard [...] et y dormant fréquemment. C'est là que je l'ai rencontré.\fg{}\cite{Paj11} \end{quotation}
\begin{quotation}\og Nous avions pris possession de cet univers qui jusqu'alors n'avait été qu'un lieu d'études et de connaissances, et qui, dans la douceur de ce mois de mai, était devenu un lieu de vie, d'une vie merveilleusement grisante. La fac était à nous. La nuit, nous marchions dans les allées encore? longées de grands arbres, pénétrions dans les amphis vides, dormions à la belle étoile. Inutile de dire qu'à la rentrée, en automne 1968, il nous fut impossible de trouver notre place dans ces espaces déshabillés d'où la magie s'était retirée. \fg{} \cite{Gue04b} \end{quotation}
Denis Guedj est alors au CNRS et enseigne le traitement du signal en ${3}^{e}$ cycle. Il raconte:
\begin{quotation}\og A la rentrée de septembre, impossible d'imaginer que je pourrais demeurer dans cette faculté redevenue "normale" alors que j'y avais vécu les moments parmi les plus intenses de ma vie. Chevalley était habité du même sentiment. Avec lui nous entreprîmes d'entretenir ailleurs cet esprit de liberté qui nous avait galvanisés.\fg{} \cite{Paj11}\end{quotation}
Claude Chevalley s'était proposé auprès des instances universitaires, c'est à dire auprès d'Edgar Faure pour partir dans les nouvelles créations\footnote{D'après Denis Guedj - De la Ronde au Zéro, Film couleur réalisé par Yolande Robveille et Patrice Besnard / 2010.}. Denis Guedj prend alors une décision :
\og J'ai démissionné du CNRS et j'ai été nommé maître assistant à l'université.\fg
\textbf{L'aventure de Vincennes}
C'est à l'Université de Vincennes que les deux hommes passeront ensuite de longues années côte à côte\footnote{Ils partageront aussi l'expérience du mouvement \emph{Survivre} que nous présenterons au paragraphe suivant.} jusqu'au départ à la retraite de Claude Chevalley en 1978.
Un projet d'université nouvelle s'était concrétisé sous la forme du Centre expérimental de Vincennes. Il était le fruit du bouillonnement intellectuel du printemps 1968.
\og L'université de Vincennes n'est pas sortie, comme par miracle, du néant\fg{} écrit Raymond Las Vergnas, professeur de langue et littérature anglaises\footnote{ Pendant le Front populaire, Las Vergnas fut chef de cabinet adjoint de Jean Zay, ministre de l’Éducation nationale et des Beaux-arts - voir le fonds Jean Zay sur le site des Archives nationales.}, doyen de la faculté des lettres de Paris en 1968.
Le 5 août 1968, il présenta au nouveau ministre de l'éducation nationale, Edgar Faure, son projet d'université nouvelle:
\begin{quotation}\og L'université nouvelle, ai-je dit au ministre, serait conçue selon un principe fondamental de participation que l'on retrouverait à tous les niveaux, tant de la gestion que de la pédagogie [...] Quelques jours plus tard, M. Edgar Faure m'annonçait qu'il me donnait carte blanche pour créer le nouveau centre expérimental [...] Il fallut attendre le 10 décembre pour que le \emph{Journal officiel} se décide à rendre publique sa création alors que les bâtiments, construits, eux, en un temps record, étaient sortis de terre depuis des semaines.\fg{} \cite{Co79}\end{quotation}
Quelques idées président, selon lui, à la création de cette université: adaptation de l'enseignement à l'évolution du monde par une augmentation de la part des exercices pratiques, contrôle continu des connaissances, personnalisation des études, remplacement des certificats de licence par des unités de valeur, assouplissement des conditions d'entrée pour les non-bacheliers, recrutement des enseignants selon des critères échappant \og aux filières académiques rituelles\footnote{Il fut en effet décidé de créer un \og noyau cooptant\fg, composé d'une trentaine d'enseignants de toutes disciplines, reconnus pour leurs compétences et animés d'une vocation novatrice. Ces enseignants eurent la charge de recruter sur dossiers concurrentiels environ 200 autres enseignants \cite{Co79}.}\fg.
\begin{quotation}<<Une nouvelle université venait de s'ouvrir dans le bois de Vincennes. Nous avons joyeusement émigré. Claude y est resté jusqu'à sa retraite [...] Nous avons créé le département de mathématiques [...] Pour Claude, ce furent "des années de bonheur, les années les plus heureuses de ma vie".\fg{} \cite{Gue04b} \end{quotation}
Dans cette université, \og expérimentation très libre et très ouverte\fg{} \cite{Co79}, prévue pour s'ouvrir aux salariés, pour faire vivre la pluridisciplinarité, des cours d'alphabétisation avaient été proposés aux travailleurs de la faculté.
\begin{quotation}\og Durant plusieurs semaines, avec le sérieux qui le caractérisait, il [Chevalley] a donné au seul travailleur inscrit, un jeune malien employé au service de nettoyage, un cours particulier sur l'addition, la multiplication. Voilà comment, aux dires de nombre de ses collègues, Chevalley perdait son temps\footnote{ Il est vrai que, par exemple, au même moment, Dieudonné est à l'Académie des sciences où il a été élu le 24 juin 1968.} [...] \fg{} \cite{Gue04b} \end{quotation}
Denis Guedj et Chevalley quant à eux, se voient très souvent:\begin{quotation}\og Nous avons beaucoup réfléchi et appris ensemble; il est celui qui m'a le plus profondément marqué et pour lequel j'ai une affection profonde. Un père-frère, un complice.\fg{} \cite{Paj11}\end{quotation}
\begin{quotation}\og Depuis cette époque nous sommes restés très proches. J'ai pour lui une infinie tendresse et un profond respect.\fg{} \cite{Gue04b}\end{quotation}
Denis Guedj, questionné par le rapport entre sciences et société, se passionne pour la philosophie, l'histoire, l'histoire des sciences.
\begin{quotation}\og Une grande partie de ce trajet, je l'ai accomplie aux côtés de Claude Chevalley [...] ce fut, et cela reste, la rencontre capitale. Un cadeau qu'il me faisait, un cadeau que je me faisais. C'est avec lui que j'ai éprouvé ce que le contenu même du savoir mathématique pouvait comporter d'émotion. Étonnant quand on a à l'esprit l'image de Chevalley cofondateur du groupe Bourbaki.\fg{} \cite{Paj11}\end{quotation}
Il nous livre ce portrait:
\begin{quotation}\og Chevalley, c'était une apparence fragile, une pensée ferme, ouverte au questionnement [...] Peu disposé à accepter les injustices et la violence faite aux faibles, il était tout sauf modéré. Il se situait à l'intersection de quatre directions. Les mathématiques, la philosophie, l'engagement politique, la foi\footnote{Même si Chevalley, chrétien engagé, s'est éloigné du protestantisme dans les années 70 \cite{Gue04b}.} l'ont mobilisé et l'ont constitué [...] Liberté était son maître mot [...] \fg{}
\cite{Gue06}\end{quotation}
\section*{Le tournant des année soixante-dix par Alexander Grothendieck}
\textbf{Les premiers moments au sein de Bourbaki}
Pour Alexander Grothendieck\footnote{ Pour approcher la personnalité et l’œuvre de Grothendieck, on peut profiter du regard de Pierre Cartier (\cite{Car00}, \cite{Car09}).}, le nom de Chevalley est d'abord associé à celui des autres membres de Bourbaki.\
Alexander Grothendieck arrive à vingt ans, en 1948, à Paris, avec dans sa \og{maigre valise une Licence es Sciences de l'Université de Montpellier}\fg. Sur la recommandation d'un de ses professeurs de Montpellier, il rencontre Henri Cartan, dont il va suivre le séminaire.\
Décrivant \og l'étranger bienvenu\fg{}
qu'il fut lui-même au sein de Bourbaki , il dit:\
\begin{quotation}\og Au Séminaire Cartan il y avait aussi des apparitions périodiques de Chevalley, de Weil, et les jours des Séminaires Bourbaki (réunissant une
petite vingtaine ou trentaine à tout casser, de participants et auditeurs), on y voyait débarquer, tel un groupe de copains un peu bruyants, les autres membres de ce fameux gang Bourbaki : Dieudonné, Schwartz, Godement, Delsarte.\fg{} \cite{Gro86} \end{quotation}
Claude Chevalley, alors aux Etats-Unis, est rentré à Paris pour l'année universitaire 1948-49 grâce à une bourse Guggenheim \cite{Dieu99}.
Il expose par exemple en décembre 1948 au séminaire Bourbaki sur \emph{L'hypothèse de Riemann pour les corps de fonctions algébriques de caractéristique p} \footnote{Chevalley codirigera le séminaire Cartan à son retour en France, pendant l'année universitaire 1955-56 et fait plusieurs exposés sur les schémas - d'après \emph{Tome 8, séminaire Henri Cartan}.}.
A ce moment-là, pour Grothendieck, Chevalley est un Bourbaki parmi les autres.
\textbf{ Survivre \dots{} et Vivre d'après Alexander Grothendieck}
L'essentiel de la rencontre entre Grothendieck et Chevalley se passe en dehors de Bourbaki et laissera une trace profonde chez Grothendieck.
Dans \emph{ Récoltes et Semailles}, le nom de Chevalley revient à de multiples reprises sous sa plume.
Dès la page 29, il évoque:
\begin{quotation}\og [...] Claude Chevalley, le collègue et ami à qui est dédiée la partie centrale de Récoltes et Semailles [...] En plusieurs endroits de la réflexion, je parle de lui, et du rôle qui fût le sien dans mon itinéraire.\fg
\end{quotation}
C'est au début des années 70 que Grothendieck et Chevalley vont faire plus ample connaissance au sein du mouvement \emph{Survivre \dots{} et Vivre} \cite{Gro86}.
\emph {Survivre \dots{} et Vivre} est le nom d’une revue\footnote{Dont le nom de départ \emph{Survivre} est assorti dès le \no2 d'un sous-titre quelque peu emphatique: \emph{Mouvement international et inter professionnel pour notre survie, fondé le 20.7.1970 à Montréal}. L'histoire de ce mouvement éphémère a été étudiée par Céline Pessis \cite{Pe09}.} et d’un mouvement pacifiste et écologiste créé au début des années 70 par quelques scientifiques. La revue est en fait un petit journal\footnote{1300 exemplaires pour le \no 6, 12 500 pour le \no12 de juin 1972 d'après \cite{Pe09}. Un certain nombre de ces journaux est consultable en ligne: http://www.grothendieckcircle.org/} d'une quarantaine de pages, dont seulement 19 numéros paraîtront, le mouvement se prolongeant après la disparition de la revue. Le ton, la forme du journal, la facture des dessins\footnote{On peut y voir par exemple les premiers dessins de Didier Savard - \nos 8 et 12 - qui publie un peu plus tard ses dessins de presse pour \emph{Libération}, \emph{La gueule ouverte} \dots{} Il devint par la suite un auteur reconnu d'albums de BD.} sont en phase avec la mouvance anti-conformiste de l'après 68.
Il est permis de penser que Claude Chevalley a retrouvé dans ce mouvement certains des élans qui l'avaient porté vers le mouvement \emph{ l'Ordre nouveau} de sa jeunesse. En effet, dans le \no2/3 daté de septembre/octobre 1970, à la rubrique \emph{Des adhérents se présentent}, il choisit de dire:\begin{quotation}\og J'ai participé durant la même période\footnote{Il s'agit de la période 1931-1937.} à un mouvement politique appelé "l'Ordre nouveau" (qui n'eut rien de commun avec les mouvements qui reprirent ce nom par la suite) dont la tendance dominante était le personnalisme teinté de certaines influences anarchisantes.\fg{} \cite{Che70}
\end{quotation}
Bien que Grothendieck dise de Chevalley qu'il \og{s'était joint au groupe avec une conviction mitigée}\fg, il semble s'y être assez fortement impliqué car on peut lire, en première page, à partir du numéro de l'automne 1970 - et jusqu'à décembre 71 - \og{Directeur de publication (édition française): Chevalley}\fg. Il fait aussi partie, avec Grothendieck, du comité de rédaction et tient des permanences à son domicile les lundis après-midi. Guedj suivra Chevalley à \emph{Survivre} par amitié \cite{Pe09}.
Après \emph{l'Ordre nouveau}, après Bourbaki, après \emph{Vincennes}, le voila à nouveau engagé dans un mouvement collectif. Encore une fois, il fait partie d'un petit groupe qui a pour projet de faire émerger des idées nouvelles.
Au fil des numéros, Claude Chevalley signe plusieurs articles, dont des analyses de livres\footnote{Par exemple, \emph{Une société sans école}, d'Ivan Illich à la rubrique \emph{Le livre du mois} du \no 12 de \emph{Survivre \dots{} et vivre}.}. En janvier 1971\footnote{La date indiquée dans ce numéro est janvier 70, mais le numéro précédent étant daté de décembre 1970, il s'agit visiblement d'une erreur de frappe.}, dans le \no 6 de \emph{Survivre}, Claude Chevalley choisit de présenter \emph{The New Brahmins, Scientific Life in America} de Spencer Klaw \cite{Kl68}. Le commentaire de Claude Chevalley sur cette étude de la situation des chercheurs scientifiques aux USA mérite d'être lue dans son intégralité, même si seulement quelques extraits sont cités ici:
\begin{quotation}\og Avec la liberté de décider lui-même de l'orientation de son travail, le chercheur perd naturellement tout intérêt pour ce qu'il fait. Faute d'avoir dès sa jeunesse réfléchi aux répercutions sociales possibles de son activité de chercheur, il est tout prêt à accepter que son travail n'ait d'autre lien avec la réalité que le profit que l'entreprise peut en tirer [...]
Le chercheur qui en est à ce point, quand il ne se désintéresse pas totalement de son activité professionnelle, s'oriente tout naturellement vers les activités administratives seules propres à lui conférer l'estime et la considération du milieu où il vit [...] il convient cependant de noter qu'il est souvent conscient d'être passé de l'autre côté de la barrière et d'avoir renoncé au sens qu'il avait donné à sa vie en choisissant le métier de chercheur: conscience qui contribue encore à la rapidité de son évolution en lui faisant éviter tout rapport avec ceux de ses ex-collègues qui sont encore chercheurs.\fg\end{quotation}
Claude Chevalley pense-t-il à ce moment-là aux \og{pontifes}\fg{} de sa jeunesse ou aux
\og {mandarins}\fg{} des années 70 ?
\textbf{L'éloignement de Bourbaki}
En 1986, quand Grothendieck s'interroge, dans un paragraphe intitulé \emph{Le mérite et le mépris} sur le \og règne du mépris\fg{} qui a gagné, selon lui, le milieu mathématique, il nous fait partager ce qui distingue sur ce point Chevalley du reste de la communauté mathématique.
\begin{quotation}\og C'est d'ailleurs Chevalley qui a été un des premiers, avec Denis Guedj que j'ai aussi connu par Survivre, à attirer mon attention sur cette idéologie-là (ils l'appelaient la "méritocratie" ou un nom comme ça), et ce qu'il y avait en elle de violence, de mépris. C'est à cause de ça, m'a dit Chevalley [...] qu'il ne supportait plus l'ambiance dans Bourbaki et avait cessé d'y mettre les pieds.\fg{} \cite{Gro86}\end{quotation}
Il tient à réserver une place à part à Chevalley, ajoutant bien plus loin au paragraphe \emph{Trois jalons - ou l’innocence}:
\begin{quotation}\og Il [un esprit de suffisance] a dû venir à pas de loup, au cours des ans, s’installant à demeure en les uns et en les autres, peu à peu, sans que personne
parmi nous (mis à part Chevalley seulement \dots{} ) ne s’en aperçoive.\fg \end{quotation}
On peut rapprocher ces quelques lignes des propos de Chevalley décrivant le changement d'état d'esprit de Bourbaki, qu'il n'apprécie plus à partir d'un certain moment. \begin{quotation}\og L'esprit de canular, l'esprit de Jarry, a été rattrapé par une certitude absolue de supériorité sur tous les autres mathématiciens.\fg{} \cite{Chou95} \end{quotation}
\begin{quotation}\og Ce qui m'a détaché principalement de Bourbaki, c'est de "le" voir prendre des positions réactionnaires à l'Académie et dans les universités.\fg{} \cite{Gue06}\end{quotation}
Puis dans un article de 1982 qu'il cosigne avec M. Kasner, on peut lire:
\begin{quotation}\og La vie mathématique semble de plus en plus dominée par des clans qui s'y conduisent comme en pays conquis, s'emparant des positions-clés dans les institutions et périodiques mathématiques, appliquant en tous lieux le projet d'Armande: "Nul n'aura de l'esprit hors nous et nos amis".\fg{} \end{quotation}
Et y incluant sévèrement Bourbaki :
\begin{quotation}\og [...] histoire classique des jeunes révolutionnaires à qui l'âge a permis de prendre le pouvoir.\fg{} \cite{Che82} \end{quotation}
\textbf{Regards et derniers mots sur Claude Chevalley}
Au delà de l'histoire du groupe \emph{Survivre \dots{} et Vivre}, au delà de l'amertume de Chevalley sur le milieu mathématique, Grothendieck nous livre une image de Chevalley \og au delà des façades de rigueur\fg{} :
\begin{quotation}\og Il lui arrivait parfois de parler de lui-même, juste quelques mots à l'occasion de ceci ou cela, avec une simplicité déconcertante [...] Il parlait peu, et ce qu’il disait exprimait, non des idées qu’il aurait adoptées et faites siennes, mais une perception et une compréhension personnelle des choses [...] Ce qu'il disait bousculait souvent des façons de voir qui m'étaient chères, et que pour cette raison je considérais comme "vraies" [...]
Je me rendais compte obscurément qu'il avait quelque chose à m'apprendre sur la liberté - sur la liberté intérieure.\fg{} \cite{Gro86}\end{quotation}
En juin 1984, Grothendieck pense être sur le point de terminer \emph{Récoltes et Semailles}, prévoyant seulement la rédaction de deux ultimes notes.
\begin{quotation}\og Ça faisait des mois que je me voyais sur le point d’en terminer avec Récoltes et Semailles, frappé tiré broché et tout - et de monter à Paris dare dare pour lui apporter un exemplaire encore tout chaud ! S’il y avait une personne au monde dont j’étais sûr qu’elle lirait mon pavé avec un vrai intérêt, et avec plaisir souvent, c’était lui - et je n’étais pas sûr du tout s’il y en aurait un autre que lui !
Dès les débuts de ma réflexion, je m'étais rendu compte que Chevalley m'avait apporté quelque chose, à un
moment crucial de mon itinéraire, quelque chose semé dans une effervescence, et qui avait germé en silence [...]
De le rencontrer et de parler avec lui tant soit peu m'aurait permis sûrement de mieux appréhender cet ami que par le passé, et de mieux situer et cette parenté essentielle, et nos différences. S'il y avait, à part Pierre Deligne\footnote{ Pierre Deligne est un mathématicien belge, né en 1944. Élève de Grothendieck, il a soutenu sa thèse d’État en 1972. Il a reçu de nombreux prix mathématiques, en particulier la médaille Fields en 1978 pour sa résolution des conjectures de Weil et le prix Abel en 2013 pour l'ensemble de ses travaux.}, une personne pour laquelle je ressentais une hâte de pouvoir lui remettre en mains propres le texte de Récoltes et Semailles, c'était bien Claude Chevalley. S'il y avait une personne dont le commentaire, espiègle ou sarcastique, aurait pour moi un poids particulier, c'était lui encore. \fg \end{quotation}
Mais rien ne se passa comme prévu.
\begin{quotation}\og En ce jour-là de la première semaine de juillet, j'ai su que je n'aurais pas ce plaisir de lui apporter ce que j'avais de meilleur à offrir, ni celui d'entendre encore le son de sa voix.\fg{} \cite{Gro86}\end{quotation}
Claude Chevalley est mort le 28 juin 1984.
\section*{Après 1984, regards mathématiques sur son œuvre}
Le monde mathématique est présent autour de Claude Chevalley disparu. Deux des fondateurs de Bourbaki tout d'abord : Dieudonné envoie à Weil son projet de note biographique\footnote{Voir le \emph{Dossier biographique} de Weil à l'Académie des Sciences.} sur Chevalley. Weil répond par une relecture détaillée \cite{Wei85}, lui conseillant en particulier d'aborder les aspects familiaux de la vie de Claude Chevalley, son mariage avec Jacqueline, son remariage avec Sylvie, sans oublier bien sûr leur fille Catherine. Ainsi voit le jour en 1986 la notice biographique de Dieudonné pour l'Annuaire des Anciens élèves de l’École Normale Supérieure \cite{Dieu99}. Puis vinrent les articles de Dieudonné dans la\emph{ Vie des sciences} \cite{Dieu86}, Dieudonné et Tits dans le bulletin de l'AMS \cite{Dieu87}.
De nombreux mathématiciens vont ensuite se mobiliser pour publier l’œuvre mathématique de Claude Chevalley. C'est une mission difficile.
Nous savons grâce à Pierre Cartier et à Catherine Chevalley \cite{Che97} que Chevalley avait, dès 1982, exprimé trois souhaits concernant la publication de ses travaux.
Il aurait aimé qu'elle puisse contenir ses écrits \emph{non- techniques}, épistémologiques ou politiques. Il aurait également souhaité que ses écrits mathématiques, dont certains passages lui paraissaient insatisfaisants, puissent être révisés par des notes critiques. Son troisième souhait était d'y inclure certains textes jamais publiés, mathématiques et non-mathématiques.
Chevalley s'était ouvert à eux sur les raisons profondes de ces choix et il avait pleinement conscience que cela rendait ardue la publication de ses écrits, car il n'imaginait pas se replonger dans ses anciens travaux, pas plus qu'imposer un tel pensum à autrui.
Cela rejoint les mots de l'ami japonais Iyanaga, auquel, un an avant sa mort, Claude Chevalley s'était confié: \begin{quotation}\og Claude m'a dit que la Maison Birkhäuser lui avait proposé de publier ses œuvres, mais qu'il ne voulait pas laisser paraître tous ces papiers en photocopie parce qu'il n'en aimait pas certaines et que, d'un autre côté, il se trouvait des inédits qu'il aurait bien voulu faire publier \dots{}\fg{} \cite{Iya96}\end{quotation}
C'est dans le même esprit que Cartier rappelle en 2005 : \begin{quotation}<< Chevalley lui-même avait insisté sur le fait qu'une publication de ses Œuvres supposerait une révision très soignée.>> \emph{Avertissement au lecteur} \cite{Che05} \end{quotation}
\stepcounter{section}
\textbf{ Comité éditorial des \emph{Œuvres} de Chevalley}
Et pourtant, après la mort de Chevalley, on trouve Cartier à la tête du comité éditorial des \emph{Œuvres} de Chevalley.
En 1997, le premier tome de cet \og ambitieux projet\fg {} soutenu par le CNRS voit le jour. Il s'agit du \emph{Volume II}, intitulé \emph{The Algebraic Theory of Spinors and Clifford Algebras} \cite{Che97}.
Les textes ont été revu avec le plus grand soin, conformément aux vœux de Chevalley. Pour ce volume, Cartier
a pu compter sur la collaboration de nombreux mathématiciens comme Michel Broué, Michel Enguehard et Jacques Tits, membres du \emph{Séminaire Chevalley}. Jean-Pierre Serre, Armand Borel, Shokichi Iyanaga, Henri Cartan ont aussi participé à l'aventure. L'avant-propos est signé de Catherine Chevalley et de Pierre Cartier. L'ouvrage contient également la critique par Dieudonné du livre \emph{The Algebraic Theory of Spinors} de Chevalley de 1954 et une postface due à Jean-Pierre Bourguignon\footnote{Jean-Pierre Bourguignon y actualise cet ouvrage de Chevalley des années cinquante en le reliant à ses applications en physique théorique. Cela n'est pas sans nous rappeler l'\emph{Appendice - Les progrès récents de la théorie des nombres} que Chevalley écrivit en 1936 lors de la publication posthume d'un mémoire d'Herbrand \cite{Her36}.}.
Dès cette période, le découpage en six volumes des \emph{Œuvres} de Chevalley est établi:\\
I. \emph{Class Field Theory}\hspace{0,5cm} II. \emph{Spinors} \hspace{0,5cm} III. \emph{Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry}\hspace{0,5cm} IV. \emph{Algebraic Groups}\hspace{0,5cm} V \emph{Epistemology and Politics}\hspace{0,5cm} VI. \emph{Unpublished Material and Varia}\\
Nous avons quelques pistes sur le contenu des autres volumes:
Il est annoncé dans l'avant propos \cite{Che97} que le \emph{Volume I} contiendra les deux nécrologies de Tits et Dieudonné, des lettres de Chevalley, la liste même incomplète\footnote{Il y travaillait en 1984} de ses écrits non publiés et qu'il souhaitait faire paraître. Iyanaga serait chargé de l'introduction de ce \emph{Volume I}.
Parmi les écrits du \emph{Volume V} prendraient place des lettres de et à Jacques Herbrand et Emmy Noether.
En 1998, Cartier confirme \cite{Sen98}, qu'en tant qu'éditeur des \emph{Œuvres} de Chevalley, il a prévu, à la demande de Catherine Chevalley, un volume rassemblant les écrits non-mathématiques de Chevalley, celle-ci se chargeant de les réunir.
Une bibliographie complète des écrits de Chevalley se trouverait dans le \emph{Volume VI} \cite{Che97}.
La publication des \emph{Œuvres} paraît bien lancée.
En 2005, Pierre Cartier, qui réussit le long et délicat travail de réédition du Séminaire dirigé par Claude Chevalley à l’École Normale Supérieure pendant les années universitaires 1956/57 et 1957/58, s'interroge sur la place à donner à cet ouvrage: \begin{quotation}\og Une fois prise la décision de publier le tout, nous hésitâmes un moment à en faire un des volumes des "Œuvres complètes" de Chevalley, vu la part importante des autres rédacteurs.\fg\cite{Che05}\end{quotation}
Le titre fut finalement \emph{Claude Chevalley} - \emph{Classification des Groupes Algébriques semi-simples - Collected Works}, Vol.~3.
\\
\textbf{ Quelque chose d'inachevé}\\
Mais des blocages stoppèrent le projet de publication des autres volumes des \emph{Œuvres}.
En 1999, parait une bibliographie très détaillée réalisée avec l'apport de documents transmis par Catherine Chevalley \cite{Dieu99}. Cette liste\footnote{Elle ne recense pas tous les écrits de Chevalley. On pourrait en effet y ajouter les interviews réalisées par Denis Guedj au début des années 80, certains textes du fonds Bourbaki - jamais publiés et auxquels tenait particulièrement Chevalley - comme \emph{Introduction à la théorie des ensembles} et \emph{Géométrie élémentaire} \cite{Che97} , certains textes de la revue \emph{Survivre}.} réunit les références de nombreux textes, sous quatre rubriques \emph{Mathematics}, \emph{Philosophy}, \emph{Publicity writing}, \emph{ Unpublished}: à côté des écrits mathématiques s'y trouvent des textes philosophiques, parfois co-écrits avec Arnaud Dandieu ou Alexandre Marc, s'étalant de 1932 à 1962, les articles parus dans la revue \emph{Ordre Nouveau} entre 1933 et 1938, puis d'autres écrits plus tardifs, publiés dans diverses revues \emph{Réforme}, \emph{Dédales} \dots{} ainsi que des textes jamais publiés. Mais cet article paraît sans lien avec la publication des \emph{Œuvres}.
Le \emph{Volume I} ne parut pas: Iyanaga apprit l'annulation du projet en 2005. C'est alors qu'il décida de publier sous une autre forme le travail qu'il avait rédigé comme \emph{Introduction} à ce volume. Ce texte \cite{Iya06}, publié en 2006, fut proposé au \emph{Japanese Journal of Mathematics} alors que Shokichi Iyanaga était hospitalisé quelques mois avant son décès: ultime hommage de Shokichi à Claude\footnote{Toshiyuki Kobayashi se chargea de cette démarche à la demande de Iyanaga.}.
Mais, malgré la volonté et les travail de nombreux mathématiciens, le projet de publication des \emph{Œuvres complètes} de Chevalley est à l'arrêt depuis 2005.
Le \emph{Volume II} et ce \emph{Volume III} sont à ce jour les seuls volumes publiés : deux volumes sur les six prévus. \\
Cartier confie à ce propos \og C'est une tragédie!\footnote{Lors d'un entretien privé en novembre 2016 à Pau.}\fg\\
Par ailleurs, le devenir des entretiens réalisés par Guedj et réunis dans \emph{Conversation avec Claude}\footnote{Que Guedj appelle aussi \emph{Parler avec Claude Chevalley}.} reste incertain. En 1995, on peut lire :
\begin{quotation}\og L'exploitation de ceux-ci, conservés par Catherine Chevalley, physicienne et historienne des sciences, devrait mieux faire comprendre l'évolution philosophique de l'un des grands mathématiciens de l'équipe [Bourbaki].\fg{} \cite{Chou95}\end{quotation}
Mais en 2004, même si Guedj espère que \og \emph{Parler avec Claude} sera publié. \fg{} \cite{Gue04}, il dévoile les difficultés liées à la publication de ces interviews, ce qu'il confirme en 2008 :
\begin{quotation}\og Durant plus de dix années, deux longs après-midi chaque semaine, nous [Chevalley et lui] avons parlé ensemble. Parlé et pas écrit. Remords de ma part? J'ai dans les années 80 fait quelques interviews rassemblées sous le titre \emph{Conversation avec Claude Chevalley}. Mais ce recueil est inédit. Inédit parce que depuis sa mort, ses proches en ont empêché la diffusion. Peut-être faudra-t-il un jour passer outre cette interdiction.\fg{} \cite{Paj11} \end{quotation}
En 2004, seuls quelques extraits de ces entretiens trouvèrent place dans la revue \emph{Tangente}.\\
Quelque chose reste donc inachevé \dots{} \\
\section*{Et pour conclure}
Bouclant la boucle, revenons en 1964 et intéressons nous au regard que Chevalley pose sur Emil Artin, le maître de ses jeunes années: selon Chevalley, on devrait définir \og [...] le fait d'être algébriste plus comme reflétant un certain tempérament intellectuel que comme indiquant un sujet d'études privilégié.\fg{} Parlant d'Artin, il précise : \og [...] ce n'est pas seulement dans son activité mathématique que cette manière d'être qui était la sienne se manifestait : affirmation du primat de l'intellect par rapport à la passion, du conscient par rapport à l'inconscient, de l'enquête méthodique par rapport aux éclairs de l'intuition, voilà une série de traits souvent associés et qui rapprocheraient par exemple Artin de Valéry ou de Mallarmé. Ce sont aussi sans doute ces traits et cette manière d'exister qui devaient rendre insupportable à Artin la tyrannie nazie, à laquelle il échappa dès que la chose lui fut matériellement possible.\fg{} \cite{Che64}
Dans son regard sur Artin, Chevalley affirme l'unité de pensée à laquelle il tient et qu'il a souhaité pour lui. La vision de l'entité constituée par sa vie et son œuvre, qui se doit de rassembler mathématique, philosophie, épistémologie et politique, telle que l'a recueillie le comité éditorial de ses \emph{Œuvres} reste fidèle à ses idéaux de jeunesse.\\
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction} \label{contextual}
The stochastic bandit problem, dated back to \citet{robbins1952some}, is an important sequential decision making problem that is widely used in real-world applications. It aims to find optimal adaptive strategies that maximize cumulative reward. At each time step, the learning agent chooses an action (arm) among all possible actions and observes its corresponding reward (but not others), which requires balancing exploration and exploitation. Thompson sampling \citep{thompson1933likelihood} and its extension provide an elegant and efficient approach to tackle this exploration-exploitation dilemma. With exact posterior computation, Thompson sampling can achieve nearly optimal performance in terms of both frequentist regret \citep{agrawal2012analysis,agrawal2013further,kaufmann2012thompson} and Bayesian regret \citep{russo2014learning}. However, in complex models such as neural networks, maintaining exact posterior distributions tends to be intractable \citep{riquelme2018deep} and thus, approximate Bayesian inference methods are widely employed, such as variational inference \citep{blei2017variational} and Markov chain Monte Carlo \citep{andrieu2003introduction}.
Few theoretical studies have been developed around Bayesian bandit approaches with approximate inference, despite its superior performance in practice \citep{riquelme2018deep,snoek2015scalable,osband2016deep,urteaga2018variational,guo2020deep,zhang2021neural}. \citet{lu2017ensemble} gave a theoretical analysis of an approximate sampling method called Ensemble Sampling, which possessed a constant KL divergence error from the exact posterior and indicated a linear regret. \citet{phan2019thompson} showed that even with a small but constant inference error (in terms of $\alpha$-divergence), Thompson sampling with general approximate inference could have a linear regret in the worst case. Their work also showed that Thompson sampling combined with a small amount of forced exploration could achieve a $o(T)$ regret upper bound. This improvement, however, was mostly credited to the forced exploration other than the intrinsic property of Thompson sampling.
It remains a mystery why approximate Bayesian sampling methods can work well empirically but fails theoretically \citep{phan2019thompson}, and a study regarding the fundamental understanding of their performance is necessary.
Nevertheless, this question is not well investigated even in basic multi-armed bandits. In this work, we bridge this gap by providing a novel theoretical framework and pointing out that, minimizing KL divergence is insufficient to guarantee a sub-linear regret and meanwhile reducing the symmetrized KL divergence can contribute to the improvement of model performance.
In this paper, we propose a Bayesian bandit algorithm that can efficiently accommodate approximate inference, which we call the Generalized Bayesian Upper Confidence Bound (GBUCB). Under constant inference error, GBUCB can achieve $O(\sqrt{T}(\log T)^c)$ frequentist regret, which to our knowledge is the first theoretical regret bound that is better than $o(T)$.
Bayesian Upper Confidence Bound (BUCB) was introduced by \citet{kaufmann2012bayesian,kaufmann2018bayesian} as a powerful Bayesian approach for multi-armed bandits, and also has its versions in contextual bandits \citep{srinivas2009gaussian,guo2020deep}.
We provide the first study to extend the work of BUCB to the setting of approximate inference. In particular, we redesign the quantile choice in the algorithm to address the challenge of approximate inference: The original choice of $t^{-1}$ provides the best regret bound without approximate inference, but in the presence of approximate inference, it leads to an undesirable quantile shift which degrades the performance. With a careful adjustment of this quantile choice, we theoretically demonstrate that a sub-linear regret upper bound is achievable, if the inference error, which is measured by symmetrized Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergences (equivalently, sum of two $\alpha$-divergences with $\alpha=0,1$), is bounded. Moreover, we also show a negative answer in the other direction: Instead of symmetrized KL, controlling a KL divergence alone is not sufficient to guarantee a sub-linear regret for both Thompson sampling and GBUCB. This therefore suggests that naive approximate inference method that only minimizes KL divergence could perform poorly, and that it is critical to design approaches that reduce symmetrized divergences.
Our main contributions are summarized as follows:\\
1) We propose a general Bayesian bandit algorithm GBUCB to address the challenge of approximate inference. Our theoretical study shows that GBUCB can achieve a $O(\sqrt{T}(\log T)^c)$ regret upper bound when symmetrized KL divergence is controllable. This provides the first theoretical regret upper bound that is better than $o(T)$ in a general setting of approximate inference to the best of our knowledge.\\
2) We develop a novel sensitivity analysis of quantile shift with respect to inference error. This provides a fundamental tool to analyze Bayesian quantiles in the presence of approximate inference, which has potential for broader applications, e.g., when the inference error is time-dependent. \\
3) We demonstrate that a controllable KL divergence of one direction alone is insufficient to guarantee a sub-linear regret. Worst-case examples are constructed and illustrated where TS/BUCB/GBUCB has $\Omega(T)$ regret if KL divergence of one direction alone is controllable. Hence, special consideration on reducing the symmetrized KL divergence is necessary for real-world applications. \\
4) Our experimental evaluations corroborate well our theory, showing that our GBUCB is consistently superior to BUCB and Thompson sampling on multiple approximate inference settings.
\subsection{Related Work} \label{sec:related}
The theoretical optimality of bandit algorithms has been extensively studied over decades \citep{li2019nearly,bubeck2012regret}. The seminal paper \citet{lai1985asymptotically} (and subsequently \citet{burnetas1996optimal}) established the first problem-dependent frequentist regret lower bound, showing that without any prior knowledge on the distributions, a regret of order $\log T$ is unavoidable. Thompson sampling \citep{agrawal2012analysis,kaufmann2012thompson,gopalan2014thompson} and BUCB \citep{kaufmann2012bayesian,kaufmann2018bayesian} had been shown to match this lower bound, which indicated the theoretical optimality of those algorithms. Beyond basic multi-armed bandit problems, Bayesian approaches also exhibited powerful strength in the contextual bandit problems \citep{srinivas2009gaussian,agrawal2013thompson,russo2014learning}. \citet{agrawal2013thompson} showed that linTS (a version of Thompson sampling in the linear contextual problems) could achieve a regret bound of $O(d^{3/2} \sqrt{T})$. \citet{russo2014learning} demonstrated that the Bayesian regret of LinTS was bounded above by $O(d \sqrt{T})$ which matched the minimax lower bound \citep{dani2008stochastic}. All of those studies are in the setting of exact posterior computation. However, beyond Gaussian processes and linear models, exact computation of the posterior distribution is generally intractable and thus, approximate inference is necessary
Since Thompson sampling had been shown to exhibit linear regret in the worst-case scenario of approximate inference as mentioned \citep{lu2017ensemble,phan2019thompson}, some recent work focused on designing specialized methods to construct Bayesian indices. \citet{mazumdar2020approximate} constructed Langevin algorithms to generate approximate samples and showed an optimal problem-dependent frequentist regret. \citet{o2021variational} proposed variational Bayesian optimistic sampling, suggesting to solve a convex optimization problem over the simplex at every time step. Unlike these, our study presents general results that rely only on the approximate inference error level, but not on the specific method of approximate inference.
Beyond Bayesian, another mainstream of bandit algorithms to address the exploration-exploitation tradeoff is upper confidence bound (UCB)-type algorithms \citep{auer2002using,auer2002finite,auer2002nonstochastic,dani2008stochastic,garivier2011kl,seldin2013evaluation,zhou2020neural}.
\citet{chapelle2011empirical} revealed that Thompson sampling empirically outperformed UCB algorithm in practice, partly because UCB was typically conservative as its configuration was data-independent which led to over-exploration \citep{hao2019bootstrapping}. BUCB \citep{kaufmann2012bayesian} could be viewed as a mid-ground between TS and UCB. On the other hand, empirical studies \citep{kaufmann2018bayesian} showed that Thompson sampling and BUCB performed similarly well in general.
\section{Thompson Sampling, BUCB, and GBUCB} \label{sec:GBUCB}
The stochastic multi-armed bandit problem consists of a set of $K$ actions (arms), each with a stochastic scalar reward following a probability distribution $\nu_{i}$ ($i=1,...,K$). At each time step $t=1,...,T$ where $T$ is the time horizon, the agent chooses an action $A_t\in [K]$ and
in return observes an independent reward $X_t$ drawn from the associated probability distribution $\nu_{A_t}$. The goal is to devise a strategy
$\mathcal{A} = (A_t)_{t\in [T]}$, to maximize the accumulated rewards through the observations from historic interaction.
In general, a wise strategy should be sequential, in the sense that the upcoming actions are determined and adjusted by the past observations: letting $\mathcal{F}_t = \sigma(A_1, X_1,..., A_t, X_t)$ be the $\sigma$-field generated by the observations up to time $t$, $A_t$ is $\sigma(\mathcal{F}_{t-1}, U_t)$-measurable, where $U_t$ is a uniform random
variable independent from $\mathcal{F}_{t-1}$ (as algorithms may be randomized). More precisely, let $\mu_1,..., \mu_K$ denote the mean rewards of the actions $\nu_1,..., \nu_K$, and without loss of generality, we assume that $\mu_1 = \max_{j\in [K]} \mu_j$. Then maximizing the rewards is
equivalent to minimizing the (frequentist) regret, which is defined as the expected difference between the reward accumulated by an ``ideal" strategy (a strategy that always playing the best action), and the reward accumulated by a strategy $\mathcal{A}$:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:regret}
R(T, \mathcal{A}) := \mathbb{E}\left[T \mu_1 - \sum_{t=1}^{T} X_t
\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t=1}^{T} (\mu_1 - \mu_{A_t}
)\right].
\end{equation}
The expectation is taken with respect to both the randomness in the sequence of successive rewards from each action $j$, denoted by $(Y_{j,s})_{s\in \mathbb{N}}$, and the possible randomization of the algorithm, $(U_t)_{t \in [T]}$. Let $N_j(t) = \sum_{s=1}^t \mathbbm{1}(A_s=j)$ denote the number of draws from action $j$ up to time $t$, so that $X_t = Y_{A_t,N_{A_t}(t)}$. Moreover, let $\hat{\mu}_{j,s} =\sum_{k=1}^s Y_{j,k}$ be the empirical mean of the first $s$ rewards from action $j$ and let $\hat{\mu}_{j}(t)$ be the empirical mean
of action $j$ after $t$ rounds of the bandit algorithm. Therefore $\hat{\mu}_{j}(t) = 0$ if $N_j(t) = 0$, $\hat{\mu}_{j}(t) = \hat{\mu}_{j,N_j(t)}$ otherwise.
Note that the true mean rewards $\bm{\mu}=(\mu_1,..., \mu_K)$ are fixed and unknown to the agent. In order to perform Thompson sampling, or more generally, Bayesian approaches, we artificially define a prior distribution $\Pi_0$ on $\bm{\mu}$. Let $\Pi_t$ be the exact posterior distribution of $\bm{\mu}|\mathcal{F}_{t-1}$ with density function $\pi_t$ with marginal distributions $\pi_{t,1},...,\pi_{t,K}$ for actions $1,...,K$. Specifically, if at time step $t$, the agent chooses action $A_t = j$ and consequently observes $X_t = Y_{A_t,N_{A_t}(t)}$, the Bayesian update for action $j$ is
\begin{equation} \label{equ:update}
\pi_{t,j}(x_j) \propto \nu_{j}(X_t) \pi_{t-1,j}(x_j),
\end{equation}
whereas for $i \ne j$, $\pi_{t,i} = \pi_{t-1,i}$.
In each time step $t$, we assume that the exact posterior computation in \eqref{equ:update} cannot be obtained explicitly and an approximate inference method is able to give us an approximate distribution $Q_t$ (instead of $\Pi_t$). We use $q_t$ to denote the density function of $Q_t$.
First, we consider a standard case where the exact posterior is accessible.
In Thompson sampling \citep{agrawal2012analysis}, we obtain a sample $\hat{m}$ from the posterior distribution $\Pi_{t-1}$ and then select action $A_t$ using the following strategy:
$A_t = i$ if $\hat{m}_i= \max_{j} \hat{m}_j.$ In Bayesian Upper Confidence Bound (BUCB) \citep{kaufmann2012bayesian}, we obtain the quantile of the posterior distribution
$$q_j(t)=Qu(1 - \frac{1}{t(\log T)^c}, \Pi_{t-1,j})$$
for each action $j$ where $Qu(t, \rho)$ is the quantile function associated to the distribution $\rho$, such that $P_\rho(X \le Qu(t, \rho)) = t$. Then we select action $A_t$ as follows: $A_t = i$ if $q_i(t)= \max_{j} q_j(t)$.
Next, we move to a more concrete example, Bernoulli multi-armed bandit problems \citep{agrawal2012analysis,agrawal2013further,kaufmann2012bayesian,kaufmann2018bayesian}. In these problems, each (stochastic) reward follows a Bernoulli distribution $\nu_i\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\mu_i)$ and these distributions are independent of each other. The prior $\Pi_{0,j}$ is (usually) chosen to be the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) $\text{Beta}(1, 1)$, or the uniform distribution for every action $j$. Then the posterior distribution for action $j$ is a Beta distribution
$\Pi_{t,j}=\text{Beta}(1+ S_j(t), 1+ N_j(t)- S_j(t))$, where $S_j(t) = \sum_{s=1}^{t} \mathbbm{1}\{A_s = j\} X_t$ is the empirical cumulative reward from action $j$ up to time $t$. Then, Thompson sampling/BUCB chooses the samples/quantiles of the posterior $\Pi_{t,j}=\text{Beta}(1+ S_j(t), 1+ N_j(t)- S_j(t))$ respectively at each time step.
In the presence of approximate inference, Thompson sampling draws the sample $\hat{m}$ from $Q_{t-1}$, as the exact $\Pi_{t-1}$ is not accessible. Correspondingly, we modify the specific sequence of quantiles chosen by the BUCB algorithm with a general sequence of $\{\gamma_t\}$-quantiles, which we call a Generalized Bayesian Upper Confidence Bound (GBUCB) algorithm. The detailed algorithm of GBUCB is described in Algorithm \ref{alg:GBUCB}. For Bernoulli multi-armed bandit problems, we suggest to choose the following quantiles
\begin{equation} \label{equ:quantilesGBUCB}
q_j(t)=Qu(1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}(\log T)^c}, Q_{t-1,j}).
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_t=1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}(\log T)^c}$.
This $\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}$ instead of the original $\frac{1}{t}$ in $\gamma_t$ is a delicate choice to address the tradeoff between the optimal regret and the presence of inference error; see Remark \ref{quantilechoice} in Section \ref{sec:theo}.
As discussed in \citet{kaufmann2012bayesian}, the horizon-dependent term $(\log T)^c$
is only an artifact of the theoretical analysis to obtain a finite-time regret upper bound (for $c \ge 5$). In practice, the model with choice $c = 0$ (i.e., without the horizon-dependent term) already achieves superior performance. This is confirmed by our experiments in Section \ref{sec:exp} and a similar observation in BUCB was indicated in \citet{kaufmann2012bayesian}.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Generalized Bayesian Upper Confidence Bound (GBUCB) with Approximate Inference}
\label{alg:GBUCB}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} $T$ (time horizon), $\Pi_0=Q_0$ (initial prior on $\bm{\mu}$), $c$ (parameters of the quantile), a real-value increasing sequence $\{\gamma_t\}$ such that $\gamma_t\to 1$ as $t\to \infty$
\FOR{$t=1$ {\bfseries to} $T$}
\FOR{each action $j = 1,..., K$}
\STATE compute
\STATE $$q_j(t)=Qu(\gamma_t, Q_{t-1,j}).$$
\ENDFOR
\STATE draw action $A_t = \argmax{j=1...K} q_j(t)$
\STATE get reward $X_t=Y_{A_t,N_{A_t}(t)}$
\STATE Define the exact posterior distribution $\Pi_t$ according to \eqref{equ:update} but only obtain an approximate distribution $Q_t$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Theoretical Analysis} \label{sec:theo}
In this section, we present a theoretical analysis of GBUCB. In section \ref{sec:kldivergence}, we provide the necessary background of KL divergence on approximate inference error measurement. Then in Section \ref{sec:quantile}, we develop a novel sensitivity analysis of quantile shift with respect to inference error. This provides a fundamental tool to analyze Bayesian quantiles in the presence of approximate inference. The general results therein will be used for our derivation for the regret upper bound of GBUCB in Section \ref{sec:regretbound}, and are also potentially useful for broad applications, e.g., when the inference error is time-dependent.
Lastly, in Section \ref{sec:tsfails}, we provide examples where Thompson sampling/BUCB/GBUCB has a linear regret with arbitrarily small inference error measured by KL divergence alone. All proofs are given in Appendix.
\subsection{KL Divergence for Inference Error Measurement} \label{sec:kldivergence}
KL divergence is widely used in variational inference \citep{blei2017variational,kingma2013auto} which is one of the most popular approaches in Bayesian approximate inference. It was also adopted in previous study on Thompson sampling with approximate inference \citep{phan2019thompson,lu2017ensemble}. The KL divergence between two distributions $P_1$ and $P_2$ with density functions $p_1(x)$ and $p_2(x)$ is defined as:
$$KL(P_1,P_2)=\int p_1(x)\log\left(\frac{p_1(x)}{p_2(x)}\right) dx.$$
When using the approximate Bayesian inference methods, the exact posterior distribution $\Pi_t$ and the approximate distribution $Q_t$ may differ from each other. To provide a general analysis of approximate sampling methods, we use the KL divergence as the measurement of inference error (statistical distance) between $\Pi_t$ and $Q_t$. Our starting point is the following.
\begin{assumption} \label{assu0}
\begin{equation} \label{equ:error}
\begin{split}
KL(Q_{t,j},P_{t,j})&\le \epsilon, \ \forall t\in [T], j\in [K] \\
KL(P_{t,j},Q_{t,j})&\le \epsilon, \ \forall t\in [T], j\in [K]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{assumption}
In other words, the symmetrized KL divergence between $Q_{t,j}$ and $\Pi_{t,j}$ is controllable. To enhance credibility on this assumption, we remark that some recent papers \citep{ruiz2019contrastive,brekelmans2020all} consider the symmetrized KL divergence in variational inference.
This assumption states that while we only have access to the approximate distribution $Q_{t,j}$, the inference error (measured by symmetrized KL divergence) between the exact $\Pi_{t,j}$ and $Q_{t,j}$ only differs from a constant $\epsilon$ (at most) at each time step $t$. We note that our assumption (as well as our subsequent results) is general in the sense that it does not assume any specific methods of approximate inference.
\begin{remark} \label{jointdistribution}
In multi-armed bandit problem, the most practical (and probably natural) way to define the prior distribution $\Pi_0$ is to assume independence among each action $\Pi_{0,1},...,\Pi_{0,K}$ and thus the posterior distribution is also independently updated among each action \citep{agrawal2012analysis,kaufmann2012bayesian}. Therefore we focus on the inference error on the distribution of each action in \eqref{equ:error}, which appears more realistic than the inference error on the joint distribution of all actions assumed in \citet{phan2019thompson}.
\end{remark}
If the inference error measured by symmetrized KL divergences (equivalently, two $\alpha$-divergences with $\alpha=0,1$) is controllable, then we can show that a low regret bound is indeed achievable. This does not contradict the results in \citet{phan2019thompson}. To quote them, ``we do not mean to imply that low regret is impossible but simply that making an $\alpha$-divergence a small constant alone is not sufficient."
\subsection{Quantile Shift with Inference Error} \label{sec:quantile}
We put the following basic assumption:
\begin{assumption} \label{assu1}
$p_1(x)$ and $p_2(x)$ have the same support.
\end{assumption}
This assumption is to guarantee that the KL divergence in \eqref{equ:error} is well-defined.
We rigorously state our theorem as follows:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:quantileshift}
Let $R_i$ denote the quantile function of the distribution $P_i$, i.e., $R_i(p):=Qu(p,P_i)$ ($i=1,2$). Suppose Assumption \ref{assu1} holds. Let $\gamma>\frac{1}{2}$. Let $\delta_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ satisfy that $$R_1(\gamma)=R_2(\gamma+\delta_{\gamma,\epsilon})$$
a) If $KL(P_1,P_2)\le \epsilon$, then
$$\delta_{\gamma,\epsilon}<(1-\gamma)\left(1-\exp(-\frac{\epsilon+\log(2)}{1-\gamma})\right).$$
b) If $KL(P_2,P_1)\le \epsilon$, then
$$\delta_{\gamma,\epsilon}\ge -(1-\gamma)(M_\epsilon-1)$$
where $M_\epsilon>1$ is the (unique) solution of $M_\epsilon\log(M_\epsilon)=2(\epsilon+e^{-1})$. Note that $M_\epsilon$ only depends on $\epsilon$.
\end{theorem}
We only consider the quantile $\gamma>\frac{1}{2}$ in the theorem since the quantile chosen by the GBUCB algorithm is greater than $\frac{1}{2}$ when $t$ is large (since $\gamma_t \to 1$). This theorem states that with $\epsilon$ inference error, the $\gamma$-quantile of the distribution $P_1$ is the $(\gamma+\delta_{\gamma,\epsilon})$-quantile of the distribution $P_2$ where the shift $\delta_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ is close to $0$. This theorem is distribution-free, in the sense that the bound of $\delta_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ does not depend on any specific distributions (noting that distribution changes as $t$ evolves in bandit problems). For instance, we have $\delta_{\gamma,\epsilon}\ge -O_\epsilon(1-\gamma)$ where the hidden constant in $O_\epsilon$ only depends on $\epsilon$, independent of $\gamma$ or distributions (in other words, independent of $t$). This observation is important in the robustness of using quantiles in the GBUCB.
The proof of Theorem 4.1 relies on the following lemma, which provides a quantile-based representation of KL divergence.
\begin{lemma} \label{thm:quantileshift2}
Under the same condition in Theorem \ref{thm:quantileshift}, we have that
$$KL(P_1,P_2)=-\int_{0}^{1} \log\left(\frac{d}{du}R_2^{-1}(R_1(u))\right) du.$$
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Regret Bound for GBUCB} \label{sec:regretbound}
In this section, we rigorously derive the upper bound of the problem-dependent frequentist regret for GBUCB in Bernoulli multi-armed bandit problems.
Note that by definition \eqref{equ:regret}, we can express the regret as
$$R(T, \mathcal{A}) := \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t=1}^{T} (\mu_1 - \mu_{A_t}
)\right]=\sum_{j=1}^{K} (\mu_1 - \mu_{j}) \mathbb{E}\left[N_j(t)\right].$$
Therefore, in order to bound the problem-dependent regret $R(T, \mathcal{A})$, it is sufficient to consider $\mathbb{E}\left[N_j(t)\right]$.
For $(p, q) \in [0,1]^2$, we denote the Bernoulli Kullback-Leibler divergence between two points by
$$d(p, q) = p \log(\frac{p}{q})+ (1 - p) \log(\frac{1-p}{1-q}),$$
with, by convention, $0 \log 0 = 0 \log(0/0) = 0$ and $x \log(x/0) = +\infty$ for $x > 0$. We also denote that $d^+(p,q) = d(p, q)\mathbbm{1}\{p<q\}$ for convenience.
We adopt the Assumption \ref{assu1} in this setting.
\begin{assumption} \label{assu2}
$q_{t,j}(x)$ has the support $(0,1)$ for any $t\in [T], j\in [K]$.
\end{assumption}
Note that $\pi_{t,j}(x)$ is the pdf of $\text{Beta}(1+ S_j(t), 1+ N_j(t)- S_j(t))$ so its support is $(0,1)$.
The following is our main theorem: a finite-time
regret bounds for our GBUCB algorithm. Without loss of generality, we assume action $1$ is optimal.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:regret}
Suppose Assumption \ref{assu0}, \ref{assu2} hold.
For any $\xi > 0$, choosing the parameter $c \ge 5$ in the GBUCB algorithm and setting $\gamma_t=1-\frac{1}{t^{\zeta}(\log T)^c} (0< \zeta< 1)$, the number of draws of any sub-optimal action $j\ge 2$ is upper-bounded by
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[N_j(T)] \le& \frac{(1 + \xi)K_\epsilon}{ d(\mu_j, \mu_1)}\max\{T^{\zeta}(\log T)^c,\frac{cT^{1-\zeta}}{1-\zeta}\}\\
&+ o_{\xi,c,\epsilon} (\max\{T^{\zeta}(\log T)^c,\frac{cT^{1-\zeta}}{1-\zeta}\}).
\end{align*}
where $K_\epsilon$ is a constant only depending on the inference error $\epsilon$. More specifically, these exists an absolute constant $C_0$, such that
$$K_\epsilon\le C_0 \max\{M_\epsilon, \epsilon+\log(2)\}.$$
\end{theorem}
It is easy to see that to minimize the regret upper bound, we may choose $\zeta=\frac{1}{2}$ in Theorem
\ref{thm:regret}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:regret}
Suppose Assumption \ref{assu0}, \ref{assu2} hold.
For any $\xi > 0$, choosing the parameter $c \ge 5$ in the GBUCB algorithm and setting $\gamma_t=1-\frac{1}{t^{1/2}(\log T)^c}$ (See \eqref{equ:quantilesGBUCB}), the number of draws of any sub-optimal action $j\ge 2$ is upper-bounded by
$$\mathbb{E}[N_j(T)] \le \frac{(1 + \xi)K_\epsilon}{ d(\mu_j, \mu_1)}\sqrt{T}(\log T)^c+ o_{\xi,c,\epsilon} (\sqrt{T}(\log T)^c).$$
\end{corollary}
This result states that with $\epsilon$ inference error, the regret of the GBUCB algorithm is bounded above by $\sqrt{T}(\log T)^c$, which is the first algorithm providing the theoretical regret bound that is better than $o(T)$ to the best of our knowledge.
\begin{remark}
It appears a little surprising at first glance that the result in Corollary \ref{thm:regret3} indicates a $\sqrt{T}(\log T)^c$ regret upper bound regardless of how large $\epsilon$ is (except that it influences the constant $K_\epsilon$), since we may expect that a large $\epsilon$ allows the ``fully swap" of the posterior of the optimal action and a suboptimal action, making any Bayesian index approaches not able to distinguish them. However, as time goes by, the exact posterior will be more and more ``concentrated" on the true mean with little variability, making the symmetrized KL divergence between two actions larger and larger. That means for a fixed $\epsilon$ (no matter how large it is), the symmetrized KL divergence between the exact posteriors of two actions will be sufficiently large when $t$ is sufficiently large so the ``fully swap" cannot happen.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\citet{kaufmann2012bayesian} have shown that in the absence of approximate inference, $\mathbb{E}[N_j(T)]=O(\log T)$ which matches the problem-dependent regret lower bound in \citet{lai1985asymptotically}. Yet, it is conjectured that this bound is no longer available due to the approximate inference.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{quantilechoice}
The $\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}$ in the choice of the quantiles in GBUCB, instead of the original $\frac{1}{t}$ in BUCB, is a delicate choice to address the tradeoff between making the regret optimal without approximate inference and the presence of inference error. On a technical level, a larger
power $\zeta$ in $t^{\zeta}$ improves the regret bound without the presence of approximate inference but simultaneously leads to high-level quantile shift
caused by approximate inference. Choosing $\zeta=\frac{1}{2}$ is a subtle balance of those two.
\end{remark}
The analysis of Theorem \ref{thm:regret} relies on the bounds on the quantiles of the approximate distributions used in the GBUCB algorithm, which can be obtained by combining the tight bounds on the quantiles of the exact posterior distributions (the proof of Lemma 1 in \citet{kaufmann2012bayesian}) with the quantile shift between the approximate and exact posterior distributions (Theorem \ref{thm:quantileshift}). More specifically, we have the following lemma:
\begin{lemma} \label{thm:regret2}
Under the same condition in Theorem \ref{thm:regret}, the quantiles of the approximate distributions $q_j(t)$ chosen by the GBUCB
algorithm satisfies the following bound:
\begin{align*}
\underline{u}_j(t)\le q_j(t) \le \overline{u}_j(t)
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
&\underline{u}_j(t) = \argmax{x> \frac{S_j(t)}{N_j(t)+1}}
\Big\{d\left(\frac{S_j(t)}{N_j(t)+1}
, x\right) \le\\
& \frac{\zeta\log(t) + c \log(\log T)-\log(M_\epsilon)-\log(N_j(t)+2)}{N_j(t)+1} \Big\},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
&\overline{u}_j(t) = \argmax{x> \frac{S_j(t)}{N_j(t)}}
\Big\{d\left(\frac{S_j(t)}{N_j(t)}
, x\right) \le\\
&\frac{\zeta\log(t) + c \log(\log T)+(\epsilon+\log(2))t^{\zeta}(\log T)^c)}{N_j(t)} \Big\}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
Based on Lemma \ref{thm:regret2}, we can obtain a UCB-type decomposition of the number of draws of any sub-optimal action $j\ge 2$, which is the first step to prove Theorem \ref{thm:regret}:
\begin{lemma} \label{thm:regret3}
Under the same condition in Theorem \ref{thm:regret}, we have that for any constant $\beta_T$,
\begin{equation}\label{equ:numberofdraws}
\begin{split}
N_2(T)&\le \sum_{t=1}^T
\mathbbm{1}\{\mu_1-\beta_T>\underline{u}_1(t)\}\\
&+\sum_{t=1}^T
\mathbbm{1}\{(\mu_1-\beta_T\le \overline{u}_2(t))\cap (A_t=2)\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Finally, to obtain Theorem \ref{thm:regret}, it is sufficient to analyze the two terms in Lemma \ref{thm:regret3}.
\subsection{KL Divergence Alone Cannot Guarantee a Sub-Linear Regret} \label{sec:tsfails}
We show that a controllable KL divergence of one direction alone cannot guarantee a sub-linear regret. We provide two worst-case examples,
one where Thompson sampling has a linear regret, the other where BUCB/GBUCB has a linear regret, even when the inference error measured by KL divergence is arbitrarily small. A similar study on Thompson sampling has been conducted in \citet{phan2019thompson} where they focus on the inference error on the joint distribution of all actions. In this work, nevertheless, we focus on a setting where the inference error on the distribution of each action is assumed; See Remark \ref{jointdistribution}. Therefore, their examples cannot be directly applied in our setting. Moreover, our second example shows that BUCB/GBUCB could have a linear regret if only KL divergence of one direction is considered, which is brand new.
\begin{assumption} \label{assu3}
\begin{equation} \label{equ:error2}
\begin{split}
KL(P_{t,j},Q_{t,j})&\le \epsilon, \ \forall t\in [T], j\in [K].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{assumption}
We establish the following theorem for Thompson sampling:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:tsfails}
Consider a Bernoulli multi-armed bandit problem where the number of actions is $K = 2$ and $\mu_1>\mu_2$. The prior $\Pi_{0,j}$ is chosen to be the i.i.d. $\text{Beta}(1, 1)$, or the uniform distribution for every action $j=1,2$. For any error threshold $\epsilon>0$, there exists a sequence of distributions $Q_t$ such that for all $t \ge 1$:\\
1. The probability of sampling from $Q_{t-1}$ choosing action $2$ is greater than a positive constant.\\
2. $Q_{t-1}$ satisfies Assumptions \ref{assu2}, \ref{assu3}.\\
Therefore Thompson sampling from the approximate distribution $Q_{t-1}$ will cause a finite-time linear frequentist regret:
$$R(T, \mathcal{A})=\Omega(T).$$
\end{theorem}
In fact, we can explicitly construct such a distribution $Q_t$ as follows:
\begin{gather}
q_{t,2}(x_2)=\pi_{t,2}(x_2) \nonumber \\
q_{t,1}(x_1) = \begin{cases}
\frac{1-\frac{1}{r}(1-F_{t,1}(b_t))}{F_{t,1}(b_t)} \pi_{t,1}(x_1) & \text{if } 0 < x_1 < b_t \\
\frac{1}{r} \pi_{t,1}(x_1) & \text{if } b_t< x_1 < 1 \label{exp:tsfails}
\end{cases}
\end{gather}
where $F_{t,1}$ is the cdf of $\Pi_{t,1}$ and $r>1$, $b_t \in (0,1)$ will be specified in the proof.
This theorem shows that making KL divergence of one direction a small constant alone, even for each action $j$, is not enough to guarantee a sub-linear regret of Thompson sampling. Note that Theorem \ref{thm:tsfails} is an enhancement of the results in \citet{phan2019thompson} in the sense that the $Q_t$ constructed by our theorem satisfies more restrictive assumptions (since KL divergence on the marginal distribution of each action being small implies that KL divergence on the joint distribution of all actions is small). We can derive a similar observation for the BUCB/GBUCB algorithm as follows:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:bucbfails}
Consider a Bernoulli multi-armed bandit problem where the number of actions is $K = 2$ and $\mu_1>\mu_2$. The prior $\Pi_{0,j}$ is chosen to be the i.i.d. $\text{Beta}(1, 1)$, or the uniform distribution for every action $j=1,2$.
Consider the general GBUCB algorithm described in Algorithm \ref{alg:GBUCB}.
For any error threshold $\epsilon>0$, there exists a constant $T_0$ only depending on the sequence $\{\gamma_t\}$ and a sequence of distributions $Q_{t-1}$ such that for all $t \ge 1$:\\
1. The GBUCB algorithm always chooses action $2$ when $t \ge T_0$.\\
2. $Q_{t-1}$ satisfies Assumptions \ref{assu2}, \ref{assu3}.\\
Therefore the GBUCB algorithm from the approximate distribution $Q_{t-1}$ will cause a finite-time linear frequentist regret:
$$R(T, \mathcal{A})=\Omega(T).$$
\end{theorem}
Again, we can explicitly construct such a distribution $Q_t$ as follows:
\begin{gather}
q_{t,1}(x_1)=\pi_{t,1}(x_1) \nonumber\\
q_{t,2}(x_2) = \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{r} \pi_{t,2}(x_2) & \text{if } 0< x_1 < b_t \\
\frac{1-\frac{1}{r}F_{t,2}(b_t)}{1-F_{t,2}(b_t)} \pi_{t,2}(x_2) & \text{if } b_t < x_1 < 1 \label{exp:bucbfails}
\end{cases}
\end{gather}
where $F_{t,2}$ is the cdf of $\Pi_{t,2}$ and $r>1$, $b_t \in (0,1)$ will be specified in the proof.
This theorem shows that making KL divergence of one direction a small constant alone, even for each action $j$, is not enough to guarantee a sub-linear regret of BUCB/GBUCB. We emphasize that the examples in Theorems \ref{thm:tsfails} and \ref{thm:bucbfails} are in the \textbf{worst-case} sense.
In other words, there exist worst-case examples where Thompson sampling/GBUCB exhibits a linear regret if only one KL divergence is controllable. This does not imply that GBUCB and Thompson sampling fail \textbf{on average} in the presence of approximate inference. In fact, Theorem \ref{thm:regret} shows that a sub-linear regret can be achieved in any case as long as the inference error measured by symmetrized KL divergence is controllable.
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:exp}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig1_icml.PNG}
\caption{Comparison of GBUCB and baselines with generally misspecified posteriors under different problem settings. Results are averaged over 10 runs with shaded standard errors.
}
\label{fig:nottoo}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig3-2.PNG}
\caption{Results of Thompson sampling, BUCB, and GBUCB with worst-case misspecified posteriors under different problem settings. Results are averaged over 10 runs with shaded standard errors.}
\label{fig:too}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we conduct numerical experiments to show the correctness of our theory. In Section \ref{sec:5.1}, we compare the performance of GBUCB with the following baselines: BUCB and Thompson sampling. In Section \ref{sec:5.2}, we construct worst-case examples showing that both GBUCB and Thompson sampling can degenerate to linear regret, if only assuming KL divergence of one direction. Our code will be publicly available to facilitate other researchers.
We consider the Bernoulli multi-armed bandit problem which has $2$ actions with mean reward $[0.7, 0.3]$ and use $\text{Beta}(1,1)$ as the prior distribution of mean reward for each action. At each time step $t$, the exact posterior distribution for each action is $\text{Beta}(1+S_j(t),1+N_j(t)-S_j(t))$, where $S_j(t)$ is the empirical cumulative reward from action $j$ up to time $t$ and $N_j(t)$ is the number of draws from action $j$ up to time $t$.
\subsection{Generally Misspecified Posteriors}
\label{sec:5.1}
Suppose the posterior distributions are misspecified to the following distributions:
\begin{align*}
(P1):\ &(1-w) * \text{Beta}(1+S_j(t),1+N_j(t)-S_j(t))\\
+ &w * \text{Beta}(\frac{1+S_j(t)}{2},\frac{1+N_j(t)-S_j(t)}{2})\\
(P2):\ &(1-w) * \text{Beta}(1+S_j(t),1+N_j(t)-S_j(t))\\
+ &w * \text{Beta}(2(1+S_j(t)),2(1+N_j(t)-S_j(t)))
\end{align*}
where $w=0.9, 0.8, 0.7$. Note that the first problem setting $(P1)$ mimics the situation where the
approximation covers the posterior’s entire support ($\alpha$ in $\alpha$-divergence inference error is large), while the second problem setting $(P2)$ mimics the situation where the approximation fits the posterior’s dominant mode ($\alpha$ in $\alpha$-divergence inference error is small); See \citet{minka2005divergence} for the implication of $\alpha$-divergence.
Figure \ref{fig:nottoo} presents the results of GBUCB and the baselines. Those results demonstrate that: \\
1) Overall, GBUCB achieves consistently superior performance than the baselines and it outperforms BUCB with considerable improvements. These results confirms the effectiveness of GBUCB across multiple settings.\\
2) GBUCB performs well without the horizon-dependent term (i.e., $c = 0$ in Equation \eqref{equ:quantilesGBUCB}). This brings GBUCB with practical advantages in real-world applications since it does not require advanced knowledge of the horizon (i.e., \textbf{anytime}). A similar observation of BUCB was also noticed in \citet{kaufmann2012bayesian}.
\subsection{Worst-Case Misspecified Posteriors}
\label{sec:5.2}
We consider the worst-case examples, Equations \eqref{exp:tsfails} and \eqref{exp:bucbfails}, presented in Section \ref{sec:tsfails}, where the posterior distributions are misspecified using KL divergence of one direction.
The results of Thompson sampling, BUCB, and GBUCB are displayed in Figure \ref{fig:too}. From these worst-case examples, we observe that: \\
1) Thompson sampling exhibits a linear regret after $t\ge 1$. As we have shown in Theorem \ref{thm:tsfails}, the linear coefficient (i.e., the slope) of the regret depends on $r$, the level of inference error. Larger $r$ implies larger slope of the regret, which has been illustrated in both Figure \ref{fig:too} and the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:tsfails}. \\
2) BUCB/GBUCB exhibits a linear regret with constant slope $\mu_1-\mu_2$ after $t\ge T_0$ (where $T_0$ is introduced in Theorem \ref{thm:bucbfails}). The artificial choice of $r$ is to make $T_0=100,200,333$ where $\gamma_{T_0}=\frac{1}{r}$; please refer to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bucbfails} for details.
In summary, our experiments evidently demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed GBUCB on multi-armed bandit problems with generally misspecified posteriors. Our results also align closely with our theory that simply making KL divergence a small constant alone is insufficient to guarantee a sub-linear regret of Thompson sampling/BUCB/GBUCB. Hence, a controllable symmetrized KL divergence is necessary for the sub-linear regret upper bound.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclude}
In this paper, we propose a general Bayesian bandit algorithm, which we call Generalized Bayesian Upper Confidence Bound (GBUCB), that achieves superior performance for multi-armed bandit problems with approximate inference. We prove that, with controllable symmetrized KL divergence, GBUCB can achieve $O(\sqrt{T}(\log T)^c)$ frequentist regret. In comparison with the baselines, we empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of GBUCB among various problem settings. In addition, we construct worse-case examples to show the necessity of symmetrized KL divergence, which is further verified by the observations in our experiments. Future work will extend the idea of GBUCB to contextual bandit problems with approximate inference.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Exclusive photo-production of vector mesons on protons and nuclei has been an important playground for strong interaction models since early years of vector dominance model \cite{Stodolsky:1966am,Ross:1965qa} based on the pole dominated dispersion relation for the production amplitude (see the comprehensive review \cite{Bauer:1977iq}).
While for light mesons that assumption was reasonably justified by closeness of the meson pole to the physical region, photo-production of heavy quarkonia,
$J/\psi$, $\Upsilon$, etc. (or high $Q^2$ electro-production), cannot be dominated by the pole, which is far away from physical region, and other singularities, poles and cuts, become essential \cite{Hufner:1995qe,Hufner:1997jg}. Besides, photo-production on nuclei provide unique information about the space-time pattern of interaction \cite{Hufner:1996dr}.
With advent of the quantum-chromodynamics (QCD) era, an alternative description in terms of color dipoles was proposed in \cite{Kopeliovich:1981pz}, and applied to exclusive photo-production of heavy quarkonia on protons and nuclei \cite{Kopeliovich:1991pu,Hufner:2000jb,Ivanov:2002kc}.
Experiments with ultra-peripheral collisions (UPC) at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and Large Hadron Collider (LHC) (see e.g. \cite{Bertulani:2005ru}) offer new opportunities for measurements of exclusive photo-production of vector
mesons on protons and nuclei. Corresponding calculations, performed within the color-dipole approach \cite{Ivanov:2007ms,Kopeliovich:2020has}, as well as other theoretical descriptions of coherent production of heavy quarkonia in UPC, require improvements.
In the present paper, we aim to minimize theoretical uncertainties of the QCD dipole formalism for coherent production on nuclear targets.
The effect, missed in many calculations, is the correlation between the dipole transverse orientation $\vec r$ and the impact parameter of the collision $\vec b$.
Since a colorless $\bar QQ$ dipole interacts only due to the difference between the $Q$ and $\bar Q$ scattering amplitudes, the dipole-proton interaction vanishes when dipole separation vector $\vec r$ is perpendicular to $\vec b$, while reaches maximal strength when they are parallel \cite{Kopeliovich:2007fv}. The influence of the $\vec r$-$\vec b$ correlation on the differential cross section of exclusive photo-production of heavy quarkonia on protons was studied recently in \cite{Kopeliovich:2021dgx}.
A significant difference was found with the description based on the conventional $b$-dependent dipole models, lacking the $\vec b$-$\vec r$ correlation,
like b-IPsat \cite{Rezaeian:2012ji}, b-Sat \cite{Kowalski:2003hm}, b-CGC \cite{Kowalski:2006hc,Rezaeian:2013tka} and b-BK \cite{Cepila:2018faq} models,
for example.
We found that the correlation is especially important for photo-production of radially excited charmonium states due to the nodal structure of the wave function. This provides a stringent test of various models for $b$-dependent dipole amplitude.
The importance of color dipole orientation in other processes has been discussed in Ref.~\cite{Kopeliovich:2021dgx} (see references therein).
However, on nuclear targets the effect of $\vec b$-$\vec r$ correlation is diluted, except the nuclear periphery, where the nuclear density steeply varies with $\vec b$. Therefore the impact of $\vec b$-$\vec r$ correlation on the azimuthal asymmetry of photons and pions turns out to be rather small \cite{Kopeliovich:2008dy,Kopeliovich:2007sd,Kopeliovich:2007fv,Kopeliovich:2008nx}. Nevertheless, in the present paper, we implement the dipole orientation effect to minimize the theoretical uncertainties. The calculations rely on the realistic model for the $\vec r$ and $\vec b$ dependent partial $\bar QQ$-proton and $\bar QQ$-nucleus amplitudes proposed in \cite{Kopeliovich:2021dgx},
with parameters corresponding to GBW \cite{GolecBiernat:1998js,GolecBiernat:1999qd} and BGBK \cite{Bartels:2002cj} saturation models for the dipole cross section.
The present paper is organized as follows.
The basics of the dipole formalism for photoproduction on a proton target, $\gamma^*p\to Vp$, is described in Sec.~\ref{dipole}. In particular, the effect of $\vec b$-$\vec r$ correlation, including explicit expression for the partial dipole amplitude is presented
in Sec.~\ref{r-b}.
The important part of the calculations, the $V\to \bar QQ$ distribution function in the light-front (LF) frame, is discussed in Sec.~\ref{dist-fun}, where the procedure of Lorentz boost from the rest frame of the quarkonium is described. It is confronted with the unjustified, but popular photon-like structure for the $V\to \bar QQ$ transition. Its Lorentz-invariant form leads to a huge weight of the $D$-wave component in the quarkonium rest frame, contradicting the solutions of the Schr\"odinger equation with realistic potentials.
The dipole formalism for coherent photoproduction on nuclei is formulated in Sec.~\ref{sec-formulas}.
Since the higher-twist nuclear effects for photoproduction of heavy quarkonia are very small, the main nuclear effects are related to gluon shadowing, considered in Sec. \ref{sec-gs}.
In terms of the Fock state expansion, that is related to the higher Fock components of the projectile photon, which contain besides the $\bar QQ$, additional gluons. The lifetime (coherence time) of such components turn out to be rather short, even for the very first state $|\bar QQg\rangle$, which we calculate in Sec.~\ref{1-g} relying on the path-integral
formalism. In Sec.~\ref{n-g} we evaluate the coherence length for multi-gluon Fock states and demonstrate that it is dramatically reduced with addition of every extra gluon. We conclude that the single-gluon approximation is rather accurate in the available energy range.
Eventually, in Sec.~\ref{sec-data} we present predictions for differential
cross sections $d\sigma/dt$ of coherent charmonium photoproduction, which are in a good accord with available results of the ALICE experiment, extracted from data on UPC. Here we present also predictions for other quarkonium states, like $\psi^{\,\prime}, \Upsilon$ and $\Upsilon^{\,\prime}$.
\section{Dipole formalism for photo-production of heavy quarkonia}
\label{dipole}
The color dipole formalism leads to the following factorized form of the dipole-nucleon photo-production amplitude \cite{Kopeliovich:1991pu},
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}^{\gamma^{\ast} p\to V p}(x,\vec q\,)
=
\bigl\langle V |\tilde{\mathcal{A}} |\gamma^*\bigr\rangle
= 2\,\int d^2b\,e^{i\vec q\cdot\vec b}
\int d^2r\int_0^1 d\alpha\,
\Psi_{V}^{*}(\vec r,\alpha)\,
\mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec b\,)\,
\Psi_{\gamma^\ast}(\vec r,\alpha,Q^2)\,.
\label{amp-p0}
\end{equation}
Here $\vec q$ is transverse component of momentum transfer; $\alpha$ is the fractional light-front momentum carried by a heavy quark or antiquark of the $\bar QQ$ Fock component of the photon, with the transverse separation $\vec r$. That is the lowest Fock state, while the higher Fock components contribute by default to the dipole-proton amplitude. However, on a nuclear target these higher Fock components will be taken into account separately, due to coherence effect in gluon radiation.
The dipole-proton amplitude $\mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec b\,)$ in Eq.~(\ref{amp-p0}) depends on the transverse dipole size $\vec r$ and impact parameter of collision $\vec b$. The essential feature of this amplitude is the $\vec r$-$\vec b$ correlation, explicitly presented below
in Sec.~\ref{r-b}. The LF distribution functions $\Psi_{\gamma^\ast}(r,\alpha,Q^2)$ and $\Psi_V(r,\alpha)$ correspond to the transitions $\gamma^\ast\to \bar QQ$ and $\bar QQ\to V$, respectively. They are specified below in Sect.~\ref{dist-fun}.
The amplitude (\ref{amp-p0}) depends on Bjorken $x$ evaluated in \cite{ryskin} in the leading $\log(1/x)$ approximation. Each radiated gluon provides a factor $\int_x^1 dx^\prime/x^\prime = \ln(1/x)$, where $x$ is the minimal value of the fractional LF gluon momentum related to the longitudinal momentum transfer $q_L=(M_V^2+Q^2)/2E_{\gamma}$. So,
\begin{equation}
x=\frac{M_V^2+Q^2}{s}=
\frac{M_{V}^2+Q^2}{W^2+Q^2-m_N^2}\,.
\label{x}
\end{equation}
As far as the production amplitude (\ref{amp-p0}) is known, we are in a position to calculate the differential cross section,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma^{\gamma^\ast p\to V p}}{dq^2}
=
\frac{1}{16\,\pi}\,
\Bigl |
\mathcal{A}^{\gamma^\ast p\to V p}(x,\vec q\,)
\Bigr |^2\,.
\label{proton}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Dipole-proton partial amplitude with
\boldmath$\vec r$-$\vec b$ correlation}
\label{r-b}
As was explained in Introduction, interaction of a color neutral dipole with impact parameter $\vec b$ exhibits a strong $\vec{r}$-$\vec{b}$ correlation. Namely, interaction vanishes if $\vec{r}\perp\vec{b}$, but reaches maximal strength if $\vec{r}\parallel\vec{b}$. An explicit form of the dipole-proton partial amplitude, possessing such a correlation, was proposed in
\cite{Kopeliovich:2008dy,Kopeliovich:2007sd,Kopeliovich:2007fv,Kopeliovich:2008nx,Kopeliovich:2021dgx} and reads,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{Im} \mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec b\,)
=
\frac{\sigma_0}{8\pi \mathcal{B}(x)}\,
\Biggl\{
\exp\left[-\,\frac{\bigl [\vec b+\vec
r(1-\alpha)\bigr ]^2}{2\mathcal{B}(x)}\right]
+
\exp\left[-\,\frac{(\vec
b-\vec r\alpha)^2}{2\mathcal{B}(x)}\right]
\nonumber\\
- \,2\,\exp\Biggl[-\,\frac{r^2}{R_0^2(x)}
-\,\frac{\bigl [\,\vec b+(1/2-\alpha)\vec
r\,\bigr ]^2}{2\mathcal{B}(x)}\Biggr]
\Biggr\}\,,
\label{dipa-gbw}
\end{eqnarray}
where the function $\mathcal{B}(x)$ was defined in Ref.~\cite{Kopeliovich:2008nx},
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}(x)=B^{\bar qq}_{el}(x, r\to 0)-
\frac{1}{8} R_0^2(x)\,.
\label{slope}
\end{equation}
Here $R_0^2(x)$ controls $x$ dependence of the saturation cross section, introduced in \cite{GolecBiernat:1998js,GolecBiernat:1999qd}, $\sigma_{\bar QQ}(r,x)=\sigma_0\,\bigl (1 - \exp \bigl [ - {r^2}/{R_0^2(x)}\bigr ] \bigr )$, with $\sigma_0 = 23.03\,\,\mbox{mb}$, $R_0(x) = 0.4\,\,\mbox{fm}\times(x/x_0)^{0.144}$ with $x_0 = 3.04\times 10^{-4}$. The dipole-proton slope in the limit of vanishingly small dipoles $B^{\bar qq}_{el}(x, r\to 0)$ can be measured in electro-production of vector mesons with highly virtual photons $Q^2\gg 1\,\mbox{GeV}^2$. The measured slope $B_{\gamma^*p\to\rho p}(x,Q^2\gg 1\,\mbox{GeV}^2)\approx 5\,\mbox{GeV}^{-2}$ \cite{ZEUS:2007iet}, as expected is defined by the proton charge radius.
The GBW model, lacking DGLAP evolution, was improved in the BGBK dipole model \cite{Bartels:2002cj}, where the saturation scale is related to the gluon density, which is subject to DGLAP evolution, $R_0^2(x,\mu^2) = {4}/{Q_s^2(x,\mu^2)}={\sigma_0\,N_c} / \bigl ({\pi^2\,\alpha_s(\mu^2)\,x\,g(x,\mu^2)}\bigr )$, where $\mu^2 = {\mathrel{C}} / {r^2} + \mu_0^2$, $Q_s^2$ is the saturation scale and the gluon distribution function $x\,g(x,\mu^2)$ is obtained as a solution of the DGLAP evolution equation with the shape at the initial scale $Q_0^2 = 1\,\,\mbox{GeV}^2$, $x\,g(x,Q_0^2)=A_g \,x^{-\lambda_g} (1-x)^{5.6}$. Here $A_g = 1.2$, $\lambda_g = 0.28$, $\mu_0^2 = 0.52\,\,\mbox{GeV}^2$, $\mathrel{C} = 0.26$ and $\sigma_0 = 23\,\,\mbox{mb}$. In what follows, we denote GBW and BGBK dipole model containing the color dipole orientation as br-GBW and br-BGBK, respectively.
\subsection{The \boldmath$\bar QQ$ distribution functions}
\label{dist-fun}
Now we should specify the form of the $\gamma^*\to\bar QQ$ and $V\to\bar QQ$ distribution functions in Eq.~(\ref{amp-p0}) resp. (\ref{amp-A0}). The former is well known \cite{Kogut:1969xa,Bjorken:1970ah}, here we skip the details, which can be found e.g. in \cite{Hufner:2000jb}).
The LF distribution function for heavy quarkonium $V\to\bar QQ$ requires special care. It is known in the rest frame of the quarkonium treating it as a non-relativistic system and solving Schr\"odinger equation. However, challenging is the Lorentz boost to the LF frame.
A popular prescription was proposed by Terent'ev \cite{Terentev:1976jk}. The 3-dimensional quarkonium wave function in the rest frame can be expressed in terms of LF variables, fractional LF momentum $\alpha$ and 2-dimensional transverse momentum of the quarks.
Although the variables are invariant relative Lorentz boost, the function itself is not.
The crucial but {\it unjustified} assumption of the prescription is Lorentz invariance of the whole function of $\alpha$ and $p_T$, so it is boosted unchanged from the rest to the LF frame.
The Lorentz boosted Schr\"odinger equation was derived in \cite{Kopeliovich:2015qna} for heavy $\bar QQ$ system, basing on the Lorentz-invariant Bethe-Salpeter equation and smallness of $\Delta\alpha=\alpha-1/2$. Comparison with the Terent'ev prescription (see fig.~2 in \cite{Kopeliovich:2015qna}) shows that the latter is amazingly accurate at medium values of $\alpha\sim 1/2$. Thus, the Lorentz boosting Terent'ev prescription is proven to be well justified.
The quarkonium wave
function in the rest frame was found solving the Schr\"odinger equation with several realistic potentials, such as the harmonic oscillatory potential (HAR) (see e.g. \cite{Kopeliovich:1991pu,Cepila:2019skb}), Cornell potential (COR) \cite{Eichten:1978tg,Eichten:1979ms}, logarithmic potential (LOG) \cite{Quigg:1977dd}, power-like potential (POW) \cite{Barik:1980ai}, as well as Buchm\"uller-Tye potential (BT) \cite{Buchmuller:1980su}. All of them well reproduce the charmonium mass spectrum and leptonic decay widths. The results for the photoproduction cross sections obtained with these potentials were found in \cite{Hufner:2000jb} to be rather close. The observed diversity can be treated as a measure of theoretical uncertainty related to the LF quarkonium distribution function.
Nevertheless, a significant correction to this boosting prescription was found in \cite{Hufner:2000jb}. Because of transverse motion of the quarks, their momenta are not parallel to the boost axis, what leads to a quark spin rotation along with the boost, named after Melosh \cite{Melosh:1974cu} (see also \cite{Krelina:2018hmt,Lappi:2020ufv}). The corresponding correction to the photo-production cross section turns out to be large \cite{Hufner:2000jb} especially for $\psi(2S)$, what solves the $\psi^\prime$ to $J/\psi$ puzzle \cite{Hoyer:1999xe}.
On the contrary, the frequently used alternative assumption is that the $V\to\bar QQ$ vertex has the vector current structure $\Psi_{\mu}\bar u \gamma_{\mu}u$, like for $\gamma^*\to\bar QQ$ (see e.g. \cite{Ryskin:1992ui,Brodsky:1994kf,Frankfurt:1995jw,Nemchik:1996cw}). This vertex is Lorentz
invariant and can be treated in any reference frame, in particular in the $\bar QQ$ rest frame, where the three-dimensional Schr\"odinger equation discriminates between the state with different orbital momenta, in particular between the $S$- and $D$-waves \cite{Hufner:2000jb}. The above photon-like vertex contains a $D$-wave component with abnormally large
weight, 5-6\% for charmonium and 1.6-1.8\% for bottomonium (uncertainty is related to the choice of renormalization-scheme dependent quark masses). In contrast, the solution of Schr\"odinger equation with above mentioned realistic potentials, contains an order of magnitude smaller contamination of the $D$-wave component
(for a review on quarkonium physics see e.g. \cite{Brambilla:2004wf,Brambilla:2010cs}).
The calculations in \cite{Haysak:2003yf}, employing the COR potential and hyperfine splitting, exhibit $D$-wave contributions to the $J/\psi$ wave function squared with magnitudes $0.05\%$,
and $0.004\%$ for $\Upsilon(1S)$.
Similar magnitude of the $D$-wave component for charmonium was found in Ref.~\cite{Fu:2018yxq}, and in Ref.~\cite{Chang:2010kj} in the framework of the Bethe-Salpeter equation, as well as in Ref.~\cite{Cao:2012du} within the QCD-inspired quark potential model.
These solid arguments completely rule out the possibility of photon-like vertex for transition of a heavy quarkonium to a $\bar QQ$ pair. For this reason we treat this unjustified model as incorrect and ignore it in what follows.
\section{Coherent photo-production off nuclei: higher twist shadowing}
\label{sec-formulas}
The lowest Fock component of the projectile photon, which contributes to this process, is $\bar QQ$. The transverse dipole size is small, $1/m_Q$. Therefore shadowing corrections are as small as $1/m_Q^2$, so should be treated as a higher twist effect.
For the amplitude of quarkonium photo-production on a nuclear target, $\gamma^*A\to VA$, one can employ expression Eq.~(\ref{amp-p0}), but replacing the dipole-nucleon by dipole-nucleus amplitude,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}^{\gamma^{\ast} A\to V A}(x,Q^2,\vec q\,)
=
2\,
\int d^2b_A\,e^{i\vec q\cdot\vec b_A}
\int d^2r\int_0^1 d\alpha\,
\Psi_{V}^{*}(\vec r,\alpha)\,
\mathcal{A}^A_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec b_A)\,
\Psi_{\gamma^\ast}(\vec r,\alpha,Q^2)\,.
\label{amp-A0}
\end{equation}
In ultra-peripheral collisions at the LHC, the photon virtuality $Q^2\sim 0$ and the photon energy in the nuclear rest frame is sufficiently high to make the coherence length $l_c$ for $\bar QQ$ photo-production much longer than the nuclear radius, $l_c = 1/q_L=(W^2+Q^2-m_N^2)/\bigl (m_N\,(M_V^2+Q^2)\approx W^2/(m_N M_V^2)\bigr)\gg R_A$.
Then Lorentz time delation freezes the fluctuations of the dipole size, and one can rely on
the eikonal form for the dipole-nucleus partial amplitude at impact parameter $\vec {b}_A$,
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Im} \mathcal{A}^A_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec b_A)\Biggl |_{l_c\gg R_A}
=
1 - \Biggl [1 - \frac{1}{A}\,
\int d^{2} b\,\,
\mathrm{Im} \mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha, \vec{b}\,)\,
T_{A}(\vec{b}_A+\vec{b}\,)
\Biggr ]^A\,,
\label{eik}
\end{equation}
where $T_A(\vec b_A) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz\,\rho_A(\vec b_A,z)$ is the nuclear thickness function normalized as $\int d^2 b_A\,T_A(\vec b_A) = A$, and $\rho_A(\vec b_A,z)$ is the nuclear density. For $\rho_A(\vec b_A,z)$ we employ the realistic Wood-Saxon form \cite{DeJager:1987qc}.
Expression for the differential cross sections is analogous to Eq.~(\ref{proton}) provided that the coherence length $l_c\gg R_A$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma^{\gamma^\ast A\to V A}(x,Q^2,t=-q^2\,)}{dt}\Biggl |_{l_c\gg R_A}
=
\frac{1}{16\,\pi}\,
\Bigl |
\mathcal{A}^{\gamma^\ast A\to V A}(x,Q^2, \vec q\,)
\Bigr |^2\,.
\label{nucleus}
\end{equation}
We also incorporate the real part \cite{Bronzan:1974jh,Nemchik:1996cw,forshaw-03} of the nuclear $\gamma^\ast A\to V A$ amplitude via a substitution in
Eq.~(\ref{eik})
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Im}
\mathcal{A}_{\bar QQ}^{N}(\vec r, x, \alpha, \vec{b}\,)
\Rightarrow
\mathrm{Im}
\mathcal{A}_{\bar QQ}^{N}(\vec r, x, \alpha, \vec{b}\,)
\,\cdot
\left(1 - i\,\frac{\pi\,\Lambda}{2}\right)\,
\label{bronzan}
\end{equation}
with
$\Lambda=\partial\ln(\,
{\mathrm{Im}\mathcal{A}^{N}_{\bar QQ}(\vec r,x,\alpha,\vec b\,)}\,)
\huge/\partial\ln (1/x)$.
In order to include the skewness correction \cite{Shuvaev:1999ce} one should perform the following modification of the partial $\bar QQ$-nucleon amplitude in the eikonal formula (\ref{eik}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{Im} \mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec{b}\,)\Rightarrow
\mathrm{Im} \mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec{b}\,)\cdot
R_S(\Lambda)\,,
\label{skewness-a}
\end{eqnarray}
where the skewness factor
$R_S(\Lambda)=\bigl ({2^{2\Lambda + 3}}/{\sqrt{\pi}}\, \bigr) \,\cdot {\Gamma(\Lambda + 5/2)}/{\Gamma(\Lambda + 4)}$.
\section{Higher Fock states and gluon shadowing}
\label{sec-gs}
Higher Fock components of the photon contain besides the $\bar QQ$ pair additional gluons,
$|\bar QQ\,g\rangle$, $|\bar QQ\,2g\rangle$, etc. In $\gamma^*p$ collision they correspond to gluon radiation processes, which should be treated as higher-order corrections to the gluonic exchange, which take part in the building of the Pomeron exchange in the diffractive $\gamma^*p$ interaction. Therefore the higher Fock components are included in the $\bar QQ$-dipole interaction with the proton. In the case of photo-production on a nucleus, the higher Fock components contribute to the amplitude $\mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha, \vec{b})$ in Eq.~(\ref{eik}). This would correspond to the Bethe-Heitler regime of radiation, when each of multiple interactions produce independent gluon radiation without interferences.
However, the pattern of multiple interactions changes in the regime of long coherence length of gluon radiation $l_c^g\gg d$, where $d\approx 2\,\mbox{fm}$ is the mean separation between bound nucleons. The gluon radiation length has the form,
\begin{equation}
l_c^g=\frac{2E_{\gamma}\alpha_g(1-\alpha_g)}{k_T^2+(1-\alpha_g)m_g^2+\alpha_g M_{\bar QQ}^2},
\label{lg-full}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_g$ is the LF fraction of the photon momentum carried by the gluon,
$M_{\bar QQ}$ is the effective mass of the ${\bar QQ}$ pair and
the effective gluon mass $m_g\approx0.7\,\mbox{GeV}$ is fixed by data on gluon radiation \cite{Kopeliovich:1999am,Kopeliovich:2007pq}. Such a rather large effective gluon mass makes the gluonic coherence length (see Eq.~(\ref{lg}) in Sec.~\ref{n-g}) nearly order of magnitude shorter than for $\bar QQ$ fluctuations \cite{Kopeliovich:2000ra}. This is why onset of shadowing in DIS, which occur at $x<0.1$ for higher twist $\bar QQ$ shadowing, requires much smaller $x<0.01$ for onset of gluon shadowing \cite{Kopeliovich:1999am}. That was confirmed by the global analysis of DIS data on nuclei \cite{florian}.
\subsection{Single gluon approximation}
\label{1-g}
At long $l_c^g\gg d$ the Landau-Pomeranchuk effect is at work, namely, radiation does not resolve multiple interactions, which act as one accumulated kick, which shakes off gluons. So gluon radiation intensity is reduced in comparison with the Bethe-Heitler regime. This is why it is called {\it gluon shadowing} (GS) \cite{Kopeliovich:1999am}.
Such a reduction of the cross section is a well known feature of Gribov inelastic shadowing \cite{Gribov:1968jf,Kopeliovich:2012kw,Kopeliovich:2016jjx}, and gluon shadowing is a part of Gribov corrections. It correspond to inclusion of higher Fock components of the projection photon, $|\bar QQg\rangle$, $|\bar QQ2g\rangle$, etc. Then, eikonalization of these components is required. However, differently from $\bar QQ$ fluctuations, a $\bar QQg$ component does not reach the "frozen" size regime even at very small $x$, because of divergent $d\alpha_g/\alpha_g$ behavior. Therefore, variation of the $\bar QQ-g$ dipole size should be taken into account.
This was done for DIS in \cite{Kopeliovich:1999am} applying the Green function technique. It was also used for calculation of gluon shadowing in electroproduction of heavy vector mesons on nuclei in Refs.~\cite{Ivanov:2002kc,Nemchik:2002ug}.
The Gribov correction, related to the $\bar QQg$ component of the photon, to the partial nuclear cross section at impact parameter $b_A$, reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \sigma^{\gamma^*A}_{tot}(b_A)
&=&
\frac{1}{2} \,{\rm Re}
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz_2\,\rho_A(b_A,z_2)
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{z_2} dz_1\,\rho_A(b_A,z_1)
\int d^2\rho_1\int d^2\rho_2
\int \frac{d\alpha_g}{\alpha_g}\nonumber\\
&\times&
A^\dagger_{\gamma^*\to \bar QQg}(\alpha_g,\vec\rho_2)
G_{gg}(z_2,\vec\rho_2;z_1,\vec\rho_1)
A_{\gamma^*\to \bar QQg}(\alpha_g,\vec\rho_1)\,.
\label{Delta-sig}
\end{eqnarray}
This is the usual Gribov correction containing product of conjugated amplitudes of diffractive transitions, $\gamma^*+N\to \bar QQg+N$, on bound nucleons with longitudinal coordinates $z_{1,2}$. On the contrary to \cite{kk} we have no uncertainty with inclusion of higher order multiple interactions. The propagation of the $\bar QQg$ system in the nuclear medium is described by the Green function $G_{gg}(z_2,\vec\rho_2;z_1,\vec\rho_1)$, which takes care of attenuation and phase shift.
The $\bar QQg$ Fock state is characterized by two scales. One scale is set by the heavy quark mass, and determines the small $\bar QQ$ separation $\approx 1/m_Q$. This is a higher twist effect, i.e. the quark $\bar QQ$ pair size drops linearly with $m_Q$ (or with $Q^2$ in \cite{Kopeliovich:1999am}), so it can be treated as point-like color-octet system. However, the transverse distance between the $\bar QQ$ and gluon is much larger and independent of $m_Q$ (up to Log corrections). This distance depends on the previously mentioned scale, the effective gluon mass, $m_g\approx 0.7\,\mbox{GeV}$. Thus, the $\bar QQ-g$ system is strongly asymmetric, a nearly point-like color-octet $\bar QQ$ pair and the gluon is separated by relatively long, $1/m_g$ distance. Since the latter controls gluon shadowing, it is the leading twist effect, because it is hardly dependent (only Log) on the hard scale $m_Q$. Expression (\ref{Delta-sig}) is integrated over $\bar QQ$ separation, assuming a weak dependence of the Green function on this scale. Thus, the whole 3-body system can be treated with high precision as glue-glue dipole \cite{Kopeliovich:1999am}. We skip further details of calculation, which are well described in \cite{Kopeliovich:1999am,Ivanov:2002kc}.
The fractional Gribov correction to the partial nuclear cross section
\begin{equation}
R_G(b_A)=1-\frac{\Delta \sigma^{\gamma^*A}_{tot}(b_A)}{T_A(b_A)
\sigma^{\gamma^*N}_{tot}},
\label{RG}
\end{equation}
is interpreted in the parton model as ratio of gluon densities. As far as the gluon density in the bound nucleons is reduced by factor $R_G$ one can take this into account renormalizing the nucleon amplitude in Eq.~(\ref{eik}),
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Im} \mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec b)
\Rightarrow
\mathrm{Im} \mathcal{A}^N_{\bar QQ}(\vec r, x, \alpha,\vec b)
\cdot R_G(x,|\vec b_A +\vec b|)\,.
\label{eq:dipole:gs:replace-b}
\end{equation}
As an example, the magnitudes of $R_G$ at c.m. collision
energies $\sqrt{s_N}=5.02\,\mbox{TeV}$ and $13\,\mbox{TeV}$
are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:RG-b-y} at $y=0$
as function of nuclear impact parameter $b_A$
in left panel, and vs rapidity for the $b_A$-integrated cross section in the right panel.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{033-RG_b.pdf}~~~~
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{034-RG_y.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:RG-b-y}
Gluon shadowing factor $R_G(b_A)$ for photo-production of $J/\psi$ on lead as function of impact parameter $b_A$ (left), and rapidity $y$ (right). Solid and dashed curves correspond to c.m. collision
energies $\sqrt{s_N}=5.02\,\mbox{TeV}$ and $13\,\mbox{TeV}$, respectively.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Suppression of multi-gluon Fock states}
\label{n-g}
The lifetime of the $\bar QQg$ fluctuation, usually called coherence time (or length), in the nuclear rest frame is given by,
\begin{equation}
l^g_c=\frac{2E_{\gamma}}{M_{\bar QQg}^2}\,,
\label{lg}
\end{equation}
where replacing $\langle k_T^2\rangle$ by $m_g^2$, the invariant mass of the fluctuation gets the form,
\begin{equation}
M_{\bar QQg}^2=
\frac{M_{\bar QQ}^2+k_T^2}{1-\alpha_g}+\frac{m_g^2+k_T^2}{\alpha_g}
\approx M_{\bar QQ}^2\left(1+\gamma/\alpha_g\right)\,.
\label{MQQG}
\end{equation}
Here $\alpha_{g}$
is the fractional LF momentum carried by the gluon, which
is small (see below), and
\begin{equation}
\gamma=\frac{2m_g^2}{M_{\bar QQ}^2}\,.
\label{gamma}
\end{equation}
Thus, Eq.~(\ref{lg}) acquires the form,
\begin{equation}
l^g_c=\frac{P_g}{x\,m_N}\,,
\label{lg-new}
\end{equation}
where according to \cite{Kopeliovich:2000ra} the quantity $1/x\,m_N$ is the maximal possible coherence length, and the factor
\begin{equation}
P_g=\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_g+\gamma}\,,
\label{Pg}
\end{equation}
considerably reduces the magnitude of $l_c^g$.
We simplify the calculations done in \cite{Kopeliovich:2000ra}, because we need to evaluate only the coherence lengths, including more complicated multi-gluon Fock components. We avoid the integration over
the gluon-$\bar QQ$ transverse separation, fixing it at the mean value $1/m_g$.
Averaging $P_g$ over the radiation spectrum
$d\alpha_g/\alpha_g$ we get its mean value,
\begin{equation}
\langle P_g\rangle
=
\frac{\ln\left[(\alpha_g^{max}+\gamma)/(\alpha_g^{min}+\gamma)\right]}
{\ln(\alpha_g^{max}/\alpha_g^{min})}\,.
\label{mean-lg}
\end{equation}
The minimal value $\alpha_g^{min}$ is defined by the trasnverse mass of the radiated gluon $\approx 2m_g$ and the available energy range for radiation. The latter is not well defined, it depends on the chosen invariant mass of the diffractive excitation $\gamma^*\to X$, corresponding to the triple-Pomeron term in Gribov corrections.
Fortunately, the result of (\ref{mean-lg}) has a weak sensitivity (only Log) to this choice. Following
\cite{Kopeliovich:2000ra} and previous studies of diffraction \cite{kklp} we fix
\begin{equation}
\alpha_g^{min}=\frac{2m_g^2}{0.2\,W^2}=
5\,\gamma\, x\,.
\label{al-min}
\end{equation}
Here the chosen factor $0.2$ corresponds to the cut $x_F>0.8$ for Feynman $x$ in diffraction $hN\to hX$ (see e.g. in \cite{kklp}).
The choice of the upper bound $\alpha_g^{max}$ for the photon LF momentum is rather uncertain. Large values $\alpha_g^{max}\to1$ are dangerous, because according to Eq.~(\ref{MQQG}) the mass of the fluctuation rises to infinity. That means a vanishingly small probability of such fluctuations. Therefore, following \cite{Kopeliovich:2000ra} we fix $\alpha_g^{max}=\gamma$. Then, the numerator of (\ref{mean-lg}) equals to $\ln2$, and
e.g. at $x=10^{-3}$ the mean value of the coherence length $\langle l_g\rangle$ is reduced by the factor $\langle P_g\rangle=0.13$, pretty close to the more accurate estimate in \cite{Kopeliovich:2000ra}.
Notice that at $\alpha_{min}\ll\alpha_{max}$ the invariant
mass Eq.~(\ref{MQQG}) is dominated by the second term.
Including more gluons to a Fock component (\ref{MQQG}) makes it heavier adding a new term
$\gamma/\alpha_{gi}$.
Assuming the mean values of this terms equal each other, we get the
coherence length for the $n$-gluon Fock component $n$ times shorter than the single-gluon
$l^g_c$, which we already found very short.
This is why the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) equation \cite{balitsky,kovchegov}, which assumes that the dipole sizes are "frozen", cannot be applied to nuclear targets at available energies \cite{poetic}. Therefore
the single-gluon approximation described in Sect.~\ref{1-g}, is sufficiently accurate, and we employ it in what follows.
\section{Predictions and comparison with data}
\label{sec-data}
The dipole model calculations of diffractive photo-production of $J/\psi$ on protons, $d\sigma^{\gamma^\ast p\to J\!/\!\psi p}(t)/dt$, were verified in Ref.~\cite{Kopeliovich:2021dgx} by comparing with data from the ZEUS \cite{Breitweg:1997rg,Chekanov:2002xi} and H1 \cite{Aktas:2005xu,Alexa:2013xxa} experiments at HERA. Predictions for charmonium photo-production on nuclei at high energies were provided in \cite{Ivanov:2002kc}.
Calculations, performed
in the present paper, rely on the
quarkonium wave functions generated by the Buchm\"uller-Tye ({BT}) \cite{Buchmuller:1980su}
$Q$-$\bar Q$ interaction potential. Following \cite{Hufner:2000jb} we performed a Lorentz boost to the LF frame, including corrections for the effect of Melosh spin rotation. The Lorentz boost procedure was originally proposed in \cite{Terentev:1976jk} as an educated guess, but proven later in \cite{Kopeliovich:2015qna} for a heavy $\bar QQ$ system.
Considering the LHC kinematic region, we included gluon shadowing calculated in the single gluon approximation, while multi-gluon Fock states were found to have too short coherence length and neglected. The corresponding suppression factor $R_g$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dipole:gs:replace-b}) provides the main nuclear effect.
The results of
calculations of the differential cross section for heavy vector meson production relying on the $\vec b$-dependent dipole models are presented and compared with available data in Fig.~\ref{Fig-tdep-data1}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-0.20cm}
\PSfig{1.10}{100-psi1S-5020-ALICE_vs_DXSm.pdf}~~~
\PSfig{1.10}{101-upsilon1S-5020-ALICE_vs_DXSm.pdf}~~~~
\vspace*{-0.20cm}
\Caption{
\label{Fig-tdep-data1}
(Color online) Predictions for the differential cross section of coherent photo-production of heavy quarkonia $d\sigma^{\gamma Pb\to V Pb}/dt$ in comparison with data from the experiment ALICE \cite{Acharya:2021bnz}. Predictions are depicted for the 1S (thick lines) and 2S (thin lines) charmonium (left panel) and bottomonium states (right panel). For the partial dipole-nucleus amplitude we employ the parametrizations br-GBW (solid lines) and br-BGBK (dashed lines).
}
\end{figure}
The photo-production differential cross section $\gamma Pb\to J\!/\!\psi Pb$ was extracted in \cite{Acharya:2021bnz} from UPC data at c.m. collision energy $\sqrt{s_N}= 5.02\,\mbox{TeV}$ and at the mid rapidity, which corresponds to the c.m. $\gamma$-$N$ energy $W = \sqrt{M_V}\cdot(s_N)^{1/4}\approx 125\,\,\mbox{GeV}$. They are depicted in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{Fig-tdep-data1} together with our predictions, which used two different $\vec b$-dependent dipole models.
Our calculations are in a good accord with data.
In a wider interval of transverse momentum one should anticipate a specific diffractive behavior of the cross section with intermittent maxima and minima, as was predicted in \cite{Ivanov:2002kc}, and confirmed by the current calculations depicted in
Fig.~\ref{Fig-tdep-data1}, which are based on more advanced models for the dipole amplitude.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\PSfig{1.10}{120-psi-5020_vs_DXSm.pdf}~~~~
\PSfig{1.10}{121-upsilon-5020_vs_DXSm.pdf}~~~~
\vspace*{-0.20cm}
\Caption{
\label{Fig-tdep-data3}
(Color online) The same as in Fig.~\ref{Fig-tdep-data1}, but
for a wider $|t|$-range, at c.m. energy $W\approx \sqrt{M_V}(s_N)^{1/4}$ corresponding to the kinematic regions of UPC at the LHC at $y=0$. Our predictions are based on the br-GBW (solid lines) and br-BGBK (dashed lines) parametrizations of the dipole cross section.
}
\end{figure}
The curves show our predictions, still awaiting for data, for $d\sigma/dt$ of coherent photo-production of other quarkonium states, charmonium $\psi^{\,\prime}(2S)$ (left panel) and bottomonia $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon^{\,\prime}(2S)$ (right panel). One can see that the production of the 1S and 2S bottomonium states is more sensitive to the choice of the model for partial dipole-proton amplitude in comparison with charmonium production. The differences in predictions adopting br-BGW and br-BGBK models can be treated as a measure of theoretical uncertainty.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec-sum}
We studied the momentum transfer dependence of differential cross sections for coherent photo-production of heavy quarkonia on nuclei, in the framework of the dipole description.
The LF wave function of a high-energy photon was expanded over Fock states, independently contributing to heavy quarkonium production, $|\bar QQ\rangle$, $|\bar QQg\rangle$, $|\bar QQ2g\rangle$, etc.
The cross section $\gamma A\to VA$ was calculated for every Fock component separately in accordance with the corresponding coherence lengths. At the energies of UPC the photon energy in the nuclear rest frame is so high, that the coherence length, associated with the $\bar QQ$ component is much longer than the nuclear size, so one can eikonalize the dipole $\bar QQ$-N amplitude, as is done in Eq.~(\ref{eik}),
including the correlation between $\vec b$ and dipole orientation $\vec r$. Such a dipole amplitude contains Gribov corrections in all orders. The corresponding quark shadowing is a higher twist effect, so it is small at the scale imposed by the heavy quarkonium mass.
For the dipole amplitude $\gamma\to\bar QQ\to V$ we rely on a LF wave function of the vector meson, determined by a solution of the Lorentz boosted Schr\"odinger equation with realistic potentials. On the other hand, we found that the frequently used unjustified model of photon-like structure $V\to\bar QQ$ leads to an exaggerated weight of the $D$-wave in the rest frame wave function, inconsistent with the solutions of the Schr\"odinger equation.
The QCD dipole formalism also includes the leading twist gluon shadowing, which is related to the higher Fock components of the photon, $\bar QQg$, $\bar QQ2g$, etc. The corresponding shadowing effect is a leading twist due to large, nearly scale independent size of the $\bar QQ$-$g$ dipoles. The related nuclear effect is much stronger that the higher twist shadowing, controlled by the small-size of $\bar QQ$ dipoles. However, calculations of the effect of gluon shadowing is more involved, because the dipoles $\bar QQ-g, ...$ cannot be treated as "frozen" even at very high energies, their size fluctuates during propagation through the nucleus, and we took that into account by applying the path-integral technique.
The coherence length of the higher Fock components is much shorter than for the $\bar QQ$ fluctuation of the photon. We demonstrated that radiation of every additional gluon significantly reduces the coherence length. Therefore, at available energies the single gluon approximation was found to be rather accurate, while higher components containing two and more gluons have too short coherence length to produce a sizeable shadowing effect. In particular, the BK equation cannot be applied to nuclear targets, because it treats all dipoles as "frozen".
On the contrary to the global data analyses, which provide only $b_A$ integrated gluon shadowing, we calculated the $b_A$ dependence of shadowing, which is crucial for the differential cross section $d\sigma^{\gamma A\to V A}/dt$.
Our calculations of $d\sigma/dt$ for the coherent process $\gamma Pb\toJ\!/\!\psi Pb$ are in a good accord with recent ALICE data at the LHC (see Fig.~\ref{Fig-tdep-data1}). We also provided predictions for other quarkonium states, $\psi^{\,\prime}(2S)$, $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon^{\,\prime}(2S)$ (see Figs.~\ref{Fig-tdep-data1} and \ref{Fig-tdep-data3}), that can be verified in the current experiments at the LHC.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This work was supported in part by ANID-Chile PIA/APOYO AFB180002.
The work of J.N. was partially supported by Grant
No. LTT18002 of the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports of the Czech Republic,
by the project of the
European Regional Development Fund No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16\_019/0000778
and by the Slovak Funding Agency, Grant No. 2/0020/22.
The work of M.K. was supported by the project of the International Mobility of Researchers - MSCA IF IV at CTU in Prague
CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/20\_079/0017983, Czech Republic.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Supplementary material}\label{annex:1}
In this section, we give further detail on the computations ranging from Equation \ref{eq:EqLvec} to the coefficients $\beta_{i,j}$.
Before that, we provide the explicit expressions for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $U$~:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:U_explicit}
\ket{\psi_{a,k,l}}&=&\ket{v_{a,k,l}}\otimes \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{j,j'}\exp\left(2i\pi\frac{kj+lj'}{\sqrt{N}}\right)\ket{j,j'}\\
\phi_{a,k,l}&=& a \arccos\left(\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}\right)\\
|\braket{d\mid v_{a,k,l}}|^2&=& \frac{1}{2} - a\frac{1}{4} \frac{\sin\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\sin\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}{\sin\phi_{+,k,l}}\1_{\phi_{a,k,l}\neq 0}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Computation of $\Lambda^\lambda$}
We recall that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Lambda_{j,j'}^\lambda = \sum_{a=\pm,k,l} b_{a,k,l}^{\lambda} \braket{d,m_j\mid\psi_{a,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{a,k,l}\mid d,m_{j'}}.
\end{equation}
In order to simplify the coefficients of $\Lambda^\lambda$, we use the explicit form of $\psi_{a,k,l}$ to show that
\begin{align*}
\braket{d,m_j\mid\psi_{a,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{a,k,l}\mid d,m_{j'}} &= \braket{d\mid v_{a,k,l}}\braket{m_j\mid \psi_{a,k,l}}\braket{v_{a,k,l}\mid d}\braket{\psi_{a,k,l}\mid m_{j'}}\\
&= \frac{|\braket{d\mid v_{a,k,l}}|^2}{N} \exp\left(2i\pi\frac{k(x_j-x_{j'})+l(y_j-y_{j'})}{\sqrt{N}}\right).
\end{align*}
then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Lambda_coef}
\braket{d,m_j\mid\psi_{a,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{a,k,l}\mid d,m_{j'}} = \left\{\begin{matrix}\frac{|\braket{d\mid v_{a,k,l}}|^2}{N} & \text{if } j = j'\\
\frac{|\braket{d\mid v_{a,k,l}}|^2}{N} e^{\pm 2i\pi\frac{kx+ly}{\sqrt{N}}} & \text{otherwise}.\\
\end{matrix}\right.
\end{equation}
The main idea now is to use Eq.~\ref{eq:b_equiv} to cut the coefficients $\Lambda^\lambda_{j,j'}$ into three cases. Let us start for the coefficients $\Lambda^\lambda_{j,j}$~:
\begin{align*}
N\Lambda^\lambda_{j,j} &= N\sum_{a=\pm,k,l} b_{a,k,l}^{\lambda} \braket{d,m_j\mid\psi_{a,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{a,k,l}\mid d,m_{j}} & \text{according to Equation \ref{eq:EqLvec}}\\
&= \sum_{a=\pm,k,l} b_{a,k,l}^{\lambda} |\braket{d\mid v_{a,k,l}}|^2 & \text{using Equation \ref{eq:Lambda_coef}}\\
&\sim \sum_{\phi_{a,k,l}=0} \frac{2}{\lambda} |\braket{d\mid v_{a,k,l}}|^2 - \sum_{\phi_{a,k,l}\neq 0} \frac{(\sin \phi_{a,k,l})+\lambda}{1-\cos \phi_{a,k,l}} |\braket{d\mid v_{a,k,l}}|^2 & \text{using Equation \ref{eq:b_equiv}}\\
&= \frac{1}{\lambda}\sum_{\phi_{a,k,l}=0} 1 + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0} \frac{\sin \frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}} \sin \frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}{1-\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}} - \lambda \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}} & \text{using Equation \ref{eq:U_explicit}}.
\end{align*}
First, it is straightforward to prove that there are four possible cases for $\phi_{a,k,l}=0$, thus $\sum_{\phi_{a,k,l}=0} 1 = 4$. Furthermore, one can show that the second sum $\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0} \frac{\sin \frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}} \sin \frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}{1-\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{k,l}\neq 0}S_{k,l}$ is vanishing, using the symmetry $S_{k,l}~=~-S_{n-k,l}$. Moreover the last sum can be approximated using integral bounding, resulting in $\displaystyle \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}} \sim \frac{1}{\pi}N\ln N$. And finally,
\begin{equation}
\Lambda^\lambda_{j,j} \sim \frac{4}{\lambda} - \lambda \frac{N\ln N}{\pi}.
\end{equation}
Let us now compute the other half of the $\Lambda^\lambda$'s coefficients. By using a similar procedure~:
$$
N\Lambda^\lambda_{j,j} \sim \frac{1}{\lambda}\sum_{\phi_{a,k,l}=0} e^{\pm 2i\pi\frac{kx+ly}{\sqrt{N}}} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0} \frac{\sin \frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}} \sin \frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}{1-\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}e^{\pm 2i\pi\frac{kx+ly}{\sqrt{N}}} - \lambda \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}e^{\pm 2i\pi\frac{kx+ly}{\sqrt{N}}}.
$$
Now, we can study separately \textit{case i} and \textit{case ii}.
\paragraph{Case i: $x+y$ odd}
All three above addends are identically vanishing by symmetry. In particular, for each addend $S_{k+\frac{n}{2},l+\frac{n}{2}} = (-1)^{x+y}S_{k,l}$. Consequently,
\begin{equation}
\Lambda^\lambda_{j,j'} = 0,
\end{equation}
with $j\neq j'$ and $x+y$ odd.
\paragraph{Case ii: $x+y$ even}
The first sum $\sum_{\phi_{a,k,l}=0} e^{\pm 2i\pi\frac{kx+ly}{\sqrt{N}}}=4$. The other two sums are harder to compute. We can, however, retrieve the expressions of $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ by using the symmetry $S_{n-k,n-l}=\overline{S_{k,l}}$. This symmetry implies that the sum is real. We can thus discard the imaginary part. In conclusion
$$
N\Lambda^\lambda_{j,j} \sim \frac{4}{\lambda} - \mathcal I - \lambda \mathcal{M},
$$
where
$$
\mathcal I = \frac{-1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0} \frac{\sin \frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}} \sin \frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}{1-\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}\cos\left(2\pi\frac{kx+ly}{\sqrt{N}}\right) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \mathcal M = \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{N}}\cos\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{N}}}\cos\left(2\pi\frac{kx+ly}{\sqrt{N}}\right).
$$
\subsection{Computation of $\lambda_i$ and $|\beta_{i,j}|^2$}
In this section we give further details about how we obtained each $\lambda_i$. We assume that $x+y\text{ even } \Rightarrow \mathcal{I}^2\ll \mathcal{M}+\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi} $.
We start by using Eqs.~\ref{eq:Lam0} and \ref{eq:Lam} combined with $\det \Lambda^\lambda=0$ (which can be deduced from Eq.~\ref{eq:EqLvec}) to get $\lambda_{\pm}$. Once done, we note that $|\braket{d,m_0\mid\lambda_\pm}^2 = |\braket{d,m_1\mid\lambda_\pm}^2$ because of the symmetry of $\Lambda^\lambda$. Combining the latter with the Eq.~\ref{eq:psieq}, we can deduce that
\begin{equation}
|\braket{\lambda_a |\psi(0)}|^2 = \left|1+ib^{\lambda_a}_{+,0,0}\right|^2 \left|\sum_{j=0,1}\braket{\psi_{\pm k,l}|d,m_j}\braket{d,m_j|\lambda_a}\right|^2 \sim \frac{8|\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2}{N\lambda^2}.
\end{equation}
where $\ket{\psi(0)} = \ket{\psi_{+,0,0}}$.
One can similarly use Eq.~\ref{eq:psieq} in $\sum_{\pm,k,l}|\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}\mid\lambda}|^2 = 1$ to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coef1}
|\braket{d,m\mid\lambda}|^2 \sim \frac{1}{4}\frac{N}{\frac{N\ln N}{\pi}+\mathcal M \1_{\{x+y\text{ even}\}}}.
\end{equation}
Combining the above result into the expression of $|\braket{\lambda_a |\psi(0)}|^2$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coef2}
|\braket{\lambda_a |\psi(0)}|^2 \sim \frac{2+2.\1_{x+y\text{ even}}}{\lambda^2\left(\frac{N\ln N}{\pi}+\mathcal M \1_{\{x+y\text{ even}\}}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Again, let us consider \textit{case i} and \textit{case ii} separately.~\\
\paragraph{Case i: $x+y$ odd}
\begin{equation}
\det \Lambda^\lambda = 0 \Leftrightarrow \frac{4}{\lambda} - \lambda \frac{N\ln N}{\pi} \sim 0
\Leftrightarrow \lambda^2\sim 4 \frac{\pi}{N\ln N} \Leftrightarrow \lambda_\pm \sim \pm 2\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N\ln N}} .
\end{equation}
We recognise the Eq.~\ref{eq:lbd1}. We can now solve explicitly Eqs.~\ref{eq:coef1} and \ref{eq:coef2} for \textit{Case i}~:
\begin{equation}
|\braket{d,m\mid\lambda_\pm}|^2 \sim \frac{\pi}{4\ln N} \qquad \text{and} \qquad |\braket{\lambda_\pm |\psi(0)}|^2 \sim \frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation}
Notice that the latter expression implies that $\epsilon_m \to 0$. We recover the right expression $4 |\beta_{+,j}|^2 \sim \frac{\pi}{8\ln N}$.~\\
\paragraph{Case ii: $x+y$ even}
\begin{align*}
\det \Lambda^\lambda = 0 &\Leftrightarrow \left(\Lambda^\lambda_{0,0}\right)^2 - \left(\Lambda^\lambda_{1,0}\right)^2 = 0 & \text{ because $\Lambda^\lambda$ is symmetric}\\
&\Leftrightarrow \left(\Lambda^\lambda_{0,0} - \Lambda^\lambda_{1,0}\right)\left(\Lambda^\lambda_{0,0} + \Lambda^\lambda_{1,0}\right)=0\\
&\Leftrightarrow \left[\mathcal I - \lambda\left(\frac{N\ln N}{\pi}- \mathcal M\right)\right]\left[\frac{8}{\lambda}-\mathcal I - \lambda\left(\frac{N\ln N}{\pi}+ \mathcal M\right)\right]=0 & \text{using Equation \ref{eq:Lam}}\\
&\Leftrightarrow \lambda_\pm \in \left\{ \frac{- \mathcal{I} + \sqrt{\mathcal{I}^2 + 32 (\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi} + \mathcal{M})}}{2 (\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi} + \mathcal{M})}, \frac{- \mathcal{I} - \sqrt{\mathcal{I}^2 + 32 (\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi} + \mathcal{M})}}{2 (\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi} + \mathcal{M})}, \frac{\mathcal I}{\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi}-\mathcal M} \right\}.\\
\end{align*}
Using the hypothesis $\mathcal{I}^2\ll \mathcal{M}+\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi}$ and the fact that $0\leq \mathcal M \leq \frac{N\ln N}{\pi}$, it holds~:
$$
\lambda_{\pm} \sim \frac{- \mathcal{I} - \pm \sqrt{\mathcal{I}^2 + 32 (\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi} + \mathcal{M})}}{2 (\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi} + \mathcal{M})} \sim \pm \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\frac{N \ln{N}}{\pi} + \mathcal{M}}} = O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N\ln N}}\right).
$$
We recognise Eq.~\ref{eq:lbd2}.Again we solve the Eqs.~\ref{eq:coef1} and \ref{eq:coef2} for \textit{Case ii} and note that
\begin{equation}
|\braket{d,m\mid\lambda_\pm}|^2 \sim \frac{1}{4}\frac{N}{\frac{N\ln N}{\pi}+\mathcal M} \qquad \text{and} \qquad |\braket{\lambda_\pm |\psi(0)}|^2 \sim \frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation}
As for \textit{case i}, the latter implies $\epsilon_m\to 0$, meaning that all other eigenvalues of $U'$ can be neglected~(including the last solution of $\det \Lambda^\lambda = 0$). We get finally $4 |\beta_{+,j}|^2 \sim \frac{1}{2}\frac{N}{\frac{N\ln N}{\pi}+\mathcal M}$ and using $M \leq N\ln N$, we can deduce that the success probability $p_{succ}~ |\beta_{+,j}|^2 = O(\ln^{-1} N)$.
\begin{comment}
\subsection*{The walk}
The size of the walk is $n\times n = N$. The marked vertices are $\mathcal{M}$ with $|\mathcal{M}|=M=2$.
The operator of the walk is
\begin{equation*}
U = \Sigma_y (C_y\otimes \mathbb{I}_N) \Sigma_x (C_x\otimes \mathbb{I}_N).
\end{equation*}
We use two coin operators, one for each spatial direction, whose matrix representations in the canonical basis reads :
\begin{equation*}
C_x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mat{1&i\\i&1\\}, \hspace{0.1cm} \text{and}\hspace{0.2cm} C_y = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mat{1&-i\\-i&1\\}.
\end{equation*}
The shift operator is conditioned by the coin state :
\begin{align*}
\Sigma_x \ket{\alpha}\ket{x,y} &= \ket{\alpha}\ket{x-(-1)^\alpha,y}\\
\Sigma_y \ket{\alpha}\ket{x,y} &= \ket{\alpha}\ket{x,y-(-1)^\alpha}\\
\end{align*}
where $\alpha \in \{0,1\}$.
\subsection*{The oracle}
The oracle is given by
\begin{equation*}
R = \mathbb{I}- 2\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}}\sum_{0\leq i,j \leq 1}\ket{i,m}\bra{j,m} = \mathbb{I} - 2\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}}\ket{d,m}\bra{d,m}.
\end{equation*}
When there is one marked element $m_0$, we take $m_0 = (0;0)$ without losing in generality.
When there is two marked elements $m_0$ and $m_1$, we take without losing in generality
\begin{itemize}
\item $m_0 = (0,0)$
\item $m_1 = (x_1,y_1)$.
\end{itemize}
The full walk operator is thus $U' = UR$.
\subsection*{Other definitions}
\begin{definition}{$\ket{m}$}\\
We note $\ket{m}$ for $m$ a marked vertex the $N$-dimensional vector such that $\ket{m}_i = \1_{\{i=m\}}.$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{$\ket{d}$}\\
We note $\ket{d}$ the diagonal state on the coin space.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Spectrum of $U$}\\
The eigenvalues of $U$ are $e^{i\phi_{\pm,k,l}}$ and the corresponding eigenvector are $\ket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Spectrum of $U'$}\\
We consider two eigenvalues of $U'$ : $e^{i\lambda}$ and $e^{i\lambda'}$, where $$\lambda = \min_{e^{i\theta}\in Sp(U')\text{ and } \theta >0}\theta$$ and $$\lambda' = \max_{e^{i\theta}\in Sp(U')\text{ and } \theta <0}\theta .$$
$\ket{\lambda}$ and $\ket{\lambda'}$ are the corresponding eigenvectors.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{$\theta_k$}\\
We define for all $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, $\theta_k = \frac{2\pi k}{n}$ where $n$ is the width if the grid.
\end{definition}
\section{Generalities}\label{annex:2}
\subsection*{Proof of theorem 1}
Let's first prove the theorem 1 which will allow us to get analytical results on the QWSearch algorithm.
\begin{citedth}\cite{bezerra2021quantum}\label{citedth:1}
Let's consider a QWSearch as defined in appendix \ref{annex:1}, it holds that the probability of success $p(t)$ of the search adter $t$ steps is
$$
p(t) = \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left|e^{i\lambda t}\braket{d,m|\lambda}\braket{\lambda|\psi(0)}+e^{i\lambda' t}\braket{d,m|\lambda'}\braket{\lambda'|\psi(0)} + \epsilon_m \right|^2.
$$
\end{citedth}
\begin{proof}
The proof use the fact that $$ U' = \sum_{\theta \in Sp(U')} e^{i\theta}\ket{\theta}\bra{\theta}.$$
\begin{align*}
p(t) &= \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left| \braket{d,m|(U')^t|\psi(0)} \right|^2\\
&= \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left| \braket{d,m|\left(\sum_{\theta \in Sp(U')} e^{i\theta t}\ket{\theta}\bra{\theta}\right)|\psi(0)} \right|^2\\
&= \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left|\sum_{\theta \in Sp(U')} e^{i\theta t}\braket{d,m|\theta}\braket{\theta|\psi(0)} \right|^2\\
&= \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left| e^{i\lambda t}\braket{d,m|\lambda}\braket{\lambda|\psi(0)}+e^{i\lambda' t}\braket{d,m|\lambda'}\braket{\lambda'|\psi(0)} + \epsilon_m \right|^2\\
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
If we compute the terms $\lambda$, $\lambda'$, $\braket{d,m|\lambda}\braket{\lambda|\psi(0)}$ ,$\braket{d,m|\lambda'}\braket{\lambda'|\psi(0)}$ and show that $\epsilon_m$ is always negligible, we can have an analytical expression of the probability of success for the algorithm. Of course, some of those quantities depends of the number and position of the marked elements. The general idea is to approximate those terms using the spectral analysis of $U$.
\subsection*{Spectral analysis of $U$}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:1}
For the walk considered, we have
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi_{\pm,k,l} = \pm \arccos\left(\cos\theta_k \cos\theta_l\right)$
\item $\psi_{\pm,k,l} = \ket{v_{\pm,k,l}}\otimes\frac{1}{n}\sum_{x,y = 0}^{n-1}{\omega^{kx+ly}\ket{x,y}} = \ket{v_{\pm,k,l},\psi_{k,l}}.$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start with the state
$$\ket{\psi} = \ket{v_{\pm,k,l}}\otimes\frac{1}{n}\sum_{x,y = 0}^{n-1}{\omega^{kx+ly}\ket{x,y}},$$
and we apply one step $U$ of the quantum walk (without the oracle).
\begin{align*}
U\ket{\psi} &= \Sigma_y (C_y\otimes \mathbb{I}_N) \Sigma_x (C_x\otimes \mathbb{I}_N) \left[\ket{v_{\pm,k,l}}\otimes\frac{1}{n}\sum_{x,y = 0}^{n-1}{\omega^{kx+ly}\ket{x,y}}\right]\\
&= \Sigma_y (C_y\otimes \mathbb{I}_N) \Sigma_x \left[C_x \ket{v_{\pm,k,l}}\otimes\frac{1}{n}\sum_{x,y = 0}^{n-1}{\omega^{kx+ly}\ket{x,y}}\right]\\
&= \Sigma_y (C_y\otimes \mathbb{I}_N) \left[\mat{w^k & 0\\0 & w^{-k}\\}C_x \ket{v_{\pm,k,l}}\otimes\frac{1}{n}\sum_{x,y = 0}^{n-1}{\omega^{kx+ly}\ket{x,y}}\right]\\
&= \Sigma_y \left[C_y\mat{w^k & 0\\0 & w^{-k}\\}C_x \ket{v_{\pm,k,l}}\otimes\frac{1}{n}\sum_{x,y = 0}^{n-1}{\omega^{kx+ly}\ket{x,y}}\right]\\
&= \mat{w^l & 0\\0 & w^{-l}\\}C_y\mat{w^k & 0\\0 & w^{-k}\\}C_x \ket{v_{\pm,k,l}}\otimes\frac{1}{n}\sum_{x,y = 0}^{n-1}{\omega^{kx+ly}\ket{x,y}}\\
\end{align*}
We define
$$
C = \mat{w^l & 0\\0 & w^{-l}\\}C_y\mat{w^k & 0\\0 & w^{-k}\\}C_x =
\mat{
w^l\cos\theta_k & -w^l\sin\theta_k\\
w^{-l}\sin\theta_k & w^{-l}\cos\theta_k\\
}.
$$
It holds that
\begin{equation*}
U\ket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}} = C\ket{v_{\pm,k,l}}\otimes\frac{1}{n}\sum_{x,y = 0}^{n-1}{\omega^{kx+ly}\ket{x,y}}.
\end{equation*}
Now we look at the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $C$.
\begin{align*}
\chi_C(X) &= (X-w^l\cos\theta_k)(X-w^{-l}\cos\theta_k)+\sin^2\theta_k\\
&= X^2 -2X\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l + 1 .\\
\end{align*}
The eigenvalues of $C$ are $e^{\phi_{\pm,k,l}}$ as defined in lemma \ref{lemma:1}.
To compute the eigenvectors of $C$ we distinguish two cases.
The first one is when $k\in \{0,n/2\}$. In that case, $C$ is diagonal and the normalized eigenvectors are $\ket{v_{+}} = \ket{0}$ and $\ket{v_{-}} = \ket{1}$.
The second one is when $C$ isn't diagonal. In that case the eigenvectors will be $v_{\pm,k,l} = (-\sin\theta_k,\; e^{i(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)}-\cos\theta_k)$ up to the norm.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Other useful lemmas}
\begin{lemma}\cite{bezerra2021quantum}\label{lemma:2}
For all $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\cos \theta \neq 1$,
$$\frac{2}{1-e^{i\theta}} = 1+i \frac{\sin\theta}{1-\cos\theta}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align*}
\frac{2}{1-e^{i\theta}}\left( 1+i \frac{\sin\theta}{1-\cos\theta}\right)^{-1} &= \frac{2}{1-e^{i\theta}}\left( \frac{1-\cos\theta + i\sin\theta}{1-\cos\theta}\right)^{-1}\\
&= \frac{2}{1-e^{i\theta}}\frac{1-\cos\theta}{1-\cos\theta + i\sin\theta}\\
&= 2\frac{1-\cos\theta}{(1-\cos\theta - i\sin\theta)(1-\cos\theta + i\sin\theta)}\\
&= 2\frac{1-\cos\theta}{1+\cos^2\theta + \sin^2\theta -2\cos\theta}\\
&= \frac{1-\cos\theta}{1-\cos\theta}\\
&= 1.
\end{align*}
Thus it holds that $$\frac{2}{1-e^{i\theta}} = 1+i \frac{\sin\theta}{1-\cos\theta}.$$
\end{proof}
Next is is an important lemma that allows us to link the eigenvalues of $U$ with $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$.
\begin{lemma}\cite{bezerra2021quantum}\label{lemma:3}
$$
\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|\lambda} = (1+ib_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda)\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|d,m}\braket{d,m|\lambda}
$$
and same holds for $\lambda'$ where
$$
b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda = \frac{\sin(\lambda -\phi_{\pm,k,l})}{1-\cos(\lambda-\phi_{pm,k,l})}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We examine the quantity $\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|U'|\lambda}$ :
\begin{align*}
\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|U'|\lambda} &= e^{i\lambda}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|\lambda}\\
&= \braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|UR|\lambda}\\
&= e^{i\phi_{\pm,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|R|\lambda}\\
&= e^{i\phi_{\pm,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|\left(\mathbb{I} - 2\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}}\ket{d,m}\bra{d,m}\right)|\lambda}\\
&= e^{i\phi_{\pm,k,l}}\left(\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|\lambda} - 2\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|d,m}\braket{d,m|\lambda}\right)\\
\end{align*}
By solving the equality we get
$$
\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|\lambda} = \frac{2}{1-e^{i(\lambda-\phi_{\pm,k,l})}}\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|d,m}\braket{d,m|\lambda}.
$$
We can use lemma \ref{lemma:2} to put this expression in the form given in the lemma.
\end{proof}
In order to obtain $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$, we will use the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\cite{bezerra2021quantum}\label{lemma:4}
It holds that
$$
\det \Lambda_{m,m'}=0,
$$
where
$$
\Lambda_{m,m'}^\lambda = \sum_{\pm,k,l} b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda \braket{d,m\mid\psi_{\pm,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}\mid d,m'},
$$
and
$$
b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda = \frac{\sin(\lambda - \phi_{\pm,k,l})}{1-\cos(\lambda - \phi_{\pm,k,l})}
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start by defining the $|M|$ dimensional vector $u$ such that $u_m = \braket{m,d|\lambda}$.
For all $m\in\mathcal{M}$ it holds that
\begin{align*}
\ket{u}_m &= \braket{d,m|\lambda}\\
&= \sum_{\pm,k,l}\braket{d,m|\psi_{\pm,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|\lambda} & \triangleright \text{Since the $\ket{\psi}$ forms a basis}\\
&= \sum_{m'\in\mathcal{M}}\sum_{\pm,k,l}(1+ib_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda)\braket{d,m|\psi_{\pm,k,l}}\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|d,m'}\braket{d,m'|\lambda} &\triangleright \text{Because of lemma \ref{lemma:3}}\\
&= \ket{u}_m + i \left(\Lambda^\lambda\ket{u}\right)_m .
\end{align*}
This means that $\Lambda^\lambda\ket{u}=0$ which is enough to conclude that the determinant of $\Lambda^\lambda$ is equal to $0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:5}
$$
b_{\pm,k,}^{\lambda} =
\left\{\begin{matrix}
\frac{2}{\lambda} + O(\lambda)& \text{if }\phi_{\pm,k,l} = 0\\
\frac{-1}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}\left(\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l} + \lambda\right) + O(\lambda^2) & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{matrix}\right.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We distinguish two cases:
\paragraph{$\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0$}
In that case, $b_{\pm,k,l}^{\lambda} = \frac{\sin\lambda}{1-\cos\lambda}$ and admits the following Laurent series
\begin{equation*}
b_{\pm,k,l}^{\lambda} = \frac{2}{\lambda} + O(\lambda).
\end{equation*}
\paragraph{$\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0$}
In that case, it holds that
\begin{equation*}
b_{\pm,k,l}^{\lambda} = \frac{\sin(\lambda-\phi_{\pm,k,l})}{1-\cos(\lambda - \phi_{\pm,k,l})},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{d\lambda}b_{\pm,k,l}^{\lambda} = -\frac{1}{1-\cos(\lambda-\phi_{\pm,k,l})},
\end{equation*}
and finally
\begin{equation*}
b_{\pm,k,l}^{\lambda} = -\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}} - \frac{\lambda}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:6}
It holds that
$$
|\braket{d|v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2 = \frac{1}{2} \pm c_{k,l},
$$
where
$$
c_{k,l} = -\frac{1}{4}\frac{\sin\theta_l\sin\theta_k}{\sin(\phi_{+,k,l})}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $k\in\{0,n/2\}$ we trivially have $|\braket{d|v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2 = \frac{1}{2}$ and thus $c_{k,l} = 0$.
Let $u_{\pm,k,l} = (-\sin\theta_k,e^{i(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)}-\cos\theta_k)$, we remind that $v = \frac{u}{\Vert u\Vert}$ and $d = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)$
\begin{align*}
|\braket{d,u_{\pm,k,l}}|^2 &= \frac{1}{2}|-\sin\theta_k-\cos\theta_k+\cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)+i\sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)|^2\\
&= 1 + \cos\theta_k \sin\theta_k - \cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)(\cos\theta_k + \sin\theta_k).\\
\end{align*}
Now we look at the norm of $u$ :
\begin{align*}
\Vert u\Vert &= \sin^2\theta_k +|\cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l) + i\sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l) - \cos\theta_k|^2\\
&= \sin^2\theta_k+\cos^2\theta_k + \cos^2(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)+\sin^2(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)-2\cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)\cos\theta_k\\
&= 2(1-\cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)\cos\theta_k).\\
\end{align*}
Now let's finally look at $|\braket{d|v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2$ :
\begin{align*}
|\braket{d|v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2 &= \frac{|\braket{d|u_{\pm,k,l}}|^2}{\Vert u\Vert}\\
&= \frac{1 + \cos\theta_k \sin\theta_k - \cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)\cos\theta_k - \cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)\sin\theta_k)}{2(1-\cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)\cos\theta_k)}\\
&= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\sin\theta_k\frac{\cos\theta_k - \cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)}{2(1-\cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)\cos\theta_k)}\\
\end{align*}
Now we use the formula $\cos(a-b) = \cos a \cos b + \sin a \sin b$
to simplify $\displaystyle \frac{\cos\theta_k - \cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)}{2(1-\cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)\cos\theta_k)}$.
\begin{align*}
\frac{\cos\theta_k - \cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)}{2(1-\cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l}-\theta_l)\cos\theta_k)} &= \frac{1}{2}\frac{\cos\theta_k - \cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\cos\theta_l - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\sin\theta_l}{1- \cos(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\cos\theta_l\cos\theta_k - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\sin\theta_l\cos\theta_k}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\frac{\cos\theta_k - \cos\theta_k\cos^2\theta_l - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\sin\theta_l}{1- \cos^2(\phi_{\pm,k,l}) - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\sin\theta_l\cos\theta_k}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\frac{\cos\theta_k(1 - \cos^2\theta_l) - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\sin\theta_l}{\sin^2(\phi_{\pm,k,l}) - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\sin\theta_l\cos\theta_k}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\frac{\cos\theta_k\sin^2\theta_l - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\sin\theta_l}{\sin^2(\phi_{\pm,k,l}) - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})\sin\theta_l\cos\theta_k}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\frac{\sin\theta_l}{\sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})}\frac{\cos\theta_k\sin\theta_l - \sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})}{\sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l}) - \sin\theta_l\cos\theta_k}\\
&= - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\sin\theta_l}{\sin(\phi_{\pm,k,l})}\\
\end{align*}
Thus we have
$$
|\braket{d|v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2 = \frac{1}{2} \pm c_{k,l},
$$
where
$$
c_{k,l} = -\frac{1}{4}\frac{\sin\theta_l\sin\theta_k}{\sin(\phi_{+,k,l})}.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:7}
$$
B = 0,
$$
where
$$
B = \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using lemma \ref{lemma:6}, it holds that
\begin{align*}
B &= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}(\frac{1}{2} \pm c_{k,l})\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{+,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{+,k,l}} c_{k,l}\\
&= -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\theta_k \sin\theta_l}{1-\cos\phi_{+,k,l}}\\
&= -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}B_{k,l}\\
&= 0 & \text{using }B_{k+n/2,l} = - B_{k,l} = -B_{l,k}\\
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:8}
$$
C \sim \frac{1}{\pi}n^2\ln(n^2) \approx 0.33 n^2\ln(n^2),
$$
where
$$
C = \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We note $\theta_k = \frac{2\pi k}{n}$. First we cut the sum into several parts using symmetries :
\begin{align*}
C &= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l}\\
&=\sum_{k=1, k\neq \frac{n}{2}}^{n-1}\sum_{l=1, l\neq \frac{n}{2}}^{n-1}\frac{1}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l} + 2\sum_{l=1}^n-1 \frac{1}{1-\cos\theta_l} + 2\sum_{l=0,l\neq \frac{n}{2}}^{n-1} \frac{1}{1+\cos\theta_l}\\
&= 2\sum_{k=1, k\neq \frac{n}{2}}^{n-1}\left[\sum_{l=1}^{n/4-1}\left(\frac{1}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l}+\frac{1}{1+\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l}\right)+1\right] + 2\sum_{l=1,l\neq \frac{n}{2}}^{n-1}\left( \frac{1}{1-\cos\theta_l}+\frac{1}{1+\cos\theta_l}\right) +2\\
&= 4\sum_{k=1, k\neq \frac{n}{2}}^{n-1}\sum_{l=1}^{n/4-1}\frac{1}{1-\cos^2\theta_k\cos^2\theta_l} + 2(n-1) + 4\sum_{l=1,l\neq \frac{n}{2}}^{n-1}\frac{1}{1-\cos^2\theta_l}\\
&= 16\sum_{k=1}^{n/4-1}\sum_{l=1}^{n/4-1}\frac{1}{1-\cos^2\theta_k\cos^2\theta_l} + 8(n/4-1)+2(n-1)+4\sum_{l=1,l\neq \frac{n}{2}}^{n-1}\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta_l}\\
&= 16\sum_{k=1}^{n/4-1}\sum_{l=1}^{n/4-1}\frac{1}{1-\cos^2\theta_k\cos^2\theta_l} +4\sum_{l=1}^{n/4-1}\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta_l} + 4n -2\\
\end{align*}
The asymptotic behavior of the sums can then be computed using integral bounding. We thus get that
$$\sum_{l=1}^{n/4-1}\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta_l} = O(n^2),$$
and
$$16\sum_{k=1}^{n/4-1}\sum_{l=1}^{n/4-1}\frac{1}{1-\cos^2\theta_k\cos^2\theta_l} = \frac{n^2\ln(n^2)}{\pi} + O(n^2).$$
To conclude, we have
$$
C \sim \frac{1}{\pi}n^2\ln(n^2).
$$
\end{proof}
\section{Analytical study for one marked element (M=1)}
\begin{citedth}\label{citedth:2}
We consider a QWSearch defined as described in appendix \ref{annex:1}. If there is exactly one marked vertex $m_0$ (we take $m_0=(0,0)$ without a loss of generality) then it holds that
$$
\lambda = -\lambda' \sim 2\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N\ln(N)}}.
$$
\end{citedth}
\begin{proof}
We compute $\Lambda^\lambda$ defined in lemma \ref{lemma:4}. Since there is only one marked element, $\Lambda^\lambda$ is a scalar and according to lemma \ref{lemma:4}, $\Lambda^\lambda = 0$.
Using lemma \ref{lemma:5}, it holds that
\begin{align*}
n^2\Lambda^\lambda &= \sum_{\pm,k,l}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2 + \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= \frac{2}{\lambda}\underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2}_A - \underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2}_B - \lambda\underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2}_C +O(\lambda)\\
\end{align*}
Now let's compute them separately :\\
\begin{align*}
A &= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}(\frac{1}{2}\pm c_{k,l}) &\triangleright \text{Using lemma \ref{lemma:6}}\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{1,k,l}=0}1 \\
&= 2 &\triangleright \text{Because $\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0 \Leftrightarrow (k,l) \in \{(0,0),(n/2,n/2)\}$}.\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
B &= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= 0 &\triangleright \text{Using lemma \ref{lemma:7}}.\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
C &= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&\sim \frac{1}{\pi}n^2\ln(n^2) &\triangleright \text{Using lemma \ref{lemma:8}}
\end{align*}
The equation of lemma \ref{lemma:4} becomes
$$
\frac{4}{\lambda}-\lambda(C+O(1)) = 0\;.
$$
The solution is
$$
\lambda^2 \sim \frac{4}{C+O(1)} \sim \frac{4\pi}{N\ln(N)},
$$
which give us two possible solutions for $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$, one positive and one negative. In the end,
$$
\lambda = -\lambda' \sim 2\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N\ln(N)}}.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{citedth}\label{citedth:3}
We consider a QWSearch defined as described in appendix \ref{annex:1}. If there is exactly one marked vertex $m_0$ (we take $m_0=(0,0)$ without a loss of generality) then it holds that
$$
p_{succ} \sim \frac{\pi}{4\ln N} \qquad \text{and} \qquad t_{opt} \sim \frac{\sqrt{\pi N \ln N}}{4}.
$$
\end{citedth}
\begin{proof}
We now have everithing we need to compute all the terms present in theorem \ref{citedth:1}.
\paragraph{$\bullet$ $\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}$ and $\braket{d,m\mid \lambda'}$}~\\
It holds that
\begin{align*}
\braket{\lambda\mid\lambda} &= \bra{\lambda} I \ket{\lambda}\\
&= \bra{\lambda} \sum_{\pm,k,l}{\ket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}}\bra{\psi_{\pm,k,l}}} \ket{\lambda}\\
&= \sum_{\pm,k,l}\left|\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}\mid \lambda}\right|^2\\
&= 1.\\
\end{align*}
Using this equality and lemma \ref{lemma:3}, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\pm,k,l}\left|\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}\mid \lambda}\right|^2 &= \sum_{\pm,k,l}\left|\left(1+ib_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda\right)\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}\mid d,m} \braket{d,m\mid \lambda}\right|^2\\
&= 4\frac{|\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2}{N}\sum_{\pm,k,l}\frac{|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2}{1-\cos(\lambda -\phi_{\pm,k,l})}\\
&\sim 4\frac{|\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2}{N}C\\
&\sim \frac{4}{\pi}|\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2\ln N\\
&\sim 1.
\end{align*}
Thus, we can conclude that
$$
|\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2 \sim \frac{\pi}{4\ln(N)}
$$
and similarly
$$
|\braket{d,m\mid \lambda'}|^2 \sim \frac{\pi}{4\ln(N)}.
$$
\paragraph{$\bullet$ $\braket{\lambda\mid \psi(0)}$ and $\braket{\lambda'\mid \psi(0)}$}~\\
We note that the initial state $\ket{\psi(0)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}\sum_{v,x,y}\ket{v,x,y}$ which is diagonal verifies
$$
\ket{\psi(0)} = \ket{\psi_{+,0,0}}.
$$
Thus, using lemma \ref{lemma:3}, it holds that
\begin{align*}
|\braket{\lambda\mid \psi(0)}|^2 &= |\braket{\lambda\mid \psi_{+,0,0}}|^2\\
&= |1+ib_{+,0,0}^\lambda|^2 |\braket{\psi_{+,0,0}\mid d,0}|^2|\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2\\
&= \frac{4}{1-\cos \lambda}\frac{1}{2N}\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2\\
&= \frac{4}{\lambda^2}\frac{\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2}{N}\\
&\sim \frac{4}{N}\frac{\pi}{4\ln N}\frac{N\ln N}{4\pi}\\
&\sim \frac{1}{4}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, it holds that
$$
|\braket{\lambda'\mid \psi(0)}|^2 \sim \frac{1}{4}.
$$
\paragraph{$\bullet$ $\epsilon_m$}~\\
We recall that according to theorem \ref{citedth:1},
$$
p(t) = \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left|e^{i\lambda t}\braket{d,m|\lambda}\braket{\lambda|\psi(0)}+e^{i\lambda' t}\braket{d,m|\lambda'}\braket{\lambda'|\psi(0)} + \epsilon_m \right|^2.
$$
We are showing here that $\epsilon_m \underset{N\to \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0$.
In order to do that, we recall the full formula of the probability of success :
\begin{align*}
p(t) &= \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left| \braket{d,m|(U')^t|\psi(0)} \right|^2\\
&= \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left| \braket{d,m|\left(\sum_{\theta \in Sp(U')} e^{i\theta t}\ket{\theta}\bra{\theta}\right)|\psi(0)} \right|^2\\
&= \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}}\left|\sum_{\theta \in Sp(U')} e^{i\theta t}\braket{d,m|\theta}\braket{\theta|\psi(0)} \right|^2.\\
\end{align*}
it also holds that
\begin{align*}
1 &= \braket{\psi(0)\mid\psi(0)}\\
&= \braket{\psi(0)\mid \sum_{\theta\in Sp(U')}\ket{\theta}\bra{\theta}\mid \psi(0)}\\
&= \sum_{\theta\in Sp(U')}|\braket{\psi(0)\mid \theta}|^2.\\
\end{align*}
We note $$
\ket{\nu} = \frac{\ket{0}+\ket{1}}{\sqrt{N}}\otimes\sum_{x,y=1}^N\1_{\{x+y\text{ odd}\}\ket{x,y}}.
$$
$\ket{\nu}$ is a 0-eigenvector of $U'$.
It holds that
$$
\begin{matrix}
|\braket{\psi(0)\mid \lambda}|^2 \underset{N\to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{4} &
|\braket{\psi(0)\mid \lambda'}|^2 \underset{N\to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{4} &
|\braket{\psi(0)\mid \nu}|^2 \underset{N\to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{2}.\\
\end{matrix}
$$
Using
$$
\sum_{\theta\in Sp(U')}|\braket{\psi(0)\mid \theta}|^2 = 1,
$$
we deduce that
$$
\forall \theta \in Sp(U'), \; \theta \notin \{\lambda,\lambda',0\} \Rightarrow \braket{\psi(0)\mid\theta} \underset{N\to \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0.
$$
This show that most of the terms in $\epsilon_m$ are negligeable. Only $e^{i\nu t}\braket{d,m|\nu}\braket{\nu|\psi(0)}$ remains.
It holds that $
\braket{d,0\mid \nu} = 0.
$
Thus $\epsilon_m \underset{N\to \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0$.
\paragraph{$\bullet$ $p(t)$}~\\
We can finally compute the probability of sucess $p(t)$. Before that let us define
$$
K = \braket{\lambda\mid \psi(0)}\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}.
$$
Since
$$
|\braket{\lambda\mid \psi(0)}\braket{d,m\mid \lambda}|^2=|\braket{\lambda'\mid \psi(0)}\braket{d,m\mid \lambda'}|^2,
$$
it holds that
$$
\braket{\lambda'\mid \psi(0)}\braket{d,m\mid \lambda'} = e^{-i\theta}K,
$$
for some $\theta$.
Using the computations from before we can also say that
$$
|K|^2 \sim \frac{\pi}{16\ln N}.
$$
We can now compute $p(t)$ using theorem \ref{citedth:1} :
\begin{align*}
p(t) &\sim \left|e^{i\lambda t}\braket{d,0|\lambda}\braket{\lambda|\psi(0)}+e^{i\lambda' t}\braket{d,0|\lambda'}\braket{\lambda'|\psi(0)} \right|^2\\
&\sim \left|e^{i\lambda t}K+e^{-i(\lambda t+\theta)}K \right|^2\\
&\sim |K|^2\left|e^{i(\lambda t+\theta/2)}+e^{-i(\lambda t+\theta/2)} \right|^2\\
&\sim 4|K|^2\cos^2(\lambda t+\theta/2)\\
&\sim \frac{\pi}{4\ln N}\cos^2(\lambda t+\theta/2).\\
\end{align*}
Using the initial condition $p(0) = 1/N$, it holds that $\theta \to \pi/2 $ thus the probability of success simplifies into
$$
p(t) \sim \frac{\pi}{4\ln N}\sin^2(\lambda t).
$$
The probability of success at the hitting time will be
$$
p_{succ} \sim \frac{\pi}{4\ln N},
$$
and the hitting time will be
$$
t_{opt} \sim \frac{\pi}{2\lambda}\sim \frac{\sqrt{\pi N \ln N}}{4}.
$$
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Analytical study for two marked elements (M=2)}
\begin{citedth}\label{citedth:4}
We consider a QWSearch defined as described in appendix \ref{annex:1}. If there is exactly two marked vertices $m_0$ and $m_1$ (we take $m_0=(0,0)$ without a loss of generality) and if $m_1 = (x_1,y_1)$ verifies $x_1+y_1$ odd, then it holds that
$$
p_{succ} \sim \frac{\pi}{2\ln N} \qquad \text{and} \qquad t_{opt} \sim \frac{\sqrt{\pi N \ln N}}{4}.
$$
\end{citedth}
\begin{proof}
Let's define the subgrids $G_e = \{\ket{v,x,y} \mid v \in \{0,1\},\; x+y \text{ is even}\}$ and $G_o = \{\ket{v,x,y} \mid v \in \{0,1\},\; x+y \text{ is odd}\}$. We note $\mathcal{H}_e$ the Hilbert space spanned by $G_e$ and $\mathcal{H}_o$ the Hilbert space spanned by $G_o$.
$$
\mathcal{H}_e = \text{Span}(G_e) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \mathcal{H}_o = \text{Span}(G_o).
$$
A direct computation shows that
$$
\ket{v,x,y}\in G_o \Rightarrow U'\ket{v,x,y} \subseteq \mathcal{H}_o,
$$
and
$$
\ket{v,x,y}\in G_e \Rightarrow U'\ket{v,x,y} \subseteq \mathcal{H}_e.
$$
Since in our configuration $m_0 \in \mathcal{H}_e$ and $m_1 \in \mathcal{H}_1$, the search for the marked element $m_0$ and the search for the marked element $m_1$ will be two independant searchs. The probability to find $m_0$ will be the same as the probability of success for $M=1$. Similarly, the probability to find $m_1$ will be the same as the probability of success for $M=1$.
Using theorem \ref{citedth:3}, it holds that
$$
p(t) \sim \frac{\pi}{2\ln N}\sin^2(\lambda t),
$$
where
$$
\lambda \sim \sim 2\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N\ln(N)}}.
$$
The probability of success at the hitting time will be
$$
p_{succ} \sim \frac{\pi}{2\ln N},
$$
and the hitting time will be
$$
t_{opt} \sim \frac{\pi}{2\lambda}\sim \frac{\sqrt{\pi N \ln N}}{4}.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{citedth}\label{citedth:5}
We consider a QWSearch defined as described in appendix \ref{annex:1}. If there is exactly two marked vertices $m_0$ and $m_1$ (we take $m_0=(0,0)$ without a loss of generality) and if $m_1 = (x,y)$, then it holds that
$$
\lambda = \frac{-\tilde B_{x,y} + \sqrt{\tilde B^2 + 32(C+\tilde C_{x,y})}}{2(C+\tilde C_{x,y})}\qquad \text{and}\qquad \lambda' = \frac{-\tilde B_{x,y} - \sqrt{\tilde B^2 + 32(C+\tilde C_{x,y})}}{2(C+\tilde C_{x,y})}.
$$
Furthermore, the probability of success will be
$$
p_{succ} = 2\frac{N}{\tilde B^2 + 16(C+\tilde C)\pm\tilde B\sqrt{\tilde B^2 + 32 (C+\tilde C)}}
$$
\end{citedth}
\begin{proof}
Let's first compute the coefficients of the $2\times 2$ matrix $\Lambda^\lambda$.
\begin{align*}
n^2\Lambda^\lambda_{m_0,m_0} &= n^2\Lambda^\lambda_{m_1,m_1}\\
&= \sum_{\pm,k,l}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= \sum_{\pm,k,l\mid \phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2 + \sum_{\pm,k,l\mid \phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= \frac{2}{\lambda}\underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2}_A - \underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2}_B - \lambda\underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2}_C &\triangleright \text{Using lemma \ref{lemma:5}}\\
\end{align*}
Now we do the same for $\Lambda_{m_1,m_0}^\lambda$ :
\begin{align*}
n^2\Lambda^\lambda_{m_1,m_0} &= n^2\Lambda^\lambda_{m_0,m_1}\\
&= \sum_{\pm,k,l}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2w^{k+l}\\
&= \sum_{\pm,k,l\mid \phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2w^{k+l} + \sum_{\pm,k,l\mid \phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}b_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2w^{k+l}\\
&= \frac{2}{\lambda}\underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2w^{k+l}}_{\tilde A} - \underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2w^{kx+ly}}_{\tilde B} \\&- \lambda\underbrace{\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2w^{kx+ly}}_{\tilde C} &\triangleright \text{lemma \ref{lemma:5}}.\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\tilde A &= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2w^{k+l}\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0}w^{k+l}(\frac{1}{2}\pm c_{k,l}) &\triangleright \text{Using lemma \ref{lemma:6}}\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{1,k,l}=0}w^{k+l}\\
&= 1+e^{i\frac{2\pi}{n}n} &\triangleright \text{Because $\phi_{\pm,k,l}=0 \Leftrightarrow (k,l) \in \{(0,0),(n/2,n/2)\}$}\\
&= 2.\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\tilde B &= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2w^{kx+ly}\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{w^{kx+ly}\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}(\frac{1}{2} \pm c_{k,l}) &\triangleright \text{Using lemma \ref{lemma:6}}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{w^{k+l}\sin\phi_{\pm,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}} + \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{w^{kx+ly}\sin\phi_{+,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{+,k,l}}c_{k,l}\\
&= 2\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\cos(2\pi\frac{kx+ly}{n})\sin\phi_{+,k,l}}{1-\cos\phi_{+,k,l}}c_{k,l}\\
&= -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\cos\theta_{kx+ly\sin\theta_k\sin\theta_l}}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l}.\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\tilde C &= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{w^{k+l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}|\braket{d,v_{\pm,k,l}}|^2\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{\pm,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{w^{k+l}}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}(\frac{1}{2} \pm c_{k,l}) &\triangleright \text{Using lemma \ref{lemma:6}}\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{\cos(2\pi\frac{k+l}{n})}{1-\cos\phi_{\pm,k,l}}.\\
\end{align*}
We note that
\begin{align*}
C-\tilde C &= \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}\frac{1-\cos(\theta_k+\theta_l)}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l}\\
&= \sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0}1 + \frac{\sin\theta_k\sin\theta_l}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l}\\
&= N - \frac{1}{2}B\\
&= N.
\end{align*}
Thus it holds that
$$
\tilde C \sim C.
$$
Thus the equation of lemma \ref{lemma:4} becomes
$$
(\frac{4}{\lambda}-C\lambda)^2 \sim (\frac{4}{\lambda}-\tilde B-\tilde C\lambda)^2.
$$
Simplifying this and taking the Taylor expansion we obtain
$$
\lambda = \frac{-\tilde B_{x,y} + \sqrt{\tilde B^2 + 32(C+\tilde C_{x,y})}}{2(C+\tilde C_{x,y})}\qquad \text{and}\qquad \lambda' = \frac{-\tilde B_{x,y} - \sqrt{\tilde B^2 + 32(C+\tilde C_{x,y})}}{2(C+\tilde C_{x,y})}.
$$
Using a process similar to the proof of \ref{citedth:3}, one can compute the coefficients of \ref{citedth:1}.
\begin{align*}
1 &= \sum_{\pm,k,l}\left|1+ib_{\pm,k,l}^\lambda\right|\left|\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|d,m_0}\braket{d,m_0,\lambda} +\braket{\psi_{\pm,k,l}|d,m_1}\braket{d,m_1,\lambda} \right|^2\\
&= |\braket{d,m,\lambda} |^2 \frac{4}{N}(C+\tilde C).
\end{align*}
This gives us
$$
|\braket{d,m,\lambda}|^2 = \frac{N}{4(C+\tilde C)}.
$$
Now the second coefficient is similarly computed :
\begin{align*}
|\braket{\lambda | \psi(0)}|^2 &= \left|1+ib_{+,0,0}^\lambda\right|^2\frac{|\braket{d,m,\lambda} |^2}{N}\\
&= \frac{4|\braket{d,m,\lambda} |^2}{\lambda^2 N}\\
&= \frac{1}{\lambda^2 (C+\tilde C)}.
\end{align*}
Now the final coefficient is given by
$$
f(\lambda) = |\braket{\lambda | \psi(0)}|^2|\braket{d,m,\lambda} |^2 = \frac{N}{4\lambda^2(C+\tilde C)^2}
$$
which simplifies to
$$
f(\lambda) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{N}{\tilde B^2 + 16(C+\tilde C)-\tilde B\sqrt{\tilde B^2 + 32 (C+\tilde C)}}
$$
and
$$
f(\lambda') = \frac{1}{2} \frac{N}{\tilde B^2 + 16(C+\tilde C)+\tilde B\sqrt{\tilde B^2 + 32 (C+\tilde C)}}.
$$
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{citedcoro}
We consider a QWSearch defined as described in appendix \ref{annex:1}. There exists at least one configuration with two marked vertices which is non-optimal. More specifically, for the configuration $\mathcal{M} = \{(0,0);(1,1)\}$, it holds that
$$
p_{succ} = O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right).
$$
\end{citedcoro}
\begin{proof}
We use the formula from Theorem \ref{citedth:5} for the probability of success.
$$
p_{succ} = 2\frac{N}{\tilde B^2 + 16(C+\tilde C)\pm\tilde B\sqrt{\tilde B^2 + 32 (C+\tilde C)}}.
$$
In this specific configuration, it is possible to show using integral bounding that
$$
\tilde B_{1,1} = O(N).
$$
Furthermore, it holds that
$$
\tilde C \leq C = \frac{1}{\pi}N\ln N.
$$
So in the probability of success, everything is negligible before $\tilde B^2 = O(N^2)$. Finally it holds that
$$
p_{succ} = O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right),
$$
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{citedcoro}
We consider a QWSearch defined as described in appendix \ref{annex:1}. There exists at least one configuration with two marked vertices which presents interferences but is optimal. More specifically, for the configuration $\mathcal{M} = \{(0,0);(0,2)\}$, it holds that
$$
p_{succ} = O\left(\frac{1}{\ln N}\right).
$$
\end{citedcoro}
\begin{proof}
One can show that $\tilde B_{0,2} = 0$ using symmetries. More specifically, let's define
$$
S_{k,l} = \cos\theta_{2l}\frac{\sin\theta_k\sin\theta_l}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l}
$$
the $(k,l)$ term of $\tilde B_{0,2}$. It holds that
$$
\tilde B_{0,2} = \frac{-1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{+,k,l}\neq 0} S_{k,l}.
$$
The symmetry $S_{k,l} = -S_{k,n-l}$ ensure that $\tilde B_{0,2} = 0$.
Now let's look at the probability of success given by Theorem \ref{citedth:5} when replacing $\tilde B$ by $0$.
$$
p_{succ} = 2\frac{N}{16(C+\tilde C)} \sim \frac{\pi}{8}\frac{1}{\ln N} = O\left(\frac{1}{\ln N}\right).
$$
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{citedcoro}
We consider a QWSearch defined as described in appendix \ref{annex:1}. If there is exactly two marked vertices $m_0$ and $m_1$ (we take $m_0=(0,0)$ without a loss of generality) and if $m_1 = (x,y)$, then the search is optimal if $\min(x,n-x)\min(y,n-y) \geq n$. Furthermore, the number of non-optimal configurations $\mathcal{N}_{\text{non-optimal}}$ is bounded by
$$
\mathcal{N}_{\text{non-optimal}} = O\left(\sqrt{N}\ln N\right).
$$
\end{citedcoro}
\begin{proof}
In this proof we try to find a bound for $\tilde B_{x,y}$. First it holds that
\begin{align*}
\tilde B_{x,y} &= \frac{-1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{k,l}\neq 0}\cos \theta_{kx+ly}\frac{\sin\theta_k\sin\theta_l}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l}\\
&= \frac{-1}{2}\sum_{\phi_{k,l}\neq 0}\tilde B_{x,y}^{k,l}.\\
\end{align*}
Using the symmetry $\tilde B_{x,y}^{k,l} = \tilde B_{x,y}^{k+n/2,l+n/2}$, it holds that
$$
\tilde B_{x,y} = -\sum_{k=1}^{n/2-1}\sum_{l=0}^{n/2-1}\tilde B_{x,y}^{k,l}+\tilde B_{x,y}^{k,l+n/2}.
$$
We also remark that
$$
\forall 0\leq k,l \leq n/2, \quad 0 \leq \frac{\sin\theta_k\sin\theta_l}{1-\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l} \leq 1,
$$
and
$$
\forall 0\leq k,l \leq n/2, \quad 0 \leq \frac{\sin\theta_k\sin\theta_l}{1+\cos\theta_k\cos\theta_l} \leq 1.
$$
Thus it holds that
$$
\tilde B_{x,y} = O\left( -2\sum_{k=1}^{n/2-1}\sum_{l=0}^{n/2-1}\cos\theta_{kx+ly}\right).
$$
Integral bounding can be used to show that
$$
-2\sum_{k=1}^{n/2-1}\sum_{l=0}^{n/2-1}\tilde B_{x,y}^{k,l} \sim 2\cot\frac{\pi x}{n}\cot\frac{\pi y}{n}.
$$
We can now take the Maclaurin expansion of $\cot$ along with the cyclic attribute of the lattice to get a usable asymptotic bound for $\tilde B^2$:
$$
\tilde B_{x,y}^2 = O\left(\frac{N^2}{\min(x,n-x)^2\min(y,n-y)^2}\right).
$$
We can now use this bound to get a better account of the number of non-optimal configurations.
Using Theorem \ref{citedth:5}, we know that if $\min(x,n-x)^2\min(y,n-y)^2 \geq N$, then the configuration will be optimal. The configurations that might be non-optimal are
$$
E = \{(x,y) \mid \min(x,n-x)\min(y,n-y)\leq n\}.
$$
It holds that
\begin{align*}
\#E/4 &= \sum_{x=0}^n\sum_{y=0}^{\lfloor n/x\rfloor}1\\
&= \sum_{x=0}^n\lfloor n/x\rfloor\\
&\leq n \sum_{x=0}^n\frac{1}{x}.
\end{align*}
Note that this number must be multiplied by four to take into account the cyclic attribute of the lattice. This does not change the fact that the number of non-optimal configurations $\mathcal{N}_{\text{non-optimal}}$ verifies
$$
\mathcal{N}_{\text{non-optimal}} = O\left(\sqrt{N}\ln N\right),
$$
which means that almost all configurations are optimal.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is primarily concerned with the existence and description of linear mappings between algebras taking products equal to one fixed element to products equal to another fixed element, in the sense of the following problem.
\begin{namedpproblem}[P]\label{mainprob}
Let $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$ be algebras and $\phi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ a bijective linear map such that $\phi(a)\phi(b)=d$ whenever $ab = c$, where $c \in \mathcal A$ and $d \in \mathcal B$ are fixed. When is $\phi$ a scalar multiple of a ring homomorphism?
\end{namedpproblem}
For brevity, we refer to a map $\phi$ satisfying the hypothesis of Problem P as a \textit{fixed product preserving mapping}. We may also refer to $\phi$ as \textit{preserving fixed products at $c$} to be more specific about the element of interest. It is also desirable to weaken the hypotheses on $\phi$ wherever possible. Occasionally below we can remove bijectivity, linearity, etc.
Perhaps the most well-known version of this problem takes $c =d=0$; that is, $\phi$ satisfies $\phi(a)\phi(b) = 0$ whenever $ab = 0$, for all $a,b \in \mathcal A$. We say then that $\phi$ \textit{preserves products equal to zero} or \textit{preserves the zero product}. Such maps also go by the name \textit{Lamperti operators, separating maps,} or \textit{disjointness preserving maps} on function algebras. A substantial number of papers are devoted to the zero product preserver problem. A small, representative sample for our purposes is \cite{chebotar,houcui,wong}. The most common conclusion is that the range of $\phi$ either has trivial multiplication, or $\phi$ is a scalar multiple of a homomorphism.
The corresponding notion of a \textit{zero product determined} (zpd) \textit{algebra} builds on this idea; these are algebras for which every bilinear form vanishing on zero products must be implemented by a single linear transformation. The subject arose out of ideas defined in \cite{alaminos,bresarzpd} and many subsequent publications; the most recent and summative source on zpd algebras is Bre\v sar's book \cite{bresarzpdbook}.
The book \cite{bresarzpdbook} contains an extensive list of references for zpd algebras (in both analytic and algebraic contexts) and zero product preservers.
Problem P for nonzero elements is beginning to be explored in greater depth; for instance, it is solved completely on $M_n(\mathbb{C})$, the full algebra of $n \times n$ matrices with complex entries. In the recent paper \cite{catalanojulius}, the author and his collaborator Catalano addressed this exact problem for any fixed matrices $C$ and $D$ of the same rank (note: we use capital letters to denote operators and matrices). A number of papers built up specific cases, such as \cite{catalano,catalanochanglee,catalanohsukapalko}). See also \cite{zhu}. Costara \cite{costaraproducts} found a topological proof showing that the existence of a fixed product preserving map automatically implies that $\textup{rank}(C) = \textup{rank}(D)$. This observation directly inspired some of the results in Section \ref{connect}.
Fixed product preserving mappings also arise naturally for other operations, such as the Lie product $[a,b] = ab-ba$ and the Jordan product $a \circ b = ab+ba$, which are of principal interest. Some relevant problems for the Lie product can be found in \cite{GJV,julius2,omladicsemrl,semrl2}. For the Jordan product, see \cite{catalanohsukapalko,cklz}; most notably, the authors in \cite{catalanohsukapalko} obtained a complete description for maps preserving equal fixed Jordan products on $M_n(\mathbb{C})$. However, the Lie case can be pathological (such as in \cite{GJV}). General approaches (even for $M_n(\mathbb{C})$) for the Lie product are not known and seems to be a challenge.
It is the aim of this paper to extend some of the known solutions to Problem P to algebras of operators on infinite-dimensional spaces and general Banach algebras. There are three sections. In Section \ref{finite}, we take $C$ to be a finite-rank operator in $\mathcal B(X)$ and find a reduction to the zero product, which answers Problem P in the affirmative when the range of $\phi$ is prime (recall that a ring is called \textit{prime} if the product of any two nonzero ideals is nonzero).
\begin{namedtheorem}[2.2]
Let $\mathcal A$ be a prime unital algebra and $X$ be an infinite-dimensional Banach space. If $\phi: \mathcal B(X) \to \mathcal A$ is a bijective linear map such that $\phi(A)\phi(B) = D$ whenever $AB = C$, where $C$ is a finite-rank operator, then $\phi(I) = \alpha$ is an invertible element lying in the center of $\mathcal A$ and there exists an isomorphism $\Phi: \mathcal B(X) \to \mathcal A$ such that $\phi(T) = \alpha \Phi(T)$ for all $T \in \mathcal B(X)$.
\end{namedtheorem}
In Section \ref{connect}, a new question is proposed. Suppose that there exists a map preserving products at $c$. How are $c$ and $d$ related? Some general criteria are provided and our most conclusive results hold in Banach algebras whose group of invertible elements is dense in the norm topology.
\begin{namedtheorem}[3.3]
Let $\mathcal A$ be a unital Banach algebra whose group of invertible elements is dense in the norm topology. Fix two elements $c,d \in \mathcal A$ such that $\phi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal A$ is a bijective continuous linear map satisfying $\phi(a)\phi(b) = d$ whenever $ab = c$. Then
\begin{enumerate}\upshape
\item \textit{$c = 0$ if and only if $d = 0$, }
\item \textit{$c$ is invertible if and only if $d$ is invertible.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{namedtheorem}
Some new approaches would be required to address perhaps the most interesting case of fixed product preservers on $\mathcal B(X)$. In Section \ref{inv}, motivated by Kaplansky's problem on invertibility preserving mappings (see [Section 9, \cite{kaplanskyinv}] and [Section 0.1, \cite{molnar}] for discussion), we demonstrate that mappings preserving fixed products at an invertible element, under mild conditions, must be a homomorphism or antihomomorphism up to multiplication by a fixed element.
\begin{namedtheorem}[4.1]
Let $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$ be unital Banach algebras and let $\phi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ be a bijective linear map such that $\phi(a)\phi(b) = d$ whenever $ab = c$, where $d$ is invertible. Then
\begin{enumerate}\normalfont
\item \textit{$\phi(x^{-1}) = z\phi(x)^{-1}z$ for all invertible $x \in \mathcal A$, where $z = \phi(1)$,}
\item \textit{$z^{-1}\phi$ strongly preserves invertibility, therefore}
\item \textit{$z^{-1}\phi$ a Jordan homomorphism, and}
\item \textit{if $\mathcal B$ is prime, then $z^{-1}\phi$ is either a homomorphism or antihomomorphism.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{namedtheorem}
\newcommand{\textup{im}}{\textup{im}}
Lastly, we fix some notation. $X$ always denotes a complex Banach space, $X'$ denotes its dual of bounded linear functionals, and $\mathcal B(X)$ denotes the algebra of bounded linear operators on $X$ with the identity operator denoted $I$. Elements of $\mathcal B(X)$ are simply called \textit{operators}. Operators will be denoted with upper-case letters and vectors with lower-case letters. The range of an operator $T$ is denoted by $\textup{im}(T)$.
Only unital associative algebras are considered in this paper. By a \textit{Jordan homomorphism} $\psi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal B$, where $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$ are algebras, we mean a linear map such that $\psi(a^2) = \psi(a)^2$ for all $a \in \mathcal A$.
\section{Fixed product preserving maps at finite-rank operators}\label{finite}
Let $X$ be a Banach space. A rank-one operator in $\mathcal B(X)$ can be written as $x \otimes f$, where $\textup{im}(x \otimes f) = \mathbb{C} x$, and $f\in X'$ is a nonzero bounded linear functional. Vector multiplication is defined by $(x\otimes f)(y) = f(y)x$ for all $y \in X$. Note that $x\otimes f$ is a projection if and only if $f(x) = 1$. A finite-rank operator is a sum of rank-one operators, and a finite-rank projection is therefore a sum of rank-one projections.
Taking $C$ to be a finite rank operator in Problem P, our first lemma provides a reduction to the usual zero product preserver problem. In fact, the map $\phi$ need only be additive for this reduction to take place. Moreover, since continuity is not needed either, the range of $\phi$ can be an arbitrary (not necessarily Banach) algebra. The following proof relies only on the elementary theory of vector spaces and the Hahn-Banach theorem to ensure the existence of certain bounded linear functionals.
\begin{proposition}\label{frank} Let $\mathcal A$ be an arbitrary associative algebra and $X$ an infinite-dimensional Banach space. If $\phi: \mathcal B(X) \to \mathcal A$ is an additive map preserving products at $C$, a rank-$k$ operator, then $\phi$ preserves the zero product.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Write $$C = v_1\otimes f_1 + \cdots + v_k \otimes f_k$$ for linearly independent vectors $\{v_1,\dotsc,v_k\}$ in $X$ and linearly independent bounded linear functionals $\{f_1,\dotsc,f_k\}$ in $X'$.
Let $P$ and $Q$ be arbitrary nonzero operators such that $QP = 0$.
First, suppose the $\textup{im}(P)$ is a closed subspace of $\ker(Q)$ such that $\dim \ker(Q) / \textup{im} P \geq k$ (in particular, $\textup{im}(P)$ is not dense in $\ker(Q)$).
Let $W$ be a $k$-dimensional subspace of $\ker(Q)$ disjoint from $\textup{im}(P)$ and let $\{w_1,\dotsc,w_k\}$ be a basis of $W$. Define the operator $$A = v_1\otimes g_1 + \dotsc+ v_k\otimes g_k,$$ where the bounded linear functionals $g_i$ satisfy
$$g_i(w_j) = \delta_{ij}, \quad j = 1,\dotsc,k, \quad \text{ and } \quad g_i(\textup{im}(P)) = 0$$
for all $i =1,\dotsc,k$. By construction, $AP = 0$. Define the operator $$B = w_1\otimes f_1 + \cdots + w_k\otimes f_k.$$ Since the $w_i$ are elements of $\ker(Q)$, by construction we have $QB = 0$ and it is easy to see that $AB = C$. Hence we have four equations:
$$AB = C, \qquad \phantom{\text{ and }} \qquad (A+Q)B = C,$$
$$A(P+B) = C, \qquad \text{ and } \qquad (A+Q)(P+B) = C.$$
From additivity, the two equations $\phi(A)\phi(B) = D$ and $\phi(A+Q)\phi(B) = D$ imply that $\phi(Q)\phi(B) = 0$, and $\phi(A)\phi(P) = 0$ is done analogously. Finally, expanding the parentheses of $\phi(A+Q)\phi(P+B) = D$, along with the previous observations, implies that $\phi(Q)\phi(P) = 0$.
If the dimension of $\ker(Q)/\textup{im}(P)$ is less than $k$, it is not as simple to find such factorizations of $C$ including $Q$ and $P$. However, we can always reduce to the above case by decomposing $Q$ or $P$ with respect to a finite-rank projection to obtain quotients of dimension at least $k$ as follows.
Suppose that both $\ker(Q)$ and $\textup{im}(P)$ are infinite-dimensional
with $\dim \ker(Q)/\textup{im}(P) < k$. We do not assume that $\textup{im}(P)$ is closed in $\ker(Q)$. Let $E$ be a finite rank projection onto an $n$-dimensional subspace of $\textup{im}(P)$.
Let $I_{\ker(Q)}$ denote the identity operator on $\ker(Q)$. Since $\textup{im}(E)$ is finite-dimensional and $\ker(Q)$ is a normed space, decompose $\ker(Q) = \textup{im}(E) \oplus \textup{im}(I_{\ker(Q)} - E)$ as both an algebraic and topological direct sum; that is, both $\textup{im}(E)$ and $\textup{im}(I_{\ker(Q)}-E)$ are closed and complemented subspaces of $\ker(Q)$. It follows from the original argument that $EP$ and $(I_{\ker(Q)}-E)P$; hence $\phi(Q)\phi(EP) = 0$ and $\phi(Q)\phi((I_{\ker(Q)}-E)P) = 0$. By additivity,
$$\phi(Q)\phi(P) = \phi(Q)\phi(EP + (I_{\ker(Q)} - E)P) = 0.$$
On the other hand, if $\ker(Q)$ is finite-dimensional (therefore $P$ is finite-rank) and $\dim \ker(Q) / \textup{im}(P) < k$, similarly decompose $Q$ as $EQ + (I-E)Q$ for finite-rank projections, $E$, where $I$ is the identity operator on $X$. Now, $\ker(EQ)$ has an infinite-dimensional kernel containing the finite-dimensional closed subspace $\textup{im}(P)$, so $\phi(EQ)\phi(P) = 0$ by previous remarks. This does not depend on the rank of $E$. However, if one chooses $E$ to project onto $n$ linearly independent vectors in $\textup{im}(Q)$, then $\ker ((I-E)Q)$ has dimension $n + \dim \ker(Q)$. But $n$ can be arbitrary (as $\textup{im}(Q)$ is infinite-dimensional) and $\textup{im}(P)$ is a finite-dimensional closed subspace of $\ker((I-E)Q)$. Select $n$ large enough so that $\dim \ker((I-E)Q) / \textup{im}(P) \geq k$. Thus $\phi((I-E)Q)\phi(P) = 0$ and by additivity, we get
$$\phi(Q)\phi(P) = \phi(EQ + (I-E)Q) \phi(P) = 0$$
for some appropriately chosen projection $E$. Therefore $\phi$ preserves the zero product.
\end{proof}
Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be infinite-dimensional complex Hilbert spaces and $\phi:\mathcal B(H_1) \to \mathcal B(H_2)$ a bijective additive map preserving products at $C$, a finite-rank operator. It follows from Proposition \ref{frank} and [Corollary 2.8, \cite{chebotar}] that $\phi(T) = \alpha UTU^{-1}$, where $\alpha$ is a nonzero scalar and $U$ is an invertible bounded linear operator from $H_1$ onto $H_2$. This solves Problem P for finite-rank operators on Hilbert spaces.
Along these lines, there is a similar result for arbitrary Banach spaces $X$, as long as the target space of $\phi$ is a \textit{prime} unital algebra. As mentioned in the introduction, a ring is prime if the product of two nonzero ideals is always nonzero (in particular, $\mathcal B(X)$ is prime).
\begin{theorem}\label{frankt}
Let $\mathcal A$ be a prime unital algebra and $X$ be an infinite-dimensional Banach space. If $\phi: \mathcal B(X) \to \mathcal A$ is a bijective linear map such that $\phi(A)\phi(B) = D$ whenever $AB = C$, where $C$ is a finite-rank operator, then $\phi(I) = \alpha$ is an invertible element lying in the center of $\mathcal A$ and there exists an isomorphism $\Phi: \mathcal B(X) \to \mathcal A$ such that $\phi(T) = \alpha \Phi(T)$ for all $T \in \mathcal B(X)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{frank}, $\phi$ preserves the zero product. The rest follows from [Theorem 7.8, \cite{bresarzpdbook}].
\end{proof}
A few notes are in order. $\mathcal B(X)$ is not always zpd but contains plenty of noncentral idempotents, a necessary hypothesis of [Theorem 7.8, \cite{bresarzpdbook}], which
circumvents the zpd assumption and therefore does not require continuity. Taking $\mathcal A = \mathcal B(X)$, then we conclude that $\phi$ is a scalar multiple of an automorphism and thus of the form $\phi(T) = \alpha UTU^{-1}$ for some invertible operator $U$ (see Eidelheit \cite{eidelheit} for the proof that every automorphism of $\mathcal B(X)$ is inner). Furthermore, it is easily seen that $D = \alpha \phi(C)$. To emphasize, we did not assume anything about $D$ itself. Lastly, Theorem \ref{frankt} holds for finite-dimensional spaces $X$ provided that $C$ is noninvertible.
When $C$ is invertible, the map $\phi$ can behave like an antiautomorphism. See the remark following Theorem \ref{zaz} below.
Let $\mathcal F(X)$ denote the space of finite-rank operators in $\mathcal B(X)$. Any unital subalgebra of $\mathcal B(X)$ containing $\mathcal F(X)$ also has the necessary operators to recreate the argument in Proposition \ref{frank} and Theorem \ref{frankt}.
\begin{corollary}\label{frankcor}
Let $\mathcal S$ be a unital subalgebra of $\mathcal B(X)$ containing $\mathcal F(X)$ and let $\mathcal A$ be a prime unital algebra. If $\phi: \mathcal S \to \mathcal A$ is a bijective linear map such that $\phi(A)\phi(B) = D$ whenever $AB = C$, where $C$ is a finite-rank operator, then $\phi$ is a scalar multiple of a homomorphism.
\end{corollary}
\section{Connections between the fixed elements of Problem P}\label{connect}
\newcommand{\textup{ann}}{\textup{ann}}
The most common type of fixed product preserver problems take $c= d$ or assume that $\phi(c) = d$. We do not wish to assume this for Problem P. In all known examples, the existence of a fixed product preserving map automatically implies some relationship between $c$ and $d$. Most notably, in the finite-dimensional case of $M_n(\mathbb{C})$, Costara \cite{costaraproducts} proved that $\textup{rank}(C) = \textup{rank}(D)$ is automatic and need not be assumed. Theorem \ref{frankt} above also draws a similar conclusion that $C$ finite-rank implies that $D$ is finite-rank. For this section, the question of the forced relationship between $c$ and $d$ imposed by a product preserving mapping is explored in greater generality.
Let $\textup{ann}_\ell(c) = \{x\in \mathcal A: xc = 0\}$ denote the subspace of left annihilators of $c$ and $\textup{ann}_r(c) = \{x \in \mathcal A : cx = 0\}$ denote the subspace of right annihilators of $c$. It is easy to see that any annihilator of $c$ must be taken to an annihilator of $d$ in the image of a fixed product preserving map.
\begin{proposition}\label{ann}
Let $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$ be unital algebras. Fix two elements $c \in \mathcal A$ and $d \in \mathcal B$ and let $\phi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ be a linear map such that $\phi(a)\phi(b) = d$ whenever $ab = c$. Then
\begin{enumerate}\upshape
\item \textit{$\phi(\textup{ann}_\ell(c)) \subseteq \textup{ann}_\ell(d)$ and $\phi(\textup{ann}_r(c)) \subseteq \textup{ann}_r(d)$,}
\item \textit{if $\phi$ is injective and $d$ is left (resp. right) invertible, then $c$ is left (resp. right) invertible, and}
\item \textit{if $\phi$ is injective and $d$ is invertible, then $c$ is invertible.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $x \in \textup{ann}_\ell(c)$. Then $(1+x)c = c$
implies that $\phi(1+x)\phi(c) = d$. By linearity, it follows that $\phi(x)\phi(c) = 0$, and hence
\[0 = \phi(x)\phi(c)\phi(1) = \phi(x)d.\]
Therefore $\phi(\textup{ann}_\ell(c)) \subseteq \textup{ann}_\ell(d)$. The case for right annihilators is analogous. This establishes (1).
For (2), if $d$ is left-invertible (that is, $\textup{ann}_r(d) = 0$), then $\phi(\textup{ann}_r(c)) = 0$. If $\phi$ is injective, it follows that $\textup{ann}_r(c) = 0$ and $c$ is left-invertible. The case for right-invertibility is analogous. Statement (3) follows from (2).
\end{proof}
Next, we rely on invertible elements. Recall that the group of invertible elements of a Banach algebra is open in the norm topology. For the remainder of this section, we also assume that the invertible elements are dense as well. These Banach algebras are necessarily Dedekind-finite as rings (see, for example, [Proposition 3.1, \cite{rieffel}]).
While restrictive, some connections between $c$ and $d$ can be found.
\begin{lemma}\label{balls}
Let $\mathcal A$ be a Banach algebra whose group of invertible elements is dense in the norm topology and let $\phi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal A$ be a surjective continuous linear map. For every open ball $B_\varepsilon \subseteq \mathcal A$ of radius $\varepsilon>0$, there exists an invertible operator $s \in B_\varepsilon$ such that $\phi(s)$ is invertible.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is an immediate consequence of the open mapping theorem and density of invertible elements in $\mathcal A$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{prop}
Let $\mathcal A$ be a unital Banach algebra whose group of invertible elements is dense in the norm topology. Fix two elements $c,d \in \mathcal A$ such that $\phi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal A$ is a bijective continuous linear map satisfying $\phi(a)\phi(b) = d$ whenever $ab = c$. Then
\begin{enumerate}\upshape
\item \textit{$c = 0$ if and only if $d = 0$, }
\item \textit{$c$ is invertible if and only if $d$ is invertible.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $c = 0$, then $\phi(0)\phi(0) = 0=d$. On the other hand, suppose that $d = 0$ and $c \neq 0$. Let $t_0$ be invertible. There exists an $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $\norm{t - t_0} < \varepsilon$ implies that $t$ is invertible. Hence $\phi(t)\phi(t^{-1}c) = 0$ for all $t \in B_\varepsilon(t_0)$ (here, $B_\varepsilon(t_0)$ denotes the ball of radius $\varepsilon$ centered at $t_0$). If $\phi$ is injective, we have that $\phi(t^{-1}c) \neq 0$, hence $\phi(t)$ is not invertible for all $t \in B_\varepsilon(t_0)$. But $\phi$ is a homeomorphism, so $\phi(B_\varepsilon(t_0))$ is an open set and apparently consists only of noninvertible elements. This contradicts density and so $c=0$.
To prove statement (2), note that the backward direction is precisely Proposition \ref{ann}(3). For the forward direction, suppose $c$ is invertible. By Lemma \ref{balls}, let $s$ be any invertible element such that $\phi(s)$ is also invertible. Let $\varepsilon > 0$ be chosen suitably small so that both the ball $B_\varepsilon(s)$ and its image $\phi(B_\varepsilon(s))$ consists only of invertible elements. Then $\phi(t)$ is invertible for all $t \in B_\varepsilon(s)$.
Consider the bijective map $f(a) = a^{-1}c$ on the group of invertible elements. Hence $f(B_\varepsilon(s))$ is another open set consisting entirely of invertible elements of the form $a^{-1}c$, where $\norm{a - s} < \varepsilon$. Another application of Lemma \ref{balls} gives the existence of an element $t \in B_\varepsilon(s)$ such that $\phi(t^{-1}c)$ is also invertible. Now $\phi(t)$ and $\phi(t^{-1}c)$ are both invertible and their product is $d$, thus $d$ is invertible. Injectivity is not required.\end{proof}
Unless $X$ is finite-dimensional, $\mathcal B(X)$ does not generally have a dense invertible group. Regrettably Theorem \ref{prop} therefore does not apply to perhaps the most interesting cases. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that the conclusions of the theorem should fail.
\begin{problem}
Does Theorem \ref{prop} hold if $\mathcal A = \mathcal B(X)$, where $X$ is an infinite-dimensional Banach space?
\end{problem}
In addition, Costara shows something stronger with [Lemma 1, \cite{costaraproducts}] for the Banach algebra of $n \times n$ matrices $M_n(\mathbb{C})$; in particular, that $d \neq 0$ implies that $\phi$ preserves invertibility. The proof assumes that there is an invertible element $t_0$ such that $\phi(t_0)$ is not invertible. The argument works just as well for arbitrary Banach algebras with dense invertible group until the ultimate step when Costara uses convenient matrix representations of noninvertible elements to contradict the assumption on $\phi(t_0)$. We suspect that a similar result will hold for Theorem 3.3.
\begin{problem}
If $\phi$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{prop}, does $d \neq 0$ imply that $\phi$ preserves invertibility?
\end{problem}
Lastly we explore the bijectivity assumption. When $d \neq 0$, clearly $\phi(t) \neq 0$ for every invertible element $t \in \mathcal A$.
Suppose only that $\phi$ is surjective. Must $\phi$ be injective? For simplicity we will present an example for real Banach algebras but the idea remains the same for the complex case. Let $\mathcal A = C[0,1]$ be the Banach algebra of continuous functions on the interval $[0,1]$ endowed with the sup norm. The invertible elements are the nonvanishing continuous functions and are dense. Consider the linear map $\phi: C[0,1] \to C[0,1]$ defined by $\phi(f)(x) = f(\tfrac x2)$. The map is a surjective and continuous algebra homomorphism and therefore preserves products at a fixed function $c \in C[0,1]$ (and preserves invertibility). However the kernel of $\phi$ contains \textit{any} continuous function vanishing on $[0,\tfrac12]$. This also shows that the injectivity assumption of Theorem \ref{prop}(1) is indispensable.
\section{Fixed product preservers at invertible elements}\label{inv}
The final theorem provides a complete description of maps that preserve products at $c$ where the second fixed element, $d$, is invertible. It turns out that preserving products at $c$ also strongly preserves invertibility, and continuity need not be assumed. Recall that a map $\psi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ is said to \textit{strongly preserve invertibility} if $\psi(x^{-1}) = \psi(x)^{-1}$ for all invertible $x \in \mathcal A$.
\begin{theorem}\label{zaz}
Let $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$ be unital Banach algebras and let $\phi: \mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ be a bijective linear map such that $\phi(a)\phi(b) = d$ whenever $ab = c$, where $d$ is invertible. Then
\begin{enumerate}\normalfont
\item \textit{$\phi(x^{-1}) = z\phi(x)^{-1}z$ for all invertible $x \in \mathcal A$, where $z = \phi(1)$,}
\item \textit{$z^{-1}\phi$ strongly preserves invertibility, therefore}
\item \textit{$z^{-1}\phi$ a Jordan homomorphism, and}
\item \textit{if $\mathcal B$ is prime, then $z^{-1}\phi$ is either a homomorphism or antihomomorphism.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{ann}(3), $c$ is invertible. Moreover, $\phi$ preserves invertibility. Indeed, for every invertible element $t \in \mathcal A$, then $\phi(t)\phi(t^{-1}c)d^{-1} = 1$ and $d^{-1}\phi(ct^{-1})\phi(t)=1$, so $\phi(t)$ is invertible.
The remainder of the proof largely follows the proof that was carried out in finite dimensions (see \cite{catalanohsukapalko,catalanojulius}), since only two very general facts are needed:
\begin{enumerate}[label = $\bullet$]
\item the spectrum of $a$, denoted $\sigma(a)$, is compact for all $a \in \mathcal A$, and
\item a special case of Hua's identity; namely, $(1-a)^{-1} = 1+(a^{-1}-1)^{-1}$, which holds in any ring whenever $a$ and $1-a$ are both invertible.
\end{enumerate}
Let $x$ be an element such that $1-x$ is invertible.
Using the special case of Hua's identity,
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
d &= \phi(1-x)\phi((1-x)^{-1}c)\\
&= \phi(1-x)\phi(c+(x^{-1}-1)^{-1}c)\\
&= d+z\phi((x^{-1}-1)^{-1}c)- \phi(x)\phi(c) - \phi(x)\phi((x^{-1}-1)^{-1}c)
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
simplifies to
\begin{equation*}
0 = z\phi((x^{-1}-1)^{-1}c)- \phi(x)\phi(c) - \phi(x)\phi((x^{-1}-1)^{-1}c).
\end{equation*}
For any invertible $t$, we have $\phi(t^{-1}c) = \phi(t)^{-1}d$. Revisiting the previous equation,
\begin{equation*}
0 = z\phi(x^{-1}-1)^{-1}d - \phi(x)\phi(c) - \phi(x)\phi(x^{-1}-1)^{-1}d
\end{equation*}
and since $d$ is invertible (along with $z^{-1} = \phi(c)d^{-1}$),
$$0 = z\phi(x^{-1}-1)^{-1} - \phi(x)z^{-1} - \phi(x)\phi(x^{-1}-1)^{-1}.$$
Multiply through by $\phi(x^{-1}-1)$ on the right to obtain
$$0 = z - \phi(x)z^{-1}\phi(x^{-1}-1) - \phi(x).$$
Writing $\phi(x^{-1}-1) = \phi(x^{-1}) - z$ and some rearranging reveals that
$$\phi(x)z^{-1}\phi(x^{-1})=z,$$
or, equivalently,
\begin{equation}\label{ZZ}\phi(x^{-1}) = z\phi(x)^{-1}z.\end{equation}
This establishes the desired conclusion for those invertible elements $x \in \mathcal A$ such that $1 - x$ is invertible.
In the event that $1-x$ is not invertible (in other words, $1 \in \sigma(x)$), here we use compactness of the spectrum to select a nonzero
$\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$ such that $1-\lambda x$ is invertible. Returning to equation (\ref{ZZ}) we have
$$\phi((\lambda x)^{-1}) = z\phi(\lambda x)^{-1}z$$
and using the linearity of $\phi$ to cancel the common scalar $\lambda^{-1}$ on both sides of the equation, we conclude that
$$\phi(x^{-1}) = z\phi(x)^{-1}z$$
as well. Hence $\phi(x^{-1}) = z\phi(x)^{-1}z$ for all invertible
$x \in \mathcal A$.
For (2), define $\psi(x) :=z^{-1}\phi(x)$ for all $x \in \mathcal A$. Then $\psi:\mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ is a unital surjective continuous linear map that strongly preserves invertibility since, for all invertible $x \in \mathcal A$,
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
\psi(x^{-1}) &= z^{-1}\phi(x^{-1})\\
&= z^{-1}\phi(x^{-1})z^{-1}z\\
&= \phi(x)^{-1}z\\
&= (z^{-1}\phi(x))^{-1}\\
&= \psi(x)^{-1}
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
by Equation (\ref{ZZ}). By [Theorem 2.2, \cite{boudimbekhta}] or [Theorem 2.2, \cite{burgosmarquezgarciamoralescampoy}], we then have that $\psi$ is a unital Jordan homomorphism. This proves (3).
For (4), we recall [Theorem H, \cite{herstein2}]: any Jordan homomorphism onto a prime ring $\mathcal B$ (of characteristic different from 2 or 3, which is certainly the case) is either a homomorphism or antihomomorphism. \end{proof}
\begin{rem}\upshape
In general, $z^{-1}\phi$ as in Theorem \ref{zaz}(4) can be an antihomomorphism and $z$ need not be central. Let $\phi: M_n(\mathbb{C}) \to M_n(\mathbb{C})$ be defined by $\phi(T) = \alpha DUT^tU^{-1}$, where $\alpha \in \mathbb{C}$, $T^t$ is the transpose of $T$, and both $D$ and $U$ are invertible and satisfy the equation $\alpha^2UC^tU^{-1} = D^{-1}$ for an invertible matrix $C$. Then $\phi(A)\phi(B) = D$ whenever $AB = C$. Notice that $z = \phi(I) = \alpha D$. This example is from \cite{catalanojulius2,catalanojulius}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\upshape Strong invertibility preservers have been frequently studied (see \cite{chebotarkeleeshiao,EK,linwong,mbekhta}) with some authors relaxing the condition to $\psi(a)\psi(a^{-1}) = \psi(b)\psi(b^{-1})$ for all invertible $a,b$ in the domain of $\psi$. Indeed, if $z$ is central in the above, then it is easy to see that $\phi(x)\phi(x^{-1}) = \phi(y)\phi(y^{-1})$ for all invertible $x,y \in \mathcal A$. Descriptions for maps satisfying this hypotheses on unital Banach algebras can be found in \cite{burgosmarquezgarciamoralescampoy}, which resolves Problem P in the case $c = d = 1$. Maps satisfying this condition are important for operator-theoretic generalizations of Hua's theorem for division rings [Theorem 9.1.3, \cite{cohn}].
\end{rem}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank the referees for providing valuable feedback to improve the presentation of the paper.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\subsection{Contraction of the ``self-similar'' tensor network}
By definition, the contraction of copies of $A$ is a linear combination of contractions of copies from $A_0, A_1, A_2$ and $A_3$ so that we can focus on the latter. In contraction, we take the convention that each tensor inside a block is outward (see Fig.~1e in the main text). Then as shown in Fig.~1e and 1f in the main text, the contraction is nonzero if and only if there are even number of flips between ${1\atop{0}}$ and ${0\atop{1}}$ among the contracting indices, or there are even number of copies from $A_2$ or $A_3$ in any triangular block. Indeed, such non-vanishing contraction results in a big tensor of the same form, e.g., $A_3,A_2,A_0,\ldots$ contract to $\ket{320\ldots}\otimes\ket{{1\atop{0}}{1\atop{0}}{1\atop{0}}}$ as shown in Fig.~1f in the main text, which, further contracted with the constant corner tensors $C_1,C_2,C_3=\ket{1}\in\mathbb{C}^2$, results in a qudit-product state, e.g., $\ket{320\ldots}$. Note that the corner tensors only pick up big tensors of the form $\ket{\{\alpha\}}\otimes\ket{{1\atop{0}}{1\atop{0}}{1\atop{0}}}$ and ensures the equal-weight summation of $\ket{\Psi}$ as contracted from the tensor network: $\ket{\Psi}=1/\sqrt{M}\sum_m\ket{\psi_m}$ with $\ket{\psi_m}=\ket{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''\cdots}=\Tr_{\{\mathbb{C}^2\}}[A_3\otimes A_2\otimes A_0 \cdots C_1\otimes C_2\otimes C_3]$.
\subsection{Formal definition of $W^+$}
Formally, $W^+$ is defined as $1/\sqrt{8}$ times the sum
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
&\dyad{0}{000+111+023+132+213+230+302+321}\\
+&\dyad{1}{011+032+100+123+202+221+313+330}\\
+&\dyad{2}{010+033+101+122+203+220+312+331}\\
+&\dyad{3}{001+110+022+133+212+231+303+320}.
\end{split}
\end{align*}
\subsection{Complete proof for the zero correlation length of single-qudit operators}
To complete the proof sketched in the main text, we first consider the case where $\ket{\alpha}\ne\ket{\alpha'}$ (the case of $\ket{\bar{\alpha}}\ne\ket{\bar{\alpha}'}$ can be treated in the same way). We observe that in the illustration of an arbitrary $\ket{\psi_m}$ (see Fig.~3c, 3d and 3a in the main text), each triangle (a qudit basis state) is engaged in constraints on three loops (including the laterals) respectively as each triangle has three sides. It follows that the change from $\ket{\alpha}$ to $\ket{\alpha'}$ (as the color change on two sides of the triangle) on a vertex $i$ will break the constraints on two loops (see Fig.~3a in the main text), resulting in a qudit-product-state $\ket{\phi}$ with opposite constraints (odd number of red sides) on the two loops and hence orthogonal to all the qudit-product-states expanding $\ket{\Psi}$. Then, if $\ket{\bar{\alpha}}=\ket{\bar{\alpha}'}$, we have $(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j)\ket{\psi_{m'}}$ (either unchanged or equal to $0$) is orthogonal to $\ket{\phi}=(\dyad{\alpha'}{\alpha}_i)\ket{\psi_m}$ and hence both $\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j\dyad{\alpha'}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}$ and $\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j)}{\Psi}\expval{(\dyad{\alpha'}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}$ are zero. On the other hand, if $\ket{\bar{\alpha}}\ne\ket{\bar{\alpha}'}$, we also observe that the vertex $j$ which is nonadjacent to $i$ share at most one loop with $i$ and the qudits on the two vertices respectively are at most commonly engaged in one constraint. Consequently, the change from $\ket{\bar{\alpha}'}$ to $\ket{\bar{\alpha}}$ on $j$ maps $\ket{\psi_{m'}}$ to another qudit-product-state $\ket{\phi'}$ which is orthogonal to both $\ket{\psi_m}$ and $\ket{\phi}$ (as they differ by at least the constraint on one loop). Hence, both $\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}'}{\bar{\alpha}}_j\dyad{\alpha'}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}$ and $\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}'}{\bar{\alpha}}_j)}{\Psi}\expval{(\dyad{\alpha'}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}$ are zero, and we have the desired condition.
Then we consider the other case where $\ket{\alpha}=\ket{\alpha'}$ and $\ket{\bar{\alpha}}=\ket{\bar{\alpha}'}$. We firstly show that $\expval{(\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}=\expval{\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j}{\Psi}=1/4$ for any basis state $\ket{\alpha},\ket{\bar{\alpha}}$. To that end, we define local unitary operator $T_{ii'}$ for any pair of qudits on neighboring vertices $i$ and $i'$ as specified in Fig.~3c in the main text. Note that $T_{ii'}$ has different forms for $(i,i')$ in the same block and in two neighboring blocks using the operator defined in the subsection for the quantum circuit, i.e., $T_{ii'}=S^1_iS^1_{i'}$ for $(i,i')$ connecting two neighboring blocks and $T_{ii'}=S^2_iS^3_{i'}$ or $T_{ii'}=S^3_iS^2_{i'}$ for $(i,i')$ in the same block. However, the pictorial representation of $T_{ii'}$ in different cases is the same as given by Fig.~3c in the main text, thanks to the colored-triangle representation of the single-qudit-states. Three important properties of $T_{ii'}$ acting on $\ket{\psi_m}$ can be directly read from Fig.~3c in the main text: (1) $T_{ii'}$ preserves the constraints on all loops (including the laterals); (2) for a qudit on vertex $i$ and in any $\ket{\alpha}$, the three unitary operators $T_{ii_1},T_{ii_2},T_{ii_3}$ ($i_1,i_2,i_3$ the three neighboring vertices of $i$) maps $\ket{\alpha}$ exactly to the other three basis states respectively (see Fig.~3d in the main text); (3) For cases where $(i,i_2,i_3)$ forming a block while $i_1$ outside, $T_{ii_2}T_{ii_3}$ and $T_{ii_1}$ map the single-qudit-state on $i$ to the same state.
Now, as shown in Fig.~3b in the main text, if in $\ket{\psi_m}$ the qudit on vertex $i$ is in $\ket{\alpha}$, certain $T_{ii'}$ (or $T_{ii_2}T_{ii_3}$ for $i$ at the corner) maps $\ket{\psi_m}$ exactly to a $\ket{\psi_{m'}}$ with the single-qudit-state on $i$ changed from $\ket{\alpha}$ to $\ket{\alpha'}$. Since $T_{ii'}$ is unitary, it maps all $\ket{\psi_m}$'s with nonzero $\expval{(\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\psi_m}$ one-to-one to all $\ket{\psi_{m'}}$'s with nonzero $\expval{(\dyad{\alpha'}{\alpha'}_i)}{\psi_{m'}}$. Therefore, since $\sum_{\alpha=0}^3\expval{(\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}=1/M\sum_{\alpha=0}^3\sum_m\expval{(\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\psi_m}=1$, we have$\expval{(\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}=1/4$ and similarly $\expval{\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j}{\Psi}=1/4$. Next, we show $\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}=1/16$. Indeed, following the spirit of the above arguments, we only need to notice that vertices $i$ and $j$ are nonadjacent so that $T_{ii'}$ leave the qudit on $j$ unchanged (see Fig.~3b in the main text), and hence we have $\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}=\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j\dyad{\alpha'}{\alpha'}_i)}{\Psi}=1/4\times 1/4=1/16$. Obviously, it means that $\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}-\expval{(\dyad{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\alpha}}_j)}{\Psi}\expval{(\dyad{\alpha}{\alpha}_i)}{\Psi}=1/16-1/16=0$. We have hence proved that $\ket{\Psi}$ has zero correlation length.
\subsection{Complete proof for the zero-correlation-length of operators with finite support}
To complete the proof sketched in the main text, we consider local operators $O_{\tilde i}$ and $O_{\tilde j}$ supported on two nonadjacent blocks ${\tilde i}$ and ${\tilde j}$ as illustrated in Fig.~3e in the main text. Before computing their correlation we study the degrees of freedom of each block, i.e. the space $(\mathbb{C}^4)^{\otimes 3}$ of the three qudits spanned by the basis $\{\ket{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}\}$. According to the definition of $W^+$ (see Fig.~2a in the main text and above formal definition), there are $4\times 8$ $\ket{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}$ states satisfying the constraints on the smallest loop in the block (every eight such states share one coarse-grained single-qudit state $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}}$, see Fig.~3e in the main text). For simplicity, we use the notation $\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}}=\ket{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}$ for these states (see Fig.~3e in the main text) and use $\ket{\mathbf{b}_{\tilde i}}$ for the rest $4\times 8$ states, and thus we can write $\ket{\psi_m}$ as $\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde 1}\mathbf{a}'_{\tilde 2}\cdots\mathbf{a}''_{\tilde i}\cdots}$. Then, similar to the previous proof, since the operator $O_{\tilde i}$ and $O_{\tilde j}$ can be expanded on a basis formed by operators of the form $\dyad{\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{a}'}$, $\dyad{\mathbf{b}}{\mathbf{b}'}$, $\dyad{\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{b}}$ and $\dyad{\mathbf{b}}{\mathbf{a}}$, we only need to consider the correlation between those operators in the basis. However, due to the obvious fact that $(\dyad{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}}{\mathbf{b}_{\tilde i}})\ket{\psi_m}=(\dyad{\mathbf{b}_{\tilde i}}{\mathbf{b}_{\tilde i}})\ket{\psi_m}=0$ and $\bra{\psi_m}(\dyad{\mathbf{b}_{\tilde i}}{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}})=\bra{\psi_m}(\dyad{\mathbf{b}_{\tilde i}}{\mathbf{b}_{\tilde i}})=0$ (also for operators on $\tilde j$), we only need to consider $O_{\tilde i}$ and $O_{\tilde j}$ expanded on the $\dyad{\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{a}'}$ operators.
We can further simplify the computation of the correlation by decomposing a three-qudit block into the tensor product of two parts as motivated by the following facts. As illustrated in Fig.~3e in the main text, for an arbitrary $\ket{\psi_m}=\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde 1}\mathbf{a}'_{\tilde 2}\cdots\mathbf{a}''_{\tilde i}\cdots}$, we can replace $\ket{\mathbf{a}''_{\tilde i}}$ and $\ket{\mathbf{a}'''_{\tilde j}}$ on any two blocks $\tilde i$ and $\tilde j$ independently by any other $\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}}$ and $\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde j}}$ with $W^+\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}}=W^+\ket{\mathbf{a}''_{\tilde i}}=1/\sqrt{8}\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}}$ and $W^+\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde j}}=W^+\ket{\mathbf{a}'''_{\tilde j}}=1/\sqrt{8}\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde j}}$. The result is another $\ket{\psi_{m'}}$ (all constraints satisfied) with $(W^+)^\otimes\ket{\psi_{m'}}=(W^+)^\otimes\ket{\psi_m}=(1/\sqrt{8})^{N_b}\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}$ ($N_b$ the total number of blocks). Note that $\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}$ is simply the states satisfying all constraints on a smaller-size Sierpi\'nski lattice where $\tilde i$ labels a qudit (see Fig.~3e in the main text). Additionally, it can be easily checked that any $\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}$ is the coarse-grained state of some $\ket{\psi_m}$ since such a $\ket{\psi_m}$ can be simply constructed by replacing each $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}}$ with an arbitrary $\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}}$ with $W^+\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}}=1/\sqrt{8}\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}}$ which will definitely keep all constraints satisfied in the zoomed-in lattice (see Fig.~3e in the main text). These facts implies that the degrees of freedom for choosing $\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}}$ on each block can be separated from the coarse-grained ``skeleton'' $\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}$.
Based on the above facts, we can define a unitary operator $U=\otimes_{\tilde i}U_{\tilde i}$ with each $U_{\tilde i}:(\mathbb{C}^4)^{\otimes 3}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}^8\otimes\mathbb{C}^8$ supported on a three-qudit block $\tilde i$ and satisfying $U_{\tilde i}\ket{{\mathbf{a}}}=\ket{\tilde{\alpha}}\otimes\ket{\gamma}$. Here, $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}}=\sqrt{8}W^+\ket{{\mathbf{a}}}$ is the coarse-grained state, and $\ket{\gamma}=\ket{1},\ket{2},\cdots,\ket{8}\in\mathbb{C}^8$ labels $\ket{{\mathbf{a}}}$ among the eight states sharing the same coarse-grained $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}}$. We view the four $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}}$ states as embedded in $\mathbb{C}^8$ so that the $U_{\tilde i}\ket{{\mathbf{b}}}$ states span the orthogonal complement of the subspace spanned by the $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}}\otimes\ket{\gamma}$ states, i.e. $(\mathbb{C}^4\otimes\mathbb{C}^8)\oplus(\mathbb{C}^4\otimes\mathbb{C}^8)=\mathbb{C}^8\otimes\mathbb{C}^8$. Note that the arbitrariness in defining $U_{\tilde i}\ket{{\mathbf{b}}}$ and in the order of labeling the $\ket{{\mathbf{a}}}$ states will not hurt our arguments.
Now, we simply want to prove $\expval{O_{\tilde j}O_{\tilde i}}{\Psi}-\expval{O_{\tilde j}}{\Psi}\expval{O_{\bar i}}{\Psi}=\expval{UO_{\tilde j}U^+UO_{\bar i}U^+}{U\Psi}-\expval{UO_{\tilde j}U^+}{U\Psi}\expval{UO_{\tilde i}U^+}{U\Psi}=0$. And according to the sketch in the main text, we show how this correlation can be reduced to what we have proved for nonadjacent single-qudit operators, and hence the desired property can be proved.
According to the definition, we have $U\ket{\psi_m}=\otimes_{\tilde i}(U_{\tilde i}\ket{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}})=\otimes_{\tilde i}(\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}}\otimes\ket{\gamma_{\tilde i}})=(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}})\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\gamma_{\tilde i}})$. In the last step we identify the two Hilbert spaces $\otimes_{\tilde i}(\mathbb{C}^4\otimes\mathbb{C}^8)$ and $(\otimes_{\tilde i}\mathbb{C}^4)\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\mathbb{C}^8)$. Furthermore, by definition, $\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}}$ equals the coarse-grained state $(\sqrt{8})^{N_b}(W^+)^\otimes\ket{\psi_m}=\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}$, hence we have $U\ket{\psi_m}=\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\gamma_{\tilde i}})$. Then, consider $U\ket{\Psi}=1/\sqrt{M}\sum_m U\ket{\psi_m}$. Obviously, in the sum, $U\ket{\psi_m}=\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\gamma_{\tilde i}})$ goes through all the coarse-grained state $\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}$. Additionally, based on the above arguments about how different $\ket{\psi_m}$ states share the same coarse-grained state, we can conclude that for each $\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}$, the $\ket{\psi_m}$ states that mapped to it by $(W^+)^{\otimes}$ goes through all the possible $\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\gamma_{\tilde i}}$ states. Hence the $U\ket{\psi_m}$ states corresponding to the same $\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}$ sum up to
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{8}^{N_b}\sum_{\{\gamma_{\tilde i}\}}\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\gamma_{\tilde i}})=\sqrt{8}^{N_b}\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}}\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\Gamma_{\tilde i}})
\end{equation*}
with $\ket{\Gamma_{\tilde i}}=1/\sqrt{8}(\ket{1}+\ket{2}+\cdots+\ket{8})$ independent on $\tilde i$ and $\tilde m$. Then, we eventually have $U\ket{\Psi}=(\sqrt{8}^{N_b}/\sqrt{M})(\sum_{\tilde m}\ket{\widetilde{\psi}_{\tilde m}})\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\Gamma_{\tilde i}})=\ket{\widetilde{\Psi}}\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\Gamma_{\tilde i}})$ where $\ket{\widetilde{\Psi}}$ is the coarse-grained state of $\ket{\Psi}$, the state we have studied throughout the text but in the zoomed-out lattice with smaller size.
Note that $U$ does not disentangle the qudits in $\ket{\Psi}$, but instead represent $\ket{\Psi}$ in a different tensor product structure which separates the degrees of freedom represented by the $\ket{\Gamma_{\tilde i}}$ states from the ``skeleton structure'' in the coarse-grained state $\ket{\widetilde{\Psi}}$. The ``skeleton structure'' entangles the degrees of freedom of blocks represented by $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}}$ and prevent the qudits from being disentangled by the local unitary operator $U$. The next section studies why even local quantum circuits cannot disentangle $\ket{\Psi}$.
Before computing the correlation, we recall that we only consider $O_{\tilde i}$ and $O_{\tilde j}$ that are expanded on operators of the form $\dyad{\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{a}'}$. Since $U_{\tilde i}\dyad{\mathbf{a}_{\tilde i}}{\mathbf{a}'_{\tilde i}}U_{\tilde i}^+=\dyad{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}\otimes\gamma_{\tilde i}}{\tilde{\alpha}'_{\tilde i}\otimes\gamma'_{\tilde i}}$, $U_{\tilde i}O_{\tilde i}U_{\tilde i}^+$ is an operator on the subspace spanned by the $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}}\otimes\ket{\gamma}$ states, i.e. $\mathbb{C}^4\otimes\mathbb{C}^8\subset\mathbb{C}^8\otimes\mathbb{C}^8$ (and so is $U_{\tilde i}O_{\tilde j}U_{\tilde i}^+$). Then, the two operators can be expanded on an operator basis $\{o_{\kappa}\otimes q_{\kappa'}\}$ as $\sum_{\kappa \kappa'}c^{\tilde i}o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}\otimes q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'}$ and $\sum_{\kappa \kappa'}c^{\tilde j}o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa}\otimes q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'}$, where $o_{\kappa}$ acts on $\ket{\tilde{\alpha}_{\tilde i}}\in\mathbb{C}^4$ and hence on $\ket{\widetilde{\Psi}}\in\otimes_{\tilde i}\mathbb{C}^4$, while $q_{\kappa'}$ acting on $\ket{\gamma_{\tilde i}}\in\mathbb{C}^8$ and hence on $\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\Gamma_{\tilde i}}\in\otimes_{\tilde i}\mathbb{C}^8$. Then, similar to the proof in the previous section, to show that the correlation is zero we only need to show $\expval{(o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}\otimes q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''})(o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}\otimes q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'})}{U\Psi}-\expval{o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}\otimes q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''}}{U\Psi}\expval{o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}\otimes q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'}}{U\Psi}=0$. Now, considering $U\ket{\Psi}=\ket{\widetilde{\Psi}}\otimes(\otimes_{\tilde i}\ket{\Gamma_{\tilde i}})$, we have
\begin{multline*}
\expval{(o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}\otimes q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''})(o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}\otimes q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'})}{U\Psi}\\
=\expval{(o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa})\otimes (q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''}q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'})}{U\Psi}\\
=\expval{o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}}{\widetilde{\Psi}}\expval{q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''}q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'}}{\otimes_{\tilde i'}\Gamma_{\tilde i'}}
\end{multline*}
and
\begin{multline*}
\expval{o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}\otimes q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''}}{U\Psi}\expval{o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}\otimes q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'}}{U\Psi}\\
=\expval{o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}}{\widetilde{\Psi}}\expval{q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''}}{\otimes_{\tilde i'}\Gamma_{\tilde i'}}\\
\times\expval{o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}}{\widetilde{\Psi}}\expval{q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'}}{\otimes_{\tilde i'}\Gamma_{\tilde i'}}.
\end{multline*}
Since for product state $\ket{\otimes_{\tilde i'}\Gamma_{\tilde i'}}$ we have $\expval{q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''}q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'}}{\otimes_{\tilde i'}\Gamma_{\tilde i'}}=\expval{q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''}}{\Gamma_{\tilde j}}\expval{q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'}}{\Gamma_{\tilde i}}=\expval{q^{\tilde j}_{\kappa'''}}{\otimes_{\tilde i'}\Gamma_{\tilde i'}}\expval{q^{\tilde i}_{\kappa'}}{\otimes_{\tilde i'}\Gamma_{\tilde i'}}$, it suffices to show $\expval{o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}}{\widetilde{\Psi}}-\expval{o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}}{\widetilde{\Psi}}\expval{o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}}{\widetilde{\Psi}}=0$, which is exactly what we have studied in the previous section. Note that the fact that $O_{\tilde i}$ and $O_{\tilde j}$ are supported on nonadjacent blocks guarantees that $o^{\tilde i}_{\kappa}$ and $o^{\tilde j}_{\kappa''}$ are supported on nonadjacent qudits in the smaller-size lattice, and hence the correlation is zero. Therefore, we can conclude that $\expval{O_{\tilde j}O_{\tilde i}}{\Psi}-\expval{O_{\tilde j}}{\Psi}\expval{O_{\tilde i}}{\Psi}=0$.
For the general case where $O_{\tilde i}$ and $O_{\tilde j}$ are supported on two local regions of finite qudits, each of the two support can always be viewed as within a (larger) triangular block of certain number of qudits. Then, if we use $\tilde i$ and $\tilde j$ to denote the two blocks and just require them to be nonadjacent (separated by at least one such block), the above arguments can be directly applied except that multiple coarse-graining operators should be applied until the two blocks $\tilde i$ and $\tilde j$ are shrunk to two nonadjacent vertices. This eventually proves the zero-correlation-length property of $\ket{\Psi}$.
\subsection{Complete proof for the system-size dependence of the circuit depth}
We consider arbitrary $L$ and $P$ and an arbitrary local quantum circuit $U$ characterized by $L$ and $P$. We want to prove that once the system is over certain size, $U$ cannot completely disentangle $\ket{\Psi}$. Following the sketch in the main text where the state $\ket{\Phi}$ is introduced, we firstly assume the contrary condition and then use the arguments of the error-detecting property of $\ket{\Psi}$ and $\ket{\Phi}$ to show that the assumption implies a contradiction.
We start with assuming that $U$ completely disentangles $\ket{\Psi}$, i.e. $U\ket{\Psi}=\otimes_i\ket{\chi_i}$ with $\ket{\chi_i}$ being a normalized single-qudit-state on vertex $i$. Then, since $\braket{U\Phi}{U\Psi}=\mel{\Phi}{U^+U}{\Psi}=\braket{\Phi}{\Psi}=0$, it is easy to show that there exists a local operator $O_j$ located at some vertex $j$ such that $\expval{O_j}{U\Psi}\ne\expval{O_j}{U\Phi}$. Indeed, expanding $\ket{U\Phi}$ in an arbitrary qudit-product-state basis including $\otimes_i\ket{\chi_i}$, qudit-product-states contributing to the expansion are orthogonal to $\otimes_i\ket{\chi_i}$, and hence there must be some $\otimes_i\ket{\chi'_i}$ with $\braket{\chi'_j}{\chi_j}=0$ at some vertex $j$. In that case, we can take $O_j$ as $\mathds{1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\dyad{\chi_j}{\chi_j}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathds{1}$ so that we have $\expval{O_j}{U\Phi}<1$ and hence $\expval{O_j}{U\Phi}\ne\expval{O_j}{U\Psi}$.
The inequality rewritten as $\expval{U^+O_jU}{\Phi}\ne\expval{U^+O_jU}{\Psi}$ implies that $\ket{\Psi}$ and $\ket{\Phi}$ cannot detect the error $U^+O_jU$. Then, to reach a contradiction, in the rest we prove that $\ket{\Psi}$ and $\ket{\Phi}$ detect all errors of the form $U^+O_jU$ once the system is over certain size.
Following the above consideration, we now prove that once the linear size $\mathcal{D}$ of the lattice is over $\frac{16}{3}PL-\frac{8}{3}P+\frac{5}{3}$ the error-detecting property is satisfied. To be consistent with the study of LRE in 2D topologically ordered states~\cite{Bravyi2006}, we take advantage of the graph theory and define the linear size of the lattice (a connected subset) as the diameter of the lattice (subset) in the graph (induced subgraph) metric. In the graph-theoretical language, in a connected graph, the distance between two vertices is the length of, i.e. the number of edges (links) in the shortest path connecting the two vertices. The diameter of a connected subset in a graph is the diameter of the subgraph induced by the subset, i.e., the maximal length of the shortest path within the subset which connects a pair of vertices in the subset. Then, $\mathcal{D}$ of a finite-generation Sierpi\'nski lattice is exactly the number of links on one lateral of the lattice as a triangle.
There is another important size in our proof which is determined by the causal structure in the local quantum circuit (see the dark color in Fig.~4c in the main text): the operator $O_J=U^+O_jU$ is supported on a connected subset $J$ of vertices with size $\mathcal{D}_J\le(2L-1)P$. Note that to be consistent with the case in 2D, a local patch of unitary operator of size $P$ in the quantum circuit is defined as a unitary operator supported on a connected subset with diameter $P$, i.e. it acts as the identity operator on qudits outside the support. The $P$ here confines the distance between any pair of vertices within the subset so that the unitary operator acts locally. Then, starting from a single vertex $j$ as the support of $O_j$, the first layer of non-overlapping local unitary operators extends the size of the support at most by $P$ since only one local patch contains $j$. And each of the following layers extends the support by $2P$ since the distance of the farthest apart vertex pair is extended at most by $2P$. Note that the layer structure in the quantum circuit guarantees the connectivity of $J$.
Now, we assume that the system is over certain size, i.e. the inequality $\mathcal{D}\ge\frac{16}{3}PL-\frac{8}{3}P+\frac{5}{3}$ or equivalently $\mathcal{D}_J\le\frac{3}{8}\mathcal{D}-\frac{5}{8}$, and prove the error-detecting property.
We firstly prove $\mel{\Psi}{O_J}{\Phi}=\mel{\Phi}{O_J}{\Psi}=0$. Indeed, it is easy to check that the distance between a closest pair of vertices respectively appearing in two separated loops among the four with broken constraints in $\ket{\phi_m}$ is $(\mathcal{D}-1)/2$, greater than $\mathcal{D}_J$ so that $J$ can only cover vertices in one such loop. Consequently, $\mel{\psi_{m'}}{O_J}{\phi_m}=0$ since $O_J$ keeps $O_J\ket{\phi_m}$ with at least one constraint broken and different from that in $\ket{\psi_{m'}}$. Hence we have proved $\mel{\Psi}{O_J}{\Phi}=0$, and $\mel{\Phi}{O_J}{\Psi}=0$ as well using the same argument.
To prove $\expval{O_J}{\Psi}=\expval{O_J}{\Phi}$, we define unitary operators
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
S^1_{i}=\dyad{0}{1}+\dyad{1}{0}+\dyad{2}{3}+\dyad{3}{2},\\
S^2_{i}=\dyad{0}{2}+\dyad{2}{0}+\dyad{1}{3}+\dyad{3}{1},\\
S^3_{i}=\dyad{0}{3}+\dyad{3}{0}+\dyad{1}{2}+\dyad{2}{1},
\end{split}
\end{align*}
acting on a single qudit located at the vertex $i$. As illustrated in Fig.~4a and 4d in the main text, the effect of these operators is to exchange the red and pink on two sides of the triangle or create two red (pink) sides from two pink (red) sides. Then, since vertex $i$ simultaneously appears in three loops (including the laterals), applying $S^1_{i},S^2_{i}$ or $S^3_{i}$ to $\ket{\psi_m}$ simply changes the constraints to the opposite on two out of the three loops according to the superscript $1,2,3$. With these unitary operators, we can define a unitary operator $V_1=S^1_{i_3}S^1_{i_2}S^1_{i_1}$ where each of the three vertices $i_1,i_2,i_3$ appears in two out of the four largest loops. As shown in Fig.~4a and 4b in the main text, $V_1$ simply changes the constraints on the four loops and maps $\ket{\psi_m}$ to $\ket{\phi_{m'}}$ and hence maps $\ket{\Psi}$ to $\ket{\Phi}$.
Now, there are two cases to be considered regarding the support $J$ of $O_J$: (1) $J$ does not cover any of $i_1,i_2,i_3$; (2) $J$ covers only one of the three vertices. Indeed, as we have shown, $J$ cannot cover more than one of the three vertices since they are farther apart beyond the size $\mathcal{D}_J$. In case (1), we have $[O_J,V_1]=[O_J,V^+_1]=0$. It follows that $\expval{O_J}{\Phi}=\expval{O_J}{V_1\Psi}=\expval{V^+_1O_JV_1}{\Psi}=\expval{V^+_1V_1O_J}{\Psi}=\expval{O_J}{\Psi}$ as desired. In case (2), without loss of generality, we suppose the covered vertex is $i_1$. Then we can define another two unitary operators
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
V_2&=S^1_{i_3}S^1_{i_2}S^2_{k_{(\mathcal{D}+1)/4}}\cdots S^2_{k_2}S^3_{k_1},\\
V_3&=S^1_{i_3}S^1_{i_2}S^3_{k'_{(\mathcal{D}+1)/4}}\cdots S^3_{k'_2}S^2_{k'_1},
\end{split}
\end{align*}
where the two subsets of vertices $K=\{k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_{(\mathcal{D}+1)/4}\}$ and $K'=\{k'_1,k'_2,\ldots,k'_{(\mathcal{D}+1)/4}\}$, as specified in Fig.~4d in the main text form the two paths connecting two adjacent largest loops. Note that any $k\in K$ and $k'\in K'$ have distance $(\mathcal{D}+1)/4,(\mathcal{D}+1)/4-1$ to $i_1$ respectively. Then, since $i_1$ is covered in $J$, $J$ cannot have overlap with both $K$ and $K'$, otherwise the distance between the $k$ and $k'$ (in the overlap) within $J$ exceeds the size $\mathcal{D}_J$, which implies contradiction. Indeed, due to the inequality $\mathcal{D}_J\le\frac{3}{8}\mathcal{D}-\frac{5}{8}$, $J$ cannot cover the whole of or encircle any of the four loops, since any connected region encircling such a loop has size at least equal to $\frac{3}{8}\mathcal{D}+\frac{3}{8}>\mathcal{D}_J$. Hence, if $k$ and $k'$ are both in $J$, the shortest path connecting them (which defines their distance with $J$) must pass through $i_1$, giving rise to the distance $\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{D}-\frac{1}{2}>\mathcal{D}_J$. Consequently, we have either $[O_J,V_2]=[O_J,V^+_2]=0$ or $[O_J,V_3]=[O_J,V^+_3]=0$, which leads to $\expval{O_J}{\Psi}=\expval{O_J}{\Phi}$ by the same arguments as in case (1).
Above arguments have proved the error-detecting property, and that any $U$ characterized by given $P$ and $L$ cannot completely disentangle $\ket{\Psi}$ once the system size is large enough. Together with the zero correlation length proved in the previous subsection, we have proved the LRE in $\ket{\Psi}$. We have also proved that for given $P$, the depth $L$ for any local quantum circuit characterized by $P$ and $L$ to completely disentangle $\ket{\Psi}$ has a lower bound $L>\frac{3}{16P}\mathcal{D}+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{5}{16P}$ which is linear to the lattice linear size $\mathcal{D}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{5abcdef.pdf}
\phantomsubfloat{\label{5a}}\phantomsubfloat{\label{5b}}
\phantomsubfloat{\label{5c}}\phantomsubfloat{\label{5d}}
\phantomsubfloat{\label{5e}}\phantomsubfloat{\label{5f}}
\vspace{0\baselineskip
\caption{(a), (b), (c) and (d) are the four possible cases for $\ket{\chi_0}$ (upper) and $\ket{\chi_1}$ (lower). (e) and (f) are the two combination $\ket{\chi^1_1}\otimes\ket{\chi^2_1}\otimes\ket{\chi^3_0}$ and $\ket{\chi^1_0}\otimes\ket{\chi^2_0}\otimes\ket{\chi^3_1}$ that $\ket{\chi}$ can be mapped to, in which each pair of neighboring qudits linking the big blocks is either in $\ket{0}\otimes\ket{0}$ or in $\ket{1}\otimes\ket{1}$. The two states are eventually mapped to the desired $\ket{\chi_0}$ and $\ket{\chi_1}$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The proof for the ergodicity of the $T_{ii'}$ operators}
The consideration mentioned in the main text is that by definition, all $T_{ii'}$ operators commute with each other, and they are all unitary and satisfy $T_{ii'}\ket{\Psi}=\ket{\Psi}$. The effect of each $T_{ii'}$ simply maps one $\ket{\psi_m}$ to another $\ket{\psi_{m'}}$, both satisfying the constraints on all loops. Then, since $\ket{\Psi}$ is an equal-weight summation, ergodicity of $T_{ii'}$ operators will lead to the formula $\ket{\Psi}\propto\prod_{ii'}\frac{\mathds{1}+T_{ii'}}{\sqrt{2}}\ket{000\cdots}$. Note that $\ket{000\cdots}=\ket{\psi_{m_0}}$ also satisfies all constraints.
To prove the ergodicity, it suffices to prove that any $\ket{\psi_m}$ can be mapped to $\ket{\psi_{m_0}}=\ket{000\cdots}$ by applying the $T_{ii'}$ operators finite times on different pairs of neighboring vertices $(i,i')$.
In this section we prove a more general condition which directly implies the desired condition. We consider a qudit-product-state $\ket{\chi}$ of the form $\ket{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''\cdots}$. For convenience in our proof, we reorganize the basis states in the qudit-product form as $\ket{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3}\otimes\ket{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''\cdots}$ where $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3$ stand for the single-qudit states on the three corner vertices while $\alpha\alpha'\alpha''\cdots$ stand for the rest. We still use the colored triangle to represent each $\ket{\alpha}$, and assume that $\ket{\chi}$ satisfies the same constraints (even number of red sides) on all loops but not on the laterals of the lattice.
We want to prove the following condition: By applying the $T_{ii'}$ operators enough times on certain pairs of neighboring vertices $(i,i')$, $\ket{\chi}$ can be mapped to exactly two qudit-product-states $\ket{\chi_0}$ and $\ket{\chi_1}$ of the form
$\ket{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3}\otimes\ket{000\cdots}$, i.e. with all qudits in $\ket{0}$ except for the three corners; Furthermore, $\ket{\chi_0}$ and $\ket{\chi_1}$ must be one of the four cases illustrated in Fig.~\ref{5a}, \ref{5b}, \ref{5c} and \ref{5d} respectively where we omit the states $\ket{000\cdots}$ and only represent $\ket{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3}$ pictorially for simplicity.
We prove by induction on the system size, i.e. the finite generation of the Sierpi\'nski lattice. It is trivial to prove that the condition holds for the smallest generation, i.e., when states are defined on a block. Now we assume that the condition is true for the $n$-th generation. We just need to prove that the condition holds for the $n+1$-th generation.
Consider $\ket{\chi}$ on the lattice of the $n+1$-th generation. Since $\ket{\chi}$ is a qudit-product-state, it can always be written as $\ket{\chi}=\ket{\chi^1}\otimes\ket{\chi^2}\otimes\ket{\chi^3}$ where $\ket{\chi^1}$, $\ket{\chi^2}$ and $\ket{\chi^3}$ are the states on the three big triangular blocks which together form the whole lattice. Obviously, $\ket{\chi^1}$, $\ket{\chi^2}$ and $\ket{\chi^3}$ are on the lattice of the $n$-th generation, satisfying the constraints on all loops therein, and hence can be mapped to $\ket{\chi^1_0},\ket{\chi^1_1}$, $\ket{\chi^2_0},\ket{\chi^2_1}$ and $\ket{\chi^3_0},\ket{\chi^3_1}$ respectively. In other words, by applying the $T_{ii'}$ operators enough times on certain pairs of neighboring vertices $(i,i')$, $\ket{\chi}$ can be mapped to the eight combination of the six states, i.e. $\ket{\chi^1_0}\otimes\ket{\chi^2_0}\otimes\ket{\chi^3_0}, \ket{\chi^1_1}\otimes\ket{\chi^2_1}\otimes\ket{\chi^3_1},\ldots$. Note that in any of such combination, there are even number of $\ket{1}$ on the six qudits connecting the three big blocks, since $\ket{\chi}$ satisfies the constraints (even number of red sides) on the largest loop. It can be easily shown that there are exactly two of such combinations, for example $\ket{\chi^1_1}\otimes\ket{\chi^2_1}\otimes\ket{\chi^3_0}, \ket{\chi^1_0}\otimes\ket{\chi^2_0}\otimes\ket{\chi^3_1},\ldots$ as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{5e} and \ref{5f} respectively, in which each pair of neighboring qudits linking the big blocks is either in $\ket{0}\otimes\ket{0}$ or in $\ket{1}\otimes\ket{1}$. Then, as shown in Fig.~\ref{5e} and \ref{5f}, applying the $T_{ii'}$ to those pairs in $\ket{1}\otimes\ket{1}$, $\ket{\chi}$ is eventually mapped to two states of the form $\ket{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3}\otimes\ket{000\cdots}$. Furthermore, according to the four cases illustration in Fig.~\ref{5a}, \ref{5b}, \ref{5c} and \ref{5d}, the eventual two states are exactly within one of the four cases, and hence are the desired $\ket{\chi_0}$ and $\ket{\chi_1}$. Indeed, according to the constraints of $\ket{\chi}$ on the laterals, $\ket{\chi_0}$ and $\ket{\chi_1}$ and the only possible cases of the form $\ket{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3}\otimes\ket{000\cdots}$. Therefore, the desired condition is proved.
Now, if we apply the condition to the case of consideration, it is obvious that any $\ket{\psi_m}$ can be mapped to $\ket{\psi_{m_0}}=\ket{000\cdots}$ by applying the $T_{ii'}$ operators finite times on different pairs of neighboring vertices $(i,i')$.
|
\section{-5pt}{0pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}{0pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}
\titlespacing\subsection{-5pt}{0pt plus 1pt minus 2pt}{0pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}
\titlespacing\subsubsection{-5pt}{0pt plus 1pt minus 2pt}{0pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\usepackage[textsize=tiny]{todonotes}
\icmltitlerunning{Invariant-Feature Subspace Recovery}
\begin{document}
\twocolumn[
\icmltitle{Provable Domain Generalization via Invariant-Feature Subspace Recovery}
\icmlsetsymbol{equal}{*}
\begin{icmlauthorlist}
\icmlauthor{Haoxiang Wang}{uiuc}
\icmlauthor{Haozhe Si}{uiuc}
\icmlauthor{Bo Li}{uiuc}
\icmlauthor{Han Zhao}{uiuc}
\icmlaffiliation{uiuc}{University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA}
\end{icmlauthorlist}
\icmlcorrespondingauthor{Haoxiang Wang}{<EMAIL>}
\icmlkeywords{Machine Learning, ICML}
\vskip 0.3in
]
\printAffiliationsAndNotice{}
\begin{abstract}
Domain generalization asks for models trained over a set of training environments to perform well in unseen test environments. Recently, a series of algorithms such as Invariant Risk Minimization (IRM) has been proposed for domain generalization. However, \citet{risks-of-IRM} shows that in a simple linear data model, even if non-convexity issues are ignored, IRM and its extensions cannot generalize to unseen environments with less than $d_s\mathrm{+}1$ training environments, where $d_s$ is the dimension of the spurious-feature subspace. In this paper, we propose to achieve domain generalization with \textbf{I}nvariant-feature \textbf{S}ubspace \textbf{R}ecovery (ISR). Our first algorithm, ISR-Mean, can identify the subspace spanned by invariant features from the first-order moments of the class-conditional distributions, and achieve provable domain generalization with $d_s\mathrm{+}1$ training environments under the data model of \citet{risks-of-IRM}. Our second algorithm, ISR-Cov, further reduces the required number of training environments to $\cO(1)$ using the information of second-order moments. Notably, unlike IRM, our algorithms bypass non-convexity issues and enjoy global convergence guarantees. Empirically, our ISRs can obtain superior performance compared with IRM on synthetic benchmarks. In addition, on three real-world image and text datasets, we show that both ISRs can be used as simple yet effective post-processing methods to improve the worst-case accuracy of (pre-)trained models against spurious correlations and group shifts. The code is released at \url{https://github.com/Haoxiang-Wang/ISR}.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{-1.7em}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Domain generalization, i.e., out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, aims to obtain models that can generalize to unseen (OOD) test domains after being trained on a limited number of training domains \citep{blanchard2011generalizing,wang2021generalizing,zhou2021domain,shen2021towards}. A series of works try to tackle this challenge by learning the so-called domain-invariant features (i.e., features whose distributions do not change across domains)~\citep{long2015learning,ganin2016domain,hoffman2018cycada,zhao2018adversarial,zhao2019learning}. On the other hand, Invariant Risk Minimization (IRM) \citep{IRM}, represents another approach that aims to learn features that induce invariant optimal predictors over training environments. Throughout this work, we shall use the term \emph{invariant features} to denote such features. There is a stream of follow-up works of IRM \citep{javed2020learning,REx,shi2020invariant,ahuja2020invariant,khezeli2021invariance}, which propose alternative objectives or extends IRM to different settings.
Recently, some theoretical works demonstrate that IRM and its variants fail to generalize to unseen environments, or cannot outperform empirical risk minimization (ERM), in various simple data models \citep{risks-of-IRM,kamath2021does,ahuja2021empirical}. For instance, \citet{risks-of-IRM} considers a simple Gaussian linear data model such that the class-conditional distribution of \textit{invariant features} remains the same across domains, while that of \textit{spurious features} changes across domains. Intuitively, a successful domain generalization algorithm is expected to learn an \textit{optimal invariant predictor}, which relies on only the invariant features and is optimal over the invariant features. To remove the noise introduced by finite samples, these theoretical works generally assume that infinite samples are available per training environment to disregard finite-sample effects, and the main evaluation metric for domain generalization algorithms is the \textit{number of training environments} needed to learn an optimal invariant predictor -- this metric is also referred to as \textit{environment complexity} in the literature~\citep{chen2021iterative}. In the case of linear predictors, \citet{risks-of-IRM} shows that IRM and REx (an alternative objective of IRM proposed in \citep{REx}) need $E>d_s$ to learn optimal invariant predictors, where $E$ is the number of training environments, and $d_s$ is the dimension of spurious features. In the case of non-linear predictors, they both fail to learn invariant predictors. Notice that the $E > d_s$ condition of IRM can be interpreted as a \textit{linear environment complexity} (i.e., $O(d_s)$ complexity), which is also observed in other recent works \citep{kamath2021does,ahuja2021empirical,chen2021iterative}.
In this work, we propose a novel approach for domain generalization, Invariant-feature Subspace Recovery (ISR), that recovers the subspace spanned by the invariant features, and then fits predictors in this subspace. More concretely, we present two algorithms to realize this approach, ISR-Mean and ISR-Cov, which utilize the first-order and second-order moments (i.e., mean and covariance) of class-conditional distributions, respectively. Under the linear data model of \citet{risks-of-IRM} with linear predictors, we prove that a) ISR-Mean is guaranteed to learn the optimal invariant predictor with $E\geq d_s+1$ environment, matching the environment complexity of IRM, and b) ISR-Cov reduces the requirement to $E\geq 2$, achieving a constant $O(1)$ environment complexity. Notably, both of ISR-Mean and ISR-Cov require fewer assumptions on the data model than IRM, and they both enjoy global convergence guarantees, while IRM does not because of its non-convex formulation of the objective function. Notably, the ISRs are also more computationally efficient than algorithms such as IRM, since the computation of ISRs involves basically only the ERM with one additional call of an eigen-decomposition solver.
Empirically, we conduct studies on a set of challenging synthetic linear benchmarks designed by \cite{aubin2021linear} and a set of real-world datasets (two image datasets and one text dataset) used in \citet{sagawa2019distributionally}. Our empirical results on the synthetic benchmarks validate the claimed environment complexities, and also demonstrate its superior performance when compared with IRM and its variant. Since the real-world data are highly complex and non-linear, over which the ISR approach cannot be directly applied, we apply ISR on top of the features extracted by the hidden layers of trained neural nets as a post-processing procedure. Experiments show that ISR-Mean can consistently increase the worse-case accuracy of the trained models against spurious correlations and group shifts, and this includes models trained by ERM, reweighting and GroupDRO~\citep{sagawa2019distributionally}.\looseness=-1
\vspace{-.3em}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related-works}
\vspace{-.3em}
\textbf{Domain Generalization.}~Domain generalization (DG), also known as OOD generalization, aims at leveraging the labeled data from a limited number of training environments to improve the performance of learning models in unseen test environments~\citep{blanchard2011generalizing}. The simplest approach for DG is empirical risk minimization \cite{vapnik1992principles}, which minimizes the sum of empirical risks over all training environments. Distributionally robust optimization is another approach \citep{sagawa2019distributionally,volpi2018generalizing}, which optimizes models over a worst-case distribution that is perturbed around the original distribution. Besides, there are two popular approaches, domain-invariant representation learning and invariant risk minimization, which we will discuss in detail below. In addition to algorithms, there are works that propose theoretical frameworks for DG \citep{zhang2021quantifying,ye2021towards}, or empirically examine DG algorithms over various benchmarks \citep{gulrajani2021in,koh2021wilds,wiles2021fine}.
Notably, some recent works consider DG with temporarily shifted environments \citep{koh2021wilds,ye2022future}, which is a novel and challenging setting. Besides DG, there are other learning paradigms that involve multiple environments, such as multi-task learning \citep{caruana1997multitask,wang2021bridging} and meta-learning \citep{finn2017model,wang2022global}, which do not aim at generalization to OOD environments.
\textbf{Domain-Invariant Representation Learning.}~Domain-Invariant representation learning is a learning paradigm widely applied in various tasks. In particular, in domain adaptation (DA), many works aim to learn a representation of data that has an invariant distribution over the source and target domains, adopting methods including adversarial training \citep{ganin2016domain,tzeng2017adversarial,zhao2018adversarial} and distribution matching \citep{ben2007analysis,long2015learning,sun2016deep}. The domain-invariant representation approach for DA enjoys theoretical guarantees~\citep{ben2010theory}, but it is also pointed out that issues such as conditional shift should be carefully addressed~\citep{zhao2019domain}. In domain generalization~\citep{blanchard2011generalizing}, since there is no test data (even unlabelled ones) available, models are optimized to learn representations invariant over training environments~\citep{albuquerque2020generalizing,chen2021iterative}. Notice that many domain-invariant representation learning methods for DA can be easily applied to DG as well~\citep{gulrajani2021in}.
\textbf{Invariant Risk Minimization.}~\citet{IRM} proposes invariant risk minimization (IRM) that aims to learn invariant predictors over training environments by optimizing a highly non-convex bi-level objective. The authors also reduce the optimization difficulty of IRM by proposing a practical version, IRMv1, with a penalty regularized objective instead of a bi-level one. Alternatives of IRM have also been studied \citep{ahuja2020invariant,li2021invariant}. However, \citet{risks-of-IRM,kamath2021does,ahuja2021empirical} theoretically show that these algorithms fail even in simple data models.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{figs/causal_graph.pdf}}
\caption{The causal graph of the data model in \citet{risks-of-IRM}. Shading represents that the variable is observed.
}
\label{fig:cgraph}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.1em}
\end{figure}
\section{Problem Setup}\label{sec:setup}
\textbf{Notations}~ Each labeled example can be represented as a $(x,y,e)$ tuple, where $x\in \bR^d$ is the input, $y\in \{\pm 1\}$ is the label, and $e\in \mathbb{Z}_+$ is the index of the environment that provides $(x,y)$. In addition, we assume $x$ is generated by a latent feature $z\in \bR^d$, which generates $x$ and is correlated with $y$ and $e$ (e.g., see the example in Fig.~\ref{fig:cgraph}). Besides, we use $X,Y,\mathscr E, Z$ to refer to random variables w.r.t. $x,y,e,z$.
\textbf{Data Model}~ In this paper, we adopt the linear Gaussian data model of \citet{risks-of-IRM}, which assumes that training data are drawn from $E$ training environments, $\mathcal E = \{1,..., E\}$. For arbitrary training environment $e\in \mathcal E$, each sample in this environment is generated by the following mechanism (see Fig. \ref{fig:cgraph} for an illustration): first, a label $y\in \{\pm 1\}$ is sampled,
\begin{align} \label{eq:def-y}
y & = \begin{cases}
1, & \text{with probability } \eta\\
-1, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Then, both invariant latent features $z_c$ and spurious latent features $z_e$ of this sample are drawn from the following Gaussian distributions:
\begin{align}\label{eq:def-latent-features}
z_c \sim \mathcal{N}(y\mu_c, \sigma_c^2 I) \in \mathbb{R}^{d_c},
z_e \sim \mathcal{N}(y \mu_e, \sigma_e^2 I) \in \mathbb{R}^{d_s}
\end{align}
where $\mu_c \in \mathbb{R}^{d_c}, \mu_e \in \mathbb{R}^{d_s}$ and $\sigma_c,\sigma_e \in \mathbb{R}_+$. The constants $d_c$ and $d_s$ refer to the dimension of invariant features and spurious features, respectively. The total number of feature attributes is then $d=d_c+d_s$. Notice that $\mu_c,\sigma_c$ are invariant across environments, while $\mu_e,\sigma_e$ are dependent on the environment index $e$. Following \citet{risks-of-IRM}, we name $\{\mu_e\}$ and $\{\sigma_e\}$ as \textit{environmental} means and variances.
\citet{risks-of-IRM} adopts a mild non-degeneracy assumption\footnote{It was stated as (9) in \citet{risks-of-IRM}.} on the environmental mean from the IRM paper \citep{IRM}, stated as Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-mean} below. In addition, the authors also make another non-degeneracy assumption\footnote{It is stated as Eq. (10) in \citet{risks-of-IRM}, which is a sufficient (not necessary) condition for our Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}.} on the environmental variances, which we relax to the following Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum:non-degenerate-mean} For the set of environmental means, $\{\mu_e\}_{e=1}^E$, we assume that each element of the set cannot be expressed as an affine combination of the rest elements.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{assum:non-degenerate-cov}
Assume there exists a pair of distinct training environments $e,e'\in[E]$ such that $\sigma_e\neq \sigma_{e'}$.
\end{assumption}
With the latent feature $z$ as a concatenation of $z_c$ and $z_e$, the observed sample $x$ is generated by a linear transformation on this latent feature. For simplicity, we consider that $x$ has the same dimension as $z$.
\begin{align}\label{eq:def-linear-transform}
z = \begin{bmatrix}
z_c\\
z_e
\end{bmatrix} \in \bR^{d}, \quad
x = R z = A z_c + B z_e \in \bR^d
\end{align}
where $d= d_c + d_s$, and $A = \bR^{d \times d_c}, B = \bR^{d \times d_s}$ are fixed transformation matrices with concatenation as $R = [A,B]\in \bR^{d\times d}$. Then, each observed sample $x$ is effectively a sample drawn from
\begin{align}\label{eq:transformed-gaussian}
\mathcal N(y(A \mu_c + B \mu_e), \sigma_c^2 AA^\T + \sigma_e^2 BB^\T)
\end{align}
The following assumption is also imposed on the transformation matrix in~\citet{risks-of-IRM}:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum:full-rank-transform} $R$ is injective.
\end{assumption}
\vspace{-.3em}
Since $R\in \bR^{d \times d}$, Assumption \ref{assum:full-rank-transform} leads to the fact $\mathrm{rank}(R) = d$, indicating that $R$ is full-rank.
Denote the data of any training domain $e$ as $\mathcal D_e$. During training, learners have access to the environment index $e$ for each training sample, i.e., learners observe samples in the form of $(x,y,e)$.
\textbf{Optimal Invariant Predictors}~ The quest of IRM is to find the optimal invariant predictors, i.e., classifiers that use only invariant features and are optimal w.r.t. invariant features over the training data. In the data model of \citet{risks-of-IRM}, because of the linear nature of the data generation process, the optimal invariant predictors are contained in the linear function class. Since the task of consideration is binary classification, \citet{risks-of-IRM} chooses the logistic loss as the loss function for optimization\footnote{\citet{risks-of-IRM} proves that logistic loss over linear models can attain Bayes optimal classifiers in this data model.}, which we also adopt in this work. Then, the goal of domain generalization in this data model is to learn a linear featurizer (feature extractor) $\Phi$ and a linear classifier $ \beta$ that minimizes the risk (population loss) on any unseen environment $e$ with data distribution $p_e$ satisfying Assumptions~\eqref{eq:def-y}-\eqref{eq:def-linear-transform}:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{R}^{e}(\Phi, \beta):=\mathbb{E}_{(x, y) \sim p^{e}}\left[\ell\left(w^{\T} \Phi(x) + b ,~ y\right)\right]
\end{align}
where $\ell$ is the logistic loss function, and $\beta=(w,b)$ with weight $w$ and bias $b$.
To be complete, we present the optimal invariant predictor derived by \citet{risks-of-IRM} as follows.
\vspace{-.4em}
\begin{proposition}[Optimal Invariant Predictor]\label{prop:optimal-inv-pred}
Under the data model considered in Eq. \eqref{eq:def-y}-\eqref{eq:def-linear-transform}, the optimal invariant predictor $h^*$ w.r.t. logistic loss is unique, which can be expressed as a composition of i) a featurizer $\Phi^*$ that recovers the invariant features and ii) the classifier $\beta^*=(w^*,b^*)$ that is optimal w.r.t. the extracted features:
\begin{align}
h^*(x) &= {w^*}^\T \Phi^*(x) + b^*\label{eq:optimal-inv-pred}\\
\Phi^*(x)&\coloneqq
\begin{bmatrix}
I_{d_c} & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} R^{-1} x=
\begin{bmatrix}
z_c\\
0
\end{bmatrix}\in \bR^{d \times d}\\
w^*&\coloneqq
\begin{bmatrix}
2 \mu_c / \sigma_c^2\\
0
\end{bmatrix}\in \bR^{d}, \quad
b^* \coloneqq \log \frac{\eta}{1-\eta} \in \bR
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
Notice that even though the optimal invariant predictor $h^*$ is unique, its components (the featurizer and classifier) are only unique up to invertible transformations. For instance, $( {w^*}^\T U^{-1})(U \Phi) = {w^*}^\T \Phi $ for any invertible $U\in \bR^{d\times d}$.
\textbf{Invariant Risk Minimization}~ IRM optimizes a bi-level objective over a featurizer $\Phi$ and a classifier $\beta$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:IRM}
\mathrm{IRM:}~~&\min_{\Phi,\beta} \sum_{e\in [E]} \mathcal{R}^{e}(\Phi, \beta) \\
&\mathrm{s.t.}~ \beta \in \argmin_{\beta}\mathcal{R}^e(\Phi, \beta) ~~\forall e\in[E]\nonumber
\end{align}
This objective is non-convex and difficult to optimize. Thus, \citet{IRM} proposes a Langrangian form to find an approximate solution,
\begin{align}\label{eq:IRMv1}
\mathrm{IRMv1:}~ \min _{\Phi, \hat{\beta}} \sum_{e \in [E]}\mathcal{R}^{e}(\Phi, \hat{\beta})+\lambda\left\|\nabla_{\hat{\beta}} \mathcal{R}^{e}(\Phi, \hat{\beta})\right\|_{2}^{2}
\end{align}
where $\lambda > 0$ controls the regularization strength. Notice that the IRMv1$\eqref{eq:IRMv1}$ is still non-convex, and it becomes equivalent to the original IRM \eqref{eq:IRM} as $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$.
\textbf{Environment Complexity}~~To study the dependency of domain generalization algorithms on environments, recent theoretical works \citep{risks-of-IRM,kamath2021does,ahuja2021invariance,chen2021iterative} consider the ideal setting of infinite data per training environment to remove the finite-sample effects. In this infinite-sample setting, a core measure of domain generalization algorithms is \textit{environment complexity}: the number of training environments needed to learn an invariant optimal predictor. For this data model, \citet{risks-of-IRM} proves that with the linear $\Phi$ and $\beta$, the environment complexity of IRM is $d_s+1$, assuming the highly non-convex objective \eqref{eq:IRM} is optimized to reach the global optimum. This linear environment complexity (i.e., $O(d_s)$) of IRM is also proved in \citep{kamath2021does,ahuja2021invariance} under different simple data models.
\input{algos/ISR-Mean}
\section{Invariant-Feature Subspace Recovery}\label{sec:algo}
In this section, we introduce two algorithms, ISR-Mean and ISR-Cov, which recover the invariant-feature subspace with the first-order and second-order moments of
class-conditional data distributions, respectively.
\subsection{ISR-Mean} \label{sec:isr-mean}
Algorithm \ref{algo:isr-mean} shows the pseudo-code of ISR-Mean, and we explain its four main steps in detail below. In the setup of \cref{sec:setup}, ISR-Mean enjoys a linear environment complexity that matches that of IRM, while requiring fewer assumptions (no need for Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}).
\textbf{I. Estimate Sample Means across Environments}~
In any training environment $e$, each observed sample $x\in \bR^d$ is effectively drawn i.i.d. from $\mathcal N (y (A \mu_c + B \mu_e), A A^\T \sigma_c^2 + B B^\T \sigma_e^2)$, as stated in \eqref{eq:transformed-gaussian}. In the infinite-sample setting considered in \cref{sec:setup}, the mean of the positive-class data in environment $e$ can be expressed as $\E[X|Y=1, \mathscr E =e]$, which is exactly the value of $\bar{x}_e$ in \cref{algo:isr-mean}. Thus, we know $\bar x_e$ satisfies $\bar{x}_e = A \mu_c + B \mu_e$, and the matrix $\mathcal M$ can be expressed as
\vspace{-1em}
\begin{align}\label{eq:def-M}
\mathcal M \mathrm{\coloneqq} \begin{bmatrix}
\bar{x}_1^\T\\
\vdots\\
\bar{x}_E^\T
\end{bmatrix} \mathrm{=} \begin{bmatrix}
\mu_c^\T A^\T \mathrm{+} \mu_1^\T B^\T\\
\vdots\\
\mu_c^\T A^\T \mathrm{+} \mu_E^\T B^\T\end{bmatrix}
\mathrm{=}{\overbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\mu_c^\T ~~\mu_1^\T\\
\vdots~~~~~\vdots\\
\mu_c^\T ~~ \mu_E^\T
\end{bmatrix}}^{\mathcal U^\T \coloneqq}} R^\T
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-.4em}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{figs/isr-mean.pdf}}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{An example for ISR-Mean with $d_c\mathrm{=}1$, $d_s\mathrm{=}2$, $E\mathrm{=}3$. In this $\bR^3$ input space, the blue 2D plane is determined by sample means of positive-class samples of the $3$ training environments.
}
\label{fig:ISR-mean-demo}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
\textbf{II. PCA on $\mathcal M$.}~
In this step, we apply principal component analysis (PCA) \citep{pearson1901PCA} to the matrix $\mathcal M$. First, PCA performs mean-substraction on $\mathcal M$ to shift the sample mean of each column to zero, and we denote the shifted matrix as $\wt{\mathcal M}$. Then, PCA eigen-decompose $\wh \Sigma_\cM \coloneqq \frac{1}{E} \wt{\cM}^\T \wt{\cM}$, the sample covariance matrix of $\wt\cM$, such that $\wh \Sigma_\cM = P^\T S P$, where $P = [P_1,\dots,P_d]\in \bR^{d\times d}$ is a stack of eigenvectors $\{P_i\}_{i\in d}^d$, and $S\in \bR^{d \times d}$ is a diagonal square matrix with diagonal entries as eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=1}^d$ of $\wt \Sigma_{\cM}$. We consider the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=1}^d$ are sorted in ascending order.
\paragraph{III. Recover the Invariant-Feature Subspace}
As we shall formally prove in \cref{thm:isr-mean}, in the infinite-sample setting, a) the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i\}_{i\in 1}^d$ should exhibit a ``phase transition'' phenomenon such that the first $d_c$ eigenvalues all are \textit{zeros} while the rest are all \textit{positive}, b) the $d_c$ eigenvectors corresponding to zero eigenvalues, $\{P_1,\dots,P_{d_c}\}$, are guaranteed to recover the $d_c$-dimensional subspace spanned by invariant latent feature dimensions, i.e., the subspace of $z_c$ defined in \eqref{eq:def-latent-features}. We stack these eigenvectors as a matrix $P'$ \looseness=-1
\begin{align}
P' \coloneqq [P_1,\dots, P_{d_c}]^\T \in \bR^{d_c \times d}
\end{align}
\textbf{IV. Train a Classifier in the Invariant-Feature Subspace}~
In this final step, we just transform all training data by the transformation $x\mapsto P'x$, and fit a linear classifier with ERM to the transformed data to obtain an predictor,
\begin{align}\label{eq:ISR-Mean-predictor}
f(x) = w^\T P' x + b
\end{align}
which is guaranteed to be the optimal invariant predictor $h^*$ defined in \cref{prop:optimal-inv-pred}, i.e., $f\equiv h^*$.
\textbf{Global Convergence Guarantee}~ ISR-Mean is guaranteed to converge to a global optimum since a) the step I and III are optimization-free, b) PCA can be efficiently optimized to global the optimum by various methods \cite{arora2012stochastic,vu2013fantope,hauser2018pca,eftekhari2020principal}, c) the ERM objective of linear classifiers with logistic loss is convex, enjoying global convergence.
\textbf{Geometric Interpretation.}~ We provide an geometric interpretation of ISR-Mean with a 3D example in Fig.~\ref{fig:ISR-mean-demo}, where $d_c\mathrm{=}1$, $d_s\mathrm{=}2$, $E\mathrm{=}3$. For each environment $e$, the sample mean of its positive-class data, $\bar{x}_e$, must lie in a $d_s$-dimensional spurious-feature subspace in the infinite-sample setting, as proved by \cref{thm:isr-mean}. ISR-Mean aims to identify this spurious-feature subspace, and take its tangent subspace as the invariant-feature subspace.
\textbf{Linear Environment Complexity}~
In the infinite-sample setting, we prove below that with more than $d_s$ training environments, ISR-Mean is guaranteed to learn the invariant optimal predictor (\cref{thm:isr-mean}). Notice that even though this linear environment complexity is identical to that of IRM (proved in Theorem 5.1 of \citet{risks-of-IRM}), our ISR-Mean has two additional advantages: (a) Unlike IRM, ISR-Mean does not require any assumption on the covariance\footnote{IRM needs a covariance assumption stronger than our Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}, as pointed out in Sec. \ref{sec:setup}.} such as Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}; (b) ISR-Mean enjoys the global convergence guarantee, while IRM does not due to its non-convex formulation. The proof is in \cref{supp:proof}.
\begin{theorem}[ISR-Mean]\label{thm:isr-mean}
Suppose $E > d_s$ and the data size of each environment is infinite, i.e., $|\mathcal D_e| \mathrm{\rightarrow} \infty$ for $e\mathrm{=}1,\dots,E$. For PCA on the $\cM$ defined in \eqref{eq:def-M}, the obtained eigenvectors $\{P_1,\dots, P_d\}$ with corresponding ascendingly ordered eigenvalues $\{\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_d\}$ satisfy
\begin{align*}
\forall 1\leq i \leq d_c, ~\lambda_i = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \forall d_c < i \leq d, ~\lambda_i > 0
\end{align*}
The eigenvectors corresponding to these zero eigenvalues, i.e., $\{P_1,\dots, P_{d_c}\}$, can recover the subspace spanned by the invariant latent feature dimensions, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{eq:thm:ISR-Mean:span-equality}
\mathrm{Span}(\{P_1^\T R,\dots, P_{d_c}^\T R\}) = \mathrm{Span}(\{\mathbf{\hat 1},\dots, \mathbf{\hat d_c}\})
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{\hat i}$ is the unit-vector along the $i$-th coordinate in the latent feature space for $i=1,\dots, d$. Then, the classifier $f$ fitted with ERM to training data transformed by $x\mapsto [P_1,\dots,P_{d_c}]^\T x$ is guaranteed to be the invariant optimal predictor, i.e., $f = h^*$, where $h^*$ is defined in \eqref{eq:optimal-inv-pred}.
\end{theorem}
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsection{ISR-Cov} \label{sec:isr-cov}
\vspace{-.5em}
The pseudo-code of ISR-Cov\footnote{In the final stage of this paper preparation, we notice a concurrent work, the v2 of \citet{chen2021iterative} (uploaded to arXiv on Nov 22, 2021), appends a new algorithm in its Appendix C that is similar to our ISR-Cov, under data model assumptions stricter than ours. That algorithm does not exist in their v1.} is presented in Algorithm \ref{algo:isr-cov}, with a detailed explanation below.
In the setup of \cref{sec:setup}, ISR-Cov attains an $O(1)$ environment complexity, the optimal complexity any algorithm can hope for, while requiring fewer assumptions than IRM (no need for Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-mean}).
\textbf{I. Estimate and Select Sample Covariances across Environments}~
As \eqref{eq:transformed-gaussian} indicates, in any environment $e$, each observed sample $x\in \bR^d$ with $y=1$ is effectively drawn i.i.d. from $\mathcal N (A \mu_c + B \mu_e, A A^\T \sigma_c^2 + B B^\T \sigma_e^2)$. Thus, the covariance of the positive-class data in environment $e$ can be expressed as $\mathrm{Cov}[X | Y=1, \mathscr{E}=e] = A A^\T \sigma_c^2 + B B^\T \sigma_e^2$, which is the value that $\Sigma_e$ in the step I of \cref{algo:isr-cov} estimates. The estimation is exact in the infinite-sample setting of consideration, so we have $\Sigma_e = A A^\T \sigma_c^2 + B B^\T \sigma_e^2$. Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov} guarantees that we can select a pair of environments $e_1,e_2$ with $\Sigma_1 \neq \Sigma_2$. Then, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:delta-sigma-expression}
\Delta \Sigma \coloneqq \Sigma_{e_1} - \Sigma_{e_2} = (\sigma_{e_1}^2 - \sigma_{e_2}^2)BB^\T \in \bR^{d \times d}
\end{align}
\textbf{II. Eigen-decompose $\Delta \Sigma$} Similar to the step II of \cref{algo:isr-mean} explained in Sec. \ref{sec:isr-mean}, we eigen-decompose $\Delta\Sigma$ to obtain eigenvectors $\{P_i\}_{i\in d}^d$ corresponding to eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=1}^d$. We consider the eigenvalues are sorted in ascending order by their \textit{absolute values}.
\textbf{III. Recover the Invariant-Feature Subspace}~
As we shall formally prove in \cref{thm:isr-cov}, in the infinite-sample setting, a) the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i\}_{i\in 1}^d$ should exhibit a ``phase transition'' phenomenon such that the first $d_c$ eigenvalues all are \textit{zeros} while the rest are all \textit{non-zero}, b) the $d_c$ eigenvectors corresponding to zero eigenvalues, $\{P_1,\dots,P_{d_c}\}$, are guaranteed to recover the $d_c$-dimensional invariant-feature subspace. We stack these eigenvectors as a matrix $P'$
\begin{align}\label{eq:trans-matrix-isr-cov}
P' \coloneqq [P_1,\dots, P_{d_c}]^\T \in \bR^{d_c \times d}
\end{align}
\textbf{IV. Train a Classifier in the Invariant-Feature Subspace}~
This final step is the same as the step IV of Algorithm \ref{algo:isr-mean} described in Sec. \ref{sec:isr-mean}.
\paragraph{Global Convergence}
Applying the same argument in Sec.~\ref{sec:isr-mean}, it is clear that ISR-Cov also enjoys the global convergence guarantee: the eigen-decomposition and ERM can both be globally optimized.
\textbf{Improving the Robustness of ISR-Cov} In practice with finite data, Algorithm \ref{algo:isr-cov} may be non-robust as $\sigma_e$ and $\sigma_{e'}$ become close to each other. The noise due to finite samples could obfuscate the non-zero eigenvalues so that they are indistinguishable from the zero eigenvalues. To mitigate such issues, we propose a robust version of ISR-Cov that utilizes more pairs of the given environments. Briefly speaking, the robust version is to \textbf{a)} run the step I to III of ISR-Cov over $N \leq \binom E 2$ pairs of environments with distinct sample covariances, leading to $N$ $d_c$-dimensional subspaces obtained through Algorithm \ref{algo:isr-cov}, \textbf{b)} we find the stable $d_c$-dimensional subspace, and use it as the invariant-feature subspace that we train the following classifier. Specifically, we achieve b) by computing the flag-mean \citep{marrinan2014finding} over the set of $P'$ (defined in \eqref{eq:trans-matrix-isr-cov}) obtained from the $N$ selected pairs of environments. Compared with the original ISR-Cov, this robust version makes use of training data more efficiently (e.g., it uses more than one pair of training environments) and is more robust in the finite-data case. We implement this robust version of ISR-Cov in our experiments in Sec.~\ref{sec:exp}.
\input{algos/ISR-Cov}
\vspace{-.6em}
\paragraph{Geometric Interpretation}
We provide an geometric interpretation of ISR-Cov with a 3D example in Fig.~\ref{fig:ISR-cov-demo}, where $d_c\mathrm{=}1$, $d_s\mathrm{=}2$, $E\mathrm{=}2$. For either environment $e\in\{1,2\}$, the covariance of its class-conditional latent-feature distribution, $\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma_c^2 I_{d_c} & 0\\
0 & \sigma_e^2 I_{d_s}
\end{bmatrix}$, is \textit{anisotropic}: the variance $\sigma_c$ along invariant-feature dimensions is constant, while $\sigma_e$ along the spurious-feature dimensions is various across $e\in \{1,2\}$ (ensured by Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}). Though the transformation $R$ is applied to latent features, ISR-Cov still can identify the subspace spanned by invariant-feature dimensions in the latent-feature space by utilizing this anisotropy property.
\textbf{$\cO(1)$ Environment Complexity}~
In the infinite-sample setting, we prove below that as long as there are at least two training environment that satisfies Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov} and \ref{assum:full-rank-transform}, ISR-Cov is guaranteed to learn the invariant optimal predictor. This is the minimal possible environment complexity, since spurious and invariant features are indistinguishable with only one environment. Notably, unlike IRM, a) ISR-Cov does not require Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-mean}, and b) ISR-Cov has a global convergence guarantee. The proof is in \cref{supp:proof}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{figs/isr-cov.pdf}}
\vskip -0.1in
\caption{An example for ISR-Cov, where $d_c\mathrm{=}1$, $d_s\mathrm{=}2$, $E\mathrm{=}2$. In this latent feature space of $z\in\bR^3$, there is one dimension of $z_c$ and the rest two of $z_e$.
}
\label{fig:ISR-cov-demo}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.15in
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}[ISR-Cov]\label{thm:isr-cov} Suppose $E\geq 2$ and the data size of each environment is infinite, i.e., $|\mathcal D_e| \mathrm{\rightarrow} \infty$ for $e\mathrm{=}1,\dots,E$. Eigen-decomposing $\Delta \Sigma$ defined in \eqref{eq:delta-sigma-expression}, the obtained eigenvectors $\{P_1,\dots, P_d\}$ with corresponding eigenvalues $\{\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_d\}$ (ascendingly ordered by absolute values) satisfy
\begin{align*}
\forall 1\leq i \leq d_c, ~\lambda_i = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \forall d_c < i \leq d, ~\lambda_i \neq 0
\end{align*}
The eigenvectors corresponding to these zero eigenvalues, i.e., $\{P_1,\dots, P_{d_c}\}$, can recover the subspace spanned by the invariant latent feature dimensions, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{eq:thm:ISR-Cov:span-equality}
\mathrm{Span}(\{P_1^\T R,\dots, P_{d_c}^\T R\}) = \mathrm{Span}(\{\mathbf{\hat 1},\dots, \mathbf{\hat d_c}\})
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{\hat i}$ is the unit-vector along the $i$-th coordinate in the latent feature space for $i=1,\dots, d$. Then, the classifier $f$ fitted with ERM to training data transformed by $x\mapsto [P_1,\dots,P_{d_c}]^\T x$ is guaranteed be the invariant optimal predictor, i.e., $f = h^*$, where $h^*$ is defined in \eqref{eq:optimal-inv-pred}.
\end{theorem}
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:exp}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.2em}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/liner-unit-test.pdf}}
\vskip -0.15in
\caption{Test results on Linear Unit-Tests (first 4 plots) and its variants (last 2 plots), where $d_c = 5, d_s=5$, and $E=2,\dots, 10$.
}
\label{fig:linear-unit-tests}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{figure*}
We conduct experiments on both synthetic and real datasets to examine our proposed algorithms.
\subsection{Synthetic Datasets: Linear Unit-Tests} \label{sec:lut}
We adopt a set of synthetic domain generalization benchmarks, Linear Unit-Tests \citep{aubin2021linear}, which is proposed by authors of IRM and is used in multiple recent works \citep{koyama2020out,khezeli2021invariance,du2021beyond}.
Specifically, we take four classification benchmarks\footnote{The rest are regression benchmarks, which we do not study.} from the Linear Unit-Tests, which are named by \citet{aubin2021linear} as Example-2/2s/3/3s. Example-2 and 3 are two binary classification tasks of Gaussian linear data generated in processes similar to the setup of Sec. \ref{sec:setup}, and they have identity transformation, $R=I$ (see the definition of $R$ in \eqref{eq:def-linear-transform}), while Example 2s/3s are their counterparts with $R$ as a random transformation matrix. However, Example-3/3s do not satisfy Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}, thus cannot properly examine our ISR-Cov. Hence, we construct variants of Example-3/3s satisfying Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}, which we name as Example-3'/3s', respectively. We provide specific details of these benchmarks in \cref{supp:exp:synthetic-setup}.
\textit{Example-2}: The data generation process for Example-2 follows the Structual Causal Model \citep{peters2015causal}, where $P(Y|\mu_c)$ is invariant across environments.
\textit{Example-3}: It is similar to our Gaussian setup in \ref{sec:setup}, except that $\sigma_e\equiv \sigma_c=0.1$, breaking Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov}. In this example, $P(\mu_c|Y)$ is invariant across environments
\textit{Example-3'}: We modify Example-3 slightly such that $\sigma_c=0.1$ and $\sigma_e \sim \mathrm{Unif}(0.1, 0.3)$. All the rest settings are identical to Example-3.
\textit{Example-2s/3s/3s'}: A random orthonormal projection matrix $R = [A,~B] \in \bR^{d\times d}$ (see the definition in \eqref{eq:def-linear-transform}) is applied to the original Example-2/3/3' to scramble the invariant and spurious latent feature, leading to Example-2s/3s/3s' with observed data in the form of $x = Az_c + B z_e$.
\paragraph{Implementation}
For baseline algorithms, we directly adopt their implementations by \citet{aubin2021linear}. We implement ISRs following \cref{algo:isr-mean} and \ref{algo:isr-cov}, where the last step of fitting predictors is done by the ERM implementation of \citet{aubin2021linear}, which optimizes the logistic loss with an Adam optimizer \citep{adam}. More details are provided in \cref{supp:exp}.
\paragraph{Evaluation Procedures}~
Following \citet{aubin2021linear}, we fix $d\mathrm{=}10$, $d_c \mathrm{=} 5$, $d_s\mathrm{=}5$, and increase $E$, the number of training environments, from 2 to 10, with 10K observed samples per environment. Each algorithm trains a linear predictor on these training data, and the predictor is evaluated in $E$ test environments, each with 10K data. The test environments are generated analogously to the training ones, while the spurious features $z_e$ are randomly shuffled across examples within each environment. The mean classification error of the trained predictor over $E$ test environments is evaluated.
\paragraph{Empirical Comparisons}~
We compare our ISRs with several algorithms implemented in \citet{aubin2021linear}, including IRMv1, IGA (an IRM variant by \citet{koyama2020out}), ERM and Oracle (the optimal invariant predictor) on the datasets. We repeat the experiments over 50 random seeds and plot the mean errors of the algorithms. Fig. \ref{fig:linear-unit-tests} shows the results of our experiment on these benchmarks:
\textbf{a)} On Example-2/2s, our ISRs reach the oracle performance with a small $E$ (number of training environments), significantly outperforming other algorithms.
\textbf{b)} On Example-3/3s, ISRs reach the oracle performance as $E > 5=d_s$, while IRM or others need more environments to match the oracle.
\textbf{c)} On Example-3'/3s', ISR-Cov matches the oracle as $E \geq 2$, while the performance of all other algorithms does not differ much from that of Example-3/3s.
\paragraph{Conclusions}~ Observing these results, we can conclude that:
\textbf{a)} ISR-Mean can stably match the oracle as $E > d_s$, validating the environment complexity proved in \cref{thm:isr-mean}.
\textbf{b)} ISR-Cov matches the oracle as $E\geq 2$ in datasets satisfying Assumption \ref{assum:non-degenerate-cov} (i.e., Example-2/2s/3'/3s'), corroborating its environment complexity proved in \cref{thm:isr-cov}.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/long_real_datasets.pdf}}
\vskip -0.1in
\caption{Representative examples of the three real datasets we use. The spurious correlation between the label (\textbf{Y}) and the attribute (\textbf{A}) in the training data does not hold in the test data.
}
\label{fig:real-datasets}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{.5em}
\subsection{Real Datasets}
\input{tables/real_datasets}
We adopt three datasets that \citet{sagawa2019distributionally} proposes to study the robustness of models against spurious correlations and group shifts. See Fig. \ref{fig:real-datasets} for a demo of these datasets. Each dataset has multiple spurious attributes, and we treat each spurious attribute as a single environment.
\textit{Waterbirds} \citep{sagawa2019distributionally}: This is a image dataset built from the CUB \citep{wah2011caltech} and Places \citep{zhou2017places} datasets. The task of this dataset is the classification of waterbirds vs. landbirds. Each image is labelled with class $y\in \mathcal Y = \{\textit{waterbird, landbird}\}$ and environment $e\in \mathcal E= \{\textit{water background, land background}\}$. \citet{sagawa2019distributionally} defines 4 groups\footnote{Notice that the definition of environment in this paper is different from the definition of group in \citet{sagawa2019distributionally}.} by $\mathcal G = \mathcal Y \times \mathcal E$. There are 4795 training samples, and smallest group (waterbirds on land) only has 56.
\textit{CelebA} \cite{liu2015faceattributes}: This is a celebrity face dataset of 162K training samples. \citet{sagawa2019distributionally} considers a hair color classification task ($\mathcal Y = \{\textit{blond, dark}\}$) with binary genders as spurious attributes (i.e., $\mathcal E = \{\textit{male, female}\}$). Four groups are defined by $\mathcal G = \mathcal Y \times \mathcal E$, where the smallest group (blond-haired males) has only 1387 samples.
\textit{MultiNLI} \cite{williams2017broad}: This is a text dataset for natural language inference. Each sample includes two sentences, a hypothesis and a premise. The task is to identify if the hypothesis is contradictory to, entailed by, or neutral with the premise ($\mathcal Y = \{\textit{contradiction,neutral,entailment}\}$). \citet{gururangan2018annotation} observes a spurious correlation between $y\mathrm{=}\textit{contradiction}$ and negation words such as nobody, no, never, and nothing. Thus $\mathcal E \mathrm{=} \{\textit{no negation, negation}\}$ are spurious attributes (also environments), and 6 groups are defined by $\mathcal G \mathrm{=} \mathcal Y \mathrm{\times} \mathcal E$. There are 20K training data, while the smallest group (entailment with negations) has only 1521.
\paragraph{Implementation}~ We take three algorithms implemented by \citet{sagawa2019distributionally}: ERM, Reweighting, and GroupDRO. First, for each dataset, we train neural nets with these algorithms using the code and optimal hyper-parameters provided by \citet{sagawa2019distributionally} implementation, and early stop models at the epoch with the highest worst-group validation accuracy. Then, we use the hidden-layers of the trained models to extract features of training data, and fit ISR-Mean/Cov to the extracted features. Finally, we replace the original last linear layer with the linear classifier provided by ISR-Mean/Cov, and evaluate it in the test set. More details are provided in \cref{supp:exp}.
\textbf{Empirical Comparisons}~
We compare trained models with the original classifier vs. ISR-Mean/Cov post-processed classifiers over three datasets. Each experiment is repeated over 10 random seeds. From the results in \cref{tab:real-datasets}, we can observe that: \textbf{a)} ISRs can improve the worst-group accuracy of trained models across all dataset-algorithm choices. \textbf{b)} Meanwhile, the average accuracy of ISR-Mean/Cov is maintained around the same level as the original classifier.
\input{tables/CLIP}
\vspace{.3em}
\subsubsection{Reduced Requirement of Environment Labels}
Algorithms such as GroupDRO are successful, but they require each training sample to be presented in the form $(x,y,e)$, where the environment label $e$ is usually not available in many real-world datasets. Recent works such as \citet{liu2021just} try to relieve this requirement. To this end, we conduct another experiment on Waterbirds to show that ISRs can be used in cases where only a part of training samples are provided with environment labels. Adopting the same hyperparameter as that of Table \ref{tab:real-datasets}, we reduce the available environment labels from $100\%$ to $10\%$ (randomly sampled), and apply ISR-Mean/Cov on top of ERM-trained models with the limited environment labels. We repeat the experiment over 10 runs for each of 10 ERM-trained models, and plot the mean accuracy in Fig. \ref{fig:partial-env}. We can observe that \textbf{a)} even with only $10\%$ environment labels, the worst-group accuracy of ISR-Mean attains $73.4\%$, outperforming the original ERM-trained classifier by a large margin of $10.5\%$, and \textbf{b)} with $50\%$ environment labels, the worst-group accuracy of ISR-Cov becomes $80.9\%$, surpassing the original classifier by $18.0\%$. The compelling results demonstrate another advantage of our ISRs, the \textit{efficient utilization of environment labels}, which indicates that ISRs can be useful to many real-world datasets with only partial environment labels. \looseness=-1
\subsubsection{Applying ISRs to Pretrained Feature Extractors}
It is recently observed that CLIP-pretrained models \citep{CLIP} have impressive OOD generalization ability across various scenarios \citep{miller2021accuracy,wortsman2022robust,kumar2022finetuning}. Also, \citet{kumar2022finetuning} shows that over a wide range of OOD benchmarks, linear probing (i.e., re-training the last linear layer only) could obtain better OOD generalization performance than finetuning all parameters for CLIP-pretrained models. Notice that ISR-Mean \& ISR-Cov also re-train last linear layers on top of provided feature extractors, thus our ISRs can be used as substitutes for linear probing on CLIP-pretrained models. We empirically compare ISR-Mean/Cov vs. linear probing for a CLIP-pretrained vision transformer (ViT-B/32) in the Waterbirds dataset. As Table \ref{tab:CLIP} shows, ISRs outperform linear probing in terms of both average and worst-group accuracy, and the improvement that ISR-Mean obtains is more significant than that of ISR-Cov. This experiment indicates that our ISRs could be useful post-processing tools for deep learning practitioners who frequently use modern pre-trained (foundation) models \citep{foundation-models}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-.5em}
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figs/partial_env_exp.pdf}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{Applying ISR-Mean/ISR-Cov to ERM-trained models with partially available environment labels in the Waterbirds dataset. The shading area indicates the 95\% confidence interval for mean accuracy.
}
\label{fig:partial-env}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, under a common data generative model in the literature, we propose two algorithms, ISR-Mean and ISR-Cov, to achieve domain generalization by recovering the invariant-feature subspace. We prove that ISR-Mean admits an $\cO(d_s)$ environment complexity and ISR-Cov obtains an $\cO(1)$ environment complexity, the minimum environment complexity that any algorithm can hope for. Furthermore, both algorithms are computationally efficient, free of local minima, and can be used off-the-shelf as a post-processing method over features learned from existing models. Empirically, we test our algorithms on synthetic benchmarks and demonstrate their superior performance when compared with other domain generalization algorithms. We also show that our proposed algorithms can be used as post-processing methods to increase the worst-case accuracy of (pre-)trained models by testing them on three real-world image and text datasets.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work is partially supported by NSF grant No.1910100, NSF CNS No.2046726, C3 AI, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. BL and HZ would like to thank the support from a Facebook research award.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
In clinical trials, baseline data are collected on important participant characteristics (e.g., age, baseline disease severity, and comorbidities).
Covariate adjustment (i.e., adjusting for prespecified, prognostic baseline variables) is a statistical analysis method for estimating the average treatment effect that has high potential to improve precision for many trials \citep{tsiatis2008covariate, benkeser2020improving}.
Despite the extensive literature on model-robust covariate adjustment methods \citep[e.g.,][]{koch1998issues, YangTsiatis2001, tsiatis2008covariate, Moore2009, Moore2009a, Zhang2015}
and recommendations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to use covariate adjustment when there are prognostic baseline variables \citep{FDA1998, FDA2020, FDA2021}, it remains highly underutilized.
This is especially true for trials with binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes, which are quite common in practice. This is problematic because the resulting analyses are inefficient by not fully exploiting the available information in the data, thereby forfeiting the opportunity to reduce the required sample size and/or trial duration. This can lead to unnecessary numbers of patients being exposed to an experimental treatment, which is unethical. We address two obstacles that lead to this underutilization.
\iffalse
A first obstacle is the incompatibility of many covariate adjusted estimators with commonly used stopping boundaries in group sequential designs (GSDs), when models used to construct the estimators are misspecified. Although many useful estimators (e.g., semi-parametric efficient estimators) turn out to have the key property (i.e., the independent increments property) needed to apply GSDs \citep{scharfstein1997semiparametric, jennison1997group, jennisonturnbull1999group}, it is not guaranteed to hold for covariate adjusted estimators under model misspecification \citep{rosenblum2015, benkeser2020improving}.
\cite{jennison1997group} consider covariate adjustment for GSDs, but assume correctly specified regression models (such as generalized linear models) and the corresponding maximum likelihood estimators have the independent increments property, which holds for efficient estimators.
Though efficient estimators have useful properties, they typically do not exist when considering baseline variables, unless one makes strong assumptions such as parametric model assumptions (e.g., a logistic regression model).
Here, in contrast, we only are interested in covariate adjusted estimators whose performance is robust to arbitrary model misspecification \citep[e.g.,][]{YangTsiatis2001,tsiatis2008covariate, zhang2008improving,qu2015estimation, diaz2019improved}; these do not necessarily have the independent increments structure \citep{rosenblum2015, benkeser2020improving}.
Since group sequential designs--especially with \cite{o1979multiple} or \cite{pocock1977group} stopping boundaries-- are extensively used in practice \citep[see e.g.,][]{hatfield2016adaptive} for both efficiency and ethical reasons, this incompatibility is an obstacle to realizing precision gains from covariate adjustment.
\fi
A first obstacle is the incompatibility of many covariate adjusted estimators with commonly used stopping boundaries in group sequential designs (GSDs), when models used to construct the estimators are misspecified.
Specifically, to apply GSDs, the sequential test statistics need to have the independent increments covariance structure in order to control Type I error \citep{scharfstein1997semiparametric, jennison1997group, jennisonturnbull1999group}. Although these papers consider covariate adjusted estimators in GSDs, they restricted their theorems to estimators that are semiparametric efficient.
The general theory of \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric} and \cite{jennison1997group} is not guaranteed to hold for covariate adjusted estimators under model misspecification, which is likely to be the case in practice.
In particular, under model misspecification, covariate adjusted estimators can fail to have this independent increments property when using data of patients for whom the primary outcome is not measured yet. Since GSDs --especially with \cite{o1979multiple} or \cite{pocock1977group} stopping boundaries-- are extensively used in practice for both efficiency and ethical reasons \citep{hatfield2016adaptive}, this incompatibility is an obstacle to realizing precision gains from covariate adjustment. We next describe our approach to tackling this obstacle.
We propose a general method that extends the highly useful theory of information-monitoring in GSDs \citep{scharfstein1997semiparametric,jennison1997group}
so that it can be used with any regular, asymptotically linear estimator. This covers many estimators in RCTs including the aforementioned covariate adjusted estimators, as well as other types of estimators
\citep[e.g.,][]{jennison1991note, lee1992sequential, YangTsiatis2001,tsiatis2008covariate, zhang2008improving,qu2015estimation, diaz2019improved, benkeser2020improving}.
Also, our approach enables the use of different estimators at different stages of a trial. This may be of interest, e.g., if one wants to use unadjusted estimators at earlier analysis times and covariate adjusted estimators at later analysis times in a trial, as explained in Section~\ref{subsec:asympt}.
Specifically, our method uses orthogonalization to produce modified estimators that (1) have the independent increments property needed to apply GSDs, and (2) simultaneously improve (or leave unchanged) the variance at each analysis. Such a method is needed in order to fully leverage prognostic baseline variables, leading to faster, more efficient trials for many disease areas, without sacrificing validity or power.
A second obstacle to using covariate adjustment in practice is the uncertainty at the design stage about the amount of precision gain and corresponding sample size reduction that should be expected from covariate adjustment. Proposals have been made to use an external trial dataset to estimate the precision gain from using covariate adjusted estimators \citep[see e.g.,][]{li2021estimating}. Nevertheless, an incorrect projection of a covariate's prognostic value risks an over- or underpowered future trial.
To address this second obstacle, we propose to use a trial design where the analysis timing is based on accruing information
and is data adaptive \citep{scharfstein1997semiparametric,mehta2001flexible, tsiatis2006information, Zhang2009}.
In particular, we continuously monitor the accruing information (i.e., the reciprocal of the estimator's variance) during the trial and conduct interim analyses (and the final analysis) when prespecified information thresholds are reached. We refer to this type of design as ``information adaptive".
Since adaptations to the analysis timing are made in a preplanned way based only on nuisance parameters, they are generally acceptable to regulators \citep{FDA2019}.
A special case of an information adaptive design is an event driven trial (commonly used in practice for time-to-event outcomes), where the trial continues until the required total number of events (which is approximately proportional to the information) has occurred \citep{freidlin2016information}; however, this typically uses an unadjusted estimator.
To the best of our knowledge, information adaptive designs have not been combined with covariate adjustment as we advocate here. This combination leads to designs that automatically adapt to the amount of precision gain due to covariate adjustment, resulting in trials that are correctly powered.
As covariate adjusted estimators typically have smaller variance (compared to corresponding unadjusted estimators), information will accrue faster and thus combining covariate adjustment with
this information adaptive design will yield faster trials at no additional cost.
In Section~\ref{sec:notation}, we introduce the data structure, estimands and estimators we will consider in the remainder of the article.
We describe in Section~\ref{sec:GSD} the proposed approach to combine covariate adjustment with GSDs.
In Section~\ref{sec:inf}, we propose an information adaptive design. In Section~\ref{sec:dataAnal}, we demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods and design through simulation studies that mimic key features of the MISTIE III stroke trial \citep{hanley2019efficacy}. We end with a discussion in Section~\ref{sec:disc}.
\section{Data Structure, Estimands and Estimators}\label{sec:notation}
\subsection{Data Structure}
We consider the general data structure as described in \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric} as it covers many common data structures used in randomized trials. The full data collected for each participant $i$ ($i=1, \dots n$) is described by the process $X_i=\left\{E_i, (D_{u,i}, u\geq 0)\right\}$. Here, $E_i$ denotes the entry time into the study and $D_{u,i}$ all the additional data collected during the first $u$ time units on study. Throughout, $D_{u,i}$ includes at least the study arm assignment $A_i$ (taking value $0$ for the control arm and $1$ for the treatment arm) and a vector $W_i$ of baseline (i.e., pre-randomization) variables. Additionally, it includes a primary outcome and possibly other post-baseline variables.
This data structure can handle common outcomes such as continuous, binary, ordinal, and time-to-event.
We let $X=\left\{E, (D_{u}, u\geq 0)\right\}$ denote the full data for a generic participant.
As in \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric}, we assume that data are collected in a fixed interval $[0,T]$ and that each participant's data $X_i$ are an independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) draw from an unknown joint distribution $P_0$ on $X$. The model on $P_0$ is nonparametric except that (by design) we assume study arm $A$ is assigned independent of
entry time and baseline variables $(E, W)$. Our asymptotics involve the sample size $n$ going to infinity while the time horizon $[0,T]$ is fixed.
The restriction of the full data for participant $i$ to the data collected up to any calendar time $t$ is represented by the data process $X_{t,i}=\left\{\Delta_i(t), \Delta_i(t)E_i, (D_{u,i}, 0\leq u\leq t-E_i)\right\}$, where $\Delta_i(t)$ is the indicator of already having entered the study at time $t$ (i.e., $\Delta_i(t)=1$ if $E_i\leq t$ and $0$ otherwise). These data processes $X_{t,1}, \dots, X_{t,n}$ are also i.i.d.
\subsection{Estimands and Estimators}
We consider arbitrary, real-valued estimands, i.e., targets of inference. These are typically contrasts between summaries of the outcome distribution under assignment to treatment versus control, for the corresponding study population. We consider
estimands that represent marginal treatment effects, e.g.,
the population risk difference, relative risk, or odds ratio for binary outcome
, among others. The importance of clearly describing the estimand to be used in a clinical trial's primary analysis is stated in the ICH E9(R1) Addendum on estimands and sensitivity analyses \citep{ich2019}.
As in \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric}, we assume that the estimand (denoted $\theta$) is pathwise differentiable.
We next consider estimators (i.e., functions of the data) for each estimand. As in \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric}, we assume that the estimators being considered (denoted $\widehat\theta$) are regular and asymptotically linear (RAL) and consistent for $\theta$. A difference with their work is that we do not assume that our estimators are semiparametric efficient. In particular, all covariate adjusted estimators mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:intro} and also the covariate adjusted estimator for binary outcomes suggested in the recent FDA draft guidance on covariate adjustment \citep{FDA2021} may fail to be semiparametric efficient under model misspecification. Below we give a list of example {\it estimands} (in italics), each followed by a covariate adjusted estimator. The corresponding unadjusted estimators are the sample analog of the estimand. These can be obtained by replacing the population averages by sample means in the estimand definition. For example, for the difference in (population) mean outcomes estimand, the unadjusted estimator is the difference in sample means.
\begin{itemize}
\item[] \textit{Difference in means of the primary outcome between study arms for continuous outcomes:} The ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) estimator can be used when the outcome is measured at a single time point \citep{YangTsiatis2001}.
This can be obtained by a two step procedure. First, one fits a linear regression model for the outcome given baseline variables, an indicator of study arm assignment, an intercept, and (optionally) baseline variable by study arm assignment interactions. Second, one uses standardization to compute the ANCOVA estimator; specifically, one first computes a predicted outcome under each possible arm assignment for each enrolled participant based on the fitted model, and then one takes the difference of the sample means over all participants (pooling across arms) of the predicted outcomes under $A=1$ and $A=0$.
For repeatedly measured continuous outcomes, the mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) estimator can be used to estimate the average treatment effect (i.e., difference in means) at the last visit \citep{wang2021model}.
\item[] \textit{Risk difference for binary outcomes:} A covariate-adjusted estimator of this quantity can be obtained by following a similar standardization approach as for the continuous outcome but by replacing the linear regression model by a logistic regression model. A generalization of the covariate adjusted estimator in \cite{ge2011covariate}, is described in Appendix~\ref{sec:covAdj} of the Supplementary Materials.
Alternatively, we can focus on \textit{relative risk} or \textit{odds ratio} estimands by calculating respectively the ratio and the odds ratio based on the sample means over all participants (pooling across arms) of the predicted outcome under $A=1$ and $A=0$ \citep{Moore2009,benkeser2020improving}.
\item[] \textit{Log-odds ratio for ordinal outcomes:}
For an outcome that is ordinal with levels $1, \dots, K$,
this estimand is the average of the cumulative log odds ratios over levels 1 to $K-1$ \citep{diaz2016enhanced, benkeser2020improving}. Model-robust, covariate adjusted estimators were proposed by \cite{diaz2016enhanced} and \cite{benkeser2020improving}.
Alternatively, these estimates of the arm-specific cumulative distribution functions can be used to estimate the \textit{Mann-Whitney estimand} \citep[see e.g.,][]{vermeulen2015increasing, benkeser2020improving}. This estimand reports the probability that a random patient assigned to the experimental treatment will have a better outcome than a random patient assigned to control, with ties broken at random.
\item[] \textit{Difference in restricted mean survival times for time-to-event outcomes:} This estimand reports the expected value of a survival time that is truncated at a specified time $\tau$ \citep[see e.g.,][]{chen2001causal, royston2011use}. \cite{diaz2019improved} proposed a target minimum loss-based estimator, which is a model-robust, covariate adjusted estimator, for this estimand.
Analogous to the other outcome cases, estimation involves first estimating the time-specific hazard conditional on baseline variables, and then marginalizing the corresponding survival probabilities (via transformation of the time-specific hazards using the product-limit formula) using the estimated covariate distribution pooled across arms \citep{diaz2019improved, benkeser2020improving}. \\
A similar approach can be followed to estimate the \textit{survival probability difference} (i.e., difference between arm-specific probabilities of survival to a specified time point) or the \textit{relative risk} (i.e., ratio of the arm-specific probabilities of survival to a specified time point) \citep{benkeser2020improving}.
\end{itemize}
\section{Orthogonalizing Estimators To Get Independent \\Increments Property}\label{sec:GSD}
Group sequential, information-based designs are described by \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric, jennison1997group, jennisonturnbull1999group}. They entail analyzing the data at $K$ different analysis times $t_1, \dots, t_K$. We consider these as fixed times throughout this section, and handle the case of data dependent analysis times in Section~\ref{sec:inf}. Let $\theta$ denote the estimand.
At each analysis time $t_k$, $n$ independent draws (one for each participant) of $X_{t_k}$ are available to test the null hypothesis $H_0: \theta= \theta_0$ against the sequence of local alternatives $H_A:\theta_n = \theta_0 + \tau / \sqrt{n}$, for constant $\tau>0$.
We next briefly discuss the motivation for using local alternatives, which were also used by \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric}. According to \cite{vaart_1998}, one uses a sequence of alternatives that converge to the null hypothesis at rate $O(1/\sqrt{n})$ because the corresponding testing problem is feasible (i.e., it's possible to achieve asymptotic power greater than the nominal significance level $\alpha$) but non-trivial (i.e., it's not the case that all reasonable tests have power converging to 1).
For each analysis time $t_k$, an estimator $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ and its corresponding standardized (Wald) test statistic $Z_k=Z(t_k)=\left(\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\theta_0 \right)\left/ \widehat{se}(\widehat\theta_{t_k}) \right.$ are calculated, where
$\widehat{se}(\widehat\theta_{t_k})$ denotes the estimated standard error of $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$.
The information accrued at the corresponding analysis time $t_k$ is defined as the reciprocal of the estimator's variance, that is, $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_k = (\widehat{se}(\widehat\theta_{t_k}))^{-2}$.
Similar to \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric} (Section 3, p. 1344), we assume that for each $k\leq K$,
\begin{equation}\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_{k}/n=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left\{n\widehat{Var}(\widehat\theta_{t_k})\right\}^{-1}=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left\{nVar(\widehat\theta_{t_k})\right\}^{-1}=\mathcal{I}_{k}^*>0,
\label{variance_convergence_assumption}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{Var}(\widehat\theta_{t_k})$ denotes the estimated variance of $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$, $Var(\widehat\theta_{t_k})$ the (true) variance of $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$,
and
$\mathcal{I}_{k}^*$ is called the inverse of the asymptotic variance of $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ (as $n \rightarrow \infty$).
In the above display, the first equality is by definition, the second represents convergence in probability (since the estimated variance is random), and the third represents convergence of a real-valued sequence to the finite limit $\mathcal{I}^*_k$.
It follows from Section 3 of \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric} that $\mathcal{I}^*_k$ is less than or equal to the semiparametric information bound for estimating $\theta$ using the data up to time $t_k$ (with equality if $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ is a semiparametric efficient estimator).
It follows from the above assumptions (including (\ref{variance_convergence_assumption}) and the estimators are RAL and consistent) that the vector of test statistics $(Z_1,\dots,Z_K)$ converges in distribution to a multivariate normal with mean $\boldsymbol{\delta}$ and covariance matrix $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ under the null hypothesis (where $\boldsymbol{\delta}=\mathbf{0}$) and under the alternative hypothesis (where $\boldsymbol{\delta}=\tau \left(\sqrt{\mathcal{I}_{1}^*},\dots, \sqrt{\mathcal{I}_{K}^*}\right)$). We assume that $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ can consistently be estimated by $\boldsymbol{\widehat\Sigma}$ (via nonparametric bootstrap or influence functions using the sandwich estimator \citep[see e.g.,][]{tsiatis2007semiparametric}).
In order to apply standard group sequential methods (e.g., group sequential boundaries based on the error spending function defined by \cite{gordon1983discrete}), the covariance matrix $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ would need to have the independent increments structure.
That is, each diagonal element of $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ is equal to 1 and the $(k, k')$th element of $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$, where $k'\leq k$, is equal to $\sqrt{\mathcal{I}_{k'}^*/\mathcal{I}_{k}^*}$ \citep[see e.g.,][]{scharfstein1997semiparametric, jennison1997group, jennisonturnbull1999group}.
The independent increments property can be equivalently formulated in terms of the asymptotic distribution of the estimator sequence itself, i.e., $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ being asymptotically independent of all previous increments $\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}}$ for all $k'<k$, after each is centered and multiplied by $\sqrt{n}$.
Unfortunately, an arbitrary sequence of RAL estimators $(\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_K})$ evaluated at analysis times $t_1<\dots<t_K$ may fail to have the independent increments property. At an intuitive level, the property may fail when estimators at different analysis times use data from the same patients.
This was known by \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric} and \cite{jennison1997group}, who restricted their theorems to RAL estimators that are semiparametric efficient (in which case the independent increments property is guaranteed to hold).
We give covariate adjusted estimators in Appendices \ref{sec:covAdj} and \ref{sec:tmle} of the Supplementary Materials that are a generalization of the covariate adjusted estimator in \cite{ge2011covariate}, which was presented in the recent FDA draft guidance on covariate adjustment \citep{FDA2021}. These estimators rely on working models which are likely to be misspecified in practice, leading to estimators for which the independent increments property will generally fail to hold. This lack of independent increments can generally occur when estimators use working models; see e.g., \cite{rosenblum2015} for augmented inverse probability weighted estimators and \cite{shoben2014violations} for estimators based on generalized estimating equations. A long list of further examples is provided by \cite{jennison1997group} and \cite{kim2020independent}.
To address the above problem, we propose a statistical method to modify any sequence $(\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_K})$ of (RAL) estimators so that it will have the independent increments property and also equal or smaller variance at each time compared to the original estimator sequence.
\subsection{Method for Orthogonalizing Sequence of RAL Estimators}\label{subsec:gsd_impl}
At each analysis time $t_k$, our goal is to construct a new estimator $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$ that is a linear combination of the original estimators at analysis times $t_1,\dots,t_k$ ($\widehat\theta_{t_1},\dots,\widehat\theta_{t_k}$) and that has the following properties: (i) the new estimator $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$ is consistent and RAL, (ii) the variance of the new estimator is decreased or left unchanged (compared to $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ ), and (iii) the Wald test statistics corresponding with the updated sequence of estimators $(\widetilde\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widetilde\theta_{t_K})$ have asymptotic covariance matrix with the independent increments structure.
We first present the intuition behind our method for constructing the new estimator at analysis $k$. For any real valued vector $(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1})$, consider the following linear combination of estimators:
$\widehat\theta_{t_k} - \sum_{k'=1}^{k-1} \lambda^{(k)}_{k'} (\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}})$.
By construction, the linear combination is a consistent, RAL estimator of $\theta$ as long as each component of the original estimator sequence is as well.
We next minimize the linear combination's variance over all real valued vectors $(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1})$, and define our updated estimator at analysis $k$ as the corresponding minimum value. This guarantees the same or better variance than the original estimator $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ since the linear combination reduces to the original estimator if one sets each $\lambda^{(k)}_{k'}$ ($k'<k$) to 0.
Minimizing the variance over $(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1})$ in the above display is equivalent to
subtracting the orthogonal ($L_2$) projection of $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ on the preceding increments $\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}}$ (after centering); this results in the updated estimator being orthogonal to the increments $\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}}$, and so also to $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}}$ and $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}-\widetilde\theta_{t_{k'}}$.
Then, $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$ being orthogonal (in the limit) to $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}-\widetilde\theta_{t_{k'}}$ is the independent increments property since orthogonality and independence are the same for a multivariate normal distribution which is the limiting distribution of the updated test statistics.
The above arguments are only heuristic, but we make them rigorous in our proofs in Appendix~\ref{app:proof} of the Supplementary Materials.
We next present, step-by-step, the proposed method for constructing the new estimator sequence.
At the first interim analysis ($k=1$), we define $\widetilde\theta_{t_1}=\widehat\theta_{t_1}$. The corresponding test statistic equals $\widetilde Z_1=Z_1=\frac{\widehat\theta_{t_1}-\theta_0}{\widehat{se}(\widehat\theta_{t_1})}$. At each subsequent analysis $k \geq 2$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We calculate $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ and estimate the covariance matrix of $(\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_k})$ based on influence functions or via the nonparametric bootstrap.
\item Compute $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^{(k)}=\left(\widehat{\lambda}^{(k)}_1,\dots,\widehat{\lambda}^{(k)}_{k-1}\right)^t$, where we define
\begin{equation} \left(\widehat{\lambda}^{(k)}_1,\dots,\widehat{\lambda}^{(k)}_{k-1}\right)=\arg \min_{(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}} \widehat{Var}\left\{\widehat\theta_{t_k} - \sum_{k'=1}^{k-1} \lambda^{(k)}_{k'} (\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}})\right\}, \label{minimization_problem} \end{equation}
where $\widehat{Var}$ is computed using an estimate of the covariance matrix of $(\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_k})$.
Then $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^{(k)}=\left\{\widehat{Var}\left((\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k-1}})^t\right)\right\}^{-1}\widehat{Cov}\left(\widehat\theta_{t_k}, (\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k-1}})^t\right)$,
where $\widehat{Cov}$ is computed using an estimate of the covariance matrix of $(\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_k})$.
\item Replace $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ by $\widetilde{\theta}_{t_k}=\widehat\theta_{t_k} - \sum_{k'=1}^{k-1} \widehat{\lambda}^{(k)}_{k'} (\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}})$.
\item Estimate the variance of $\widetilde{\theta}_{t_k}$ as $$\widehat{se}(\widetilde{\theta}_{t_k})^2=(-(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^{(k)})^t, 1)\widehat{Var}\left((\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k-1}}, \widehat\theta_{t_k})^t\right)\left(-(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^{(k)})^t, 1\right)^t,$$
and its corresponding information as $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{k}=(\widehat{se}(\widetilde\theta_{t_k}))^{-2}$.
\item Calculate $\widetilde Z_k=(\widetilde\theta_{t_k} - \theta_0)/\widehat{se}(\widetilde\theta_{t_k})$.
\end{enumerate}
\iffalse
Finally, we describe how to compute the efficacy stopping boundary $c_k$ at analysis $k$. The goal is to do this in a way that guarantees (asymptotically) a specified Type I error $\alpha$.
We show in Section~\ref{subsec:inf_impl} how to combine this with an information-adaptive design to achieve a desired power.
We estimate the information fraction, denoted as $\pi_{t_k}$, by $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{k}=(\widehat{se}(\widetilde\theta_{t_k}))^{-2}$ divided by the maximum information (defined in Section~\ref{sec:inf}), and find the boundary $c_k$ that (asymptotically) solves the equation
$$P\left(|\widetilde Z_1|\leq c_1, \dots, |\widetilde Z_{k-1}|\leq c_{k-1}, |\widetilde Z_k|\geq c_k\right)=\alpha(\pi_k)-\alpha(\pi_{k-1}),$$
with $\alpha(\pi)$ an error spending function, where $0\leq \pi\leq 1$. The commonly used \cite{o1979multiple} boundaries, for example, can be approximated by using an appropriate choice of the error spending function \citep{gordon1983discrete}. This can be computed with the \texttt{ldBounds} function in the \texttt{R} package \texttt{ldbounds} by passing the information fraction for the times $t_1, \dots, t_k$, the total Type I error $\alpha$ and the type of error spending function.
If $\widetilde Z_k> c_k$ ($k=1, \dots, K$) then the trial is stopped and the null hypothesis is rejected, otherwise the trial is continued to the next monitoring time. If the test continues to the $K$th analysis, the null hypothesis is rejected if $\widetilde Z_K>c_K$. Otherwise, if $\widetilde Z_k \leq c_k$ at all times $k$ then we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
\fi
\subsection{Properties of Orthogonalized Estimators}\label{subsec:asympt}
The key properties of the above orthogonalized estimators $\widetilde \theta_{t_k}$ and corresponding test statistics $\widetilde Z_k$ are given below.
\iffalse
The aim of the minimization procedure in Step 2 of the algorithm in Section~\ref{subsec:gsd_impl} is to find at each analysis $k \geq 2$ the values $(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}$ that equal
$$\arg \min_{(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}} Var\{\widehat\theta_{t_k} - \sum_{k'=1}^{k-1} \lambda^{(k)}_{k'} (\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}})\},$$
which is equivalent to
$$\arg \min_{(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}} \widehat{\mathcal{I}}_kVar\{\widehat\theta_{t_k} - \sum_{k'=1}^{k-1} \lambda^{(k)}_{k'} (\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}})\}$$
as multiplying the variance with the information $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_k$ will not impact the minimizer $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^{(k)}$.
As we assume that $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_{k}/n=\mathcal{I}_{k}^*$, the vector $(\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_1/\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_K,\dots,\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_{K}/\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_K)$ converges to the constant vector $(f_1, \dots, f_{K})=(\mathcal{I}_1^*/\mathcal{I}_K^*,\dots,\mathcal{I}_{K}^*/\mathcal{I}_K^*)$.
Thus, asymptotically, the minimization problem is approximately equivalent to
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\lambda^{*(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{*(k)}_{k-1}\right)
& = &\arg \min_{(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}} Var[Z_k - \sum_{k'=1}^{k-1} \lambda^{(k)}_{k'} \{Z_k-(f_k/f_{k'})^{1/2}Z_{k'}\}]. \label{eq:minimizer}
\end{eqnarray}
To compute the minimizer $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{*(k)}=\left(\lambda^{*(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{*(k)}_{k-1}\right)$ in Equation \eqref{eq:minimizer}, observe that it has the form of a linear least squares regression problem as the regressors $Z_k-(f_k/f_{k'})^{1/2}Z_{k'}$ for all $k'<k$ have mean zero because of the consistency of $\widehat\theta_{t_{k}}$ and $\widehat\theta_{t_{k'}}$. In particular, it is equivalent to regressing $Y^{(k)} = Z_k$ on the $k \times 1$ vector $\mathbf{X}^{(k)}=(Z_k-(f_k/f_{1})^{1/2}Z_{1},\dots,Z_k-(f_k/f_{k-1})^{1/2}Z_{k-1})$, resulting in the closed form solution $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{*(k)}=\{E(\mathbf{X^{(k)}(X^{(k)})^t})\}^{-1}E(Y^{(k)}\mathbf{X}^{(k)})$.
\fi
\begin{theorem}[Asymptotic Properties]\label{th:main}
Consider any sequence of RAL estimators\\
$(\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_K})$ with all components consistent for $\theta$, and for which \eqref{variance_convergence_assumption} holds and the covariance matrix $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ of the corresponding test statistics can be consistently estimated.
Then the orthogonalized estimator sequence
$(\widetilde\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widetilde\theta_{t_K})$ is also RAL with
covariance matrix
having the independent increments property.
In addition, $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$ at each analysis time $t_k$ is a consistent estimator for $\theta$ and has asymptotic variance less or equal to that of the original estimator $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$.
Furthermore, the analog of \eqref{variance_convergence_assumption} holds for the orthogonalized estimator sequence, i.e., $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{k}/n=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left\{n\widehat{Var}(\widetilde\theta_{t_k})\right\}^{-1}=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left\{nVar(\widetilde\theta_{t_k})\right\}^{-1}=\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}^*_{k},$ with $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}^*_{k}$ defined as the inverse of the asymptotic variance of $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$.
The orthogonalization approach moreover ensures monotonicity of the asymptotic information $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}^*_{k}$ and the finite sample information $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{k}$ at the analysis times $t_1, \dots, t_K$, that is, $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}^*_{k}$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{k}$ are non-decreasing over analysis times $t_1, \dots, t_K$.
\end{theorem}
The results from Theorem \ref{th:main} enable one to directly apply standard group sequential stopping boundaries to the test statistics $\widetilde{Z}_k$, as long as a consistent, RAL estimator is used at each analysis (which is almost always the case for the primary efficacy analysis in confirmatory randomized trials). These stopping boundaries,
which may include (binding or non-binding) futility boundaries as well as efficacy boundaries, can be
computed as in Section 4.2 of \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric} and Appendix~\ref{app:bound} of the Supplementary Materials here. For example, one could apply the commonly used group sequential boundaries of \cite{o1979multiple} or \cite{pocock1977group}, or one could construct boundaries using any
error spending function \citep{gordon1983discrete}.
Theorem~\ref{th:main} implies that the resulting group sequential testing procedure controls familywise Type I error rate at the desired level $\alpha$ (asymptotically).
Although we are working under a similar framework as \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric} and \cite{jennison1997group}, what's new here is that we do not need the assumption that estimators are semiparametric efficient; this enables the use of many covariate adjusted estimators within the commonly used group sequential design framework.
The estimators at different analysis times could be chosen to be of the same type; e.g., at each analysis an estimator that adjusts for a prespecified list of baseline variables could be used, with the only difference being that more data are available at later analysis times.
However, the theorem above does not require that the estimators at different time points are of the same type (though they do need to be consistent for the same estimand). E.g., an unadjusted estimator could be used early in the trial and a covariate adjusted estimator used later, or covariate adjusted estimators could be used throughout but adjusting for larger sets of variables at later analysis times;
this setup may be useful since the number of covariates that one can adjust for grows with sample size.
In all cases, the estimators at each analysis time need to be prespecified.
\iffalse
Hypothesis testing and confidence interval construction at the different analyses can then be performed based on a test statistic for the updated (orthogonalized) estimator and its corresponding variance. \textcolor{red}{In Theorem \ref{th:var}, we relate the (asymptotic) variances of the original and updated estimator sequences, and describe the consistency of the formula in Step 3 of the algorithm in Section~\ref{subsec:gsd_impl} for the asymptotic variance of the latter.
In order to determine the asymptotic variance, we define $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{*(k)}=\left(\lambda^{*(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{*(k)}_{k-1}\right)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\lambda^{*(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{*(k)}_{k-1}\right)
& = &\arg \min_{(\lambda^{(k)}_1,\dots,\lambda^{(k)}_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}} Var[Z_k - \sum_{k'=1}^{k-1} \lambda^{(k)}_{k'} \{Z_k-(\mathcal{I}_k^*/\mathcal{I}_{k'}^*)^{1/2}Z_{k'}\}].
\end{eqnarray}
Asymptotically, this minimization problem is approximately equivalent to the minimization problem in Step 2 of the algorithm in Section~\ref{subsec:gsd_impl} (see Appendix~\ref{app:lambda*}).}
\begin{theorem}[Asymptotic Variance of Updated Estimator Sequence]\label{th:var}
Let $\phi_{t_k}(D_{t_k,i})$ denote the influence function of the RAL estimator $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$ with $D_{t_k,i}$ the data available for patient $i$ at time $t_k$. Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sqrt{n}(\widetilde{\theta}_{t_k}-\theta)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(\phi_{t_k}(D_{t_k,i})- \sum_{k'=1}^{k-1} \lambda^{*(k)}_{k'} (\phi_{t_k}(D_{t_k,i})-\phi_{t_{k'}}(D_{t_{k'},i}))\right)+o_p(1).
\end{eqnarray*}
In addition, Step 4 of the algorithm in Section~\ref{subsec:gsd_impl} gives a consistent estimate, $$n\cdot\widehat{se}(\widetilde{\theta}_k)^2=n\cdot(-(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^{(k)})^t, 1)\widehat{Cov}\left((\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k-1}}, \widehat\theta_{t_k})^t\right)(-(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^{(k)})^t, 1)^t,$$ for the asymptotic variance
\begin{eqnarray*}
n\cdot Var(\widetilde{\theta}_{t_k})=n\cdot(-(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{*(k)})^t, 1)Var\left((\widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_1}, \dots, \widehat\theta_{t_k}-\widehat\theta_{t_{k-1}}, \widehat\theta_{t_k})^t\right)(-(\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{*(k)})^t, 1)^t.
\end{eqnarray*}
This guarantees asymptotically correct hypothesis testing (i.e., Type I error that converges to the nominal level) and confidence intervals when using the updated estimator sequence.
\end{theorem}
\fi
\section{Information Adaptive Design}\label{sec:inf}
A crucial question at the design stage of a clinical trial is `how much data should we gather to perform the hypothesis test at significance level $\alpha$ with power $1-\beta$?'
The total number of participants needed to detect a clinically important treatment effect with sufficient precision often depends on nuisance parameters (e.g., probability of response in the control group for a binary endpoint) which are typically unknown before the trial starts.
Incorrect guesses of these nuisance parameters may lead to over- or underpowered trials.
Determining the required sample size when covariate adjusted estimators are used can be done in two ways: either a conservative assumption of no precision gain from covariate adjustment can be made (in which case any actual precision gains would increase power), or a
projection of how much precision will be gained can be factored into the sample size calculation
\citep{li2021estimating}. To fully leverage the precision gain resulting from covariate adjustment, however, it would be ideal to start by applying the former method for planning purposes, and then automatically adapt the sample size or duration of the trial based on continuous monitoring of the actual precision gain (which is directly reflected in the estimated information $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_t$).
This is what we evaluate in our simulation studies and recommend for use in practice.
Below we define information adaptive designs, which involve continuous monitoring of the estimated information $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_t$ to determine when to conduct interim analyses (where a trial may be stopped early for efficacy or futility) and the final analysis. Such designs can be used with unadjusted or covariate adjusted estimators (as demonstrated in our simulation studies below).
Our main motivation for considering information adaptive designs, however, is to apply them with covariate adjusted estimators that have been orthogonalized as in Section~\ref{sec:GSD};
the combination of these approaches can lead to designs that take full advantage of precision gains from covariate adjustment (converting the gains into sample size reductions while controlling Type I error and providing the desired power).
In other contexts, information adaptive designs and/or the key ideas underpinning them have been proposed by e.g., \cite{scharfstein1997semiparametric,mehta2001flexible, tsiatis2006information, Zhang2009}.
\iffalse
The framework in Section~\ref{sec:GSD} affords us the opportunity to be flexible on the sample size and rather focus on obtaining the desired statistical information \citep{mehta2001flexible, lachin2005maximum, tsiatis2006information}.
The important point for hypothesis testing is that we are usually interested in having a certain degree of statistical precision which is measured by the Type I error and the power to detect a clinically important treatment effect $\theta_A$.
As the amount of evidence to prove the scientific question of interest is directly related to the (statistical) information in the data regarding the parameter of interest, we recommend focusing the design considerations on the maximum information required to attain the desired characteristics. In particular, we propose using a trial design where the timing of the analyses is based on accruing information and is data adaptive. Such a design, which we call ``information adaptive'', automatically adapts to the amount of precision gain due to covariate adjustment. It therefore naturally leads to an approach to guarantee the desired power.
\fi
\subsection{Implementation of Information Adaptive Design}\label{subsec:inf_impl}
At the design stage, we need to specify the operating characteristics of the study such as the significance level $\alpha$, the alternative of interest $\theta_A$, along with the power $1-\beta$ to detect this alternative, and the number of interim analyses $K$ to be performed. We also need to specify a method to compute the stopping boundaries $(c_1, \dots, c_K)$; we suggest using an error spending function \citep{gordon1983discrete} due to its flexibility.
After specifying the above quantities, we compute the maximum/total information needed to achieve these Type I error and power goals. For a trial without interim analyses, in order for a two-sided level-$\alpha$ test to have power $1-\beta$ to detect the clinically important alternative $\theta_A$, we need
$\mathcal{I}(\theta_A)=\left\{(z_{\alpha/2}+z_\beta)/(\theta_A-\theta_0)\right\}^2,$
where $\mathcal{I}(\theta_A)$ denotes the required information and $z_q$ is the quantile function for the standard normal distribution.
For a given estimator $\widehat\theta$, its corresponding information (i.e., the reciprocal of the variance) can be estimated by $(\widehat{se}(\widehat\theta))^{-2}$. A strategy to achieve the desired power is to monitor the accrued information, estimated as $(\widehat{se}(\widehat\theta_t))^{-2}$, through time $t$ and conduct the final analysis at time $t^*$ when
$(\widehat{se}(\widehat\theta_{t^*}))^{-2}\geq\left(\frac{z_{\alpha/2}+z_\beta}{\theta_A-\theta_0}\right)^2.$
This defines the information adaptive design for trials that don't involve interim analyses.
When the data are sequentially monitored and analyzed with the possibility of early stopping, one needs to compensate for the possible loss in power resulting from accounting for multiple testing (which is baked into the aforementioned approaches for computing stopping boundaries). The final analysis should then be conducted when the (statistical) information is equal to
$\left(\frac{z_{\alpha/2}+z_\beta}{\theta_A-\theta_0}\right)^2IF$
for a two-sided test,
where $IF>1$ denotes an inflation factor determined as a function of $K$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and the type of error spending function \citep{kim1987design, scharfstein1997semiparametric}.
We next define the information adaptive design for trials with multiple analysis times (i.e., GSDs).
During the trial, we monitor the data and compute the estimated information level $(\widehat{se}(\widehat\theta_t))^{-2}$ at time $t$ using all accumulated data.
We conduct the $k$th analysis at time $t_k$ defined as the first time that the information crosses a pre-specified information threshold. This defines the information adaptive design. E.g., one could use information thresholds defined to be the following for the $k$th analysis: $\frac{k}{K}\times\left(\frac{z_{\alpha/2}+z_\beta}{\theta_A-\theta_0}\right)^2IF$ when using two-sided alternatives and equally spaced analysis times.
Importantly, with such an approach, we do not have to prespecify the prognostic value of the covariates nor other nuisance parameters. In addition, when the covariate adjusted estimator is more efficient (i.e., has smaller variance) than the corresponding unadjusted estimator, covariate adjustment can lead to a shorter trial due to faster information accrual. This makes the information adaptive design as proposed by \cite{mehta2001flexible} well suited for covariate adjusted estimators.
The information adaptive design may be useful beyond our context of adjusted estimators and GSDs. Specifically, it could be useful for unadjusted estimators and/or in trials without interim analyses to get correctly powered trials at the minimum possible sample size \citep{mehta2001flexible}.
\iffalse
A disadvantage of repeatedly monitoring the data as information accrues is its administrative inconvenience, in terms of not giving an idea to the investigators about the necessary resources (i.e., length of study, sample size, \dots).
As in \cite{tsiatis2006information}, we suggest to posit some guesses of the nuisance parameters in order to assess the feasibility within the available resources for the trial, and to come up with an initial time frame for the study; this can be done by estimating the number of participants $n_{max}$ corresponding with the maximum information.
\fi
In line with \cite{benkeser2020improving}, we recommend to initally set the maximum sample size for the trial conservatively, i.e., as if there would be no precision gain from covariate adjustment. We can then use the standard formulas (by positing some guesses of the other nuisance parameters) for sample size calculations in order to estimate the maximum sample size $n_{max}$ needed to achieve the Type I error and power goals.
We suggest to use emerging data at each interim analysis time to update $n_{max}$. This can be done periodically during the trial using the approach of \cite{mehta2001flexible}, who compute the new projection at analysis time $t_k$ for the maximum sample size as follows:
$n_{max}=n(t_k)\left(\frac{z_{\alpha/2}+z_\beta}{\theta_A-\theta_0}\right)^2IF / \widehat{\mathcal{I}}_k,$
where $n(t_k)$ is the number of patients that have completed follow up at analysis time $t_k$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_k$ the corresponding information.
Since an accurate projection of the required sample size at the final analysis should take into account the estimator to be used at that analysis, the function
$n(t)$ and information $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_k$ should be calculated using the estimator that is planned for the final analysis time (which our framework allows to differ from the estimator used at earlier times), except using the data available at time $t_k$.
Our proof in the Appendix for Theorem \ref{th:main} focuses on interim analyses at $K$ fixed time points, $t_1, \dots, t_K$. If we combine the orthogonalization approach in Section~\ref{sec:GSD} with an information adaptive design, the analysis times are not fixed since they depend on the accrued information. We require that our information adaptive algorithm selects analysis times $\widehat{t}_1,\dots,\widehat{t}_K$ that converge to certain limit times $t^*_1,\dots,t^*_K$.
In addition, we assume that the corresponding estimator sequence at times $\widehat{t}_1,\dots,\widehat{t}_K$ has the same limit distribution
as the corresponding estimator sequence evaluated at the limit times $t^*_1,\dots,t^*_K$.
This assumption is also implicitly made for event-driven trials and trials whose analysis times are determined by the number of patients (or primary endpoints) observed, since these are not fixed calendar times due to their data dependence.
Discretizing time into small intervals could be used in combination with an adaptive information design that conducts each analysis at the first time that the observed information crosses a prespecified threshold; we conjecture that in this case the above assumptions will hold, as long as the estimated information converges uniformly to the limit information as sample size goes to infinity.
\section{Data Analysis and Simulation Studies Based on\\ MISTIE III Trial}\label{sec:dataAnal}
\subsection{Data Analysis}
We illustrate the proposed approaches by using data from the open-label, blinded endpoint, Phase III clinical trial of minimally invasive surgery with thrombolysis in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE III; \cite{hanley2019efficacy}). The goal was to assess whether minimally invasive catheter evacuation followed by thrombolysis, with the aim of decreasing clot size to 15 mL or less, would improve functional outcome in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (a severe form of stroke). The primary outcome was defined as having a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 measured 365 days from enrollment (defined as a ``success").
Though the trial used covariate adaptive randomization, we ignore that in our discussion below, for simplicity (since analogous computations taking this into account give similar results), and we use simple randomization in our simulation study.
The estimand in the trial was defined as the (absolute) risk difference, that is, the difference between the population proportion of successes under assignment to treatment versus control (where control was standard of care using medical management).
The total sample size of approximately 500 patients was calculated based on the assumption that 25\% of the patients would have an mRS score of 0–3 in the standard medical care group versus 38\% of patients in the MISTIE group and provides a power of 88\% to detect such a population risk difference of 13\% at a 5\% significance level.
To this end, 506 patients were randomized to the MISTIE group (255) or standard medical care group (251). The analysis of the primary outcome was done in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (250 in MISTIE group and 249 standard medical care group), which included all eligible, randomized patients who were exposed to treatment.
For the mITT analysis set, adjusting for baseline variables using the targeted maximum likelihood estimator of \cite{van2012targeted} to adjust for censoring for the primary efficacy outcome only, resulted in an absolute risk difference estimate of 0.04 ([95\% CI –0.04 to 0.12]; p=0.33). The unadjusted estimator was similar except for having a wider confidence interval.
We can now look back at the design goals of the MISTIE III trial and do a rough calculation of what an information-adaptive design would have done.
Substituting the design parameters into the equation for the maximum information for a trial without interim analyses yields
$\mathcal{I}(\theta_A)=\left(\frac{z_{0.025}+z_{0.12}}{0.13}\right)^2=582.$
Thus, the monitoring strategy described in Section~\ref{sec:inf} would call for accruing participants into the study until the total information equals or exceeds 582.
As the standard error at the final analysis of the MISTIE III trial equals approximately 0.04, this analysis was conducted when the (estimated) information was approximately 625.
Thus, in an information-adaptive design, the final analysis would have been conducted earlier.
\iffalse
Nevertheless, similar results and conclusions would be obtained when taking into account the covariate adaptive randomization.
In particular, adjusting for baseline variables using the targeted maximum likelihood estimator resulted in an absolute risk difference of 0.045 ([95\% CI –0.028 to 0.120]; p=0.23). The standard error of 0.0379 would also have led to earlier conduction of the final analysis in an information-adaptive design compared to a maximum sample size design.
\fi
In what follows, we conduct a simulation study that mimics some features of the data generating distributions from the MISTIE III trial, in order to assess the performance of the approaches proposed in Sections \ref{sec:GSD} and \ref{sec:inf}.
\subsection{Simulation Design Based on the MISTIE III Trial}\label{sec:sim}
\label{subsubsec:sim_design}
We present our simulation study design that we use to evaluate the finite-sample properties of combining covariate adjustment
with an information adaptive design compared to a fixed/maximum sample size trial, with and without interim analyses, for the MISTIE III trial. We present the simulation study below using the framework/template recommended by \cite{morris2019using}.
\hspace{0.6cm}\textbf{Aims}:
To examine whether the information adaptive design in Section~\ref{sec:inf} controls the Type I error and achieves the desired power of a trial (a) without and (b) with interim analyses. In Aim (a) we also compare the operating characteristics of the proposed trial design (which is also known as a maximum information design as there are no interim analyses) with those of maximum sample size trials. In Aim (b) we especially want to examine whether the approach to combine covariate adjusted estimators with GSDs as explained in Section~\ref{sec:GSD} controls (asymptotically) the Type I error and maintains the power of a trial; the timing of the analyses is determined by monitoring the information as explained in Section~\ref{sec:inf}. We moreover want to compare the operating characteristics of a GSD with timing of the analyses based on a predefined number of primary endpoints observed (i.e., max. sample size design) versus a group sequential design with timing of the analyses based on the observed information reaching predefined thresholds (i.e., information adaptive design).
\textbf{Data-Generating Mechanisms}:
We construct data generating mechanisms based on resampling from the participants in the MISTIE III trial who had the primary outcome measured in order to mimic the prognostic values of baseline variables $W$ for the final outcome $Y$ (i.e., functional outcome measured at 365 days), that is, the relationships between baseline variables and outcomes observed in this trial. The baseline variables $W$ are stability intracerebral haemorrhage clot size (continuous in mL), age at randomization (continuous in years), severity of impairment at randomization as measured by GCS (categorical with levels: 3-8, severe; 9-12, moderate; 13-15, mild), stability intraventricular haemorrhage size (continuous in mL) and intracerebral haemorrhage clot location (binary with levels lobar and deep).
In addition, two short-term measurements on the Glasgow Rankin Scale score (categorical with levels from 0 to 6) were taken after 30 and 180 days. These are denoted by respectively $X_{30}$ and $X_{180}$.
As in the original MISTIE III trial, interest lies in testing the null hypothesis $H_0: \theta = 0$ with $\theta$ defined as
$\theta=E\left(Y|A=1\right)-E\left(Y|A=0\right)$,
at significance level $5\%$ (using a two-sided test) with a power of 88\% under the alternative $\theta_A=0.13$.
We consider two scenarios; in the first one there is a zero average treatment effect (i.e., the null hypothesis), while in the second one there is a positive average treatment effect (i.e., the alternative hypothesis).
For scenario 1, we resampled data vectors $(W, X_{30}, X_{180}, Y)$ with replacement from the MISTIE III trial data. We then generated the treatment indicators $A$ independent of the data vectors $(W, X_{30}, X_{180}, Y)$ by an independent Bernoulli draw with probability 1/2 of being assigned to treatment or control. This results in an average treatment effect $\theta$ of zero as $P(Y=1|A=1)=P(Y=1|A=0)=0.43$.
For scenario 2, we construct data generating distributions with an average treatment effect $\theta$ of 0.13, which equals the average treatment effect the MISTIE III trial was powered for. To this end, we first generated initial data vectors $(A, W, X_{30}, X_{180}, Y)$ as in scenario 1. Then, for each simulated participant with initial values $A=1$, $Y=0$ and $X_{180}=6$ (death), we randomly replaced $Y$ by an independent Bernoulli draw with probability 0.35 of being 1.
As described above, for a trial without interim analyses (Aim (a)), the maximum information requirement is 582.
The maximum information for trials with one interim analysis at information fraction 0.50 (Aim (b)) equals $582\cdot 1.1136 = 648$, where the inflation factor was calculated for a GSD with 1 interim analysis at information fraction 0.50 with the \texttt{R} package \texttt{rpact}. The efficacy stopping boundaries are based on an error spending function that approximates Pocock boundaries. Here, we don't use futility boundaries. Nevertheless, in practice we recommend to use non-binding futility boundaries which are typically preferred by regulators \citep{FDA2019}.
The corresponding maximum sample size depends on an assumption for the probability of a successful outcome in the control arm as well as an assumption for the prognostic value of $W$ if we use the covariate adjusted estimators. We set the sample size as if there were no precision gain from covariate adjustment ($W$ is not prognostic). For Aim (a) two different assumptions for the probability of a successful outcome in the control arm are considered: $0.25$ (corresponding with the design assumption in the MISTIE III Trial) and $0.43$ (the assumed probability in the simulations, which is closer to what was observed in the actual trial), which correspond with a sample sizes of respectively 498 and 578.
For Aim (b), we assume that the probability in the control arm equals $0.25$. The standard group sequential design with the analysis times based on the number of primary endpoints observed (i.e., max. sample size design) requires a total sample number of $554$, and the interim analysis is conducted when $277$ patients have their primary endpoint observed.
The uniform recruitment rate of approximately 12 patients per month corresponds with the average recruitment rate in the MISTIE III trial.
For the data generating mechanisms above, we perform respectively $10,000$ and $100,000$ Monte Carlo runs under the alternative and null hypothesis. For computational reasons, we limit the number of runs for the targeted maximum likelihood estimator (see below) under the null hypothesis to $10,000$.
\textbf{Targets:} See the second paragraph of ``Data Generating Mechanisms" above.
\textbf{Methods of Analysis:}
Each simulated dataset is analyzed using Wald test statistics based on the following estimators:
\begin{itemize}
\item Unadjusted estimator of difference in means.
\item Standardized logistic regression estimator described in Appendix \ref{sec:covAdj} of the Supplementary Materials. The logistic regression models include as main effects the following baseline variables: stability intracerebral haemorrhage clot size, age, stability intraventricular haemorrhage size and intracerebral haemorrhage clot location.
\item Longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimator of \cite{van2012targeted} adjusted for stability intracerebral haemorrhage clot size, age, severity of impairment as measured by GCS, stability intraventricular haemorrhage size and intracerebral haemorrhage clot location as well as two short-term measurements on the Glasgow Rankin Scale score (categorical with levels from 0 to 6) measured after 30 and 180 days. Besides adjusting for chance imbalances in pre-specified baseline variables between treatment groups, this statistical method also accounts for missing outcome data by a combination of regression modelling and inverse probability of censoring weighting using generalized linear models (without model or variable selection). More details are given in Appendix~\ref{sec:tmle} of the Supplementary Materials.
\end{itemize}
For Aim (b), 5 different test statistics are evaluated as we also consider the `updated' (defined as having been orthogonalized) versions of the covariate adjusted estimators, following the approach in Section~\ref{sec:GSD}.
For Aim (a), we consider two maximum sample size designs (with maximum sample sizes equal to 498 and 578, respectively) as well as an information adaptive design (with maximum information equal to 582). For the latter design, we monitor the data and adjust $n_{max}$ every time we have the outcome available for 50 additional participants. A test is only performed once we have reached the (changing) maximum total sample size $n_{max}$.
For Aim (b) each simulated trial dataset is analyzed as a group sequential design with one interim analysis. The timing of the interim and final analysis are based on (i) the number of participants with the primary endpoint observed (for the maximum sample size design) and (ii) the information (for the information adaptive design). The monitoring for the timing of the interim analyses happens every time we have the outcome available for 10 additional participants. We update $n_{max}$ according to the formula in Section~\ref{subsec:inf_impl} at the interim analysis and after each subsequent batch of 50 observed outcomes. We assume that once recruitment has been stopped, it is not restarted. For computational reasons, the monitoring of the information is based on the (estimated) information corresponding with the original estimators rather than the orthogonalized ones.
\textbf{Performance Measures:} We assess the empirical Type I error rate and power of the test of no treatment effect (w.r.t. the risk difference) on the considered outcome $Y$ as well as the average sample size, average analysis time and average information.
\subsection{Simulation Results}
For Aim (a), the empirical power and Type I error for the different tests are summarized in Table \ref{tab:data_InfMon}; columns 3 to 6 deal with the power, the average sample number, the average analysis time and the average information under the alternative $\theta=\theta_A=0.13$, and the last four columns deal with the Type I error, the average sample number, the average analysis time and the average information under the null hypothesis $\theta=\theta_0=0$.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{\label{tab:data_InfMon} Results for trials with no interim analyses, comparing information adaptive vs. maximum sample size designs, with 3 different estimators. Goal is 88\% power.
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l l c c c c ccc cc}
\hline
&& \multicolumn{9}{ c }{Simulation Parameter}\\
&& \multicolumn{4}{ c }{$\theta=0.13$ (Alternative)} && \multicolumn{4}{ c }{$\theta=0$ (Null)}\\
\cline{3-6} \cline{8-11}
Design Type&& Power & \textbf{ASN} & AAT & AI && Type I & \textbf{ASN} & AAT & AI\\
\hline
Info. Adaptive & Unadj. &88.4\%&\textbf{571} &1876 &582 & & 5.28\% &\textbf{569} &1871 &582\\
with $\mathcal{I}(\theta_A)=582$ & Stand. &87.3\%&\textbf{433} &1509 &567 & & 5.28\% &\textbf{402} &1427&568\\
& TMLE &87.5\%&\textbf{432} &1506 &571 & & 5.11\% &\textbf{402} &1428 &574\\ \\
Max. Sample Size& Unadj. &83.1\%&- &1683 &508 & & 5.14\% &- &1682 &509\\
with $n_{max}=498$ & Stand.&91.1\%&- &1682 &652 & & 5.14\% &- &1682 &705\\
& TMLE &91.7\%&- &1682 &659 & & 4.92\% &- &1682&713\\ \\
Max. Sample Size & Unadj. &88.4\%&- &1894 &589 & & 5.24\% &- &1894&591\\
with $n_{max}=578$ & Stand. &94.5\%&- &1893 &759 & & 5.13\% &- &1894 &821\\
& TMLE &94.6\%&- &1893 &768 & & 5.14\% &- &1894&829\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
{\raggedright Unadj., unadjusted estimator; Stand., standardization estimator; TMLE, targeted maximum likelihood estimator; ASN, average sample number; AAT, average analysis time (in days); AI, average information. \par}
\end{table}
The results show that the information adaptive design achieves the desired power of 88\% under the alternative $\theta_A=0.13$ for all three estimators.
For the maximum sample size design, the power depends on whether the true probability under control is smaller, larger or equal to its assumed value at the design stage.
For the unadjusted estimator and maximum sample size design, it requires 578 patients to achieve 88\% power. The covariate adjusted estimators combined with the maximum sample size design at sample size 578 achieve a higher power of respectively 94.5\% and 94.6\% for the standardization and targeted maximum likelihood estimators. This increase in power is a result of the increase in (average) information (i.e., higher precision) due to covariate adjustment (average information of 589 for the unadjusted estimator compared to 759 and 768 for the covariate adjusted estimators).
The maximum sample size design with 498 patients is not sufficient for the unadjusted estimator to achieve the 88\% power as desired; only 83.1\% of the 10,000 simulations are able to reject the null hypothesis. This underpower is a consequence of assuming a too low probability under control at the design stage, resulting in a too small sample size and information.
The simulation results under the null hypothesis ($\theta=0$) show that the Type 1 error of information adaptive and maximum sample size designs are (approximately) correct.
The information adaptive design allows one to fully employ efficiency gains from covariate adjustment, which here led to a shorter average duration and average sample number while maintaining the desired Type I error and power. On average, we observe a 24\% and 29\% reduction in sample size due to covariate adjustment under the alternative and null hypothesis, respectively. On the other hand, when conducting a maximum sample size design, efficiency gains due to covariate adjustment do not impact sample size or trial duration, but instead translate into higher power compared to the unadjusted estimator; the downside is that under the null hypothesis, the efficiency gains due to covariate adjustment are essentially wasted, unlike for the information adaptive design.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{\label{tab:data_sim_gsd}
Results for GSD's, comparing information adaptive vs. maximum sample size designs, with 3 different estimators. Goal is 88\% power.
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l l c c c c c cc}
\hline
Design Type&& Power & \textbf{ASN} & ASN1 & ASN2 & AAT& AAT1 & AAT2 \\
\hline
&& \multicolumn{7}{ c }{$\theta=0.13$ (Alternative)}\\
\cline{3-9}
Max. Sample Size & Unadj. & 83.6\% &\textbf{485} &415 &554 & 1465 &1098 &1831 \\
with $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$& Stand. &91.1\% & \textbf{466} & 415& 554 & 1364& 1098& 1830\\
& TMLE &91.5\% & \textbf{453}& 415 & 554 & 1297 & 1098 & 1830\\
Max. Sample Size & Stand. & 91.1\% & \textbf{466}& 415 & 554 & 1364& 1098& 1830\\
with $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$& TMLE &91.3\% & \textbf{453}& 415 & 554 & 1297 & 1098 & 1830\\ \\
Information Adaptive & Unadj. & 88.3\% & \textbf{534} & 460 & 636 & 1566& 1218 & 2047 \\
with $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$& Stand. &87.3\% & \textbf{428} & 387 & 483 & 1284& 1024 & 1641 \\
& TMLE & 88.1\% & \textbf{403} & 347 & 484 & 1214& 917 & 1644 \\
Information Adaptive & Stand. &87.2\% & \textbf{428} & 387 & 483 & 1284& 1024 & 1641 \\
with $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$& TMLE & 88.0\% & \textbf{403} & 347 & 484 & 1214& 917 & 1644 \\ \\
&& \multicolumn{7}{ c }{$\theta=0$ (Null)}\\
\cline{3-9}
Max. Sample Size & Unadj. & 5.18\% & \textbf{550} & 415 & 554 & 1809 & 1098 & 1831 \\
with $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$& Stand. &5.54\% & \textbf{549} & 415 & 554 & 1803& 1098 & 1831 \\
& TMLE &5.72\% &\textbf{548} & 415 & 554 & 1799& 1098 & 1830\\
Max. Sample Size & Stand. & 5.54\% & \textbf{549} & 415 & 554 & 1803& 1098& 1831\\
with $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$& TMLE &5.66\% &\textbf{548} & 415 & 554 & 1799& 1098 & 1830\\ \\
Information Adaptive & Unadj. & 5.29\% & \textbf{628} & 459 & 634 & 2014& 1215 & 2042 \\
with $\widehat\theta_{t_k}$& Stand. & 5.42\% & \textbf{446} & 370 & 449 & 1532& 978 & 1552\\
& TMLE & 5.26\% & \textbf{445} & 328 & 449 & 1528& 867 & 1552 \\
Information Adaptive & Stand. & 5.41\% & \textbf{446} & 370 & 449 & 1532& 978 & 1552 \\
with $\widetilde\theta_{t_k}$& TMLE & 5.24\% & \textbf{445} & 328 & 449 & 1528& 867 & 1552\\\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
{\raggedright Unadj., unadjusted estimator; Stand., standardization estimator; TMLE, targeted maximum likelihood estimator; ASN, average sample number; ASNj, average sample number at analysis $j$ ($j=1,2$); AAT, average analysis time (in days); AATj, average analysis time (in days) of analysis $j$ ($j=1,2$). \par}
\end{table}
For Aim (b), the empirical power, the Type I error, the average sample numbers and the average analyses times for the different estimators are summarized in Table \ref{tab:data_sim_gsd}.
For the information adaptive design, the average analysis time and sample number are considerably reduced for the covariate adjusted estimators compared to the unadjusted estimators, at both analyses. Specifically, for the standardization estimator, we observe an average reduction of 20\% and 29\% in sample size due to covariate adjustment under the alternative and null hypothesis, respectively. When using the targeted maximum likelihood estimator, these reductions are approximately 25\% and 29\%. The (small) differences between the two covariate adjusted estimators are a consequence of the fact that the targeted maximum likelihood estimator also incorporates information on intermediate outcomes and an additional baseline covariate.
The results show that the desired power of 88\% is achieved for the information adaptive group sequential design in combination with the different covariate adjusted estimators as well as the unadjusted estimator.
For a max. sample size group sequential design (i.e., with analysis times based on number of primary endpoints observed), the precision gain due to covariate adjustment leads to a higher power compared to the unadjusted estimator. As before, the actual power depends on the sample size which relies on assumptions for the probability of a successful outcome under control and the prognostic value of the baseline covariates (not shown here).
In addition, the Type I error is approximately controlled regardless of the estimator.
The small inflation in Type I error seems to decrease in larger samples (Appendix~\ref{app:addSim_large} of the Supplementary Materials) or when a small sample correction is used (Appendix~\ref{app:addSim_correction} of the Supplementary Materials). This inflation is not a result of a violation of the independent increments. On the contrary, this assumption appeared (surprisingly) to be satisfied in these simulations as the correlation between $\widehat{\theta}_2$ and $\widehat{\theta}_2-\widehat{\theta}_1$ were not significantly different from zero (at the 1\% significance level). This is also the reason why no real improvement from the orthogonalization is observed.
Additional simulation results show the improvement when the independent increments property is not satisfied for the original estimators (Appendix~\ref{app:sec:sim} of the Supplementary Materials). Finally, in Appendix~\ref{app:addSim_prognostic} of the Supplementary Materials we demonstrate how well the information adaptive design is able to perform for different prognostic values in the baseline variables
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:disc}
Our proposal to combine covariate adjustment with group sequential, information adaptive designs can help to achieve faster, more efficient trials without sacrificing validity or power. In particular, our approach can lead to faster trials even when the experimental treatment is ineffective; this may be more ethical in settings where it is desirable to stop as early as possible to avoid unnecessary exposure to side effects.
An alternative approach to apply group sequential methods in clinical trials, is to use the estimated covariance matrix to compute group sequential boundaries based on a multivariate integration \citep{kim2020independent}. Although the MULNOR program \citep{schervish1984multivariate} can be employed for this, such an approach has the drawback of being computationally intensive.
The multivariate integration approach also has the drawback of being more challenging for trial planning. For example, it cannot be directly combined with an information adaptive design as it is challenging to determine the inflation factor to account for the interim analyses. Finally, it lacks the simplicity of our proposal as it doesn't allow application of standard group sequential methods such as the \cite{pocock1977group} and \cite{o1979multiple} stopping boundaries or the \cite{gordon1983discrete} error spending function.
Although the simulation study has focused on estimators for binary endpoints, the approach can be used for all kind of endpoints (e.g., continous, ordinal, time-to-event, \dots) and estimands as long as the considered estimators are consistent RAL estimators (see Section~\ref{sec:notation}). In particular, our method can be applied to targeted maximum likelihood estimators.
Moreover, all of the theoretical results in this paper can be extended to handle combined use of stratified randomization (which is commonly done in practice) and covariate adjustment by using the general technique from \cite{wang2021model}.
In addition, our approach can be expanded to handle missing data due to drop-out under the missing at random assumption (conditional on the covariates and treatment assignment) by using doubly robust methods \citep[see e.g., Appendix B in][]{benkeser2020improving}.
Based on our simulation studies, we don't have an example where Type I error is highly inflated without using our proposal in Section~\ref{sec:GSD}.
Nevertheless, as we do not know the underlying data-generating mechanism and as the problem may potentially be worse for other data-generating mechanisms, it will be difficult to know in advance how big the Type I error inflation will be without our method. It is therefore safer to use the proposal as it guarantees to maintain the Type I error in large samples.
In the simulation studies, we saw a small inflation in the Type I error for our proposal (as well as other methods). This might be a consequence of on the one hand the unblinded information monitoring \citep[see e.g.,][]{friede2012blinded} and on the other hand the erratic behavior of standard Wald tests for a binomial proportion \citep[see e.g.,][]{brown2001interval}.
However, additional simulation studies (see Appendix~\ref{app:addSim_correction} of the Supplementary Materials) show that the variance estimator proposed in \cite{tsiatis2008covariate} to correct for the estimation of nuisance parameters in small samples decreases this inflation.
As the nonparametric BCa bootstrap \citep{efron1994introduction} has shown to improve the results for covariate adjusted estimators \citep{benkeser2020improving}, this is another direction for future research.
We also want to investigate the performance of the proposed methods for permutation based inference as they provide exact control of the Type I error.
In addition, blinded continuous information monitoring that does not require breaking the treatment code may help to decrease the inflation in Type I error in smaller samples \citep{friede2012blinded}. Blinded estimation for the standardization estimator in the simulations (see Appendix~\ref{sec:covAdj} of the Supplementary Materials) is discussed in \cite{VanLancker2020}.
We considered covariate adjusted estimators that use
prespecified baseline variables.
Another option is to use a prespecified variable selection algorithm (i.e., a data adaptive method). A future research direction is to investigate how the proposed methods can be combined with variable and/or model selection.
\texttt{R} functions to implement the methodology described in Section~\ref{sec:GSD} and Section~\ref{sec:inf} are available on Github at (GitHub link removed so as not to reveal author names).
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:1}
The characteristics of a quantum state without any classical analog
are fundamental and key issue of quantum physics \cite{Nielsen}.
Formally, one can introduce different forms of nonlocal correlations
to characterize these intriguing characteristics, including Bell
nonlocality confirming the nonexistence of the local hidden variable
model \cite{Bell1,Bell2}, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) steering
confirming the nonexistence of the local hidden state model
\cite{steer1,steer2}, quantum entanglement originating from the
superposition principle of states \cite{QE}, and quantum discord
which is rooted in the noncommutativity of operators \cite{QD}.
These nonlocal correlations are crucial physical resources for
quantum communication and computation tasks which outperform their
classical counterparts.
For a given quantum state, when one assumes no-signaling among its
parties, the monogamy relation imposes constraints on the number
of observers who can share the quantum correlations in this state
\cite{monoe,monon,monos,monoc,monod}. But if the no-signaling
condition is partially relaxed, e.g.,
a single Bob holds half of an entangled pair, while multiple
Alices (say, Alice$_1$, Alice$_2$, etc.) hold the other half of that
pair and perform weak measurements sequentially and independently
on their half, then the prior measurement of Alice$_1$ implicitly
signals to Alice$_2$ by her choice of measurement setting,
likewise, Alice$_2$ signals to Alice$_3$, and so on.
Thereby the monogamy constraints might be relaxed to allow sequential
sharing of quantum correlations. In this context, a double
violation of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality with
equal sharpness of measurements has been theoretically predicted
\cite{shareBT1,shareBT2,shareBT3,shareBT4} and experimentally
verified \cite{shareBE1,shareBE2,shareBE3}. Further studies showed
that an unbounded number of CHSH violations can be
achieved using weak measurements with unequal sharpness
\cite{shareBT6,shareBT7,shareBT8}. The weak measurement scenario has
also been extended to investigate sequential sharing of tripartite
Bell nonlocality \cite{shareBT9}, EPR steering \cite{shareST1,
shareST2,shareST3,shareST4}, and bipartite entanglement \cite{shareET1}.
Then an open question to ask is whether other forms of quantum
correlations could be sequentially shared, especially for those
beyond the two-qubit case or stronger than Bell nonlocality.
As a fundamental property in quantum theory, quantum coherence is
not only an embodiment of the superposition principle of states,
but is also intimately related to quantum correlations among the
constituents of a system \cite{Ficek}. In particular, following the
resource theory of entanglement \cite{QE} and quantum discord \cite{QD},
Baumgratz \etal \cite{coher} introduced a resource theoretic
framework for quantifying coherence, within which the fascinating
properties and potential applications of coherence have been investigated
in a number of contexts \cite{Plenio,Hu,Wu,ad1,ad2,ad3}. The resource theory of
coherence can also be used to interpret those already known quantum
correlations \cite{coen1,coen2,coen3,coqd1,coqd2,coqd3,coqd4} and
introduce other quantifiers of correlations \cite{Hu}, among which is
the nonlocal advantage of quantum coherence (NAQC) \cite{naqc1,naqc2}.
It is captured by violations of the coherence steering inequalities,
which is similar to the Bell nonlocality captured by violation of
the CHSH inequality \cite{CHSH}. Specifically, for a
$(d\times d)$-dimensional state $\rho_{AB}$ with $d$ being a power of a prime
(hereafter, we call it the two-qudit state), when the steered
coherence on $B$ after local measurements on $A$ exceeds a threshold,
we say that there is NAQC in the sense that such a coherence is
unattainable for any product state. As for its hierarchy with other
quantum correlations, the set of states with NAQC forms a subset of
entangled states \cite{naqc1,naqc2} and for the $d=2$ case, it is
also a subset of Bell nonlocal states \cite{naqc3}.
In this work, we investigate how many Alices could sequentially
demonstrate NAQC with a single Bob. We first analyze the
information-disturbance trade-off of the $d$-dimensional unsharp
measurements. Then in the context of unsharp measurements, we show
that different from the sequential sharing of Bell nonlocality
\cite{shareBT1,shareBT2,shareBT3,shareBT4,shareBE1,shareBE2,
shareBE3,shareBT6,shareBT7,shareBT8,shareBT9}, EPR steering
\cite{shareST1,shareST2,shareST3,shareST4}, and entanglement
\cite{shareET1}, at most one Alice can demonstrate the NAQC with Bob.
In particular, such a limit exists even when one considers the
weak measurements with optimal pointer states. These results may
enrich our comprehension on the interplay between NAQC and
measurements on high-dimensional systems.
\section{Characterization of the NAQC} \label{sec:2}
In 2014, Baumgratz \textit{et al.} \cite{coher} introduced a resource
theoretic framework for quantifying coherence. Within this framework,
the incoherent states are defined as those described by the diagonal
density operators, and for a given state described by the density
operator $\rho$, the amount of coherence could be quantified by its
minimal distance to the set $\mathcal{I}$ of incoherent states in the
same Hilbert space. By fixing the basis $\{|i\rangle\}$ which can be
recognized as the normalized eigenbasis of a Hermitian operator
$\mathcal{O}$, Baumgratz \textit{et al.} \cite{coher} further
identified two coherence measures, that is, the $l_1$ norm and
relative entropy of coherence, which are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq2-1}
C_{l_1}^\mathcal{O}(\rho)= \sum_{i\neq j} |\langle i| \rho|j\rangle|,~
C_{re}^\mathcal{O}(\rho)= S(\rho_{\mathrm{diag}})-S(\rho),~
\end{equation}
where the subscripts $l_1$ and $re$ indicate the metrics of the two
coherence measures, while $S(\rho)$ and $S(\rho_{\mathrm{diag}})$
are the von Neumann entropies of $\rho$ and $\rho_{\mathrm{diag}}=
\sum_i \langle i |\rho |i\rangle |i\rangle\langle i|$, respectively.
Starting from the above coherence measures, one can then introduce
the NAQC which captures the nonlocal property of a bipartite state.
Specifically, the NAQC characterizes the ability of one party to
steer the coherence of the other one when they share a two-qudit
state $\rho_{AB}$. To illustrate such a nonlocal characteristics, we
suppose qudit $A$ ($B$) belongs to Alice (Bob) and denote by
$\{A^v\}$ the set of $d+1$ mutually unbiased observables. Alice
measures randomly one of the observables on qudit $A$ and informs
Bob of her choice $A^v$ and outcome $a$. Then the conditional state
of qudit $B$ will be given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq2-2}
\rho_{B|\Pi^v_a}= \tr_A[(\Pi^v_a \otimes \iden)\rho_{AB}(\Pi^v_a \otimes \iden)]/p_{\Pi^v_a},
\end{equation}
where $\Pi^v= \{\Pi^v_a\}$ denotes the measurement operator of Alice,
$\iden$ is the identity operator, and $p_{\Pi^v_a}=
\tr[(\Pi^v_a \otimes \iden) \rho_{AB}]$ is the probability of Alice's
measurement outcome $a$.
After Alice's local measurements, Bob can measure coherence of the
conditional states on $B$ in different reference bases. In the first
framework, Bob chooses with equal probability $1/d$ one of the
eigenbasis of $\{A^u\}_{u\neq v}$, then one can obtain the average
steered coherence (ASC) $N_{AB}^\alpha(\rho_{AB})$ ($\alpha=l_1$ or
$re$) and the criterion for capturing NAQC in $\rho_{AB}$ is given
by \cite{naqc1,naqc2}
\begin{equation}\label{eq2-3}
N_{AB}^\alpha(\rho_{AB})= \frac{1}{d}\sum_{u\neq v,a} p_{\Pi^v_a}
C_\alpha^{A^u}(\rho_{B|\Pi^v_a})
> N_c^\alpha,
\end{equation}
where the critical value $N_c^\alpha$ is obtained by first summing
the single-qudit coherence over the $d+1$ mutually unbiased bases and
then maximizing it over all the single-qudit states \cite{naqc2}. In
the second framework, Bob chooses the eigenbasis of $A^{\beta_v}$
after Alice's measurement $\Pi^v$, with $\beta=\{\beta_v\}_{v=0}^d$
being a permutation of the set $\{0,1,\ldots,d\}$ with elements
$\beta_v$. Then the criterion for capturing NAQC in $\rho_{AB}$
becomes \cite{naqc2}
\begin{equation} \label{eq2-4}
\mathcal{N}_{AB}^{\alpha}(\rho_{AB})= \max_{\{\beta_v\}} \sum_{v,a}
p_{\Pi^v_a} C_{\alpha}^{A^{\beta_v}}(\rho_{B|\Pi^v_a})
> N_c^\alpha,
\end{equation}
where the maximum is taken over the $(d+1)!$ (the factorial of $d+1$)
possible permutations of $\{0,1,\ldots,d\}$.
For the special $d=2$ case, the sharing of NAQC captured by the
criterion of Eq. \eqref{eq2-3} has been studied
\cite{sharenaqc,sharenaqce}. However, Eq. \eqref{eq2-3} is less
efficient than Eq. \eqref{eq2-4} in capturing NAQC \cite{naqc2},
hence we will focus on the latter when discussing sharing of NAQC
by sequential observers.
\section{Framework of unsharp measurements} \label{sec:3}
In the framework of von Neumann-type measurement \cite{von}, the
measurement process on a $d$-dimensional state $\rho_0$ implies
interaction of the system with the apparatus which induces the map:
$\mathcal {E}(\rho_0\otimes|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|) = \sum_{i j}
\Pi_i\rho_0 \Pi_j \otimes |\phi_i\rangle\langle\phi_j|$, where
$\{\Pi_i\}$ denotes the measurement operators, $|\phi\rangle$
is the initial pointer state of the apparatus, and
$|\phi_i\rangle$ is the postmeasurement state of the pointer
associated with the outcome $i$. By tracing out the pointer
states one can obtain the nonselective postmeasurement state as
$\rho= \sum_{ij}\Pi_i\rho_0 \Pi_j\langle\phi_i|\phi_j\rangle$,
where $\langle \phi_i |\phi_j \rangle$ may be different for
different $i\neq j$. Without loss of generality, here we consider
$\langle\phi_i|\phi_j\rangle\equiv F$ ($\forall i\neq j$) for
simplicity, then $\rho$ can be reformulated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-m1}
\rho = F\rho_0+(1-F)\sum_i \Pi_i\rho_0\Pi_i,
\end{equation}
where $F\in[0,1]$ is the quality factor of the measurement, with
$F= 0$ corresponding to the usual projective (strong) measurement.
$F$ measures the extent to which the system state remains
undisturbed after the measurement and depends on the pointer of
the apparatus by its definition \cite{shareBT1}.
One point to be stressed here is that the reduced disturbance of
a weak measurement will induce reduced information gain. To
quantify such a quantity (i.e., the information gain or precision
of the measurements), one needs to choose a complete orthogonal
set of states $\{|\varphi_i\rangle\}$ as reading states because
the set $\{|\phi_i\rangle\}$ is non-orthogonal. As a result, the
probability of getting the outcome $i$ and the associated
(unnormalized) postmeasurement state $\rho_i=\langle \varphi_i|
\mathcal{E}(\rho_0\otimes|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|)|\varphi_i\rangle$
are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-m2}
\begin{aligned}
p_i= \, & \tr(\Pi_i\rho_0)|\langle\varphi_i|\phi_i\rangle|^2+ \sum_{j\neq i}\tr(\Pi_j\rho_0)|\langle\varphi_i|\phi_j\rangle|^2, \\
\rho_i= \, & \Pi_i\rho_0\Pi_i |\langle\varphi_i|\phi_i\rangle|^2
+ \sum_{j\neq i} \Pi_j\rho_0\Pi_j |\langle\varphi_i|\phi_j\rangle|^2 \\
& +\sum_{m\neq n} \Pi_m\rho_0\Pi_n \langle\varphi_i|\phi_m\rangle \langle\phi_n|\varphi_i\rangle,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $|\langle\varphi_i|\phi_i\rangle|^2$
($|\langle\varphi_i|\phi_{j\neq i}\rangle|^2$) is the probability
of obtaining the correct (wrong) outcome. When the measurement is
unbiased, i.e., $|\langle\varphi_i|\phi_i\rangle|^2$ is
independent of $i$ and $|\langle\varphi_i|\phi_{j\neq i}\rangle|^2$
is independent of $j\neq i$, Eq. \eqref{eq3-m2} can be
reformulated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-m3}
\begin{aligned}
p_i= \, & G\tr(\Pi_i\rho_0)+\frac{1-G}{d}, \\
\rho_i= \, & \frac{\mathcal{F}}{d}\rho_0+ \frac{1+d_1G- \mathcal{F}}{d}\Pi_i\rho_0\Pi_i \\
& +\frac{1-G- \mathcal{F}}{d}\left(\sum_{j\neq i}\Pi_j\rho_0\Pi_j+\sum_{m\neq n \atop m,n\neq i}\Pi_m\rho_0\Pi_n \right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $G=1-d |\langle\varphi_i|\phi_{j\neq i}\rangle|^2$ is the
precision of the measurement which quantifies the information gain
from the measured system and we have denoted by $\mathcal{F}=
[(1+d_1G)(1-G)]^{1/2}$, where $d_1=d-1$. $G$ also depends on the
pointer states of the measuring apparatus. Usually, one has the
trade-off $F^2+G^2\leqslant1$, and for $F^2+G^2=1$, the trade-off
is said to be optimal in the sense that the measurement yields the
highest precision for a given quality factor \cite{shareBT1}.
In this paper, we follow the framework of Refs. \cite{shareBT1,
shareBT2,shareST2} and consider the $d$-dimensional unsharp
measurements represented by the set of effect operators
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-1}
E^v = \bigg\{E^v_a \mid E^v_a= \lambda \Pi^v_a+\frac{1-\lambda}{d}\iden, a=0,1,\ldots,d-1 \bigg\},
\end{equation}
where $\{E^v_a\}$ represents the measurement settings with $d$
possible outcomes per setting, $0< \lambda\leqslant 1$ represents the
sharpness parameter, and $\Pi^v_a=|\phi^v_a\rangle\langle\phi^v_a|$
is the projector. In the following, we restrict ourselves to
$\Pi^v_a$ ($v=0,1,\ldots,d$) constructed
by the $d+1$ mutually unbiased bases \cite{MUB1,MUB2}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-2}
\begin{aligned}
&\left|\phi^0_a\right\rangle= \sum_{n=0}^{d-1} \delta_{an} |n\rangle,~
\left|\phi^d_a\right\rangle= \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_{n=0}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}an} |n\rangle, \\
&\left|\phi^r_a\right\rangle= \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_{n=0}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}r(a+n)^2} |n\rangle~ (r=1,\ldots,d-1),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{an}$ is the Delta function and $i$ represents the
imaginary unit. One can note that the unsharp measurement operator
$E^v_a$ corresponds to a linear combination of the projector
$\Pi^v_a$ with the white noise. It satisfies the relation
$\sum_a E^v_a= \iden$ ($\forall v$) and belongs to the class of
positive-operator-valued measurements. In contrast to the
conventional strong measurement which enables an extraction of the
maximum information and destroys completely the system to be
measured, for the unsharp measurements the system is weakly coupled
to the probe and thus provides less information about the system
while producing less disturbance \cite{weak1,weak2}. Hence, the
postmeasurement states retain some original properties of the
measured system which might be observed by the subsequent observers.
Moreover, $E^v_a$ reduces to the projective (strong)
measurements when $\lambda=1$, and for such a special case, the
basis comprising $\Pi^v_a$ is an essential ingredient for
introducing the flag additivity condition which is equivalent to
the strong monotonicity and convexity of a coherence measure
\cite{new1,new2}.
Note that for $d=2$, the effect operators can also be written as
$E_\pm=(\iden\pm \lambda\hat{n}\cdot\vec{\sigma})/2$, where
$\hat{n}$ is a unit vector in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\vec{\sigma}$
is a vector composed of the three Pauli operators.
From Eq. \eqref{eq3-1} one can obtain that for any initial state
$\rho_0$, the nonselective postmeasurement state is given by \cite{Luders}
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-n1}
\rho= \sum_a \sqrt{E^v_a} \rho_0 \sqrt{E^v_a}
= \lambda_0 \rho_0 +(1-\lambda_0)\sum_a \Pi^v_a\rho_0\Pi^v_a,
\end{equation}
and the probability of getting the outcome $a$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-n2}
p_{E^v_a}= \tr(E^v_a \rho_0)= \lambda \tr(\Pi^v_a \rho_0)+ \frac{1-\lambda}{d},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-n3}
\lambda_0= \frac{1}{d}\left[(d-2)(1-\lambda)
+2\sqrt{1+(d-2)\lambda-d_1\lambda^2}\right].
\end{equation}
Then by comparing Eqs. \eqref{eq3-m1} and \eqref{eq3-m3} with Eqs.
\eqref{eq3-n1} and \eqref{eq3-n2}, one can see that the quality
factor and precision of the unsharp measurements \eqref{eq3-1} are
respectively given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-n4}
F= \lambda_0,~ G= \lambda.
\end{equation}
Hence unsharpening the measurements with a parameter $\lambda$
enables the control of the trade-off between disturbance and
information gain. For $d=2$, one always has the optimal trade-off
$F^2+G^2=1$. But for the prime $d\geqslant 3$, $F^2+G^2\leqslant 1$,
and the equality holds only for $\lambda=1$, which corresponds to
$F=0$ and $G=1$, namely, the case of a projective (strong)
measurement \cite{shareBT1}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{0.44 \textwidth}{!}
\includegraphics{figure1.eps}}
\caption{The trade-off between the quality factor $F$ and
precision $G$ for the unsharp measurements \eqref{eq3-1}. The
solid lines from top to bottom correspond to the primes $d$
ranging from 2 to 29, where the topmost line for $d=2$ also
corresponds to the optimal trade-off. For comparison, the
trade-off for the Gauss pointer (dashed) and square pointer
(dash-dotted) are also shown in this figure.} \label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:1} we give a plot of the trade-off between the
quality factor $F$ and precision $G$ for the unsharp measurements
of Eq. \eqref{eq3-1} with the first ten primes, and for comparison,
we also show the trade-off for the Gauss pointer considered
usually and the simple square pointer \cite{shareBT1}. For $d=2$,
as mentioned before, it saturates the optimal trade-off constraint
$F^2+G^2=1$, i.e., for any $F$, there exists optimal measurement
pointer that achieves the maximum $G$ \cite{shareBT1}. For the
prime $d\geqslant3$, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1}, although the
corresponding trade-off is not optimal, it is still better than
that given by the Gauss pointer for any $F$ (if $d=3$) or when
$F$ is smaller than a threshold (if $d\geqslant 5$), and with an
increase in $d$, it approaches gradually the trade-off $F+G=1$
given by the square pointer \cite{shareBT1}.
\section{Sharing NAQC by sequential observers} \label{sec:4}
To address the question for sequential sharing of the NAQC, we
consider a scenario in which multiple Alices (say, Alice$_1$,
Alice$_2$, etc.) have access to half of an entangled qudit pair
and a spatially separated single Bob has access to the other half,
and they agree on the measurement settings $\{E^v\}$ in prior
\cite{{shareBT1}}. First, Alice$_1$ and Bob share the state
$\rho_{A_1B}$ and Alice$_1$ proceeds by choosing randomly one of
$\{E^v\}$ and performs the unsharp measurements on qudit $A_1$.
She then passes the measured qudit (we rename it as qudit $A_2$)
on to Alice$_2$ who measures again and passes it on to Alice$_3$,
and so on until the last Alice. During the whole process, every
Alice is assumed to be ignorant of the measurement settings chosen
by the former Alices, that is, communications among them are
forbidden and each Alice chooses independently and randomly one
of the measurement setting. Our aim is to determine the maximum
number of Alices whose statistics of measurements can demonstrate
NAQC with a spatially separated single Bob.
\subsection{Sharing NAQC between Alice$_1$ and Bob} \label{sec:4a}
For the given $\rho_{A_1B}$, Alice$_1$ proceeds by choosing
randomly the measurement setting $E^v$, performing the unsharp
measurements \eqref{eq3-1} on $A_1$ and recording her outcomes.
Then within the L\"{u}ders rule \cite{Luders}, the selective
postmeasurement states can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-3}
\rho_{A_1 B|E^v_a}= \left(\sqrt{E^v_a} \otimes \iden\right) \rho_{A_1B}
\left(\sqrt{E^v_a} \otimes \iden\right) \big/ p_{B|E^v_a},
\end{equation}
where $p_{B|E^v_a}=\tr [(E^v_a \otimes\iden)\rho_{A_1B}]$ is the
probability of the measurement outcome $a$, and the square roots
of the unsharp measurements can be obtained as \cite{shareST2}
\begin{equation}\label{eq3-4}
\begin{aligned}
&\sqrt{E^v_a}= \left( \sqrt{\frac{1+d_1\lambda}{d}}-\sqrt{\frac{1-\lambda}{d}}\right)\Pi^v_a
+\sqrt{\frac{1-\lambda}{d}}\iden,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where as said before, we have defined $d_1=d-1$.
To proceed, we suppose that Alice$_1$ and Bob initially share the
following maximally entangled two-qudit state
\begin{equation}\label{eq3a-1}
|\Psi\rangle_{A_1B}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} |kk\rangle,
\end{equation}
then from Eq. \eqref{eq3-3} one can obtain the postmeasurement
states $\rho_{A_1B|E^v_a}$ contingent upon Alice$_1$'s unsharp
measurement $E^v$ on $A_1$ with outcome $a$. By further tracing
over $A_1$ one can obtain the conditional states of qudit $B$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3a-2}
\begin{aligned}
&\rho_{B|E^0_a}= \frac{1-\lambda_1}{d}\iden
+\lambda_1 |a\rangle \langle a|, \\
&\rho_{B|E^d_a}= \frac{1}{d}\iden
+\frac{\lambda_1}{d}
\sum_{n_{1,2}=0 \atop n_1\neq n_2}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}a(n_2-n_1)}
|n_1\rangle \langle n_2|, \\
&\rho_{B|E^r_a}= \frac{1}{d}\iden
+\frac{\lambda_1}{d}
\sum_{n_{1,2}=0 \atop n_1\neq n_2}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}r\theta_{a,n_{1,2}}}
|n_1\rangle \langle n_2|,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_1$ is the sharpness parameter of Alice$_1$,
$r=1,\ldots,d-1$, and the probability of obtaining
$\rho_{B|E^v_a}$ is given by $p_{B|E^v_a}=1/d$ ($\forall v,a$).
Besides, we have defined $\theta_{a,n_{1,2}}= (a+n_2)^2-
(a+n_1)^2$ for convenience of later presentation.
\begin{table}[!h]
\tabcolsep 0pt
\caption{Bob's reference basis to measure the coherence of the collapsed states on qudit $B$, where $r=1, \ldots, d-1$.} \label{tab:1}
\vspace{-12pt}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.20}
\def\temptablewidth{0.48\textwidth}
{\rule{\temptablewidth}{1pt}}
\begin{tabular*}{\temptablewidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}cclll}
\rm{Bob's collapsed state} & \rm{Bob's reference basis} \\ \hline
$\rho_{B|E^0_a}$ & $\{|\phi^d_a\rangle\}$ \\
$\rho_{B|E^d_a}$ & $\{|\phi^0_a\rangle\}$ \\
$\rho_{B|E^r_a}$ & $\{|\phi^r_a\rangle\}$
\end{tabular*}
{\rule{\temptablewidth}{1pt}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The states $\rho_{B|E^0_a}$, $\rho_{B|E^d_a}$, and
$\rho_{B|E^r_a}$ ($r=1, \ldots, d-1$) are diagonal in
the bases $\{|\phi^0_a\rangle\}$, $\{|\phi^d_a\rangle\}$, and
$\{|\phi^{d-r}_a\rangle\}$, respectively. For any $\rho_{B|E^v_a}$,
its coherence in the basis $\{|\phi^u_a\rangle\}$ with
$u\in\{0,1,\ldots,d\}$ are the same apart from the one mentioned
above under which it is diagonal. So for convenience of later
calculations, we assume that Bob chooses the bases
$\{|\phi^d_a\rangle\}$, $\{|\phi^0_a\rangle\}$, and
$\{|\phi^r_a\rangle\}$ to measure the coherences of
$\rho_{B|E^0_a}$, $\rho_{B|E^d_a}$, and $\rho_{B|E^r_a}$,
respectively (see Table \ref{tab:1}). Then by transforming the
collapsed states given in Eq. \eqref{eq3a-2} to the bases shown
in Table \ref{tab:1}, one can obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq3a-3}
\begin{aligned}
&\varrho_{B|E^0_a}= \frac{1}{d}\iden
+\frac{\lambda_1}{d}
\sum_{n_{1,2}=0 \atop n_1\neq n_2}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}a(n_2-n_1)}
\left|\phi_{n_1}^d\right\rangle \left\langle\phi_{n_2}^d\right|, \\
&\varrho_{B|E^d_a}= \frac{1}{d}\iden
+\frac{\lambda_1}{d}
\sum_{n_{1,2}=0 \atop n_1\neq n_2}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}a(n_2-n_1)}
\left|\phi_{n_1}^0\right\rangle \left\langle\phi_{n_2}^0\right|, \\
&\varrho_{B|E^r_a}= \frac{1}{d}\iden
+\frac{\lambda_1}{d^2}
\sum_{n_{1,2}=0 \atop n_1\neq n_2}^{d-1}
\sum_{k_{1,2}=0}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}r\varphi_{a,k_{1,2},n_{1,2}}}
\left|\phi_{n_1}^r\right\rangle \left\langle\phi_{n_2}^r\right|,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_{a,k_{1,2},n_{1,2}}=\theta_{a,k_{1,2}}+(k_2+n_2)^2
-(k_1+n_1)^2$.
The eigenvalues of $\rho_{B|E^v_a}$ ($\forall v,a$) are
$\epsilon_0= (1+d_1\lambda_1)/d$ with degeneracy $1$ and
$\epsilon_1= (1-\lambda_1)/d$ with degeneracy $d_1$. Then
in the scenario where Alice$_1$ chooses $E^v$ with probability
$p_{A|E^v}=1/(d+1)$ ($\forall v$), the two forms of ASC
attainable by Bob could be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3a-4}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}^{l_1}_{A_1 B}= \, & (d^2-1)\lambda_1, \\
\mathcal{N}^{re}_{A_1 B}= \, & \frac{d+1}{d}\big[(1+d_1\lambda_1)\log_2(1+d_1 \lambda_1) \\
& +d_1(1-\lambda_1)\log_2(1-\lambda_1)\big].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{0.44 \textwidth}{!}
\includegraphics{figure2.eps}}
\caption{The critical sharpness parameter $\lambda_{1,c}^\alpha$
($\alpha=l_1$ or $re$) stronger than which Alice$_1$ can demonstrate
NAQC with Bob versus the prime $d$.} \label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
From Eq. \eqref{eq3a-4} one can obtain the critical sharpness
parameter $\lambda_{1,c}^{l_1}= \sqrt{d/(d+1)}$ stronger than
which Alice$_1$ can demonstrate the $l_1$ norm of NAQC with Bob.
Similarly, one can obtain numerically the critical
$\lambda_{1,c}^{re}$ stronger than which Alice$_1$ can
demonstrate the relative entropy of NAQC with Bob. In Fig.
\ref{fig:2}, we give a plot of the critical $\lambda_{1,c}^\alpha$
versus the prime $d$. It is clear that it always increases with
an increase in $d$. Besides, it follows from Eqs. \eqref{eq3-n4}
and \eqref{eq3a-4} that for any fixed prime $d$,
$\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_1 B}$ ($\alpha=l_1$ or $re$) is solely
determined by the precision of the unsharp measurements of
Alice$_1$.
\subsection{Sharing NAQC between Alice$_2$ and Bob} \label{sec:4b}
To proceed, we see whether the measurement statistics of two
Alices can demonstrate NAQC with Bob. As we consider a sequential
steering scenario, after finishing the unsharp measurement $E^v$,
Alice$_1$ passes the measured qudit $A_1$ on to Alice$_2$ who is
independent of her, namely, the classical information regarding
the measurement setting and the outcome of Alice$_1$ is not
conveyed. Then according to the L\"{u}ders transformation rule
\cite{Luders}, the state she shared with Bob can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-1}
\rho_{A_2B|E^v}= \sum_{a=0}^{d-1} \left(\sqrt{E^v_a}\otimes\iden\right)
\rho_{A_1B} \left(\sqrt{E^v_a}\otimes\iden \right),
\end{equation}
where we have denoted by $\rho_{A_2B|E^v}$ the output state of
Alice$_1$'s unsharp measurements $E^v=\{E^v_a\}$. Then for
$\rho_{A_1B}$ of Eq. \eqref{eq3a-1}, one can obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-2}
\begin{aligned}
&\rho_{A_2B|E^0}= \lambda_0 \rho_{A_1B}
+\frac{1-\lambda_0}{d}
\sum_{n=0}^{d-1}
|nn\rangle \langle nn|, \\
&\rho_{A_2B|E^d}= \lambda_0 \rho_{A_1B}
+ \frac{1-\lambda_0}{d^3}
\sum_{n,n_{1,2}, \atop k_{1,2}=0}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}\xi_{n,n_{1,2},k_{1,2}}}
|n_1n_2\rangle \langle k_1k_2|, \\
&\rho_{A_2B|E^r}= \lambda_0 \rho_{A_1B}
+ \frac{1-\lambda_0}{d^3}
\sum_{n,n_{1,2}, \atop k_{1,2}=0}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}r\zeta_{n,n_{1,2},k_{1,2}}}
|n_1n_2\rangle \langle k_1k_2|, \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_0$ can be obtained directly by substituting
$\lambda$ in Eq. \eqref{eq3-n3} with $\lambda_1$ and we have
defined
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-3}
\begin{aligned}
& \xi_{n,n_{1,2},k_{1,2}}=n(n_1-n_2-k_1+k_2), \\
& \zeta_{n,n_{1,2},k_{1,2}}= \theta_{n,n_{1,2}}-\theta_{n,k_{1,2}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
After receiving the qudit from Alice$_1$, Alice$_2$ performs
the measurements $\{E^v_a\}$ on it (we rename it as qudit
$A_2$) with the sharpness parameter $\lambda_2$. As Alice$_2$ is
assumed to be ignorant of the measurement setting chosen by
Alice$_1$ when measuring the qudit which is now in her possession,
she has to consider the average effect of all possible measurement
settings of Alice$_1$, that is, the NAQC Alice$_2$ shared with Bob
has to be averaged over the $d+1$ possible outputs of Alice$_1$
given in Eq. \eqref{eq3b-2}.
First, for $\rho_{A_2B|E^0}$, one can obtain the selective
postmeasurement states $\rho_{B|E^0E^v_a}$ ($v=0,1,\ldots,d$) of Bob after
Alice$_2$'s unsharp measurement $ \{E^v_a\}$ on qudit $A_2$,
whose forms are similar to $\rho_{B|E^v_a}$ in Eq. \eqref{eq3a-2}.
To be explicit, one could obtain $\rho_{B|E^0E^0_a}$
($\rho_{B|E^0E^d_a}$ and $\rho_{B|E^0E^r_a}$) by substituting the
parameter $\lambda_1$ in $\rho_{B|E^0_a}$ ($\rho_{B|E^d_a}$ and
$\rho_{B|E^r_a}$) with $\lambda_2$ ($\lambda_0\lambda_2$). Thereby, the
$l_1$ norm of coherence for $\rho_{B|E^0E^0_a}$ is $d_1\lambda_2$
and that for both $\rho_{B|E^0E^d_a}$ and $\rho_{B|E^0E^r_a}$ is
$d_1\lambda_0\lambda_2$. Thus the $l_1$ norm of ASC attainable
from $\rho_{A_2B|E^0}$ can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-4}
\mathcal{N}^{l_1}_{A_2 B|E^0}(\rho_{A_2B|E^0})= d_1(1+d\lambda_0)\lambda_2.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the eigenvalues of $\rho_{B|E^0 E^0_a}$ can be obtained
as $\varepsilon_0= (1+d_1\lambda_2)/d$ with degeneracy $1$ and
$\varepsilon_1= (1-\lambda_2)/d$ with degeneracy $d_1$, while
those for $\rho_{B|E^0 E^d_a}$ and $\rho_{B|E^0 E^r_a}$ can be
obtained directly by substituting $\lambda_2$ in
$\varepsilon_{0,1}$ with $\lambda_0\lambda_2$, hence the relative
entropy of ASC for $\rho_{A_2B|E^0}$ can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-5}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}^{re}_{A_2 B|E^0}(\rho_{A_2B|E^0})= \, & (1+d)\log_2 d -H_2\left(\frac{1+d_1\lambda_2}{d}\right) \\
& -d_1 \left(1-\lambda_0\lambda_2+\frac{1-\lambda_2}{d}\right)\log_2 d_1 \\
& -dH_2\left(\frac{1+d_1\lambda_0\lambda_2}{d}\right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $H_2(\cdot)$ is the binary Shannon entropy function.
Next, for $\rho_{A_2B|E^d}$ of Eq. \eqref{eq3b-2}, the selective
postmeasurement state $\rho_{B|E^d E^d_a}$ of qudit $B$ after
Alice$_2$'s measurement $\{E^d_a\}$ is similar to
$\rho_{B|E^d_a}$ in Eq. \eqref{eq3a-2}, with however the parameter
$\lambda_1$ being replaced by $\lambda_2$, while the
postmeasurement state $\rho_{B|E^d E^0_a}$ ($\rho_{B|E^d E^r_a}$)
of Bob after Alice$_2$'s measurement $\{E^0_a\}$ ($\{E^r_a\}$) is
similar to $\rho_{B|E^0_a}$ ($\rho_{B|E^r_a}$) of Eq.
\eqref{eq3a-2}, with however the parameter $\lambda_1$ being
replaced by $\lambda_0\lambda_2$. As a result, the $l_1$ norm and
relative entropy of ASCs attainable from $\rho_{A_2B|E^d}$ have the
same form as that given in Eqs. \eqref{eq3b-4} and \eqref{eq3b-5},
respectively.
Finally, for $\rho_{A_2B|E^r}$ with $r=1,\ldots,d-1$, the
selective postmeasurement state $\rho_{B|E^r E^0_a}$
($\rho_{B|E^r E^d_a}$) of qudit $B$ after Alice$_2$'s measurement
$\{E^0_a\}$ ($\{E^d_a\}$) on qudit $A_2$ is similar to
$\rho_{B|E^0_a}$ ($\rho_{B|E^d_a}$) in Eq. \eqref{eq3a-2},
with however the parameter $\lambda_1$ being replaced by
$\lambda_0\lambda_2$. In addition, the selective postmeasurement
state $\rho_{B|E^r E^s_a}$ ($s=1,\ldots,d-1$) of qudit $B$ after
Alice$_2$'s measurement $\{E^s_a\}$ on qudit $A_2$ can be obtained
as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-6}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_{B|E^r E^s_a}=\, & \frac{1}{d}\iden
+\frac{\lambda_2}{d}
\sum_{n_{1,2}=0 \atop n_1\neq n_2}^{d-1}
\Bigg[\lambda_0
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}s\theta_{a,n_1,n_2}} \\
& +\frac{1-\lambda_0}{d^2}\sum_{n,k_{1,2}=0}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}\varsigma_{a,n,k_{1,2},n_{1,2}}} \Bigg]
|n_1\rangle\langle n_2|,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
then by transforming it to the reference basis
$\{|\phi^s_a\rangle\}$ (see Table \ref{tab:1}), one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-7}
\begin{aligned}
\varrho_{B|E^r E^s_a}= \, & \frac{1}{d}\iden
+\frac{\lambda_2}{d^2}
\sum_{n_{1,2}=0 \atop n_1\neq n_2}^{d-1}
\Bigg[\lambda_0
\sum_{k_{1,2}=0}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}s\varphi_{a,k_{1,2},n_{1,2}}} \\
& +\frac{1-\lambda_0}{d^2}
\sum_{n,j_{1,2} \atop k_{1,2}=0}^{d-1}
e^{i\frac{2\pi}{d}\chi_{a,n,j_{1,2},k_{1,2},n_{1,2}}} \Bigg]
\left|\phi_{n_1}^s\right\rangle \left\langle \phi_{n_2}^s\right|,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-8}
\begin{aligned}
\varsigma_{a,n,k_{1,2},n_{1,2}}= \, & s\theta_{a,k_{1,2}}- r(\theta_{n,k_{1,2}}+\theta_{n,n_{1,2}}), \\
\chi_{a,n,j_{1,2},k_{1,2},n_{1,2}}= \, & r(\theta_{n,k_{1,2}}-\theta_{n,j_{1,2}})+s[(a+k_2)^2 \\
& -(a+j_2)^2+(n_2+k_1)^2 - (n_1+j_1)^2].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For $\varrho_{B|E^r E^s_a}$ of Eq. \eqref{eq3b-7}, the $l_1$ norm
of coherence is given by $d_1\lambda_2$ for $s= r$ and
$d_1\lambda_0\lambda_2$ for $s\neq r$. Similarly, the eigenvalues
of $\varrho_{B|E^r E^s_a}$ for $s= r$ are $\varepsilon_0=
(1+d_1\lambda_2)/d$ with degeneracy $1$ and $\varepsilon_1=
(1-\lambda_2)/d$ with degeneracy $d-1$, while the eigenvalues of
$\varrho_{B|E^r E^s_a}$ for $s\neq r$ could be obtained directly
by substituting $\lambda_2$ in $\varepsilon_{0,1}$ with
$\lambda_0\lambda_2$. Then after some algebra, one can obtain that
the $l_1$ norm and relative entropy of ASCs attainable from
$\rho_{A_2B|E^r}$ also have the same form as that given in Eqs.
\eqref{eq3b-4} and \eqref{eq3b-5}, respectively.
Since we are concerned with an unbiased input scenario, all the
possible measurement settings of Alice$_1$ are equiprobable, i.e.,
her probability of choosing the measurement setting $E^v$ is
$p_{A|E^v}= 1/(d+1)$ ($\forall v$), thus the steerable coherence
for Alice$_2$ and Bob can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-9}
\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}= \sum_v p_{A|E^v} \mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B|E^v}(\rho_{A_2B|E^v}),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha=l_1$ or $re$. By substituting $p_{A|E^v}= 1/(d+1)$
and the associated ASC for $\rho_{A_2B|E^0}$,
$\rho_{A_2B|E^d}$, and $\rho_{A_2B|E^r}$ ($r=1,\ldots,d-1$) into
Eq. \eqref{eq3b-9}, one can obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-10}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}^{l_1}_{A_2 B}=\,& d_1(1+d\lambda_0)\lambda_2, \\
\mathcal{N}^{re}_{A_2 B}=\, & (1+d)\log_2 d- d_1 \left(1-\lambda_0\lambda_2+\frac{1-\lambda_2}{d}\right)\log_2 d_1 \\
& -H_2\left(\frac{1+d_1\lambda_2}{d}\right)
-dH_2\left(\frac{1+d_1\lambda_0\lambda_2}{d}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{0.44 \textwidth}{!}
\includegraphics{figure3.eps}}
\caption{$\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}-N^\alpha_{c}$ ($\alpha=l_1$
or $re$) versus the prime $d$ with $\lambda_1=\lambda_{1,c}^\alpha$
and $\lambda_2=1$. Their dependence on small $d$ are also shown in
the insets to better visual the behavior.} \label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
As mentioned before, $\lambda_0$ depends on $\lambda_1$, so
$\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}$ ($\alpha=l_1$ or $re$) for
Alice$_2$ and Bob is determined by both the quality factor of
Alice$_1$'s measurements and the precision of Alice$_2$'s
measurements. Eq. \eqref{eq3b-10} also reveals that
$\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}$ decreases with the increasing
disturbance (i.e., increasing precision) of Alice$_1$'s
measurements and for any fixed disturbance of Alice$_1$, Alice$_2$
can enhance $\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}$ by improving the
precision of her measurements. Under the condition of guaranteeing
the observation of NAQC for Alice$_1$ and Bob,
$\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}$ takes its maximum when the
measurement of Alice$_2$ is sharp (i.e., $\lambda_2=1$) and the
sharpness parameter $\lambda_1$ of Alice$_1$ is a slightly
stronger than $\lambda_{1,c}^\alpha$. In Fig. \ref{fig:3} we show
the $d$ dependence of $\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}-N^\alpha_{c}$
with $\lambda_1=\lambda_{1,c}^\alpha$ and $\lambda_2=1$ (the
hollow circles). It can be seen that it decreases with the
increase of the prime $d$ and is always smaller than 0. This
indicates that when Alice$_1$ steers successfully the NAQC on
Bob's side, Alice$_2$ will cannot steer it again.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{0.44 \textwidth}{!}
\includegraphics{figure4.eps}}
\caption{Plot of $\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}$ ($\alpha=l_1$ or $re$)
in the parameter region $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ in which Alice$_2$
can steer the NAQC on Bob for $d=2$ and 3, and in the orange shaded
regions, Alice$_1$ can steer the NAQC on Bob (note that Alice$_1$'s
ability to steer the NAQC is independent of $\lambda_2$).} \label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
Having clarified the fact that Alice$_2$ cannot steer the NAQC
on qudit $B$ when Alice$_1$ steers it successfully, it is definite
that the subsequent Alices (i.e., Alice$_n$ with $n\geqslant 3$)
also can never steer the NAQC. Now, the issue that remains is
whether Alice$_2$ can steer the NAQC after Alice$_1$'s unsharp
measurements with $0<\lambda_1\leqslant\lambda_{1,c}^\alpha$, namely,
Alice$_1$'s measurements are unable to extract enough information
to observe the NAQC. To address this precisely, we further display
in Fig. \ref{fig:4} dependence of $\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}$
($\alpha=l_1$ or $re$) on $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ for two
primes $d=2$ and 3, and in the same figure we also show the regions
of $\lambda_1$ in which Alice$_1$ can steer the NAQC on qudit $B$.
Looking at this figure, one can see that there exists parameter
region $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ in which Alice$_2$ can steer the
NAQC, and to ensure Alice$_2$'s steerability of the NAQC, the
sharpness parameter $\lambda_1$ of Alice$_1$'s measurements should
be weaker than a threshold $\lambda_{1,t}^\alpha$. From Fig.
\ref{fig:4} one can also note that such a parameter region shrinks
with an increase in the prime $d$. In particular, in the region
of $\lambda_1\in [\lambda_{1,t}^\alpha,\lambda_{1,c}^\alpha]$,
both Alice$_1$ and Alice$_2$ cannot steer the NAQC, that is,
Alice$_1$ should tune the sharpness of her measurement,
as an unappropriate strength of measurement will prevent both of
them from demonstrating the NAQC. All these show evidently that
no matter how the sharpness parameters $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$
are chosen, at most one Alice (i.e., Alice$_1$ or
Alice$_2$) can demonstrate NAQC with a spatially separated Bob.
By comparing Eqs. \eqref{eq3a-4} and \eqref{eq3b-10} one can
further note that $\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_1 B}$ and
$\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}$ show an opposite dependence on
$\lambda_1$. That is to say, the enhancement of Alice$_1$'s
steerable coherence implies the degradation of Alice$_2$'s, and
vice versa. In some sense, one may recognize this as a kind of
sequentially monogamous characteristics of NAQC, as it sets limit
on the possibility for Alice$_1$ and Alice$_2$ to steer the
NAQC with Bob simultaneously, even if the resource state is
maximally entangled.
Note that for the $d=2$ case, our results also apply to NAQC
captured by the criterion of Eq. \eqref{eq2-3}, the sequential
sharing of which has been discussed in Ref. \cite{sharenaqc,
sharenaqce}. But there are minor errors in \cite{sharenaqce}
related to the relative entropy of NAQC.
As we showed above, for the unbiased inputs of Alice$_2$ (i.e.,
equiprobable measurement settings for Alice$_1$), it is impossible
for the NAQC of an entangled pair of qudits be distributed between
two Alices who act sequentially and independently of each other.
Then another interesting question to ask is whether Alice$_2$
could demonstrate NAQC when the inputs to her are biased. This
question is important by itself as Alice$_2$ is ignorant of
Alice$_1$'s measurement setting, thereby her premeasurement state
is a mixture of the collapsed states of Alice$_1$'s possible
measurements weighted by their probabilities. To answer this
question, we resort again to the amounts of steered coherence
discussed above for $\rho_{A_2B|E^v}$ ($v=0,1,\ldots,d$) of Eq.
\eqref{eq3b-2}. As mentioned before, the different
$\rho_{A_2B|E^v}$ yields the same steerable coherence, thus even
there is input bias for Alice$_2$, it does not change the limit
that it is impossible for more than one Alice to demonstrate
NAQC with Bob.
It is also relevant to ask whether the above conclusion also holds
in a scenario where Alice$_1$ measures the qudit $A_1$ with unequal
sharpness, e.g., Alice$_1$ performs the measurement $E^v$ with
sharpness parameter $\lambda_{1,v}$. In this case, following the
similar derivations as in the previous sections, one can show that
Alice$_2$ still cannot demonstrate NAQC with Bob if Alice$_1$ can
do so. For example, when $d=2$ and Alice$_2$'s measurement is
sharp, one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b-11}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}_{A_1B}^{l_1}= \sum_v \lambda_{1,v},~
\mathcal{N}_{A_2B}^{l_1}= 1+\frac{2}{3}\sum_v \sqrt{1-\lambda_{1,v}^2},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
then one can show that the maximal NAQC for Alice$_2$ and Bob corresponds
to $\lambda_{1,v} =\lambda_1$ ($\forall v$). Thus she still cannot
demonstrate NAQC with Bob.
One may also be concerned with the issue that whether the
number of Alices sequentially sharing the NAQC could be enhanced
when we consider the weak measurement with optimal pointer
\cite{shareBT1}. For $d=2$, as said, it is already optimal. For
the general prime $d$, by using Eq. \eqref{eq3-m3} and after some
algebra similar to those for the unsharp measurements, it can be
found that although $\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_2 B}$ can be enhanced
to some extent (see the solid circles in Fig. \ref{fig:3}), it
still cannot exceed $N^{\alpha}_c$ under the condition of
$\mathcal{N}^{\alpha}_{A_1 B}>N_c^\alpha$. This confirms again
that at most one Alice can demonstrate NAQC with Bob. But it
should be note that although there is no NAQC in the
postmeasurement states of Eq. \eqref{eq3b-2}, there are still
other forms of residual quantum correlations. For example, for
the $d=2$ case, when $\mathcal{N}_{A_1B}^{l_1}=2.50$, one can get
a $14.26\%$ violation of the CHSH inequality for all the
postmeasurement states of Alice$_1$ \cite{CHSH}.
Lastly, when $d$ is a power of a prime, a complete set of
$d+1$ mutually unbiased bases also exists \cite{MUB2}, and one can
show in a similar way that all the above results also apply to
this case. But as the NAQC were defined only for $d$ being a prime
or a prime power \cite{naqc2}, the formulation of NAQC and its
sequential sharing for a general $d$ are still open questions.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:5}
In conclusion, we have investigated sequential sharing of NAQC in
the $(d\times d)$-dimensional (i.e., two-qudit) state, with $d$
being a power of a prime. We consider these high-dimensional
states, as compared with the two-dimensional ones, not only
enrich our comprehension of the nonlocal characteristics in quantum
theory but also show many
advantages in quantum communication tasks such as the high
channel capacity and security \cite{adv1,adv2,adv3,adv4,adv5}. By
considering a scenario in which multiple Alices perform their
unsharp measurements sequentially and independently of each other
on the same half of an entangled qudit pair and a single Bob
measures coherence of the collapsed states on the other half,
we showed that for both the metrics (i.e., the $l_1$ norm and
relative entropy) used for quantifying coherence and for both the
unbiased and biased input scenarios, at most one Alice can
demonstrate NAQC with Bob. Moreover, we showed that the conclusion
also holds even when one considers the weak measurements with the optimal
pointer, even when Alice$_1$'s measurement settings are biased, or
when she measures the qudit with unequal sharpness associated with
different measurement settings.
The results presented above indicate that there exists a strict
limit on the number of Alices whose statistics of measurements can
demonstrate NAQC with a spatially separated Bob. This provides an
alternative dimension in the context of sequential sharing of
quantum correlations and might shed light on the interplay between
quantum measurement and quantum correlations for high-dimensional
states. Furthermore, in the sense that the maximum number of
observers being able to sequentially sharing quantum correlations
is inherently related to the hierarchy of the strengths of quantum
correlations, for example, Bell-CHSH nonlocality could be shared
by not more than two unbiased observers
\cite{shareBT1,shareBT2,shareBT3} and EPR steering could be shared
by at most $n$ observers when the steering inequality based on $n$
measurement settings is used \cite{shareST1,shareST2}, it is
intuitive to conjecture that the observation that the NAQC can be
shared by at most one observer might indicate that it
characterizes a kind of quantum correlation which is stronger
than Bell nonlocality for the general two-qudit states, just as
that for the two-qubit states \cite{naqc3}. Of course, further
study is still needed to provide a rigorous proof of this
conjecture. As there are other coherence measures \cite{Plenio,Hu},
deriving the associated criteria for capturing NAQC and exploring
whether they could provide an advantage over those considered in
this work in the context of NAQC sharing is another direction for
future studies. Moreover, how such a strong quantum correlation
can be used in practical communication and computation tasks would
also be worth pursuing in the future.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant Nos. 11675129 and 11934018), the Strategic Priority
Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDB28000000),
and Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. Z200009).
\newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett. }
\newcommand{\RMP}{Rev. Mod. Phys. }
\newcommand{\PRA}{Phys. Rev. A }
\newcommand{\PRB}{Phys. Rev. B }
\newcommand{\PRD}{Phys. Rev. D }
\newcommand{\PRE}{Phys. Rev. E }
\newcommand{\PRX}{Phys. Rev. X }
\newcommand{\NJP}{New J. Phys. }
\newcommand{\JPA}{J. Phys. A }
\newcommand{\JPB}{J. Phys. B }
\newcommand{\OC}{Opt. Commun.}
\newcommand{\PLA}{Phys. Lett. A }
\newcommand{\EPJB}{Eur. Phys. J. B }
\newcommand{\EPJD}{Eur. Phys. J. D }
\newcommand{\NP}{Nat. Phys. }
\newcommand{\NC}{Nat. Commun. }
\newcommand{\EPL}{Europhys. Lett. }
\newcommand{\AdP}{Ann. Phys. (Berlin) }
\newcommand{\AoP}{Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) }
\newcommand{\QIC}{Quantum Inf. Comput. }
\newcommand{\QIP}{Quantum Inf. Process. }
\newcommand{\CPB}{Chin. Phys. B }
\newcommand{\IJTP}{Int. J. Theor. Phys. }
\newcommand{\IJQI}{Int. J. Quantum Inf. }
\newcommand{\IJMPB}{Int. J. Mod. Phys. B }
\newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rep. }
\newcommand{\SR}{Sci. Rep. }
\newcommand{\LPL}{Laser Phys. Lett. }
\newcommand{\SCG}{Sci. China Ser. G }
\newcommand{\JMP}{J. Math. Phys. }
\newcommand{\RPP}{Rep. Prog. Phys. }
\newcommand{\PA}{Physica A }
\newcommand{\SCPMA}{Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. }
|
\section{Abstract}
\label{abs}
We study the movement of the living organism in a band form towards the presence of chemical substrate based on a system of partial differential evolution equations. We incorporate the Einstein's method of Brownian motion to deduce the chemotactic model exhibiting travelling band. It is the first time that Einstein method has been used to motivate equations describing mutual interaction of chemotactic system. In addition to considering chemotactic response and the random motion of organism, we also consider the formation of crowd by organism via interactions within or between the community. This crowd effect can also be seen as any organism travel or migrate in a herd or group in search of food. We have shown that in the presence of limited and unlimited substrate traveling bands are achievable and it has been explained accordingly.
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
The celebrated work of Einstein's theory of Brownian motion \cite{Einstein05} offered the existence of discrete molecule that are too small to be seen through a microscope but the resulting motion should be visible through microscope. In this theory, he argued that agitated particles in a suspended water are the results due to the collisions with molecules. Hence he constructed a model governing its motion with respect to nearby particles. Since then, the stochastic development of this approach has been incorporated into all the natural sciences, engineering, linguistics, finance, economics, and even the social sciences.\par
`Chemotaxis' is a biological phenomena by which organisms change their state of movements either toward or away from the chemical substance. This migration can be seen in cells ranging from bacteria to mammal. Cells of organism senses the higher gradient of chemoattractants and move in that direction. During this process of movement towards the chemical gradient, in a detailed inspection, the motion created by each individual cell appears to be erratic. This randomicity arises not only from the chemotactic response but also from the random jumps of cells. We argued that the Einstein's theoretical framework of Brownian motion can describe the chemotactic response and random motion of organism. \par
In addition, we consider the formation of crowd by organism via interactions within or between the community. Many or most bacteria conduct cell-cell communication secreting chemical molecules, knows as, Quorum sensing \cite{quorum01}. This communication can happen both within and between bacterial species due to the presence of signal molecule, called "autoinducers" \cite{GOBBETTI200734} . In food related pathogen, after autoinducers make the bacteria aware of the existence of food, a certain threshold concentration of bacteria should be formed to trigger the event where independent bacteria accumulate into that formation and behave collectively. This collective network bestows upon bacteria some advantages such as ability to migrate to a better environment containing more favourable resources or grow in a more cooperative fashion and increase the chance of survival and thriving. The suitability of our model, as per our expectation, is not just restricted to bacteria-sugar relation but also for any prey-predator interaction. For instance, a quorum response in vertebrate animal groups such as three-spine sticklebacks fish can be seen to play a role in the movement decisions of fish \cite{Ward6948}. Vertebrates use social cues and signal from a group and responds to the behavior if a certain threshold number of members is present in that group.\par
In this study, our assumptions involve two movements and interactions of organisms that takes in place simultaneously: interactions between and within organisms and movement of organisms towards substrate. Hence the formations of the crowd get affected by the response of organism to the presence of chemical substrate. Therefore, the distance between any two entity is proportional to the change in the distance between the entity and the food. Note that, the growth or reproduction is excluded from our model as traveling band is possible even in the absence of multiplicative cell. Also, chemical interactions between chemical substrates which form new components have not been considered.\par
In the Section~\ref{Einstein}, we will derive the chemotactic model motivated by Einstein's random walk model. We present exhibition of traveling band in two cases: environment with unlimited supply of food described in the Section~\ref{unlimited} and environment with limited supply of food explained in the Section~\ref{limited}. In the Section~\ref{dis}, some numerical results will be presented in support of our findings.
\section{Derivation of Einstein's model with consumption/reaction term}
\label{Einstein}
To formulate the partial differential equation (PDE) model, an existence of time interval $\tau$ between the collision of two particles is required. The interval $\tau$ is ``sufficiently small'' compared to the time scale $t$ of observation of the physical process, but not so small that the motions become correlated. Suppose $u(x,t)$ is the number of the particles (such as bacteria, glucose or predator, prey etc) per unit volume (density or concentration). Then, we will consider the following Einstein's general conservation law which gives the number of particles found at time $t+ \tau$ between two planes perpendicular to the $x$-axis, with abscissas $x$ and $x+ d x$, is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Eins_b_sys}
u(x, t+\tau) \cdot dx= \left(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} u(x+ \Delta, t) \varphi(\Delta) d \Delta +\int_{t}^{t+\tau} f(x,\xi)d\xi\right)\cdot dx.
\end{equation}
Time interval ($\tau$), distance traveled during the free jump ($\Delta$) and probability density function of jump ($\varphi$) can be functions of spatial distance $x$ and the time variable $t$ and of any other physical quantity such as density or number of particles etc. In our case, we will assume, for now, $\tau$ to be independent of concentration of particles $u$. And $\varphi(\Delta)$ is fixed with respect to $u(x,t)$. During the time interval $[t,t+\tau]$ in the unit volume around the particle located at the observation point $x$, it is possible that absorption and/or reaction with other particles (or with the suspending medium) occur. In Eq.~\eqref{Eins_b_sys}, $f(x,t)$ has been defined as the growth of the crowd of particles due to the chemotactic response per unit volume or the consumption rate by the particles per unit volume.\par
Also we define the following basic properties:
\begin{definition}\label{axiom:Delta-e}(Expected value of the length of free jump)
\begin{equation*}
\Delta_{e}=\int \Delta\varphi(\Delta)d\Delta.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{sigma-b}(Standard variance of free jump)
\begin{equation*}
\sigma^2= \int(\Delta-\Delta_{e})^2 \varphi(\Delta) d \Delta.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
Now by Caratheodory theorem on differentiability \cite{rah20}, there exists a function $\psi_{1}(x,t)$ such that for any smooth function $u(x,t)$
\begin{equation*}\label{Caratheodory}
u(x, t+ \tau)= u(x, t)+ \tau \psi_{1}(x,t+\tau) ,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\tau\to 0} \psi_{1}(x,t+\tau)= \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial t},
\end{equation*}
or
\begin{equation*}
\psi_{1}(x,t+\tau)\approx \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial t}.
\end{equation*}
similarly, for functions $\psi_{2}(x + \Delta ,t)$ and $\psi_{2}(x + \Delta ,t)$,
\begin{align*}
\psi_{2}(x + \Delta_e ,t)&\approx \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x},\\
\psi_{3}(x + \Delta_e ,t)&\approx \frac{\partial^2 u(x,t)}{\partial x^2}.
\end{align*}
And
\begin{equation*}\label{Caratheodory-x}
u(x+\Delta, t)= u(x, t)+ \Delta \psi_{2}(x+\Delta,t+\tau)\approx u(x,t)+ \Delta\frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x}.
\end{equation*}
Using above generic properties, we add and subtract $u(x+\Delta_e, t)$ on the right hand side of the Eq.~\eqref{Eins_b_sys} and then we compute as following
\begin{align}
&u(x, t+\tau)- u(x+ \Delta_e, t)\cdot dx = \nonumber\\
&\Bigg(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \bigg(u(x+ \Delta, t)-u(x+ \Delta_e,t)\bigg) \varphi(\Delta) d \Delta +\int_{t}^{t+\tau} f(x,\xi)d\xi \Bigg)\cdot dx. \nonumber
\end{align}
After applying Charatheodory theorem for derivatives, we will get
\begin{align}
&u(x,t)+\tau \psi_{1}(x,t+\tau)-u(x,t)-\Delta_{e} \psi_{2}(x+\Delta_{e},t) = \nonumber\\
&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \bigg(\psi_{2}(x+\Delta_{e},t) (\Delta-\Delta_e) +\psi_{3}(x+\Delta_e,t) (\Delta-\Delta_{e})^2\bigg)\varphi(\Delta) d \Delta \nonumber\\
& +\int_{t}^{t+\tau} f(x,\xi)d\xi .\nonumber
\end{align}
Using properties of the function $\psi$ for first and second derivatives in the vicinity of the point $(x,t)$, we will get
\begin{align}
&\tau \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}-\Delta_{e}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial u}{\partial x}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}( \Delta-\Delta_e) \varphi(\Delta)d \Delta+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} (\Delta-\Delta_{e})^2 \varphi(\Delta) d \Delta \nonumber\\
&+\int_{t}^{t+\tau} f(x,\xi)d\xi. \label{eins der}
\end{align}
With Definitions~\ref{axiom:Delta-e} and \ref{sigma-b}, Eq.~\eqref{eins der} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{final ein der}
\tau \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=\Delta_{e}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}+\frac{1}{2} \sigma^2 \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}+\int_{t}^{t+\tau} f(x,\xi)d\xi.
\end{equation}
\section{Derivation of chemotactic system when the availability of substrate is unlimited}\label{unlimited}
Let $u(x,t)$ and $v(x,t)$ be the concentration of organism and chemical substrate (food or any chemical attractor) per unit volume respectively with $x$ being the distance along the tube and $t$, the time.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{bacteria_food.pdf}
\caption{A virtual representation of the interactions between organism (bacteria) and chemical substrates (Glucose).}
\label{fig:bacteria_food}
\end{figure}
The corresponding expression of the Eq.~\eqref{final ein der} for organism is
\begin{equation}\label{c_final ein der}
\tau_{u} \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=\Delta_{e,u}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}+\frac{1}{2} \sigma^2_{u} \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}+\int_{t}^{t+\tau_{u}} f_{u}(x,\xi)d\xi.
\end{equation}
\begin{hypo}\label{prob func on s}
The chemotactic response of the organism $u(x,t)$ in the medium is influenced by the presence of chemical substrate $v(x,t)$. Therefore we hypothesize that probability density function $\varphi$ not only depends on the length of free jumps $\Delta$ but also on the spatial gradient of concentration of substrate $v(x,t)$ present in the medium. To be more specific, we assume that chemotactic response, which causes the event of movement of the organism towards food (or any attractor), is proportional to relative changes of $v$ in space with respect to the amount of food. Then by Definitions~\ref{axiom:Delta-e} and \ref{sigma-b}, $\Delta_{e,u}$ and $\sigma_{u}$ also depend on $v(x,t)$. Mathematically, the dynamics of directed movement characterised by expected value of free jump $\Delta_{e,u}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{Delab-def-A}
\Delta_{e,u}(v) = -\beta \frac{1}{v} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x}= -\beta \frac{\partial \ln v}{\partial x}
\end{equation}
with $\beta$ being a positive chemotactic coefficient and having dimension $ [L^2]$, which can be interpreted as a chemotactic factor for classification of the living organism.
\end{hypo}
\begin{assumption}
Although in real life, standard deviation is a composite parameter depending on $v, \ \nabla v, \ u, \nabla u, \ x, \ t, etc$, in this article, we consider the dynamics of processes with constant standard deviation.
Namely
\begin{equation}\label{sigma-def}
\sigma^{2}_{u} (v)= \mu,
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the motility parameter or diffusion coefficient of the organism with dimension $[L^2]$.
We also assume that chemotactic factor $\beta$ is constant. Both $\mu$ and $\beta$ can be obtained from analyses of the dynamics of process, using image processing.
\end{assumption}
\begin{hypo}\label{croud-movement}
$f_u$ is the number of organism per unit volume that form the crowd through quorum sensing in the domain containing chemical substrate. Therefore, $f_u$ depends on both $u$ and $v$. Let $\gamma_{0}$ is the rate of certain threshold concentration of organism (quorum) to be present in the crowd formation to trigger the event of accumulation of organism. We will call the coefficient $\gamma_0$ quorum rate.
Therefore, we define the rate of the movement of the organism to be proportional to the gradient (spatial changes) of expected free jump of substrate $v(x,t)$ per cell,
\begin{equation}\label{Fb-def}
\int_{t}^{t+\tau_{u}} f_u(x,\xi)d\xi \approx \tau_u u(x,t) F_u (u,v) = \tau_{u} u \gamma_{0}\frac{\partial \Delta_{e,u} (v)
}{\partial x} =-u \tau_{u} \gamma \frac{\partial^2 \ln v
}{\partial x^2}.
\end{equation}
Here $\gamma = \beta \gamma_{0}$ is the crowd effect stimulation coefficient, a positive constant with dimension $[ \frac{L^2}{T}]$.
\end{hypo}
Therefore, under above assumptions we get,
\begin{equation}\label{b_sys}
\tau_u \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = -\beta \frac{\partial \ln v}{\partial x}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}+ \frac{\mu}{2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} -\tau_{u}\gamma u\frac{\partial^2 \ln v}{\partial x^2}.
\end{equation}
The first term on the right hand side of Eq.~\eqref{b_sys} is the chemotactic response of the organism, i.e., part of the flux of organism due to chemotaxis is proportional to the chemical gradient. The second term is the change in the density of organism due to random motion. And the last term on the right represents the crowd formed by the complex interactions between organism- organism and organism-substrate.\par
And the concentration $v(x,t)$ of chemical substrate can be given by the equation,
\begin{equation}\label{der_s_sys}
\tau_v \frac{\partial v}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} \Delta_{e,v} +\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2_v\frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial x^2}+ \int_{t}^{t+\tau_{v}} f_v(x,\xi) d\xi
\end{equation}
\begin{assumption} Food (chemical substrate) is considered to be immovable, so no chemical interaction between particles of substrates is possible under our assumption. Hence,
$$\Delta_{e,v}=0,$$
and
$$\sigma^{2}_{v} = D,$$
with $D$ being the diffusion constant of chemical substrate.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption} $f_v$ is defined to be the consumption by substrate cells,
\begin{equation*}\label{cons-of-s}
\int_{t}^{t+\tau_{v}} f_v(x,\xi) d\xi= \tau_{v} F_v(u,v)= - \tau_{v}k(v)u,
\end{equation*}
where $k(v)$ is the rate of consumption of the substrate with dimension $[\frac{1}{T}]$.
\end{assumption}
Under assumptions, Eq.~\eqref{der_s_sys} can be written as
\begin{equation*}\label{s_sys}
\tau_{v} \frac{\partial v}{\partial t} = -\tau_{v} k(v)u+ D \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial x^2}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{assumption}
We will assume $D=0$ and in the presence of abundance of substrate, the rate of the consumption of the food $k(v)$ does-not depend on the concentration of the food.Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{k-const}
k(v)=k=constant.
\end{equation}
\end{assumption}
Finally, the reduced system of equations are
\begin{subequations}\label{mod2}
\begin{align}
L_1 u &=\tau \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} +\beta \frac{\partial \ln v}{\partial x}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}- \frac{\mu}{2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} +\tau \gamma u\frac{\partial^2 \ln v}{\partial x^2}= 0 \label{red b_sys}\\
L_2 v &=\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} +k u\label{red s_sys}= 0
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In above system, for simplicity, $\tau=\tau_u$.
We will consider so called family of solutions with no initial data that exhibits traveling wave phenomena. Namely, we will construct baseline solution which, at any given time $t$, will have the shifted invariant.
The only constraint which will be imposed will be at $\pm\infty.$
\begin{remark}
$\gamma_0 \propto \frac{1}{\tau}$. Since, concentration of organism $u \propto \frac{1}{\tau}$, then $u \propto \gamma_0$. Which can be interpreted physically as in the presence of less concentration of organism the quorum rate can afford to be smaller to stimulate the crowd effect phenomena.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}\label{travel_band} (Traveling Band)
Consider x vary from $+\infty$ to $-\infty$. A system exhibit traveling band if the solutions are in the following form
\begin{equation}\label{chng var}
u(x,t)=u(\zeta) \text{, } v(x,t)=v(\zeta) \text{, } \zeta=x-c t
\end{equation}
where $c>0$ is the constant band speed.
\end{definition}
The following theorems can be proved to show that the system described above exhibits traveling wave phenomena.
\subsection{ Model without crowd effect for unlimited substrates
}\label{unlimited_alpha=0}
If $\beta - \gamma \tau = 0$, i.e., $\gamma_0 =\frac{1}{\tau}$, then our model gives the following form similar to the classic Keller-Segel model \cite{KELLER1971225} \& \cite{KELLER1971235}:
\begin{subequations}\label{mod1}
\begin{align}
L_{1,0} u &=\tau \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} +\beta \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(u \frac{\partial \ln v}{\partial x}\right)- \frac{\mu}{2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} = 0\label{red b_sys_eq}\\
L_{2,0} v &=\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} +k u\label{red s_sys_eq}= 0
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{theorem}\label{unlimited-food}
With the solution in the form of Eq.~\eqref{chng var}, the system \eqref{mod1} exhibit traveling band form in solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
With the convention $\frac{d}{d\zeta}='$ and Eq.~\eqref{chng var}, the Eqs.~\eqref{red b_sys_eq} and \eqref{red s_sys_eq} are reduced to
\begin{align}
L_{1,0} u &= \tau c u^{'} - \beta \big(u v^{-1} v^{'} \big)^{'}+ \frac{\mu}{2} u^{''} \label{ch red b_sys}=0,\\
L_{2,0} v &= c v^{'} - k u\label{ch red s_sys}=0.
\end{align}
And the appropriate conditions at $\pm\infty$ are
\begin{equation}\label{bd_cond}
u \xrightarrow{} 0 \text{, } u^{'} \xrightarrow{} 0 \text{, } v \xrightarrow{} v_\infty \text{, as } \zeta \xrightarrow{} \infty
\end{equation}
where $v_{\infty}$ is positive constant.
First integrate Eq.~\eqref{ch red b_sys} once and obtain,
\begin{equation}\label{first_int_b}
\tau c u - \beta u v^{-1} v^{'} + \frac{\mu}{2} u^{'} + constant=0.
\end{equation}
By conditions \eqref{bd_cond}, constant is 0. Then dividing the Eq.~\eqref{first_int_b} by $u$, we have
\begin{equation*}\label{(ln u)'-equation}
(\tau c\zeta +\frac{\mu}{2}\ln u)' = (\beta \ln v)^{'}.
\end{equation*}
Integrating gives,
\begin{equation}\label{soln b_sys_old}
u= C_{1} v^{\frac{2 \beta}{\mu}} e^{-\frac{2\tau c \zeta}{\mu}}.
\end{equation}
Here $C_{1}$ is the constant of integration and is positive.
Substituting the expression of $u$ into Eq.~\eqref{ch red s_sys} and integrating with conditions \eqref{bd_cond}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{soln s_sys}
v=\bigg[\frac{1}{2}C_{1} k c^{-2}\tau^{-1} \mu (\frac{2 \beta}{\mu}-1) e^{-\frac{2\tau c \zeta}{\mu}}+v_{\infty}^{-\frac{2 \beta}{\mu}+1}\bigg]^{-\frac{1}{\frac{2 \beta}{\mu}-1}}.
\end{equation}
If we consider the constrain
\begin{equation}\label{mu_res}
d = \frac{2 \beta}{\mu}>1
\end{equation}
The solution \eqref{soln b_sys_old} satisfies,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} \infty}u = 0 \text{ and } \lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} -\infty}u = 0.
\end{equation*}
Also, due to the assumption \eqref{mu_res}, Eq.~\eqref{soln s_sys} exhibits the following behavior,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} \infty}v = v_{\infty} \text{ and } \lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} -\infty}v = 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
Consider the setting $\frac{1}{2}C_{1} k c^{-2}\tau^{-1}\mu (d-1)=v_{\infty}^{-\frac{2\beta}{\mu}+1}$ with the intention of achieving simplest expression for $v(\zeta)$ in Eq.~\eqref{soln s_sys}. Then function of $u$ is not monotone and maximum is achieved with the value,
\begin{equation*}
u_{max} = 2 c^{2} \tau k^{-1} \mu^{-1} v_{\infty} d^{-(\frac{d}{d-1})}
\end{equation*}
at \begin{equation*}
\zeta=\frac{\mu}{2\tau c}\ln(\frac{1}{d -1}).
\end{equation*}
Where the function $v$ is monotonically increasing from $zero$ to constant $v_\infty$.
Note that, $v_\infty$ is the certain threshold concentration of food that initiates the consumption of food by any living organism.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
With Eq.~\eqref{soln s_sys}, we get
\begin{equation}
v = v_{\infty} \big(1 + e^{-\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta}\big)^{-\frac{1}{d-1}}\label{cor_s_sys_mod1}
\end{equation}
and the corresponding expression for $u$ is
\begin{align}
u
= &\frac{2 c^{2} \tau k^{-1} \mu^{-1}}{d -1} v_{\infty} \big(e^{-\frac{2\tau c}{\mu}\zeta}+1\big)^{-\frac{d}{d - 1}}e^{-\frac{2\tau c}{\mu}\zeta}.\label{cor_b_sys_mod1}
\end{align}
Differentiating Eq.~\eqref{cor_b_sys_mod1} with respect to $\zeta$, we get
\begin{align*}
u^{'} &= -\frac{2\tau c}{\mu} u \Big(1-\frac{d}{d -1} \big(1+e^{\frac{2\tau c}{\mu}\zeta}\big)^{-1}\Big) .
\end{align*}
Then, $u_{max}$ occurs at $\zeta=\frac{\mu}{2\tau c}\ln(\frac{1}{d-1})$. And, so
\begin{align*}
u_{max} &= 2 c^{2} \tau k^{-1} \mu^{-1} v_{\infty} d^{-(\frac{d}{d-1})}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{ Model with crowd effect for unlimited substrates
}
\label{lim_alpha_neq_0}
In this section, we consider biological system when quorum rate is $\gamma_0\neq \frac1\tau$. We will also assume that pattern for the food itself is scaled by factor $\exp{(\lambda t)}$ compare to the base-line case, and is subject to scale the traveling-band pattern such in previous section.\par
If $\alpha = \gamma \tau- \beta \neq 0$, then Eqs.~\eqref{red b_sys} and \eqref{red s_sys} are reduced to:
\begin{align}
L_{1} u &=\tau \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} +\beta \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\bigg(\frac{\partial \ln v}{\partial x} u\bigg)- \frac{\mu}{2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} +(\gamma \tau- \beta) u\frac{\partial^2 \ln v}{\partial x^2}=L_{1}u+\alpha u \frac{\partial^2 \ln v}{\partial x^2}=0,\label{mod1:not_zero_b}\\
L_{2} v &= \frac{\partial v}{\partial t} + ku=0. \label{mod1:not_zero_s}
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_mod2}
Assume that
\begin{equation}\label{L0u0=0}
L_{1,0}u=0,\text{ and } L_{2,0}v = 0
\end{equation}
We compute
\begin{equation}\label{ln_constr}
\max \bigg|\frac{\partial^2 \ln v}{\partial x^2}\bigg|=B = \frac{1}{d-1} \frac{ \tau^{2} c^{2}}{\mu^{2}}>0.
\end{equation}
Here $B$ is a positive constant with dimension $[L^{-2}]$. Then there exists constants $\lambda_{\pm}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{u+}
u_{\pm}(x,t)=e^{\lambda_{\pm} t}u(x,t) \text{ and } v_{\pm} = e^{\lambda_{\pm} t} v_(x,t)
\end{equation}
solves the partial differential inequality
\begin{equation*}
L_{\alpha,1}u_{+}\geq 0 \text{ ,and } L_{\alpha,1}u_{-}\leq 0.
\text{ and } L_{\alpha,2}v_{+}\geq 0 \text{ , } L_{\alpha,2}v_{-}\leq 0
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that, $\ln v_{\pm} = \gamma \tau + \ln v$.\par
Considering the mapping \eqref{u+} and Eq.~\eqref{L0u0=0}, Eq.~\eqref{mod1:not_zero_b} \& \eqref{mod1:not_zero_s} becomes
\begin{align*}
L_{1} u_{\pm}
&= \big(\lambda_{\pm} \tau +\alpha \frac{\partial^2 \ln v}{\partial x^2} \big) e^{\lambda_{\pm} t} u(x,t) \label{u-pm-gen}\\
&= \bigg(\tau \lambda_{\pm} -\alpha \frac{1}{d-1}\frac{4 \tau^2 c^2}{\mu^2} e^{\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta}(1+e^{\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta})^{-2} \bigg) e^{\lambda_{\pm} t} u(x,t), \\
L_{\alpha} v_{\pm} & = \lambda e^{\lambda_{\pm} t} v(x,t)
\end{align*}
Using the computation \eqref{ln_constr} and assuming the existence of
\begin{equation}\label{lambda-}
\lambda_{-}= -\frac{\alpha B}{\tau}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha>0$, it follows
\begin{align*}
L_{\alpha} u_{-} & \leq 0\\
L_{\alpha} v_{-} & \leq 0
\end{align*}
Similarly,
\begin{align}\label{lambda+}
\lambda_{+}= \frac{\alpha B}{\tau}
\end{align}
with $\alpha>0$ gives us
\begin{align*}
L_{\alpha} u_{+} & \geq 0\\
L_{\alpha} v_{+} & \geq 0
\end{align*}
Therefore, due to maximum principle, if $u$ and $v$ are the analytical solutions of the system \eqref{mod1} then there exists $\lambda_{\pm}$ given by Eqs.~\eqref{lambda-} and \eqref{lambda+} such that
\begin{align*}
e^{\lambda_{-} t} u &\leq u \leq e^{\lambda_{+} t} u\\
e^{\lambda_{-} t} v &\leq v \leq e^{\lambda_{+} t} v
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For the system \eqref{mod2}, the analytical solution is not achievable for unlimited source of substrates. But, we can estimate lower and upper estimates, $u_{-}$ and $u_{+}$ respectively, for the solution $u$ that exhibits traveling band. Also, if $\alpha<0$ in Thm.~\ref{thm_mod2} then for the same values in Eqs.~\eqref{lambda-} and \eqref{lambda+}, the lower and upper estimates follow as $u_{+} \leq u \leq u_{-}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Dimension of $\alpha$ is $[L^2]$ and therefore dimension of $\lambda$ is $ [\frac{1}{T}]$. In that sense, $u_{\pm}$ and $v_{\pm}$ are dimensionless.
\end{remark}
\section{Derivation of Chemotactic system when the availability of substrate is limited:}
\label{limited}
if the unavailability of the source of food plays a role in depletion of concentration of substrate then $k(v) \propto v(x,t)$. Therefore the chemotactic model for unlimited substrate is reduced to
\begin{subequations}\label{mod3}
\begin{align}
L_{\alpha,3}u & = \tau \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} +\beta \frac{\partial \ln v}{\partial x}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} - \frac{\mu}{2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} +\gamma \tau u\frac{\partial^2 \ln v}{\partial x^2}=0\label{ks1_b_sys}\\
L_{\alpha,4}v & = \frac{\partial v}{\partial t} + k u v\label{ks1_s_sys}=0
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{theorem}
If the solution is in the form of Eq.~\eqref{chng var} then the system \eqref{mod3} exhibit traveling band phenomena.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
With Eq.~\eqref{chng var}, the system of equations \eqref{ks1_b_sys} and \eqref{ks1_s_sys} reduce to,
\begin{align}
L_{\alpha,3}u &= \tau c u^{'} - \beta (\ln v)^{'} u^{'} +\frac{\mu}{2} u^{''} - \tau \gamma u (\ln v)^{''}=0 \label{ks_red_b_sys} \\
L_{\alpha,4}v & = c v^{'} -k u v=0\label{ks_red_s_sys}
\end{align}
Note that, Eq.~\eqref{ks_red_s_sys} gives,
\begin{align*}
(\ln v)^{''}=\frac{k}{c}u^{'}.
\end{align*}
Therefore from Eqs.~\eqref{ks_red_b_sys} and \eqref{ks_red_s_sys}, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{main-ODE-2-model}
u^{'} - C_{3} (u^2)^{'}+\frac{\mu}{2 \tau c} u^{''}=0
\end{equation}
Here
\begin{equation*}\label{alpha}
C_3 =\frac{1}{2}\frac{k}{\tau c^2}(\beta+ \gamma \tau).
\end{equation*}
with dimension $[L]$.
Then integration of Eq.~\eqref{main-ODE-2-model} gives,
\begin{equation*}\label{1-st-order-ode-2}
u - C_{3} u^2+\frac{\mu}{2 \tau c} u^{'}= const.
\end{equation*}
By the condition \eqref{bd_cond}, $const.=0.$
Then from above, it follows,
\begin{align*}\label{1-st-order-ode-2}
\frac{u^{'}}{u(C_{4}-u)}&=-\frac{2 \tau c C_{3}}{\mu}
\end{align*}
with
\begin{equation*}\label{K-def}
C_{4}=\frac{1}{C_{3}}
\end{equation*}
which is dimensionless.
Partial decomposition gives,
\begin{align*}\label{1-st-order-ode-2}
\frac{u^{'}}{C_4 -u}+\frac{u^{'}}{u} & = -\frac{2 \tau c }{\mu}
\end{align*}
And integration gives,
\begin{equation}\label{lim_neq_u}
u= \frac{2 \tau c^2}{k(\beta + \gamma \tau)} \big(1+C_{5}e^{\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta}\big)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
$C_{5}$ is the integrating constant.
Substituting Eq.~\eqref{lim_neq_u} into Eq.~\eqref{ks_red_s_sys} and integrating, we get
\begin{align}\label{lim_neq_v}
v & = C_6 \big(e^{-\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta}+C_5)^{-\frac{\mu} {\beta+ \gamma \tau}}
\end{align}
where $C_6$ is the integrating constant.
With condition \eqref{bd_cond}, it follows
\begin{align}
v = v_{\infty} \left(1+C_{7} e^{-\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta} \right)^{-\frac{\mu} {\beta+ \gamma \tau}}\label{lim_neq_v_cond}
\end{align}
with $C_{5}^{-1}=C_{7}$.
Then Eq.~\eqref{lim_neq_u} and \eqref{lim_neq_v_cond} satisfies
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} \infty}u = 0 \text{ and } &\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} -\infty}u = \frac{2 \tau c^2}{k (\beta + \gamma \tau)} = \frac{2 \tau c^2 k^{-1} \beta^{-1}}{ 1 + \gamma_0 \tau},\\
\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} \infty}v = v_{\infty} \text{ and } &\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} -\infty}v = 0
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Variable $\zeta =x-ct$ is of the form of traveling waves, and it converges to $-\infty$ if $x\to -\infty$ for fixed time $t$ or as $t\to \infty$ for fixed $x.$ In another more lenient word, ``when space meet the time". Here, the concentration of organism $u(x, t)$ tends to converge to the constant that is inversely proportional to the quorum rate $\gamma_0$ as $\zeta \to -\infty$.
\end{remark}
The next theorem explains the traveling band features for the model without crowd effect in the environment containing limited amount of substrates.
\begin{theorem}
If $\gamma_0 = \frac{1}{\tau}$, our model becomes
\begin{subequations}\label{mod4}
\begin{align}
L_3 u &=\tau \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} +\beta \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(u \frac{\partial \ln v}{\partial x}\right)- \frac{\mu}{2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} = 0\label{ks1_ b_sys_eq}\\
L_4 v &=\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} +k u v\label{ks1_ s_sys_eq}= 0
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
then the above system exhibits traveling band phenomena.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
With Eq.~\eqref{chng var}, the system of equation reduces to,
\begin{align}
L_{3} & = \tau c u^{'} - \beta (u (\ln v)^{'})^{'} + \frac{\mu}{2} u^{''} = 0\label{ks1_red_b_sys} \\
L_{4} & = c v^{'} - k u v = 0\label{ks1_red_s_sys}
\end{align}
From Eq.~\eqref{ks1_red_s_sys}, we find
\begin{align}\label{s_ln_sys}
(\ln v)^{'} = \frac{k}{c}u
\end{align}
Then Eq.~\eqref{ks1_red_b_sys} becomes,
\begin{align}
u^{'} - \frac{\beta k}{\tau c^2} (u^2)^{'}+\frac{\mu}{2 \tau c} u^{''} &= 0 \label{ks1_int1_b_sys}
\end{align}
Integrating Eq.~\eqref{ks1_int1_b_sys} and applying \eqref{bd_cond}, we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{u^{'}}{u \big(1-\frac{\beta k}{\tau c^2}u\big)} &= -\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\label{ks1_pf_b_sys}
\end{align*}
With partial fraction decomposition and integrating, we get
\begin{equation}\label{ks1_b_soln}
u =\frac{1}{\frac{\beta k}{\tau c^2}+C_8 e^{\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta}}
\end{equation}
where $C_8$ is the integrating constant.
Upon setting $C_8 = \frac{\mu k}{2 \tau c^2}$, Eq.~\eqref{ks1_b_soln} becomes,
\begin{align}
u &= 2 \tau c^2k^{-1} \mu^{-1}\bigg(d + e^{\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta}\bigg)^{-1}\label{lim_eq_u}
\end{align}
Substituting Eq.~\eqref{lim_eq_u} into Eq.~\eqref{s_ln_sys} and integrating, we get
\begin{align*}
v &= C_9 \bigg(\frac{\beta k}{\tau c^2}e^{-\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta}+\frac{\mu k}{2 \tau c^2} \bigg)^{-\frac{\mu}{2 \beta}}
\end{align*}
with integrating constant $C_9$.
Applying ~\eqref{bd_cond}, we get
\begin{align}
v &= v_{\infty} \bigg(d e^{-\frac{2 \tau c}{\mu}\zeta} +1\bigg)^{-\frac{1}{d}}\label{lim_eq_v}
\end{align}
The solutions \eqref{lim_eq_u} and \eqref{lim_eq_v} have the properties
\begin{align*}\label{prop_u_lim_eq}
\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} \infty}u = 0 \text{ and } &\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} -\infty}u = \frac{2 \tau c^2k^{-1} \mu^{-1}}{d} = \frac{\tau c^2}{k\beta},\\
\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} \infty}v = v_{\infty} \text{ and } &\lim_{\zeta \xrightarrow{} -\infty}v = 0.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The concentration of organism converges to a constant which is inversely proportional to $d = \frac{2 \beta}{\mu}$ for long time. Recall that, $\beta$ is the rate of the relative flux of organism with respect to chemotactic response and $\mu$ is the motility coefficient. Here, chemotactic response is measured by the ratio of the gradient of chemotaxis with respect to its density. It is important to observe that in this case, unlike the previous one, both organisms and substrates are independent of the tail of crowd formed by the organism that chase after food, following leaders. More simplification of this expression tells us that the constant is proportional to time interval of collision and traveling speed but inversely proportional to the consumption rate and chemotactic coefficient.
\end{remark}
\section{Discussion:}
\label{dis}
In this section, we provide analyses of obtained closed form solutions of all of the four models (\eqref{mod1}, \eqref{mod2}, \eqref{mod3} and \eqref{mod4}). We will discuss the traveling band phenomena in each cases. Since analytical solutions are not obtainable for the model \eqref{mod2} involving crowd effect in the presence of unlimited substrate, we will show the upper and lower estimates of the analytical solution featuring traveling band.
All results are qualitative and we used the following listed parameter values that are adapted from published data \cite{Adleramino} and \cite{AdlerDahl} except $\tau$ and $\gamma_0$ for comparison. Our own data will be provided from future experiments based on fluorescence imaging. Review of corresponding technique is presented in article \cite{akifpap1}.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\hline
Parameter & Description & Value & Units \\
\hline
$\tau$ & time interval of collision & 0.05-0.005 & hour\\
$\mu$ & motility coefficient & 0.25 & cm$^2$/hour\\
$c$ & band speed & 1.5 & cm/hour\\
$\beta$ & chemotactic coefficient & 0.16-0.6 & cm$^2$/hour\\%0.1625, 0.25, 0.375, 0.625
$d$ & $\frac{2 \beta}{\mu}$ & 0.3 - 5 & unit less\\
$\gamma_0$ & quorum rate & 12-100 & 1/hour\\
$C_5$ & Integrating constant & 1 & unit less\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameter values}
\label{pv}
\end{table}
Graphs of the solutions of the concentration of organism for the system \eqref{mod1} for different values of $\tau$ are given in the Fig.~\ref{fig:unlim_eq_tau}. The size of the band is wider when $\tau$ gets smaller depicting the dependence of the size of the traveling band on the time collision $\tau$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{unlim_eq_tau.pdf}
\caption{Concentration of organism $u(x,t)$ divided by $Q = 2 \tau c^{2} k^{-1}\mu^{-1} v_{\infty}$ of model \eqref{mod1} for different values of $\tau$ with $d = 1.3$ against $\zeta = c \mu^{-1} (x- c t)$.}
\label{fig:unlim_eq_tau}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:ul_neq_bact_x_t} gives the upper estimate (magenta curve) and lower estimate (green curve) of the analytical solution of organism for the system \eqref{mod2} for different values of $d$. Graphs of first row is the estimate for a fixed $x$ value and of second row is for a fixed $t$ value. $\lambda$ has computed using the Eqs.~\eqref{lambda-} and \eqref{lambda+} for $\gamma_0 = 25$ and $\tau = 0.05$. Notice that, $\lambda$ is proportional to the quorum factor $\gamma_0$. And therefore $u_{+}$ and $u_{-}$ which are scaled by the factor of $exp (\lambda t)$ give better estimation when quorum rate is necessarily small for fixed $x$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{ul_neq_bact_x_t_g.pdf}
\caption{Concentration of organism $u(x,t)$ divided by $Q = 2 \tau c^{2} k^{-1}\mu^{-1} v_{\infty}$ of model \eqref{mod2} and its lower estimate (green curve) and upper estimate (magenta curve) for different values of $d$ and $\gamma_0$ when $t$ is fixed (first and second row) and $x$ is fixed (third row) in $\zeta = c \mu^{-1} (x- c t)$.}
\label{fig:ul_neq_bact_x_t}
\end{figure}
The concentration of organism and of substrate of the model \eqref{mod3} in Figs.~\ref{fig:lim_neq} and \ref{fig:lim_neq_sub} for different values of $\gamma_0$. Concentration of $u$ converge to 0 as $\zeta \to \infty$. For large negative values of $\zeta$, the concentration $u$ converges to a constant that get reduced in size as $\gamma_0$ get larger.Therefore, in the presence of limited food, if we fix the location and look ahead for long time the concentration of organism will converge to a smaller constant if the quorum rate is bigger. Recall, quorum rate is the rate of the number of organism or cell in the crowd that inspires other to follow. And, in the case of substrate, the curve of $v$ gets flatter as $\gamma_0$ increases.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{lim_neq_.pdf}
\caption{Concentration of organism $u(x,t)$ divided by $Q_{1} = 2 \tau c^{2} k^{-1}\beta^{-1}$ of model \eqref{mod3} for different values of $\gamma_0$ against $\zeta = c \mu^{-1} (x- c t)$.}
\label{fig:lim_neq}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{lim_neq_sub.pdf}
\caption{Same as in Fig. \ref{fig:lim_neq} for the concentration of substrate $v(x,t)$ divided by $v_{\infty}$ of model \eqref{mod3}.}
\label{fig:lim_neq_sub}
\end{figure}
The graphs of Fig.~\ref{fig:lim_eq_bact} shows that concentration $u$ of model \eqref{mod4} converges to 0 as $\zeta \to -\infty$ and to a constant as $\zeta \to \infty$. This constant is inversely proportional to the value of $d$ in the absence of $\gamma_0$. Graphs of substrate in the Fig.~\ref{fig:lim_eq_subs} represent the substrate of model \eqref{mod4} for different $d$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{lim_eq_bact.pdf}
\caption{Concentration of organism $u(x,t)$ divided by $Q_{2} = 2 \tau c^{2} k^{-1}\mu^{-1}$ of model \eqref{mod4} for different values of $d$ against $\zeta = c \mu^{-1} (x- c t)$.}
\label{fig:lim_eq_bact}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{lim_eq_subs.pdf}
\caption{Same as in Fig. \ref{fig:lim_eq_bact} for the concentration of substrate $v(x,t)$ divided by $v_{\infty}$ of model \eqref{mod4}.}
\label{fig:lim_eq_subs}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion:} In this study, we have shown a way of incorporation of Einstein's Brownian motion model in deducing chemotactic system. This involvement describes the dependence of the band size of the solution \eqref{cor_b_sys_mod1} for the model \eqref{mod1} on the time collision $\tau$. For unlimited food and without considering the crowd phenomena, we obtain analytical solution but its not the case for the model \eqref{mod2} that involves crowd effect. However, we were able to develop a mapping that enable us to obtain estimates for the traveling band of organism in the presence of unlimited food. These estimates were proved to be bound on the analytical solution with band form. \par
We have also described models when there is a limited presence of food in the environment. The model \eqref{mod3} with crowd effect shows that organism travel in a band form towards the presence of substrates. And the size of the organism for long time depends on the quorum rate $\gamma_0$. Therefore, if the rate of concentration of organism in a crowd that triggers the event of following crowd is larger then the size of the organism get smaller in the progression of time. The model \eqref{mod4} without crowd effect for limited food has also been explained to focus on the system where colonial formation doesn't occur. In this case, when $\gamma_0$ is no longer effective, organism still moves in traveling band form. But the size of the organism for long time depends inversely on the value $d$ which describes the ratio of chemotactic response and motility.
\nocite{*}
|
\section{Introduction}
We envision a world in which autonomous agents learn patterns from data on their own but, when given human guidance, they respond appropriately.
Such agents would enable high individual and team performance, as well as bridge the gap between data-driven and symbolic reasoning.
Neural nets are a natural architectural choice for such agents.
As universal function approximators, with enough data, they can learn correlations to map from inputs to desired outputs.
As a result, they have been applied in a wide range of contexts, including image recognition, self-driving cars, and communication domains \cite{classifier,ic3net}.
Any single neural net is trained to map from its inputs (e.g., sensor data from a self-driving car) to outputs (e.g., throttle control).
While neural networks generally are quite flexible, any given neural net, once trained, acts as a black box that maps from inputs to outputs.
For example, a neural net on a self-driving car that normally accepts images cannot accept verbal commands at test time.
However, we wish for agents to act more like humans, who can change their behaviors based on new sources of information.
The challenge is to do so with pre-trained neural net agents that have never been trained to accept the new form of input.
\begin{figure}[thb]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0.0cm}, clip=true, width=0.47\textwidth]{figures/traffic_diagram.png}
\caption{If a neural agent (blue, left) fails to see a nearby car (red, top), it may act unsafely. We enable humans to inject information into representations, modifying behavior without fully dictating it.}
\label{fig:intro_diagrma}
\end{figure}
In this work, the key insight is that, if a neural net already models some concept in its representation space (e.g., ``there is another car nearby''), the problem of ``injecting'' information becomes one of updating that symbolic representation.
While neural representation spaces may be difficult for humans to understand, one may train separate neural net ``probes'' to map from representations to symbolic properties \cite{alain2016understanding,whatif}.
Lastly, one may use these probes to update representations according to a desired property.
For example, as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:intro_diagrma}, one may train a probe to predict, from a representation, if there is another car nearby, and then use that probe to update the representation to reflect the fact that there actually is a car that the neural net failed to notice.
In this paper, we make three contributions.
First, we define the problem of ``human-assisted decision-making'' to formalize an intuitive desire of leveraging both human and agent observations in decision-making settings.
Next, we describe how techniques that had earlier been developed for neural net explanations may be re-purposed to solve our problem.
Third, we propose an improvement over these techniques that mitigates a limitation of prior art, based on a theory of redundant encodings.
In experiments, we show how our method can be used to improve the performance of an image classifier (without retraining the classifier), prevent crashes in a simulated road intersection environment in which cars fail to see each other, or enabled flawed agents in a collaborative grid-world environment to find each other.
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Interpretability and Explainability}
Interpretability and explainability techniques focus on developing models that are easily understandable, or techniques to better understand pre-trained models \cite{molnar2019}.
On the one hand, through special architectural or training choices, one may train agents with interpretable representation or decision-making systems.
For example, in models trained with concept-whitening, it is easy to identify which neuron activations correspond to which concepts \cite{chen2020concept}.
More generally, techniques that shape representation spaces according to human design principles (e.g., prototype-based classification, disentanglement, etc.) can be used to support human understanding.
In some domains, like style-transfer, interepretable representations support mixing aspects of different representations to produce desired outputs \cite{john-etal-2019-disentangled}.
On the other hand, other research attempts to create human-understandable explanations of pre-trained neural networks with minimal assumptions about how those networks have been trained.
For example, post-hoc explanation techniques like LIME produce linear approximations of neural network decision boundaries \cite{ribeiro2016model}.
Other methods train simple classifiers to expose what information is present in neural representations, but not how such information is used \cite{alain2016understanding}.
These techniques are useful for understanding neural networks, but differ from our work in two ways.
First, unlike interpretability research, we do not assume that we can train the neural net model.
Second, we fundamentally seek to modify neural net behavior as opposed to only understanding it.
\subsection{Causal Analysis of Neural Networks}
Our work most directly builds upon work previously developed for causal analysis of neural models.
In causal analysis literature, researchers seek to identify how models use particular properties in their decision-making.
For example, an image classifier may often correctly classify images of dogs, but causal analysis may reveal that the model changes its predictions if a single input pixel changes.
This is an important causal property of the model.
Researchers have applied causal analysis techniques both on input-space features (e.g., if this pixel changes, how does the model prediction change) and latent features \cite{zeiler2014visualizing}.
We focus here on latent feature analysis.
One technique, quantitative testing of concept activation vectors (TCAV), measures how a neural network's predictions change when a representation is updated according to a conceptual property \cite{tcav}.
For example, the authors find a direction in the latent space that is correlated with images of striped objects, and they find that if they move representations along that direction, they increase the probability of the model predicting zebras.
In domains in which humans know what the ``right'' causal path for a particular output is, this provides a useful quality check.
More recently, researchers similarly used causal analysis techniques to study if large language models use syntactic properties in predictions.
While similarly motivated to TCAV - they wish to understand what latent properties models use in making predictions - they adopted more general frameworks.
Applying multiple linear classifiers appeared to induce better effects than the single classifier used by TCAV \cite{elazar2020amnesic}.
Furthermore, Tucker et al. \shortcite{whatif} developed a method to use non-linear classifiers to extract and modify syntactic properties.
Lastly, \cite{diagnostic} showed how one could update representations in LSTM-based language models and improve subject-verb agreement in sentences.
We focus on modifying agent behavior rather than just understanding how they act.
We implement the technique proposed by Tucker at al. \shortcite{whatif}, which encompasses TCAV as a special case, and use them as baselines for generating updated embeddings in non-language settings.
Lastly, we show how a new design further improves upon these baselines, enabling better control of agent behavior.
\section{Human-Assisted Decision Making Problem Formulation}
We define a new problem, ``human-assisted decision-making,'' based on the Decentralized Partially-Observable Markov Decision Process framework in which different agents only observe subsets of the true state \cite{bernstein2013complexity}.
At training time, $N$ artificial agents train to maximize some shared reward by learning policies ($\pi_1$ to $\pi_N$) that map from observations of the true state, $S$, to actions.
Reward is a function of the joint state and actions taken by all agents: $R(S, \pi_1(o_1), \pi_2(o_2), ...)$.
At test time, we define a human participant with an associated observation function, $O_h: S \rightarrow o_h$.
Human observations, an individual agent's policy, and the agent's observations, may be combined into a ``hybrid'' policy, $h: o_h, o_i, \pi_i \rightarrow a_i$.
That is, the hybrid policy uses the human's observation, the agent's observation, and the agent's policy to produce a new action.
This parallels human supervisory control of automated systems frameworks in which a human monitors an agent's output and decides when to intervene, but the roles of the human and agent are reversed.
The human-assisted decision-making problem is therefore one of generating a ``good'' hybrid policy, $h$, that reconciles human and agent observations within an agent policy.
The aim is to generate a hybrid policy that maximizes $R(S, h_1(o_h, o_1, \pi_1), \pi_2(o_2),..., \pi_N(o_N))$.
This paper frames the human-assisted decision-making problem in reinforcement learning contexts, but the framework may be adapted to other settings.
\section{Technical Approach}
We proposed probe-based interventions as an approach to the human-assisted decision-making problem.
Our method relies upon using human observations to update the internal representations of neural agent policies.
\subsection{Probe Design and Training}
For simplicity, we describe how to use probe-based interventions in feed-forward image classifiers, but our experiments illustrate the value of this approach for a variety of domains and neural architectures.
We characterize a feedforward neural network model, $M$, as composed of $N$ layers, which map from input image $x \in R^X$ to an output $y \in R^Y$.
We denote the representation generated after layer $k$ as $z_k \in R^Z$.
$M$ may be thought of as two neural networks: $z_k = M_{k-}(x)$ and $y = M_{k+}(z_k)$ where the subscripts for $M$ denote the indices of layers before or after layer $k$.
A probe is defined as a neural network mapping from representations generated at layer $k$ to predictions of a property, $s \in R^S$.
For example, a probe may predict, given a representation generated by an image classifier, if the image was originally of an animal or a vehicle.
The probe may be a linear classifier, but it may equally well be a non-linear, multi-layer neural network.
The probe may be trained using a dataset of $(z_k, s)$ pairs.
In TCAV, although not explicitly framed as training a neural net, a linear probe is trained with embeddings generated by supplying a dataset of input images describing some concepts, and those images are encoded to generate the corresponding $z_k$ \cite{tcav}.
In other works studying language models, non-linear probes are trained to map from representations of sentences in language models to aspects of the syntactic structure of the sentence \cite{whatif}.
Fundamentally, these probes may be trained just like any other neural network to map from representations to predictions.
\subsection{Counterfactual Generation}
Next, we show how to use such probes to update representations.
Adopting the method of \cite{whatif}, ``counterfactual'' representations, $z'$, are created by updating an original encoding, $z$, along the gradient of the loss function, $L$, computed on the output of the probe, $p$, and a desired property, $s'$.
That is, starting at $z' = z$, we incrementally update as follows, with step size $\delta$:
\begin{equation}
z' = z' + \delta \nabla_{z'} L(p(z'), s')
\end{equation}
One may apply such updates until a stopping criterion, such as number of steps or minimum probe loss, is reached.
To then evaluate the effect of using counterfactual embeddings, one may pass $z'$ through the remainder of the model to generate a counterfactual outputs: $y' = M_{k+}(z')$.
If the original output, $y$, and $y'$ systematically differ, one may say that $M$ uses a representation that encodes information about $s$.
While this method is borrowed from Tucker et al.~\shortcite{whatif}, other techniques similarly use gradient updates, although only for linear classifiers.
TCAV measures, in the limit of small gradient steps, the change in model prediction with respect to the change in embedding.
Giulianelli~\shortcite{diagnostic} perform a single gradient update of fixed magnitude.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0.0cm}, clip=true, width=0.47\textwidth]{figures/updating.png}
\caption{A graphical depiction of generating counterfactual embeddings. The first $k$ layers of an agent generate an embedding, $z$ (depicted here in 2D for simplicity). A counterfactual embedding, $z'$, is generated by moving in the embedding space along the gradient of the probe loss until the probe predicts ``Car.'' Here, the probe is depicted as a linear classifier, but it may be a multi-layer neural network. Lastly, $z'$ is passed through the rest of the agent to produce an action or decision.}
\label{fig:updating}
\end{figure}
In this work, we use Tucker et al.'s \shortcite{whatif} incremental, gradient-based method for updating representations.
We note that, because this method depends upon gradients calculated through trained probes, different probe designs may produce different types of updates.
Fundamentally, this method for counterfactual generation is our proposed approach to the human-assisted decision-making problem.
We use probes to update the original representations generated by the agent to reflect new information supplied by the human, and we pass the resulting representation through the remainder of the agent's policy.
\subsection{Dropout Probes}
While the existing methods develop a gradient-based mechanism for creating counterfactual representations according to a trained probe, they could be susceptible to probe overfitting, which can produce undesirable counterfactual updates.
In particular, consider an image classifier that encodes a single property - is the input image an animal or a vehicle - in a redundant manner.
For example, if the representation vector is 32-dimensional but the model encodes the animal vs. vehicle property identically in two neurons, then a probe could arbitrarily learn to use either neuron in making its prediction.
Unfortunately, even if the model also used representations of animal vs. vehicle information, if the model used the other, redundant neuron, creating counterfacutal embeddings according to the probe would not affect model behavior.
Prior art has hinted at this possibility: TCAV, for example, instantiates many linear classifiers to see if, on average, they produce an effect, and Elazar et al. \shortcite{elazar2020amnesic} use an iterative approach to create multiple classifiers.
This can be thought of as a mechanism to ensure greater alignment between probe and model.
Instead of using a suite of classifiers, we instead propose the simple modification of adding a dropout layer before probes.
During training, the dropout layer randomly masks a subset of inputs with some probability $p$.
When generating counterfactual embeddings, dropout may be disabled.
With dropout, a probe must learn to use all subsets of representations that are informative of the predicted property, $s$.
Thus, we hypothesized that $\nabla_{z'} L(p(z'), s')$ (the gradient along which one updates $z'$), is less likely to be orthogonal to the model's decision boundary's gradient, and therefore that creating counterfactuals using dropout probes would change model behavior more than when using standard probes.
\section{Experiments}
We conducted three suites of experiments to evaluate: 1) the ability of probe-based interventions to affect neural net behavior and 2) the advantage of using dropout in probes.
First, we demonstrated how to boost an image classifier's performance be injecting symbolic information about high-level categories in the data.
Second, in a traffic-junction environment, we showed how probe-based interventions supplied by humans could prevent collisions even if cars didn't directly observe each other.
Lastly, in a multi-agent reinforcement learning environment, in which the agents needed to communicate to succeed at the task, we showed how our interventions enabled us to inject information into agents without needing to understand all aspects of the learned policies.
Experiments followed a standard procedure: 1) an agent was trained on the primary task (e.g., image classification) and then frozen, 2) a probe was trained on an auxiliary task to map from representations to a desired property, 3) at test time, we used the trained agents and probes to update embeddings and modify behavior.
Updated embeddings were generated using an SGD optimizer with learning rate 0.1 and momentum 0.9 for a fixed number of timesteps (specified in experiments) or until the probe loss was below 0.001.
In each experiment setup, we performed 5 trials by training new agents from scratch, and we studied the effect of dropout rate by training probes with different dropout rates, from 0 to 0.9 at increments of 0.1, for the same model.
Anonymized code for some experiments is available online; complete code will be edited for clarity and released upon acceptance.\footnote{\url{https://bit.ly/31xqbbf}}
\subsection{Image Classifier Boosting}
We showed that we could improve an image classifier's performance by injecting hierarchical information into representations, and that using dropout was an important part of boosting performance.
First, following a standard online tutorial for an image classifier, we trained a 6-layer convolutional neural net (CNN) on the CIFAR10 dataset, achieving roughly 50\% percent accuracy \cite{cifar10,classifier}.
Although this does not match state of the art classification performance on CIFAR, it follows standard practices and allows us to demonstrate how our method allowed use to improve model performance.
Probes were trained on a binary classification task: given representations taken from the third layer of the image classifier, the probe was trained to predict if the image was one of an animal or a vehicle.
At test time, we sought to improve the main image classifier's accuracy by injecting the ``animal vs. vehicle'' information into the representations.
We compared the effect of using probes with different numbers of layers and different dropout rates.
Our results, generated across 5 trials for different classifiers and probes and evaluated over 1000 test images, are plotted in Figures~\ref{fig:cifar_dropout} and \ref{fig:cifar_layers}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[trim={0.12cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm}, clip=true]{figures/tikz/cifar_numsteps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Updating representations in the CIFAR10 classifier based on animal/vehicle class, using 1-layer probes, improved model accuracy. Interventions produced the greatest benefits when using high-dropout probes ($x$ axis) for many gradient steps (different lines).}
\label{fig:cifar_dropout}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[trim={0.12cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm}, clip=true]{figures/tikz/cifar_probedepth}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Using multi-layer dropout probes for interventions in the CIFAR10 classifier produced greater benefits than linear probes. As before, introducing dropout also boosted performance.}
\label{fig:cifar_layers}
\end{figure}
Several important trends are visible in Figure~\ref{fig:cifar_dropout}.
First, interventions using any probe design improved classification accuracy from the normal performance of around 51\% to 53\%.
We emphasize that this improvement occurred despite no classifier retraining.
Second, updating representations for more gradient steps induced greater benefits.
This is visible via the different lines in the plot: results when updating for 600 steps achieved greater accuracy than when updating for 400, which outperformed only 200 steps.
Lastly, adding dropout to the probes consistently improved the effect of interventions.
Updating embeddings using probes with no dropout, as introduced in prior art (\cite{tcav,whatif}), corresponded to the leftmost data in the plot, with dropout 0.
The benefit of using dropout was most obvious when using 600 steps: model performance was further increased from 53\% accuracy (leftmost points) to 54\%.
Lastly, we investigated the effects of using dropout and multi-layer probes for interventions and plotted the results in Figure~\ref{fig:cifar_layers}.
In these experiments, all interventions were performed used 600 gradient update steps, but with probes using 1, 2, or 3 layers.
The multi-layer probes used ReLU activations for the hidden layers, allowing them to capture non-linearities in the representation space.
As before, dropout boosted performance.
Furthermore, the two-layer probe dramatically outperformed the linear probe.
Interestingly, the three-layer probe did not show as large a benefit.
Given these results, we hypothesize that using non-linear probes is beneficial (confirming findings by Tucker et al.~\shortcite{whatif}), but that there may be a limit to the benefits of larger probe models.
The TCAV baseline, which used a linear approach, corresponded to the bottom, 1-layer method.
Overall, these experiments confirmed two important trends in a classification domain:
1) using probes to inject information into representations consistently boosted performance and 2) non-linear dropout probes performed better than linear probes with no dropout.
\subsection{Avoiding Collisions in Traffic Junction}
Based on the introduction's self-driving car example, we next demonstrated how probes could be used to prevent collisions in a simulated driving scenario.
Neural agents were trained in a 2D grid setting (borrowed from prior art) to drive through an intersection without colliding, with up to 5 cars driving in the grid at the same time \cite{ic3net}.
Each agent was a feed-forward three-layer neural network mapping from inputs (current location and occupancy of the 8 neighboring grid cells) to a binary action (go/stop).
Agents received positive reward for driving through the intersection safely and 0 reward for collisions.
Over 3000 training episodes using REINFORCE, agents converged to policies in which they collided less than 1\% of the time \cite{reinforce}.
We trained 3-layer probes to predict, given the representations output by agents' second layers, whether another car was also adjacent to the intersection.
Based on the benefits of non-linear probes found in the prior section, we experimented with 2- and 3-layer probes and found no substantial difference, so we opted for the theoretically more powerful 3-layer probes.
At test time, we changed the environment to demonstrate the benefits of probe-based interventions.
We artificially corrupted one car's observations by programatically altering all observations to mask any nearby cars there.
For simplicity, we tested with only two cars at a time: one corrupted and one normal.
In this scenario, only 86\% of trials completed without a collision - where a collision was defined as the two cars entering the intersection simultaneously.
We then re-evaluated agent success rates when we used probes to update the representation of the corrupted car to reflect the true occupancy of the roads.
We performed interventions for 50 gradient updates at each timestep in the episode, evaluated over 100 episodes.
For all dropout rates from 0.0 to 0.8, we found no significant difference in the effect of interventions.
Across the 5 trained teams, the median performance when using interventions always exceeded 99\% accuracy - matching the non-corrupted environment performance.
The only exception was probes with dropout of 0.9, which achieved a success rate of 94\%.
This reinforces the pattern observed in the image classification experiments: some dropout may help, but if the dropout rate is too high, the probes fail to learn the right pattern, so interventions are not useful.
\subsection{Parent-Child}
In our final suite of experiments, we used a ``Parent-Child'' domain - a collaborative version of predator-prey from prior literature - to study the effect of probe-based interventions when humans were unaware of all information needed to produce the right action \cite{ic3net}.
In this two-agent setting, a stationary child and a movable parent were spawned in random locations in a $5\times5$ grid.
As depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:parentchild}, the parent observed its location and the surround cell locations at all timesteps; the child only observed its location at timestep 0.
At the start of each episode, each grid location was populated by an obstacle with 10\% probability.
The agents received shared reward of 1 if the parent ended the episode (after 20 timesteps) at the child's location and otherwise got reward 0.
If the parent collided with an obstacle, it could not move for the rest of the episode.
Agents were instantiated using the LSTM-based IC3Net architecture, allowing them to communicate with each other agent at all timesteps, and trained with REINFORCE \cite{ic3net,reinforce}.
The parent could move up, down, left, right, or stay still; the child could not move.
Thus, the optimal policy was for the child to communicate its location to the parent and for the parent to navigate to the child, avoiding obstacles along the way.
We trained 5 parent-child teams to convergence using different random seeds to convergence at 100\% success rates.
For a given team, for both the parent and child, we trained $h$ and $c$ probes that accepted the LSTM's hidden or cell states, respectively.
The parent probes were trained to predict the obstacle occupancy grid of the cells surrounding the parent; the child probes were trained to predict the child's location in that 2D world.
To gain further statistical power, for each parent-child team, we trained probes from scratch 5 times with different random seeds.
Overall, given the 5 pairs of agents, 2 types of probes per agent, 5 random seeds for probes, and 10 dropout rate levels, this corresponded to 500 trained probes.
As in the traffic junction experiment, we created ``corrupted'' versions of these environments to see if probes could be used to overcome perceptual failures of the agents.
For consistency, all corrupted versions started with the same initial conditions: the child in the upper right and the parent in the lower left.
In corrupting the child's perception, we replaced the observation of its true location with data from the upper left.
In corrupting the parent's perception, we masked all observations of obstacles.
We then tested if, using our probes, we could remedy child corrupted data alone, parent corrupted data alone, or even both simultaneously.
We used both the $h$ and $c$ probes to update both representations when performing interventions.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0.0cm}, clip=true, width=0.98\textwidth]{figures/corrupt_pc.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.39\textwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[trim={0.12cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm}, clip=true]{figures/tikz/lost_child}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.39\textwidth}
\centering
\includestandalone[trim={0.12cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm}, clip=true]{figures/tikz/lost_parent}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{In the parent-child environment, the blindfolded parent (P) did not observe nearby obstacles, and the lost child (C) observed its location as $(0, 0)$ even when located at $(0, 4)$. In ``lost-child'' settings (middle), interventions caused the parent to find the child with nearly 80\% accuracy, whereas without interventions the success rate was 0\%. In the ``blindfolded-parent'' setting, interventions similarly boosted performance. Especially with the blindfolded-parent, probes with dropout between 0.5 and 0.8 often outperformed probes without dropout.}
\label{fig:parentchild}
\end{figure*}
Our results in the lost-child settings are reported in Figures~\ref{fig:parentchild}.
In this experiment, wherein the child was actually at $(4, 0)$ but observed its location as $(0, 0)$, the baseline performance without interventions was 0\%: that is, the parent never found the child.
Conversely, using interventions, we increased the success rate to up to 80\%, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:parentchild}.
On the $x$ axis, we varied the dropout rates of the probes, on the $y$ axis we measured the team success rates.
The different curves correspond to intervening on the child's representations for the first timestep, first and second timestep, etc..
For all probe types, intervening for more timesteps always helped: however, intervening for only the first 2 timesteps with probes with dropout rate 0.9 was still enough to have the parent reach the child nearly 80\% of the time.
Performance as a function of dropout was more subtle, though: small but positive dropout rates seemed to worsen behavior when only performing interventions for one or two timesteps, but as the dropout rate increased above 0.5, interventions became more effective than when not using dropout.
This non-linear behavior is surprising and warrants further investigation in future work.
Similarly, we measured success rate as a function of probe dropout rate in the blindfolded-parent environment.
Without interventions, because the parent could not observe obstacles, roughly 50\% of episodes resulted in collisions and therefore failures.
Conversely, when we intervened to update the parent representations, especially when using dropout probes, we decreased the likelihood of collisions and increased the success rate.
In addition to varying our analysis by dropout rate, we also investigated the effect of more gradient steps when updating representations and plotted the results as different curves.
For all dropout rates, more gradient steps produced better effects, although the effect was greatest for dropout rates between 0.1 and 0.8.
Lastly, in experiments conducted in which both the parent and child observations were corrupted, we demonstrated that probe-based interventions on both agents mitigated the observation failures, but that higher-dropout probes were most effective.
Success rate without interventions was 0\%, but reached 72\% for probes with dropout 0.7.
Full results are omitted for brevity but are available in Appendix~\ref{app:both}.
\section{Discussion}
Jointly, the results from the prior section demonstrate important benefits of test-time interventions on representations.
First, we showed how an imperfect image classifier could be improved by injecting high-level information into representations.
This indicates a possible strategy for companies seeking to improve AI performance without retraining a model from scratch.
Second, in the traffic junction experiment, we demonstrated that, in simple cases where the injected information and expected behavior had a clear relationship, we could induce the right behavior.
Although simplified, this demonstrates how humans might be able to affect the behavior of AI systems that they cannot directly control.
Lastly, in the parent-child environment, we showed more subtle capabilities.
Despite not understanding the emergent communication protocol, humans were able to interact with agents by only updating the relevant parts of representations.
This therefore illustrates the value of our method in cases in which humans may want to guide agent behavior without dictating all aspects of it.
For example, in the blidfolded-parent scenario, the human could indicate the presence of obstacles that should be avoided without having to know what the goal location was (and therefore whether the parent should avoid an obstacle by going above or below it).
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we proposed probe-based interventions as a mechanism for inserting information into neural model representations - a potential approach to the human-assisted decision-making problem.
We found that prior methods, initially developed for model explanability work could be adapted to this problem, and we showed how a new, dropout-based intervention method often outperformed other techniques.
We tested our method in a variety of contexts, from image classification to emergent communication domains, demonstrating the wide applicability of our approach.
While we have taken an initial step towards supporting human interventions, future work could develop more sophisticated intervention methods or evaluate the tradeoffs between minimal and sufficient changes to representations.
Lastly, we are particularly interested in continuing work to train models that better respond to interventions.
\bibliographystyle{named}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Let $E,F\to M$ be vector bundles on a closed manifold $M$, $D:\Gamma(E)\to \Gamma(F)$ a differential operator. Under suitable conditions on $D$, one can insure that $\ker(D)$ and $\ker(D^*)$ are finite dimensional, where $D^*$ is the formal adjoint. One then defines the analytic index by \begin{equation}\label{eqn:analytic index cinf}
\Ind_a(D):=\dim(\ker(D))-\dim(\ker(D^*)).
\end{equation}
The index problem asks for a topological formula for the analytic index. For elliptic differential operators, such a formula was found by Atiyah and Singer \cite{AtiyahSingerI}. Nevertheless there is a very large class of non-elliptic operators for which the analytic index is finite.
For some non-elliptic operators called Toeplitz operators which are defined on the boundary of a complex domain, a topological formula for the analytic index was found by Boutet de Monvel \cite{BoutetIndex}. Based on work by Epstein and Melrose \cite{MelroseEps2}, the formula of Boutet de Monvel was generalised to arbitrary contact manifolds by van Erp for operators without vector bundle coefficients \cite{Erik1,Erik2}. Later van Erp and Baum generalised van Erp's formula to allow vector bundle coefficients \cite{ErpBaum} (always on contact manifolds). Their formula allows them to compute the index of some Hörmander's sum of squares \cite{Hormander:SoS} of rank $2$.
In this article, we consider the class of $*$-maximally hypoelliptic differential operator. A $*$-maximally hypoelliptic differential operator is a differential operator $D$ on a manifold $M$ (not necessarily contact) such that one can find some Sobolev type Hilbert spaces $H_1$ and $H_2$ such that $D$ admits a bounded Fredholm extension $D:H_1\to H_2$, see Theorem \ref{thm:max hypo} and Corollary \ref{thm:max hypo_cor} for a precise definition, see also the AMS notice by Street \cite{AMSHypoSurvey} for an expository introduction to the topic. In this case, one can show that the analytic index is finite and it coincides with the Fredholm index of $D:H_1\to H_2$, see Section \ref{sec:setting}. Elliptic differential operators are $*$-maximally hypoelliptic because one can take $H_1$ and $H_2$ the classical Sobolev spaces. Hörmander's sum of squares are also $*$-maximally hypoelliptic see \cite{RotschildStein,FollandStein,HelfferNourrigatBook}. The operators considered by Boutet de Monvel and more generally by van Erp and Baum are also $*$-maximally hypoelliptic, see \cite{BeaGre}. We refer the reader to Example \ref{ex:examplehjisdqf}, for concrete examples of $*$-maximally hypoelliptic differential operators on $S^1\times S^1$ which aren't elliptic.
Atiyah-Singer topological formula is based on the classical principal symbol. In \cite{MohsenMaxHypo}, we defined a principal symbol for $*$-maximally hypoelliptic differential operators. Theorem \ref{thm:max hypo} which is the main theorem of \cite{MohsenMaxHypo}, previously conjectured by Helffer and Nourrigat \cite{HelfferNourrigatCRAcSci} and proven in some cases by them in \cite{HelfferNourrigatBook}, gives an equivalence between $*$-maximally hypoellipticity and invertibility of our principal symbol
Theorem \ref{main thm}, the main theorem of this article is a topological index formula using our symbol from \cite{MohsenMaxHypo} for any $*$-maximally hypoelliptic differential operators on any closed manifold with vector bundle coefficients. This generalises the previously mentioned index theorems and allows us to give new computations of the analytic index. We show computability of our theorem by giving new explicit examples of index computations of Hörmander's sum of squares operators of arbitrary rank on $S^1\times S^1$ and more generally of some $*$-maximally hypoelliptic operators on any manifold $M$ fibered over $S^1$. The computation is a very straightforward application of our index formula.
Like the approaches of van Erp \cite{Erik1,Erik2} and van Erp and Baum \cite{ErpBaum}, our approach is based on Connes's proof of the Atiyah-Singer index theorem \cite{ConnesBook}. The main novelty in this article is the use of the $C^*$-algebra of singular foliations introduced by Androulidakis and Skandalis \cite{AS1} and their blowups introduced by the author \cite{MohsenBlowup}. In the proof of our index formula, we need a localized version of the Connes-Thom isomorphism \cite{ConnesThom} which is proved in Section \ref{sec:variant}.
\paragraph{Structure of the paper.} \begin{itemize}
\item In Section \ref{sec:setting}, we give a general overview of the article. We briefly recall the results of \cite{MohsenMaxHypo}. We define maximal hypoelliptic operators. We then state the main theorem of \cite{MohsenMaxHypo}, which gives a simple criteria equivalent to maximal hypoellipticity. We then state our index formula. In the end we give examples of index computations of Hörmander's sum of squares operators on $S^1\times S^1$.
\item In \cite{ConnesThom}, Connes proved the Connes-Thom isomorphism, which implies that $K_*(C^*G)\simeq K^*(\mathfrak{g}^*)$, where $G$ is any simply connected nilpotent Lie group. In Section \ref{sec:variant}, we prove a localized version of Connes's isomorphism, where we show that $K_*(I_Z)\simeq K^*(Z)$, where $Z\subset \mathfrak{g}^*$ is any locally closed subset which is invariant under the co-adjoint action and dilations, and $I_Z$ is the corresponding subquotient of $C^*G$.
\item In Section \ref{sec:Examp}, we use our index formula to compute the index of some $*$-maximally hypoelliptic differential operators on any manifold $M$ fibered over $S^1$.
\item In Section \ref{sec:index theorem}, we prove the index formula.\end{itemize}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Part of this work was done while the author was a postdoc in Muenster university and was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - Project-ID 427320536 - SFB 1442, as well as Germany's Excellence Strategy EXC 2044 390685587, Mathematics M\"{u}nster: Dynamics-Geometry-Structure.
The author thanks P. Pansu for interesting discussions which ultimately lead to the examples in the article. The author also thanks G. Skandalis and S. Vassout for their valuable remarks.
\section{Maximal hypoellipticity and index formula}\label{sec:setting}
\paragraph{Setting.} Let $M$ be a closed manifold, $N\in \mathbb{N}$ called the depth and $$0\subseteq \mathcal{F}^1\subseteq \cdots\subseteq \mathcal{F}^N=\mathcal{X}(M)$$ finitely generated $C^\infty(M)$-modules of vector fields which satisfy the condition \begin{equation}\label{eqn:BracketF}
[\mathcal{F}^i,\mathcal{F}^j]\subseteq \mathcal{F}^{i+j},\quad i+j\leq N
\end{equation} For example if $X_1,\cdots,X_r\in \mathcal{X}(M)$ satisfy Hörmander's condition of rank $N$, then one can define $\mathcal{F}^i$ inductively by \begin{align*}
\mathcal{F}^1=\langle X_1,\cdots,X_r\rangle,\quad \mathcal{F}^k=\mathcal{F}^{k-1}+[\mathcal{F}^{1},\mathcal{F}^{k-1}].
\end{align*}
In general, we don't suppose that the modules $\mathcal{F}^i$ are generated by the iterated Lie brackets of $\mathcal{F}^1$.
Let $x\in M$. We define the Lie algebra $$\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x=\oplus_{i=1}^N\frac{\mathcal{F}^i}{\mathcal{F}^{i-1}+I_x\mathcal{F}^i},$$ where $I_x\subseteq C^\infty(M,\mathbb{R})$ is the ideal of smooth functions vanishing at $x$. The Lie algebra structure on $\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x$ comes from the Lie bracket of vector fields by the formula \begin{align*}[\cdot,\cdot]:\frac{\mathcal{F}^i}{\mathcal{F}^{i-1}+I_x\mathcal{F}^i}\times \frac{\mathcal{F}^j}{\mathcal{F}^{j-1}+I_x\mathcal{F}^j}&\to \frac{\mathcal{F}^{i+j}}{\mathcal{F}^{i+j-1}+I_x\mathcal{F}^{i+j}}\\
[[X]_x,[Y]_x]&\mapsto\big[[X,Y]_x\big],\quad X\in \mathcal{F}^i,Y\in \mathcal{F}^j.
\end{align*} The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x$ is a graded nilpotent Lie algebra. We remark that the function $x\mapsto \dim(\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x)$ isn't locally constant in general. We denote by $\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x$ the space $\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x$ seen as a Lie group by Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula. More generally throughout the article if $\mathfrak{g}$ is a nilpotent Lie algebra, then the simply connected Lie group integrating $\mathfrak{g}$ denotes the space $\mathfrak{g}$ with the product by Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula.
\paragraph{Principal symbol.}
Let $E,F\to M$ be vector bundles, $D:\Gamma(E)\to \Gamma(F)$ a differential operator on $M$. We say that $D$ is of order $\leq k$ if $D$ can be written as sum of monomials of the form \begin{equation}\label{eqn:diff k}
\nabla_{X_1}\cdots \nabla_{X_s}\phi,
\end{equation} where $\phi\in \Gamma(\End(E,F))$, $\nabla$ a connection on $F$, $X_i\in \mathcal{F}^{a_i}$ and $\sum_{i=1}^sa_i\leq k$. We denote by $\Diff^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E,F)$ the space of differential operators of order $\leq k$.
Let $\pi:\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x\to U(H)$ be an irreducible unitary representation. If $D\in \Diff^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E,F)$ is written as sum of monomials of the form $\nabla_{X_1}\cdots \nabla_{X_s}\phi $ as in \eqref{eqn:diff k}, then one defines \begin{equation}\label{eqn:princip symb dfn}
\textstyle \sigma^k(D,x,\pi)= \sum^\prime \big( \pi([X_1]_x)\cdots \pi([X_s]_x)\big)\otimes \phi_x:C^\infty(H)\otimes E_x\subseteq H\otimes E_x\to H\otimes F_x,
\end{equation} where \begin{itemize}
\item $\Sigma'$ means one sums only over monomials such that $\sum_{i=1}^s a_i=k$.
\item $[X_i]_x\in \frac{\mathcal{F}^{a_i}}{\mathcal{F}^{a_i-1}+I_x\mathcal{F}^{a_i}}\subseteq \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x$ is the class of $X_i$.
\item $\pi([X_i]_x)$ is the differential of $\pi$ applied to $[X_i]_x$.
\item $C^\infty(H)$ denotes the subspace of smooth vectors.
\end{itemize}
The sum in \eqref{eqn:princip symb dfn} can depend on the choice of the presentation of $D$ as a sum of monomials, see \cite[Examples 1.14 and the following paragraph]{MohsenMaxHypo}. A non trivial fact is that it doesn't depend on the choice of the presentation for representations in the characteristic set which is defined as follows. Let \begin{align}\label{eqn:af*}
\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*:=\sqcup_{x\in M}\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*_x,\quad \mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*:=T^*M\times ]0,1]\sqcup \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*\times \{0\}.
\end{align}The space $\mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*$ is equipped with the weakest topology such that \begin{itemize}
\item the natural projection map $\mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*\to M\times [0,1]$ is continuous
\item for every $i\in \{1,\cdots,N\}$, $X\in \mathcal{F}^i$, the map \begin{align*}
\mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*&\to \mathbb{R}\\
(\xi,x,t)&\to \xi(X(x))t^i,\quad t\in ]0,1],x\in M,\xi\in T_x^*M\\
(\xi,x,0)&\to \xi ( [X]_x),\quad x\in M,\xi \in \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x^*
\end{align*} is continuous, where $[X]_x\in\frac{\mathcal{F}^i}{\mathcal{F}^{i-1}+I_x\mathcal{F}^i}\subseteq \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{D})_{x}$ denotes the class of $X$.
\end{itemize}
The space $\mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*$ is locally compact Hausdorff by \cite[Prop. 2.10]{AS2}, see \cite[Section 1.3]{MohsenMaxHypo}. The set $T^*M\times ]0,1]$ isn't dense in $\mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*$ in general. The topological characteristic set $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}\subseteq \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*$ is defined by $$\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}=\{\xi \in\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*:(\xi,0)\in \overline{T^*M\times ]0,1]}\}.$$ We also define $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x:=\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}\cap \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x^*$.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem B]{MohsenMaxHypo}}]\label{thm:charset}For any $x\in M$, \begin{itemize}
\item the set $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$ is closed under the co-adjoint action of $\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x^*$. \item for any $\xi\in\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$, $\sigma^k(D,x,\pi_\xi)$ is well defined (independent of the choice of a presentation $D$ as sum of monomials), where $\pi_\xi$ is an irreducible unitary representation which corresponds to $\xi$ by the orbit method \cite{KirillovArticle,BrownArticleTopOrbitMethod}.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Sobolev spaces.}
We define the Sobolev space $H^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)$ to be the set of distributions $u$ on $M$ with coefficients in $E$ such that for any differential operator\footnote{In \cite{MohsenMaxHypo}, we defined a pseudo-differential calculus where differential operators of order $k$ are pseudo-differential of order $k$. Generally one needs to allow $D$ to be a pseudo-differential operator. If $\mathcal{F}^i$ are generated by iterated Lie brackets of $\mathcal{F}^1$, then one can restrict to $D$ being a differential operator.} $D\in \Diff^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E,E)$, one has $Du\in L^2(M,E)$. In \cite{MohsenMaxHypo}, we extend the definition to $H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)$ for any $s\in \mathbb{R}$. It satisfies \begin{equation}\label{eqn:int_Sobolev_spaces}
\bigcap_{s\in \mathbb{R}}H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)=\Gamma(E)
\end{equation}
and if $s\in \mathbb{R}$ and $D\in \Diff^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E,F)$, then $D:H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)\to H^{s-k}_{\mathcal{F}}(M,F)$ is bounded.
\paragraph{Maximal hypoellipticity.}
The following theorem was conjectured by Helffer and Nourrigat in \cite{HelfferNourrigatCRAcSci}, see \cite[Conjecture 2.3]{HelfferNourrigatBook}. The implication ($2\implies 1$) was proven in \cite{HelfferNourrigatBook} as well as $(1\implies 2)$ in some cases.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem C]{MohsenMaxHypo}}]\label{thm:max hypo}Let $D\in \Diff_{\mathcal{F}}^k(M,E,F)$. The following are equivalent \begin{enumerate}
\item for any $x\in M$ and $\xi\in \mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x\backslash\{0\}$, the map $\sigma^k(D,x,\pi_\xi)$ is injective.
\item for any $s\in \mathbb{R}$, $u$ a distribution on $M$ with coefficients in $E$. If $Du\in H^{s-k}_{\mathcal{F}}(M,F)$, then $u\in H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)$.
\item there exists $s\in \mathbb{R}$ such that for any $u$ a distribution on $M$ with coefficients in $E$. If $Du\in H^{s-k}_{\mathcal{F}}(M,F)$, then $u\in H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)$.
\item for any $s\in \mathbb{R}$, the operator $D:H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)\to H^{s-k}_{\mathcal{F}}(M,F)$ is left invertible modulo compact operators.
\item there exists $s\in \mathbb{R}$, such that the operator $D:H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)\to H^{s-k}_{\mathcal{F}}(M,F)$ is left invertible modulo compact operators.
\end{enumerate}
We say that $D$ is maximally hypoelliptic if it satisfies the above conditions. We say that $D$ is $*$-maximally hypoelliptic if $D$ and its formal adjoint $D^*$ are maximally hypoelliptic.
\end{theorem}
Atkinson's theorem implies the following \begin{cor}\label{thm:max hypo_cor}Let $D\in \Diff_{\mathcal{F}}^k(M,E,F)$. The following are equivalent \begin{enumerate}
\item there exists $s\in \mathbb{R}$, such that the operator $D:H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)\to H^{s-k}_{\mathcal{F}}(M,F)$ is Fredholm
\item $D$ is $*$-maximally hypoelliptic
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
Elliptic operators are $*$-maximally hypoelliptic ($N=1$). Hörmander's sum of squares are also maximally hypoelliptic \cite{RotschildStein}. We refer the reader to \cite{HelfferNourrigatBook} for more details on maximally hypoelliptic operators.
\paragraph{Index formula.}Let $D\in \Diff^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E,F)$ be a $*$-maximally hypoelliptic operator. By Theorem \ref{thm:max hypo} and Atkinson's theorem, $$D:H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)\to H^{s-k}_{\mathcal{F}}(M,F),\quad \forall s\in \mathbb{R}$$ is Fredholm. By Theorem \ref{thm:max hypo}.2 and \eqref{eqn:int_Sobolev_spaces}, $\ker(D)\subseteq \Gamma(E)$. Applying the same argument to $D^*$, we deduce that the Fredholm index of $D:H^s_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E)\to H^{s-k}_{\mathcal{F}}(M,F)$ doesn't depend on $s$ and is equal to the analytic index given by \eqref{eqn:analytic index cinf}. We now give a formula to compute the index using the principal symbol defined above.
Let $x\in M$. We define $$ C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}_x:= \frac{C^*\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x}{\bigcap_{\xi\in \mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x}\ker(\pi_\xi)}.$$ In other words we only look at representations in the characteristic set. Even though the bundle $\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x$ as $x$ varies isn't a fiber bundle in the usual topological sense because of the jumps in dimension, one can still make sense of its $C^*$-algebra. In particular, in Section \ref{sec:variant}, we define a $C^*$-algebra $C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}$ which is fibered over $M$ with fiber $C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}_x$. We also define an unbounded multiplier $$\sigma^k(D):\dom(\sigma^k(D))\subseteq \Gamma(E)\otimes_{C(M)} C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}\to \Gamma(F)\otimes_{C(M)} C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F} $$ which has the property that for $x\in M$ and $\xi\in \mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$, one has \begin{equation}\label{eqn:princip rep eqn multi}
\pi_\xi(\sigma^k(D))=\sigma^k(D,x,\pi_\xi).
\end{equation}
By \cite[Theorem 3.47]{MohsenMaxHypo}, $\sigma^k(D)$ is a Fredholm multiplier. This means that $\sigma^k(D)$ is regular in the sense of Baaj-Julg \cite{BaajJulg} and its bounded transform is Fredholm. Hence $$[\sigma^k(D)]\in K_0(C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F})$$ is well defined. To state our index formula, we need three maps.
\begin{itemize}
\item In Section \ref{sec:variant}, we define a map $$\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}:K^0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})\to K_0(C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F})$$ which is a localized version of the Connes-Thom isomorphism. We show that $\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}$ is an isomorphism. Here $K^0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})$ is the topological $K$-theory with compact support of the space $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}$ which inherits the subspace topology from $\mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*$.
\item By applying Excision to the locally compact Hausdorff space $$T^*M\times ]0,1]\sqcup \mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}\times \{0\}\subseteq \mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*,$$ we get a map $$\Ex:K^0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})\to K^0(T^*M).$$
\item We have the Atiyah-Singer index map $$\Ind_{AS}:K^0(T^*M)\to \mathbb{Z}.$$
\end{itemize}
\begin{thmx}\label{main thm}Let $D\in \Diff^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E,F)$ be $*$-maximally hypoelliptic. Then $$\Ind_a(D)=\Ind_{AS}\circ \Ex\circ \mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}^{-1}([\sigma^k(D)]).$$
\end{thmx}
The maps $\Ex$ and $\Ind_{AS}$ are topological maps while $\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}$ is given by excision at the level of noncommutative $C^*$-algebras. We prove that the map $\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}$ is an isomorphism by using the series decomposition of the $C^*$-algebra of nilpotent Lie groups. We show that one has an isomorphism at every step in the decomposition. In principle, to invert $\mu$, one can go back through each isomorphism. This is essentially a Mayer Vietoris argument on the space of representations. This is rather straightforward to do if there aren't many representations of different type. One has the following theorem which gives restrictions on the characteristic set.
\begin{thmx}\label{second_main_thm}If $x\in M$, $\xi\in \mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$, then the co-adjoint orbit $Ad^*(\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x)\cdot \xi$ has dimension $\leq 2\dim(M)$.
\end{thmx}
So even though $\dim(\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x)-\dim(M)$ is arbitrary large, the representations obtained from the characteristic set by the orbit method act on $L^2\mathbb{R}^d$ with $d\leq \dim(M)$. Theorem \ref{second_main_thm} is proved in the end of Section \ref{sec:index theorem}.
Before we give an example, we remark that generally $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$ is a proper subset of the following two sets and so neither of them can be used for our index formula \begin{itemize}
\item the set of $\xi\in \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x^*$ such that $Ad^*(\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x)\cdot \xi$ has dimension $\leq 2\dim(M)$, see the examples in Section \ref{sec:Examp}.
\item the set of $\xi\in \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x^*$ such that $\sigma^k(D,x,\pi_\xi)$ is well defined for any $k\in \mathbb{N}$, $D\in \Diff_{\mathcal{F}}^k(M,E,F)$, see \cite[Examples 1.16]{MohsenMaxHypo}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{ex}\label{ex:examplehjisdqf}
Let $f:S^1\to \mathbb{R},$ $g:S^1\times S^1\to \mathbb{C}$ be smooth functions. We suppose that for each $x\in f^{-1}(0)$, the order of vanishing of $x$ is finite. Let $k$ be the maximum of the order of vanishing of $x$ for all $x\in f^{-1}(0)$ and $f^{-1}_k(0)$ the set of $x\in f^{-1}(0)$ with order of vanishing $k$. We suppose $k$ is odd. Consider the differential operator on $S^1\times S^1$ $$D=(\partial_x^2+(f(x)\partial_y)^2)^{\frac{k+1}{2}}+ g(x,y)\sqrt{-1}\partial_y$$
Then $D$ is $*$-maximally hypoelliptic if and only if $$g(x,y)\notin \pm\mathrm{spec}\left(\left(\partial_z^2-\left(\frac{f^{(k)}(x)}{k!}z^k\right)^{2}\right)^{\frac{k+1}{2}}\right),\quad \forall (x,y)\in f^{-1}_k(0)\times S^1,$$ where $\left(\partial_z^2-\left(\frac{f^{(k)}(x)}{k!}z^k\right)^{2}\right)^{\frac{k+1}{2}}$ acts on $L^2(\mathbb{R})$. One then has \begin{equation}\label{eqn:index sec 1}
\Ind_a(D)=\sum_{x\in f^{-1}_k(0) }\sum_{\lambda}w(\lambda-g(x,\cdot))-w(\lambda + g(x,\cdot)).
\end{equation} where $w$ is the winding number around $0$, and $\sum_{\lambda}$ is the sum over the spectrum of $$\left(\partial_z^2-\left(\frac{f^{(k)}(x)}{k!}z^k\right)^{2}\right)^{\frac{k+1}{2}}.$$ One can suppose that $g\in \Gamma(\End(E))$ where $E$ is a vector bundle, in which case one replaces $\partial_x$ and $\partial_y$ with $\nabla_{\partial_x},\nabla_{\partial_y}$ for any connection on $E$ and the winding number with the $K^1$ class $[\lambda\pm g(x,\cdot)]\in K^1(S^1)=\mathbb{Z}$. This example is generalised and worked out in details in Section \ref{sec:Examp}. To this end we need the definition of the map $\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}$ in the next section.
\end{ex}
\section{Localized Connes-Thom isomorphism}\label{sec:variant}
\paragraph{Excision map.}Let $B$ be a $C^*$-algebra fibered over $[0,1]$ in the sense of Kasparov \cite{KasparovInvent}, $A$ and $C$ the fibers at $1$ and $0$ respectively. We suppose that $B$ is constant over $]0,1]$. Hence, we have an exact sequence \begin{equation}\label{eqn:index map seq}
0\to A\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to B\xrightarrow{\ev_0} C\to 0.
\end{equation} Since $C_0(]0,1])$ is contractible, the $6$-term exact sequence implies that $$K(\ev_0):K_*( B)\to K_*(C)$$ is an isomorphism. We define \begin{equation}
\mu:K_*(C)\xrightarrow{K(\ev_0)^{-1}}K_*(B)\xrightarrow{K(\ev_1)}K_*(A).
\end{equation}
This construction is functorial, in the following sense. Suppose one has a $C([0,1])$-homomorphism map $\phi:B\to B'$. Then the following diagram commutes $$\begin{tikzcd}K_*(C)\arrow[r,"\mu"]\arrow[d]&K_*(A)\arrow[d,"\phi"]\\K_*(C')\arrow[r,"\mu'"]&K_*(A').
\end{tikzcd}$$
\paragraph{Subquotients of $C^*$-algebras.} Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra, $Z$ a locally closed subsets of the spectrum $\hat{A}$ of $A$. One defines a subquotient of $A$ as follows. If $Z=D\cap F\subseteq \hat{A}$ with $D$ open and $F$ closed, then one defines \begin{align*}
I_Z:=\frac{\bigcap_{\pi \in D^c}\ker(\pi)}{\bigcap_{\pi \in D^c\cup F}\ker(\pi)}.
\end{align*}
The $C^*$-algebra $I_Z$ up to a canonical isomorphism is independent of the choice of $D,F$ such that $Z=D\cap F$. Moreover $\hat{I}_Z$ is homeomorphic to $Z$. This gives an bijection between locally closed subsets of $\hat{A}$ and subquotients of $A$, see \cite[Remark 2.3]{FourierTransformNilpotentGroups} and \cite[Lemma 7.5.3]{PhillipsEquivKtheoryBook}.
\paragraph{Localized Connes-Thom.} Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a nilpotent Lie algebra, $G$ the simply connected Lie group integrating $\mathfrak{g}$. We define a family of Lie algebras $(\mathfrak{g}_t)_{t\in [0,1]}$ where $\mathfrak{g}_t=\mathfrak{g}$ with the Lie bracket $$[X,Y]_{\mathfrak{g}_t}=t[X,Y].$$ Let $G_t$ be the simply connected Lie group integrating $\mathfrak{g}_t$, $\overline{G}=\sqcup_{t\in [0,1]}G_t$ the bundle over $[0,1]$ of groups. Then the groups $G_t$ for $t>0$ are isomorphic to $G$ by multiplication by $t$. Hence one has short exact sequence $$0\to C^*G\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to C^*\overline{G}\to C_0(\mathfrak{g}^*)\to 0.$$
By \cite[Chapter 3 Theorem 1]{LudwigBook}, the spectrum $\widehat{C^*\overline{G}}=\sqcup_{t\in ]0,1]}\mathfrak{g}^*/Ad^*(G)\sqcup \mathfrak{g}^*$ and the topology is the quotient of $\mathfrak{g}^*\times [0,1]$. In the previous identification, if $Z\subset\mathfrak{g}^*\times \{t\}$ is a closed under the coadjoint action, then it corresponds to a subset $\widehat{C^*G_t}$ which then corresponds to a subset of $\widehat{C^*G}$ but there is a factor $t$ in this identification. This is irrelevant in what follows because we will only take $\mathbb{R}_+^\times$-invariant sets.
Let $Z\subseteq \mathfrak{g}^*$ be a locally closed subset which is $\mathbb{R}_+^\times$ and $Ad^*(G)$ invariant. The $\mathbb{R}_+^\times$-structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ comes from the standard vector space dilation. The set $Z\times [0,1]\subseteq \mathfrak{g}^*\times [0,1]$ gives a locally closed subset of $\widehat{C^*\overline{G}}$. Let $\bar{I}_Z:=I_{Z\times [0,1]}$ be the corresponding subquotient. Then one has a short exact sequence $$0\to I_Z\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to \bar{I}_Z\to C_0(Z)\to 0.$$ Hence we get a map $$\mu_Z:K^*(Z)\to K_*(I_Z),$$ where $K^*(Z)$ is topological $K$-theory with compact support of $Z$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm 1}
The map $\mu_Z$ is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We fix a decomposition $Z=D\cap F$ with $D$ open and $F$ closed throughout the proof.
We will use the decomposition of $C^*G$ given in \cite[Theorem 4.11]{FourierTransformNilpotentGroups} based on the stratification in \cite{PedersenGeometricQuantNilpotent} of the unitary dual. There exists for some $n\in \mathbb{N}$, a sequence $$0=\mathcal{J}_0\subsetneq \mathcal{J}_1\subsetneq\cdots \subsetneq\mathcal{J}_n=C^*G$$ of ideals which satisfy the properties in \cite[Definition 2.9]{FourierTransformNilpotentGroups}. We will use the notation used there. Each ideal $\mathcal{J}_{i}=I_{\tilde{V_i}}$ where $\tilde{V_i}\subseteq \mathfrak{g}^*$ is an $\mathbb{R}_+^\times$ and $Ad^*(G)$ invariant open set. The quotient $V_i:=\tilde{V}_i/G\subseteq \mathfrak{g}^*/G$ is described in \cite[Proposition 4.5]{FourierTransformNilpotentGroups}. Since each $\tilde{V_i}$ is $\mathbb{R}_+^\times$-invariant and $Ad^*(G)$-invariant, one has a decomposition $$0=\bar{I}_{Z\cap \tilde{V}_0}\subset \bar{I}_{Z\cap \tilde{V}_1}\subset\cdots \subset \bar{I}_{Z\cap \tilde{V}_n}=\bar{I}_Z.$$ For each $i$, there is a exact sequences $$0\to I_{Z\cap \tilde{V}_i}\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to \bar{I}_{Z\cap \tilde{V}_i}\to C_0(Z\cap \tilde{V}_{i})\to 0,$$ and hence maps $$\mu_i:K^*\left(Z\cap \tilde{V}_{i}\right)\to K_*\left(I_{Z\cap \tilde{V}_i}\right).$$
We will prove that each $i$ is an isomorphism by induction. To this end, the short exact sequence $$0\to I_{Z\cap (\tilde{V}_{i}\backslash \tilde{V}_{i-1})}\otimes C_0(]0,1]) \to \bar{I}_{Z\cap (\tilde{V}_{i}\backslash \tilde{V}_{i-1})}\to C_0(Z\cap (\tilde{V}_{i}\backslash \tilde{V}_{i-1}))\to 0$$gives map \begin{equation}\label{eqn:mu proof}
\mu_{i}':K^*\left(Z\cap (\tilde{V}_{i}\backslash \tilde{V}_{i-1})\right)\to K_*\left(I_{Z\cap (\tilde{V}_{i}\backslash \tilde{V}_{i-1})}\right).
\end{equation} Functoriality of $\mu$, the $6$-term exact sequence in $K$-theory and the $5$-lemma imply that it is enough to prove that for each $i$, $\mu_i'$ is an isomorphism. It is shown in \cite[Lemma 1.6.1]{PedersenGeometricQuantNilpotent} that $\tilde{V}_{i}\backslash \tilde{V}_{i-1}$ is diffeomorphic to $(V_i\backslash V_{i-1})\times \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ for some $d$ (which may depend on $i$). Since $Z$ is $Ad^*(G)$ invariant, it is mapped by this diffeomorphism to $\left((Z/Ad^*(G))\cap (V_i\backslash V_{i-1})\right)\times \mathbb{R}^{2d}$. Furthermore by \cite[Theorem 4.11]{FourierTransformNilpotentGroups} $V_i\backslash V_{i-1}$ is a semi-algebraic variety, in particular locally compact Hausdorff and $I_{\tilde{V}_{i}\backslash \tilde{V}_{i-1}}\simeq C_0(V_i\backslash V_{i-1})\otimes \mathcal{K}(L^2\mathbb{R}^d)$. By Morita equivalence, we deduce that $$K_*\left(I_{Z\cap(\tilde{V_i}\backslash \tilde{V}_{i-1})}\right)=K^*((Z/Ad^*(G))\cap (V_i\backslash V_{i-1})).$$It follows that the two sides of \eqref{eqn:mu proof} are isomorphic by a Bott periodicity. It thus suffices to see that $\mu_i'$ is the Bott periodicity. This follows from \cite[Lemma 6 on Page 109]{ConnesBook}.\end{proof}
\paragraph{Generalisation.} Let $X$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space. Suppose that $Z\subseteq \mathfrak{g}^*\times X$ is a locally closed subset which is $\mathbb{R}_+^\times$-invariant and $Ad^*(G)$-invariant, where both act trivially on $X$. By identifying the spectrum of $C^*G\otimes C_0(X)$ with $(\mathfrak{g}^*/Ad^*(G))\times X$, we get a short exact sequence $$0\to I_Z\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to \bar{I}_Z\to C_0(Z)\to 0,$$ where $I_Z$ and $\bar{I}_Z$ are the subquotients of $C^*G\otimes C_0(X)$ and $C^*\overline{G}\otimes C_0(X)$ which correspond to $Z$ and $Z\times [0,1]$ respectively. It follows that we have a map $$\mu_Z:K^*(Z)\to K_*\left(I_Z\right)$$
\begin{theorem}\label{thm 2}The map $\mu_Z$ is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm 2} is the same as that of Theorem \ref{thm 1}.
\begin{rem}The construction of $\mu_Z$ can be improved to give an element of Kasparov's \cite{KasparovInvent} $\KK$-theory $\mu_Z\in \KK^0(C_0(Z),I_Z)$. Our proof shows that $\mu_Z$ is invertible.
\end{rem}
\paragraph{Application to the characteristic set.}Let $\mathcal{F}^i$ be modules as in Section \ref{sec:setting}, $X_i^j$ a finite number of generators of $\mathcal{F}^i$. Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the free graded nilpotent Lie algebra of step $N$ with a generator $\tilde{X}_i^j$ of degree $i$ for each $i,j$, $G$ the simply connected Lie group integrating $\mathfrak{g}$. For each $x\in M$, one has a Lie group homeomorphism \begin{align}\label{eqn:G}
G\xrightarrow{\phi_x} \mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}( \mathcal{F})_x,\quad \tilde{X}_i^j\to [X_i^j]_x\in \frac{\mathcal{F}^i}{\mathcal{F}^{i-1}+I_x\mathcal{F}^i}.
\end{align}
Let $$\phi^*:\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*\to \mathfrak{g}^*\times M, \quad \phi^*(\xi,x)=(\phi_x^*(\xi),x).$$ The map $\phi$ is a closed embedding when $\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*$ is equipped with the subspace topology from $\mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*$ defined in Section \ref{sec:setting}. The set $\phi^*(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})$ is closed because $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}$ is closed. It is also $\mathbb{R}_+^\times$ invariant and $Ad^*(G)$-invariant by \cite[Proposition 1.11]{MohsenMaxHypo}. We define $$C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}=I_{\phi^*(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})}$$ which is a quotient of $C^*G\otimes C(M)$. It is clear that $C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}$ is fibered over $M$ with fiber at $x\in M$ equal to $I_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x}$. It also doesn't depend on the choice of generators $X_i^j$, because for any other set of generators one could take the union of the two sets and form the same construction. Finally by Theorem \ref{thm 2}, one has an isomorphism $$\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}:K^*(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})\to K_*(C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}).$$
\paragraph{Principal symbol as multiplier.}Recall that a left invariant differential operator on $G$ gives an unbounded multiplier of $C^*G$. Let $D\in \Diff^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E,F)$. We write $D$ as a sum of monomials as in \eqref{eqn:diff k} but we only use vector fields $X_i^j$. So the monomials have the form $\nabla_{X_{a_1}^{b_1}}\cdots \nabla_{X_{a_s}^{b_s}}\phi$ with $\sum_{l=1}^s a_i\leq s$. For $x\in M$, we define an unbounded multiplier $ E_x\otimes C^*G\to F_x\otimes C^*G$ by taking the sum of $\tilde{X}_{a_1}^{b_1}\cdots \tilde{X}_{a_s}^{b_s}\otimes \phi_x$ over the monomials with $\sum_{l=1}^s a_i=s$. These multipliers as $x$ varies form a multiplier of $C^*G\otimes C(M)$. This multiplier depends on the choice of the presentation of $D$ as sum of monimals as well as the choice of the generators. Nevertheless any multiplier of $C^*G\otimes C(M)$ descends to any quotient and thus it descends to $I_{\phi^*(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})}$, and gives a multiplier \begin{equation}
\sigma^k(D):\dom(\sigma^k(D))\subseteq \Gamma(E)\otimes_{C(M)} C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}\to \Gamma(F)\otimes_{C(M)} C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}
\end{equation}
which satisfies \eqref{eqn:princip rep eqn multi}. By \eqref{eqn:princip rep eqn multi} and Theorem \ref{thm:charset}, the multiplier $\sigma^k(D)$ doesn't depend on the choice of the generators $X_i^j$ nor on the choice of the presentation of $D$ as sum of monomials.
\section{Examples of index computations}\label{sec:Examp}
The goal of this section is to compute the analytic index of some $*$-maximally hypoelliptic operators on closed manifolds fibered over $S^1$. To this end, we will first consider the model singularity for our examples.
\paragraph{Model singularity.}Let $k,n\in \mathbb{N}$. Consider the filtration on $\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^n$ of depth $k+1$ given by $$\mathcal{F}^i=\langle \partial_x,x^{k+1-i}\partial_{y_1},\cdots, x^{k+1-i}\partial_{y_n}\rangle.$$ The group $\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_{(x,y)}$ has dimension $n+1$ with commutative structure if $x\neq 0$. If $x=0$, then $\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_{(0,y)}$ has dimension $1+n(k+1)$ with generators $[\partial_x]$ in degree $1$ and $[x^{i}\partial_{y_l}]$ in degree $k+1-i$ for $i\in \{0,\cdots,k\},l\in \{1,\cdots,n\}$ and the relations $[[\partial_x],[x^{i}\partial_{y_l}]]=i[x^{i-1}\partial_{y_l}]$. We denote by $\eta \in \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{D})^*_{(0,y)}$ the dual of $[\partial_x]$ and by $\xi_{i,l}$ the dual of $[x^i\partial_y]$. By the definition of the characteristic set $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_{(0,y)}$, it is the set of elements $(\eta,\xi)\in\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_{(0,y)}$ such that there exists a sequence $t_{\alpha}\in ]0,1],(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^n$ and $(f_\alpha,g_\alpha)\in T^*_{(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)} (\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^n)$ such that $$(t_\alpha,x_\alpha,y_\alpha)\to (0,0,y),\quad t_\alpha f_\alpha\to \eta,\quad t_{\alpha}^{k+1-i}x_\alpha^{i}g_{\alpha,l}\to \xi_{i,l},\quad \forall \ i\in \{0,\cdots,k\},l\in \{1,\cdots,n\}$$ where $g_{\alpha,l}$ is the $l$-th component of $g_\alpha$. Hence it consists of elements $(\eta,\xi)$ such that $\eta\in \mathbb{R}$ is arbitrary and $\xi$ is either of the form $\xi_{i,l}=a^ib_l$ for some $a\in \mathbb{R}$ and $b\in \mathbb{R}^n$ or of the form $\xi_{i,l}=0$ if $i<k$ and $\xi_{k,l}=b_l$ for some $b\in \mathbb{R}^n$. So topologically the characteristic set is equal to $$\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_{(0,y)}\simeq \mathbb{R}\times \big(L\times \mathbb{R}_+/L\times \{0\}\big),$$ where $$L=S^{n-1}\times [-\infty,+\infty]/\sim$$ is the mapping torus where we identify $(x,+\infty)$ with $((-1)^kx,-\infty)$ for $x\in S^{n-1}$ and the quotient by $L\times \{0\}$ means we identify $L\times \{0\}$ with a point.
One checks that the set of representations in $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_{(0,y)}$ obtained using the orbit method are \begin{itemize}
\item the $1$-dimensional representations parameterised by $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$
\item the representations on $L^2\mathbb{R}$ parameterised by $\delta\in \mathbb{R}^n\backslash \{0\}$ given by $$\pi_{\delta}([\partial_x])=\partial_x,\quad \pi_{\delta}([x^{i}\partial_{y_l}])=\sqrt{-1}\delta_l x^i.$$
\end{itemize}
Hence we have a short exact sequence $$0\to C_0(\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\})\otimes \mathcal{K}(L^2\mathbb{R})\to C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}_{(0,y)}\to C_0(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})\to 0.$$This exact sequence corresponds by naturality of $\mu$ to the exact sequence $$0\to C_0(\mathbb{R}^3\times S^{n-1})\to C_0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_{(0,y)})\to C_0(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})\to 0.$$
\paragraph{Passage to manifolds.}Let $M$ be a closed $n+1$-dimensional manifold, $p:M\to S^1$ a fiber bundle, $f:S^1\to \mathbb{R}$ a smooth function which is not flat at any point in $f^{-1}(0)$. We denote by $k(x)$ the order of vanishing of $x\in f^{-1}(0)$, $k=\max_{x\in f^{-1}(0)}k(x)$, $f_k^{-1}(0)$ the set of $x\in f^{-1}(0)$ with $k(x)=k$. We fix $X\in \mathcal{X}(M)$ a vector field such that $dp(X)=\partial_x$.
We consider the filtration on $M$ of depth $k+1$ defined inductively by \begin{equation}\label{eqn:filtexampmanif}
\mathcal{F}^1=\langle X,(f\circ p)Y:Y\in \Gamma(\ker(dp))\rangle,\quad\mathcal{F}^{i+1}=\mathcal{F}^{i}+[\mathcal{F}^i,\mathcal{F}^1].
\end{equation}The module $\mathcal{F}^1$ is locally free, so $\mathcal{F}^1=\Gamma(E)$ for some vector bundle $E\to M$. The vector bundle $E$ is topologically isomorphic to $TM$. The isomorphism comes from the isomorphism \begin{align*}
\mathcal{X}(M)\to \mathcal{F}^1=\Gamma(E),\quad gX+hY\mapsto gX+(f\circ p)hY,\quad g,h\in C^\infty(M),Y\in \ker(dp).
\end{align*} We equip $TM$ with a Riemannian metric such that the decomposition $TM=\mathbb{R} X\oplus \ker(dp)$ is orthogonal. We equip $T^*M$ with the dual metric. For $x\in f^{-1}(0)$, let $S_x$ be the sphere bundle of $T^*p^{-1}(x)$, $L_x$ the torus $S_x\times [-\infty,+\infty]/\sim$ with the identification $(y,+\infty)\sim ((-1)^{k(x)}y,-\infty)$. By the previous discussion, we can describe the characteristic set $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}$ as the gluing of $T^*M$ and $\bigsqcup_{x\in f^{-1}(0)}\mathbb{R}\times \big(L_x\times\mathbb{R}_+/L_x\times\{0\})$, where we identify for $x\in f^{-1}(0)$, $T^*M_{|p^{-1}(x)}=\mathbb{R}\oplus T^*p^{-1}(x)$ with $\mathbb{R}\times ((S_x\times \{0\}\times \mathbb{R}_+)/S_x\times\{0\})$. As a set $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}$ is equal to the disjoint union of $T^*M$ with $\mathbb{R}^3\times S_x$ for each $x\in f^{-1}(0)$. Since $T^*M$ is a closed subset of $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}$, we have an exact sequence \begin{align}\label{exactseq1}
0\to \bigoplus_{x\in f^{-1}(0)}C_0(\mathbb{R}^3\times S_x)\to C_0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})\to C_0(T^*M)\to 0
\end{align}
By the previous discussion, we also have a short exact sequence \begin{align}\label{exactseq2}
0\to \bigoplus_{x\in f^{-1}(0)}C_0(\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x)) \otimes \mathcal{K}(L^2\mathbb{R})\to C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}\to C_0(T^*M)\to 0,
\end{align} where $\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x)$ is the cotangent bundle of the fiber $p^{-1}(x)$ with the zero section removed.
The short exact sequences \eqref{exactseq1} and \eqref{exactseq2} correspond to each other in $K$-theory using $\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}$. One can create a similar exact sequence for $T^*M\times ]0,1]\sqcup \mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}\times\{0\}\subseteq \mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*$ defined in \eqref{eqn:af*}, which corresponds to the above two sequence by $\Ex$ map. One then obtains the following.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:index comp} Let $D$ be a $*$-maximally hypoelliptic operator with respect to $\mathcal{F}^\bullet$ of order $s\in \mathbb{N}$ whose principal symbol $[\sigma^s(D)]\in K_0(C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F})$ comes from an element in $$\alpha=\sum_{x\in f^{-1}(0)}\alpha_x\in K_0\left(\bigoplus_{x\in f^{-1}(0)}C_0(\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x)) \otimes \mathcal{K}(L^2\mathbb{R})\right)=\bigoplus_{x\in f^{-1}(0)}K_0(C_0(\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x)) \otimes \mathcal{K}(L^2\mathbb{R})).$$ Then $$\Ind_a(D)=\sum_{x \in f^{-1}(0)}\phi_x(\alpha_x),$$ where $\phi_x: K_0(C_0(\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x)) \otimes \mathcal{K}(L^2\mathbb{R}))\to\mathbb{Z} $ is the composition $$K_0(C_0(\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x)) \otimes \mathcal{K}(L^2\mathbb{R}))\xrightarrow{Morita}K^0(\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x) )\xrightarrow{K_*(\iota)}K^0(T^*p^{-1}(x))\xrightarrow{Ind_{AS}}\mathbb{Z},$$ where $\iota:\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x)\to T^*p^{-1}(x)$ is the inclusion.
\end{prop}
\paragraph{Examples.}
Let $D,D':\Gamma(E)\to \Gamma(E)$ be differential operators of \textit{classical} order $1$ and $l\in \mathbb{N}$ respectively for some vector bundle $E\to M$ such that $2|l(k+1)$ and $D$ is longitudinal with respect to the foliation $\ker(dp)$ and $\sigma^1_{\text{classical}}(D,\xi)^2=-\norm{\xi}^2Id_E$ for $\xi\in \ker(dp)^*$. Here $\sigma^1_{classical}$ is the classical principal symbol. We fix any connection $\nabla$ on $E$. We consider the operator $$D''=(\nabla_X^2+((f\circ p) D)^2)^{\frac{l(k+1)}{2}}-D':\Gamma(E)\to \Gamma(E).$$
The operator $D''$ is of order $l(k+1)$ with respect to the filtration given by \eqref{eqn:filtexampmanif}. Let us compute its principal symbol. If $y\in M$, $\xi\in T^*_yM$ which gives a $1$-dimensional representation of $\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_y$ by \eqref{exactseq1}, then \begin{equation}
\sigma^{l(k+1)}(D'',y,\xi)=\sigma^{l(k+1)}((\nabla_X^2+((f\circ p) D)^2)^{\frac{l(k+1)}{2}},y,\xi)=\left(-\xi(X(y))^2-\norm{\xi_{|\ker(dp)}}^2\right)^{\frac{l(k+1)}{2}}.
\end{equation} The first equality follows because there is no term in $D'$ which is of order $l(k+1)$ and which is non zero when mapped by $\xi$. The injectivity $\sigma^{l(k+1)}(D'',y,\xi)$ if $\xi\neq 0$ is obvious. If $y\in p^{-1}(x)$ with $x\in f^{-1}(0)$, and $\xi\in \ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to an infinite dimensional representation on $L^2\mathbb{R}$ by \eqref{exactseq1}, then by homogenity of the principal symbol with respect to graded dilations, it is enough to consider $\xi$ such that $\norm{\xi}=1$. There are two cases. It is convenient to denote by $c(x)=\frac{f^{(k(x))}(x)}{k!}$ for $x\in f^{-1}(0)$. \begin{itemize}
\item Either $k(x)<k$. In this case none of the terms in $D'$ are of order $l(k+1)$ in a neighbourhood of $y$. Hence $$\sigma^{l(k+1)}(D'',y,\xi)=\left(\partial_z^2-c(x)^2z^{2k(x)}\right)^{\frac{l(k+1)}{2}}.$$ In this case injectivity is obvious, see \cite[Proposition 4.1]{MohsenMaxHypo}.
\item if $k(x)=k$, then the terms in $D'$ of order $l(k+1)$ are precisely the ones of order $l$ with respect to the classical order. It follows that $$\sigma^{l(k+1)}(D'',y,\xi)=\left(\partial_z^2-c(x)^2z^{2k}\right)^{\frac{l(k+1)}{2}}-\sigma^{l}_{classical}(D',y,\xi).$$
The operator $\left(\partial_z^2-c(x)^2z^{2k}\right)^{\frac{l(k+1)}{2}}$ acting on $L^2\mathbb{R}$ is diagonalizable. It follows that $D''$ is is $*$-maximally hypoelliptic if and only if
$$\lambda-\sigma^l_{classical}(D',y,\xi)\in \GL(E_y),$$ for all $$\lambda\in \mathrm{spec}\left(\left(\partial_z^2-c(x)^2z^{2k}\right)^{\frac{l(k+1)}{2}}\right),\ y\in p^{-1}(f^{-1}_k(0)),\ \xi \in \ker(dp)_y,\ \norm{\xi}=1$$
\end{itemize}
By the computation above, $D''$ satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition \ref{prop:index comp}. So\begin{equation}\label{eqn:indexformulasec3Examp}
\Ind_a(D'')=\sum_{x\in f^{-1}_k(0) }\sum_{\lambda} \Ind_{AS}([\lambda-\sigma^l_{classical}(D',y,\xi)]),
\end{equation} where \begin{itemize}
\item $\sum_{\lambda} $ is the sum over the spectrum of $\left(\partial_z^2-c(x)^2z^{2k}\right)^{\frac{l(k+1)}{2}}$.
\item $\Ind_{AS}([\lambda-\sigma^l_{classical}(D',y,\xi)])$ means the image of $[\lambda-\sigma^l_{classical}(D',y,\xi)]\in K^1(S_x)=K^0(\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x))$ by $K^0(\ring{T}^*p^{-1}(x))\xrightarrow{K_*(\iota)}K^0(T^*p^{-1}(x))\xrightarrow{\Ind_{AS}}\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{rem}\label{remendofsection}Consider the filtration of depth $k+2$ on $M$ \begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F}^1=\langle X\rangle,\mathcal{F}^2=\langle X,(f\circ p)Y:Y\in \Gamma(\ker(dp))\rangle,\quad\mathcal{F}^{i+1}=\mathcal{F}^{i}+[\mathcal{F}^i,\mathcal{F}^1]+[\mathcal{F}^{i-1},\mathcal{F}^2].
\end{equation*}
The computations we did above work almost word for word the same for this filtration, one just replaces the formula for $D''$ with $$ (\nabla_X^4-((f\circ p) D)^2)^{\frac{l(k+2)}{4}}-D'$$ and $D,D'$ as above.
\end{rem}
\paragraph{Return to $S^1\times S^1$.} From \eqref{eqn:indexformulasec3Examp}, one immediately deduces \eqref{eqn:index sec 1}. We end this section two further examples. \begin{itemize}
\item for any $k\in \mathbb{N}$, consider the operator $$D=(\partial_x^2+(f(x)\partial_y)^2)^{k+1}+g(x,y)\partial_y^2.$$ The operator is $*$-maximally hypoelliptic if and only if $$g(x,y)\notin \mathrm{spec}\left(\left(\partial_z^2-c(x)^2z^{2k}\right)^{k+1}\right),\quad \forall (x,y)\in f^{-1}_k(0)\times S^1.$$ Its analytic index always vanishes by \eqref{eqn:indexformulasec3Examp}.
\item Using remark \ref{remendofsection}, supposing $4|k+2$, consider the operator $$D=(\partial_x^4-(f(x)\partial_y)^2)^{\frac{k+2}{4}}+g(x,y) \sqrt{-1}\partial_y.$$ The operator is $*$-maximally hypoelliptic if and only if $$g(x,y)\notin \pm\mathrm{spec}\left(\left(\partial_z^4+c(x)^2z^{2k}\right)^{\frac{k+2}{4}}\right),\quad \forall (x,y)\in f^{-1}_k(0)\times S^1.$$ One then has \begin{equation*}
\Ind_a(D)=\sum_{x\in f^{-1}_k(0) }\sum_{\lambda}w(\lambda-g(x,\cdot))-w(\lambda + g(x,\cdot)),
\end{equation*}
where the sum is over the spectrum.
\end{itemize}
\section{Proof of the index formula}\label{sec:index theorem}
In this section, we prove Theorems \ref{main thm} and \ref{second_main_thm}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main thm}]
The idea is to construct a $C^*$-algebra fibered over $[0,1]^2$ which connects the index for $*$-maximally hypoelliptic operators with Atiyah-Singer index. The $C^*$-algebra is obtained as the $C^*$-algebra of the blowup of a singular foliation on $M\times [0,1]^2$, see \cite{MohsenBlowup}. By a singular foliation on a compact manifold, we mean a finitely generated module of vector fields which is closed under Lie brackets. We define a singular foliation on $M\times [0,1]^2$ which is defined as the set of finite sums of vector fields of the form $$t^is f(x,t,s)X(x),$$ where $X\in \mathcal{F}^i$ and $f\in C^\infty(M\times [0,1]^2)$. It is denoted by $\mathfrak{t}\aF$. This is a singular foliation by \eqref{eqn:BracketF}. The holonomy groupoid $\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{t}\aF)\rightrightarrows M\times [0,1]^2$ of $\mathfrak{t}\aF$ defined in \cite{AS1} is fibered over $[0,1]^2$ with fiber over $(t,s)\in [0,1]^2$ equal to \begin{itemize}
\item the pair groupoid $M\times M$ if $(t,s)\in ]0,1]^2$, whose $C^*$-algebra is $\mathcal{K}(L^2M)$
\item the bundle of abelian groups $TM$ if $(t,s)\in ]0,1]\times \{0\}$, whose $C^*$-algebra is $C_0(T^*M)$
\item the bundle of osculating groups $\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F}):=\sqcup_{x\in M}\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x$ if $(t,s)\in \{0\}\times ]0,1]$, whose $C^*$-algebra is $C^*\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})$ is equal to $I_{\phi^*(\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*)}$, where $\phi$ is the map \eqref{eqn:G}. This follows from \cite[Proposition 2.18]{MohsenMaxHypo}.
\item the bundle of abelian groups $\bigsqcup_{x\in M}\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x$ if $(t,s)=(0,0)$. By \cite[Theorem 3.7]{AS3}, the $C^*$-algebra of the fiber is equal to $C_0(\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*)$, where $\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})^*\subseteq \mathfrak{a}\mathcal{F}^*$ inherits the subspace topology defined in Section \ref{sec:setting}.
\end{itemize}
We won't use the maximal $C^*$-algebra $C^*\mathfrak{t}\aF$ defined in \cite{AS1} as it doesn't have the fibers we need. Instead we will use the $C^*$-algebra of the blowup $C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF$ defined in \cite[Section 3]{MohsenBlowup}. By \cite[Theorem 3.7]{MohsenBlowup}, $C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF$ can be defined as a quotient of $C^*\mathfrak{t}\aF$ by the formula $$C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF:=\frac{C^*\mathfrak{t}\aF}{J},\quad J=\{a\in C^*\mathfrak{t}\aF:a_{(t,s)}=0,\quad \forall (t,s)\in ]0,1]^2\}.$$
By \cite[Theorem 3.7 and Example 3.8]{MohsenBlowup}, we deduce that the fibers of $C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF$ are given by\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{K}(L^2M)$ if $(t,s)\in ]0,1]^2$.
\item $C_0(T^*M)$ if $(t,s)\in ]0,1]\times \{0\}$.
\item $C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}$ if $(t,s)\in \{0\}\times ]0,1]$.
\item $C_0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})$ if $(t,s)=(0,0)$.
\end{itemize}
The restriction to each side of the square $[0,1]^2$ gives a short exact sequence of the form \eqref{eqn:index map seq}, and hence an excision map $\mu$. The restriction to the side \begin{itemize}
\item $\{0\}\times [0,1]$ gives the short exact sequence $$0\to C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|\{0\}\times [0,1]}\to C_0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}) \to 0$$ which gives the map $$\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}:K^*(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})\to K_*(C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}).$$
\item $\{1\}\times [0,1]$ gives the short exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{K}(L^2M)\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|\{1\}\times [0,1]}\to C_0(T^*M) \to 0$$ which by \cite[Lemma 6 on Page 109]{ConnesBook} gives the Atiyah-Singer index map $$\Ind_{AS}:K^0(T^*M)\to \mathbb{Z}.$$
\item $[0,1]\times \{0\}$ gives the short exact sequence $$0\to C_0(T^*M)\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to C_0(T^*M\times ]0,1]\sqcup \mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}\times \{0\}) \to C_0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})\to 0$$ which gives the Excision map $$\Ex:K^0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})\to K^0(T^*M).$$
\item $[0,1]\times \{1\}$ gives the short exact sequence $$0\to\mathcal{K}(L^2M)\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|[0,1]\times \{1\}}\to C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}\to 0$$ which gives a map $$\Ind_{\mathcal{F}}:K_*(C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F})\to \mathbb{Z}.$$ \begin{lem}If $D\in \Diff^k_{\mathcal{F}}(M,E,F)$ is $*$-maximally hypoelliptic, then $\Ind_{\mathcal{F}}([\sigma^k(D)])=\Ind_a(D)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
In \cite[Section 2.4]{MohsenMaxHypo}, we constructed an unbounded multiplier $\Theta(D)$ of the $C^*$-algebra $C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|[0,1]\times \{1\}}$ which when restricted to $t\neq 0$ it acts on $\mathcal{K}(L^2M)$ by $t^kD$ and when restricted to $t=0$ it acts on $C^*\mathcal{T}\mathcal{F}$ by $\sigma^k(D)$. This unbounded multiplier is Fredholm. This follows from the construction of a parametrix in \cite[Section 3.10 and 3.11]{MohsenMaxHypo}. It follows that $[\Theta(D)]\in K_0(C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|[0,1]\times \{1\})}$ is well defined. The definition of the map $\Ind_{\mathcal{F}}$ implies the result, because $K(\ev_0)([\Theta(D)])=[\sigma^k(D)]$ and $K(\ev_1)([\Theta(D)])=\Ind_a(D)$.
\end{proof}
\end{itemize}
The existence of the $C^*$-algebra $C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF$ on the square $[0,1]^2$ implies that\begin{equation}\label{eqn:comm A}
\Ind_{\mathcal{F}} \circ \mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}=\Ind_{AS}\circ \Ex.
\end{equation} To see this \begin{lem}The map $K(\ev_{(0,0)}):K_*(C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF)\to K^*(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})$ is an isomorphism, where $\ev_{(0,0)}$ is the evaluation map at $(0,0)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The kernel of $\ev_{(0,0)}$ fits into the short exact sequences \begin{align*}
0\to C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|]0,1]\times [0,1]}\to \ker(\ev_{(0,0)}) \to C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|\{0\}\times ]0,1]}\to 0\\
\end{align*}
Since $C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|\{0\}\times ]0,1]}\simeq C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|(0,1)}\otimes C_0(]0,1])$ and $C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|]0,1]\times [0,1]}\simeq C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF_{|\{1\}\times [0,1]}\otimes C_0(]0,1])$, the result follows from $6$-term exact sequence and the fact that $C_0(]0,1])$ is contractible.
\end{proof}
The two sides of \eqref{eqn:comm A} applied to an element of the form $K(\ev_{(0,0)})(x)$ is equal to $K(\ev_{(1,1)})(x)$ for $x\in K_*(C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\aF)$. By surjectivity of $K(\ev_{(0,0)})$ the result follows. Since $\mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}$ is an isomorphism, we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\Ind_{\mathcal{F}}=\Ind_{AS}\circ \Ex\circ \mu_{\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
This finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{main thm}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{second_main_thm}]In \cite[Section 2.2]{MohsenBlowup}, a blowup space of any singular foliation is defined. In particular for $\mathfrak{t}\aF$, we get a blowup space $\blup(\mathfrak{t}\aF)_{(x,0,1)}$ which is defined as a subspace of the Grassmannian manifold of subspaces of $\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x$ of codimension $\dim(M)$. It is shown in \cite[Section 3.2]{MohsenBlowup} that any element $\xi\in \mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$ must vanish on a subspace $V\subseteq \mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x$ such that $V\in \blup(\mathfrak{t}\aF)_{(x,0,1)}$. By \cite[Proposition 2.7]{MohsenBlowup}, $V$ is a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{gr}(\mathcal{F})_x$. If $B_\xi:\mathfrak{g}\times\mathfrak{g}\to \mathbb{R}$ is the anti-symmetric bilinear map $B_\xi(X,Y)=\xi([X,Y])$. Then it is well known that $\dim(Ad^*(\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F})_x)\cdot \xi)=\codim(\ker(B_\xi))$. But since $\xi$ vanishes on $V$ and $V$ is a Lie subalgebra, it follows that $B_\xi$ vanishes on $V\times V$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{refcontext}[sorting=nyt]
\printbibliography
\end{refcontext}
{\footnotesize
(Omar Mohsen) Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France
\vskip-2pt e-mail: \texttt{<EMAIL>}}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Motivated by microarray applications, the multiple testing problem has been the subject of active research in several fields. Since the formal introduction of the false discovery rate (FDR) control and the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) procedure in~\cite{benjamini1995}, they have attracted significant interest in areas such as genomics and neuroimaging~\cite{genovese2002thresholding,abramovich2006adapting,efron2012large}, with many fundamental extensions~\cite{benjamini2001control,efron2001empirical,storey2002direct,sarkar2002some,genovese2002operating,efron2012large}.
In this work, we focus on distributed inference problems for FDR control based on the BH procedure, which is different from the existing literature on distributed detection and hypothesis testing formulations~\cite{tenney1981,tsitsiklis1984,viswanathan1997,blum1997}. Our work is largely motivated by a recent distributed FDR control formulation~\cite{Ramdas2017b} that leads to the Query-Test-Exchange (QuTE) algorithm with FDR control. In particular, the QuTE algorithm requires each node $i$ to transmit its p-values to all of its neighbor nodes $c\ge 1$ times to obtain p-values that are at nodes $c$ steps away (i.e., nodes connected by $c-1$ edges from node $i$). However, for a large-scale network with numerous nodes that each possesses, e.g., $10^6$ p-values, the amount of required communication quickly becomes infeasible or costly.
In fact, there is a trade-off between the amount of communication in the network and the statistical power of this algorithm. When no communication is allowed, each node performs the BH procedure (with a corrected test size) on its own p-values, leading to a Bonferroni type test; on the other hand, if unlimited communication is allowed in a connected network, at the end of the algorithm each node would have the entire set of p-values in the network, resulting in performing the global BH at each node. A natural question in a distributed network is whether it is possible to achieve FDR control with good power in a communication-efficient manner.
To shed some light on this challenge, we take an asymptotic perspective and propose an aggregation method that is extremely communication-efficient. Our method is asymptotically equivalent to the global BH procedure, while reducing the communication cost to essentially two real-valued number per node. Even though the asymptotic analysis requires some assumptions, the proposed method is shown to be stable and robust in the finite sample regime according to our extensive simulation studies. A related attempt to reduce the communication cost of the QuTE algorithm has been made in~\cite{xiang2019distributed} but it still requires transmitting the quantized version of all the p-values in a network. Under a different measure (probability distribution of false alarms under FDR control), the authors in~\cite{ray2011false} study a distributed sensor network setting for detection of a single target in a region of interest, where each sensor node has only one p-value.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section~II presents the background and problem formulation. In Section~III, we present our distributed BH algorithm along with the asymptotic analysis. We illustrate the performance of our method via a variety of simulations in Section~IV.
\section{Background and Problem Settings}
\label{sec:background}
\subsection{Multiple Testing and False Discovery Rate Control}
\label{sec:FDR}
Consider testing the hypotheses $\mathsf{H_{0,k}}$ against their corresponding alternatives $\mathsf{H_{1,k}}$ for $1 \leq k\leq m$, according to the test statistics $X_k, 1 \leq k\leq m$, where $m_0$ of them are generated according to the null hypotheses.
Let $P_k = p(X_k)$, $1\le k\le m$, denote the p-values computed under the null hypothesis $\mathsf{H_{0,k}}$. The goal of multiple testing is to test the $m$ hypotheses while controlling a simultaneous measure of type I error. A rejection procedure controls a measure of error at some prefixed level $\alpha$, for $0<\alpha<1$, if it guarantees that the error is at most $\alpha$. The two major approaches for simultaneous error control are family-wise error rate (FWER) control and false discovery rate (FDR) control. FWER concerns with controlling the probability of making at least one false rejection, while FDR is a less stringent measure of error that aims to control the \emph{proportion} of false rejections among all rejections in expectation. For $m$ realizations of $p$-values, $(p_1,p_2,\ldots, p_m)$, denote the ordered $p$-values by $(p_{(1)},p_{(2)},\ldots, p_{(m)})$, where $p_{(1)}$ and $p_{(m)}$ denote the smallest and largest $p$-values, respectively. Let $R$ and $V$ denote the number of rejections and false rejections by some procedure, respectively. Then, FWER is defined as $\mathbb{P}(V>0)$ and it can be controlled at some target level $\alpha$ by rejecting $\{k: p_k \leq \alpha/m\}$, known as Bonferroni correction. On the other hand, FDR is defined as
\begin{equation}
\text{FDR} = \mathbb{E}\left(\frac{V}{\max\{R,1\}}\right),
\end{equation}
and the celebrated Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) procedure~\cite{benjamini1995} controls the $\text{FDR}$ at level $\alpha$ by rejecting the $\hat{k}$ smallest p-values, where ${\hat{k}} = \max\big\{0\leq k\leq m: p_{(k)}\le \tau_k \big\}$ with $\tau_k=\alpha k/m$ and $p_{(0)}=0$. The rejection threshold is usually denoted by $\tau_{\text{BH}}: = \tau_{\hat{k}}$.
\subsection{Distributed False Discovery Control: Problem Setting}
\label{sec:distributed}
In the distributed scheme we are going to propose, our goal is to attain the global BH procedure performance, asymptotically. By global performance, we mean rejecting according to the centralized (pooled) BH threshold. As a result, we get the same FDR and power as the centralized BH procedure, where
\begin{equation}
\text{power}=\mathbb{E}\left(\frac{R-V}{\max\{m_1,1\}}\right),
\end{equation}
and $m_1=m-m_0$ denotes the total number of true alternatives.
We follow the mixture model formulation~\cite{genovese2002operating}, where a null (or alternative) hypothesis is true with probability $r_0$ (or $r_1$).
Consider a network consisting of $N$ nodes. Suppose the p-values in the network are generated $\iid$ according to the (mixture) distribution function $\mathcal{G}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^N{q^{(i)}\,G\big(t;r_0^{(i)}\big)}$, where a p-value is generated in node $i$ with probability $q^{(i)}$ and according to the distribution function $G\big(t;r_0^{(i)}\big) = r_0^{(i)}\,U(t) + (1-r_0^{(i)}) F(t),\ 0 \leq r_0^{(i)} < 1$, with $U$ denoting the CDF of p-values under their corresponding null hypotheses, (which is $\mathrm{Unif}[0, 1]$,) and $F$ denoting the common (but \emph{unknown}) distribution function of the p-values under $\mathsf{H_1}$.
\begin{assumption}
Let $m$ denote the number of p-values in the network. For all nodes $i\in \{1,...,N\}$, we assume $r_0^{(i)}(m)$ is fixed, i.e., $r_0^{(i)}(m)=r_0^{(i)}<1$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$, and $q^{(i)}_m\rightarrow q^{(i)}$ as $m\rightarrow \infty$ where $\sum_{m=1}^\infty{q^{(i)}_m}=\infty$.\footnote{We make the assumption $\sum_{m=1}^\infty{q^{(i)}_m}=\infty$ to ensure $m^{(i)}\,\rightarrow\,\infty$ for all\ $1\leq i\leq N$ (with probability 1 as $m\to \infty$) by the Borel-Cantelli lemma.
So this assumption can be interpreted as we ignore the nodes with finite number of p-values in the limit. }\label{ass:fixed}
\end{assumption}
Under Assumption \ref{ass:fixed}, we have $\mathcal{G}_m(t) = G\big(t;r_0^*(m)\big)$, where $r_0^*(m)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}{q^{(i)}_m\,r_0^{(i)}}$ is the global probability of true nulls. Also, $r_0^*(m)\rightarrow r_0^*$, where $r_0^*=\sum_{i=1}^{N}{q^{(i)}\,r_0^{(i)}}$.
Let $\tau^*_{\text{BH}}(\alpha)$ and $\tau^{(i)}_{\text{BH}}(\alpha^{(i)})$ denote the global and local ($i$-th node) rejection thresholds for some test sizes $\alpha$ and $\alpha^{(i)}$, respectively.
Under suitable assumptions, Theorem 1 in \cite{genovese2002operating} argues that
\begin{align*}
\tau^*_{\text{BH}}(\alpha)&\xrightarrow{\mathcal{P}
\tau(\alpha;r_0^*),\\
\tau^{(i)}_{\text{BH}}(\alpha^{(i)})&\xrightarrow{\mathcal{P}} \tau(\alpha^{(i)};r_0^{(i)}),
\end{align*}
where $\tau(\alpha;r_0):=\sup\big\{t:G(t;r_0)=(1/\alpha)\,t\big\}$.
On the other hand, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sup\{t:G(t;r_0)=(1/\alpha)\,t\}=\sup\{t:F(t)=\beta(\alpha;r_0)\,t\}
\end{equation*}
for $0 \leq r_0<1$, where
\begin{align*}
\beta(\alpha;r_0) := \frac{(1/\alpha)-{r}_0}{1-{r}_0}\ .
\end{align*}
Therefore, $\tau^*_{\text{BH}}$ admits a characterization via $F(t)$ and $\beta(\alpha;r_0^*)$ in the limit (and same for $\tau^{(i)}_{\text{BH}}$).
This (asymptotic) representation
leads to a key observation: Each node can leverage the global proportion of true nulls $r_0^*$ (provided to them) to achieve the global performance by calibrating its (local) test size $\alpha^{(i)}$ such that $\beta(\alpha^{(i)};r_0^{(i)})=\beta(\alpha;r_0^*)=:\beta^*$
to reach the global threshold.
Specifically, it is straightforward to observe that setting $\alpha^{(i)} := \big((1-{r}_0^{(i)})\beta(\alpha;r_0^*) + {r}_0^{(i)}\big)^{-1}$ in $\beta(\alpha^{(i)};r_0^{(i)})$ at node $i$ will result in the global performance asymptotically.
We will formally present our \emph{distributed BH method} in the next section.
\section{Communication-Efficient Distributed BH}
\label{sec:quantized-FDR}
Consider a network consisting of one center node and $N$ other nodes, where the center node collects (or broadcasts) information from (or to) all the other $N$ nodes. Each node $i$, $i\in \{1,...,N\}$, owns $m^{(i)}$
p-values ${\bf P}^{(i)}=(P_1^{(i)},..., P_{m^{(i)}}^{(i)})$, where $m^{(i)}_0$ (or $m^{(i)}_1$) of them correspond to the true null (or alternative) hypotheses with $m^{(i)}_0 + m^{(i)}_1 = m^{(i)}$.
Let $\hat{r}^{(i)}_0$ denote an estimator of $r^{(i)}_0$. In particular, in the simulation section, we will focus on two estimators of the upper bound of $r^{(i)}_0$~\cite{storey2002direct,swanepoel1999limiting}.
\subsection{Algorithm}
For an overall targeted FDR level $\alpha$, our \emph{distributed BH method} consists of three main steps.
\begin{itemize}\setlength\itemsep{0.5em}
\item[(1)] {\bf Collect p-values counts}: Each node~$i$ estimates $\hat{r}^{(i)}_0$ and then sends $\big(m^{(i)}, \hat{r}^{(i)}_0\big)$ to the center node.
\item[(2)] {\bf Estimate global slope ($\beta^*$)}: Based on $\big(m^{(i)}, \hat{r}^{(i)}_0\big)$, $i\in\{1,...,N\}$, the center node computes $\hat\beta^*$ and broadcasts it to all the nodes, where
\begin{align*}
\hat\beta^* = \frac{(1/\alpha)-\hat{r}^*_0}{1-\hat{r}^*_0}\geq 1,
\end{align*}
with $\hat{r}^*_0= \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{r}_0^{(i)}m^{(i)}$ and $m=\sum_{i=1}^N m^{(i)}$.
\item[(3)] {\bf Perform BH locally}: Upon receiving $\hat\beta^*$, each node computes its own $\hat\alpha^{(i)}$ and performs the BH procedure according to $\hat\alpha^{(i)}$, where
\begin{align*}
\hat\alpha^{(i)} = \frac{1}{\big(1-\hat{r}_0^{(i)}\big)\hat\beta^* + \hat{r}_0^{(i)}}\leq 1.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
We note that in the case of having only one node in the network ($N=1$), we get $\hat{r}^*_0= \hat{r}_0^{(1)}$ and the algorithm reduces to the BH procedure, i.e., $\hat\alpha^{(1)}=\alpha$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Estimation of $r_0^{(i)}$}
To begin with, we briefly review the two estimators of $r_0^{(i)}$ we use in this paper. Let $P_{(1)}<...< P_{(m)}$ denote the ordered p-values at some node, generated \iid from $G(t;r_0)$ (defined in \ref{sec:distributed}) and $\mathsf{G}_m(t)$ denote the empirical CDF of $(P_1,..., P_m)$. The problem of estimating the ratio of alternatives, $r_1$, has been studied extensively~\cite{hochberg1990more,hengartner1995finite,swanepoel1999limiting,benjamini2000adaptive,efron2001empirical,storey2002direct}. We adopt the following two estimators that are \emph{strongly consistent} estimators of some upper bounds of $r_0$, as suggested in~\cite{genovese2004stochastic}:
\smallskip
\noindent{{\bf Storey's estimator}}~\cite{storey2002direct}: for any $\lambda\in (0,1)$,
\begin{align*}
\hat{r}^{\text{Storey}}_0 = \min\biggl\{\frac{1-\mathsf{G}_m(\lambda)}{1-\lambda}, \,1\biggr\};
\end{align*}
\noindent{{\bf Spacing estimator}}~\cite{swanepoel1999limiting}:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{r}^{\text{spacing}}_0 = \min\biggl\{\frac{2r_m}{m V_m},1\biggr\},
\end{equation*}
where $r_m = m^{4/5}(\log(m)^{-2l})$, for any $l>0$, and
\begin{align*}
V_m = \max_{r_m+1\le j\le m-r_m} (P_{(j+r_m)}-P_{(j-r_m)}).
\end{align*}
In fact, both estimators converge almost surely to upper bounds of $r_0$ (known to be close to $r_0$~\cite{genovese2004stochastic}).
This follows from some simple algebra combined with $\mathsf{G}_m(\lambda)\xrightarrow{a.s.} G(\lambda;r_0)$ by the strong law of large numbers for Storey's estimator; and from $(2r_m)/(m V_m)\xrightarrow{a.s.} \min_{0<t<1} (r_0+r_1 f(t))\geq r_0$ for the spacing estimator, where $f(t)$ denotes the density function of $F(t)$. Under slightly different conditions, another estimator is proposed in~\cite{hengartner1995finite}. We skip it in this work due to its similar asymptotic behavior to the spacing estimator.
\subsection{Asymptotic Equivalence to the Global BH}
\begin{lemma}
Under Assumption \ref{ass:fixed}, if $\hat{r}_0^{(i)}\xrightarrow{a.s.}\overline{r}_0^{\,(i)}$ as $m^{(i)}\rightarrow\infty$, for all $1\leq i\leq N$, then we have
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\hat{r}^*_0\xrightarrow{a.s.}\overline{r}^*_0\ ,\quad
\hat\beta^*\xrightarrow{a.s.}\overline{\beta}^*\ ,\quad
\hat\alpha^{(i)}\xrightarrow{a.s.}\widetilde{\alpha}^{(i)}\ ,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
as $m\rightarrow\infty$, where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\overline{r}^*_0 &=\sum_{i=1}^{N}{\overline{r}_0^{\,(i)}q^{(i)}}\ ,\\
\overline{\beta}^* &= \frac{({1}/{\alpha})-\overline{r}^*_0}{1-\overline{r}^*_0} \ ,\\
\widetilde{\alpha}^{(i)} &= \Big({\big(1-\overline{r}_0^{\,(i)}\big)\overline{\beta}^*+\overline{r}_0^{\,(i)}}\Big)^{-1}\ .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\sum_{m=1}^\infty{q^{(i)}_m}=\infty$ (and according to the independence of p-values), we have $m^{(i)}\rightarrow\infty$ with probability 1 for all $1\leq i\leq N$ as $m\rightarrow\infty$. We note that $\sum_{k=1}^\infty {{k^{-2}}{q^{(i)}_k\big(1-q^{(i)}_k\big)}}<\infty$ and ${\lim}_{m\rightarrow\infty}\big(\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k=1}^m{q^{(i)}_k}\big)=q^{(i)}$ (recall that $\lim_{m\to \infty}q^{(i)}(m)=q^{(i)}$). Therefore, $m^{(i)}/m\xrightarrow{a.s.}q^{(i)}$ by Kolmogorov’s strong law of large numbers. Direct application of the continuous mapping theorem proves the claims.
\end{proof}
\begin{assumption}
To simplify the technical arguments, we assume that the estimators of $r_0^{(i)}$ are consistent, i.e., $\overline{r}_0^{\,(i)}=r_0^{\,(i)}$ for all $1\leq i\leq N$. \label{ass:consis}
\end{assumption}
We note that under Assumption \ref{ass:consis}, we have $\overline{r}_0^*=r_0^*$, $\overline{\beta}^*=\beta^*$, and $\widetilde{\alpha}^{(i)}={\alpha}^{(i)}$.
Recall that $F$ denotes the (common) CDF of the p-values under $\mathsf{H_1}$ and define\footnote{In general, $\{t:F(t)={\beta}^*\, t\}\neq \varnothing$ and the solutions of $F(t)=\beta\,t$ are bounded by $1/\beta \leq \alpha$. Hence, the supremum always exists.}
\begin{equation*}
\tau^*:=\tau(\alpha;r_0^*)=\sup\{t:F(t)={\beta}^*\, t\} ,
\end{equation*}
where $\beta^*=\beta(\alpha;r_0^*)$.
\begin{assumption}
$F(t)$ is continuously differentiable at $t={\tau}^*$ and $F'({\tau}^*)\neq {\beta}^*$.
\label{concav}
\end{assumption}
\begin{remark}
It should be noted that $F$ can be a mixture (or compound) distribution \cite[Theorem 7]{genovese2002operating}.
\end{remark}
We note that $\beta(\alpha^{(i)};r_0^{(i)})=\beta^*$ by the definition of $\alpha^{(i)}$ (in section \ref{sec:distributed}) and as a result, $\tau(\alpha^{(i)};r_0^{(i)})=\tau^*$. Therefore, according to Lemma \ref{het} in the appendix, Assumptions \ref{ass:fixed}, \ref{ass:consis}, and \ref{concav} are sufficient to imply $\tau_{\text{BH}}^{(i)}({\alpha}^{(i)})\xrightarrow{\mathcal{P}} \tau^*$ (\emph{exponentially fast}) as $m\to\infty$, where $\tau_{\text{BH}}^{(i)}({\alpha}^{(i)})$ denotes the BH rejection threshold at node $i$ with the target FDR ${\alpha}^{(i)}$.
The following lemma concerns the asymptotic validity of this argument for the BH procedure based on the plug-in estimator $\hat{\alpha}^{(i)}$, i.e., we wish to show that $\tau_{\text{BH}}^{(i)}(\hat{\alpha}^{(i)})\xrightarrow{\mathcal{P}} {\tau}^*$ holds as well. To simplify the notation, we drop the superscript $(i)$ in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Under Assumptions \ref{ass:fixed}, \ref{ass:consis}, and \ref{concav}, if $\hat{\alpha}_m\xrightarrow{a.s.}\alpha$ as $m\to\infty$, then $ \tau_{\text{BH}}(\hat\alpha_m)\xrightarrow{a.s.}\tau_\alpha:=\tau(\alpha;r_0)$, where,
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\text{BH}}(\hat\alpha_m) = \frac{\hat\alpha_m}{m}\max\big\{0\leq k\leq m:P_{(k)}\leq (k/m)\hat\alpha_m\big\}\ \nonumber
\end{equation}
(with $P_{(0)} = 0$), is the rejection threshold for the BH procedure with estimated target FDR $\hat\alpha_m$. \label{thm:plugin}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
According to Assumption \ref{concav}, there exist a $\delta$-neighborhood of $\alpha$, $\mathcal{B}_{\delta}(\alpha)$, such that $F'(\tau_{\breve{\alpha}})\neq \beta_{\breve{\alpha}}$ for all $\breve{\alpha}\in\mathcal{B}_{\delta}(\alpha)$.
Fix some $0<\delta'< \delta$. By the almost sure convergence of $\hat\alpha_m$, we have $|\hat\alpha_m-\alpha|\leq\delta'$ for $m > \widetilde{m}(\omega)$. Hence, for large $m$ we get
\begin{equation*}
\tau_{\text{BH}}(\alpha-\delta')\leq \tau_{\text{BH}}(\hat\alpha_m)\leq \tau_{\text{BH}}(\alpha+\delta') \quad \ a.s.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, according to Lemma \ref{het} (with fixed $r_0(m)$) we get
\begin{equation*}
(1-\epsilon)\tau_{\alpha-\delta'}\leq \tau_{\text{BH}}(\hat\alpha_m)\leq (1+\epsilon)\tau_{\alpha+\delta'} \ a.s.,\ \text{large $m$}
\end{equation*}
for all $\epsilon>0$ and $0<\delta'< \delta$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{propo}
Under Assumptions \ref{ass:fixed}, \ref{ass:consis}, \ref{concav}, if $\tau^*>0$ then our distributed BH method attains the global performance (i.e., centralized FDR and power) as $m\,\rightarrow\,\infty$ where $m$ denotes the number of p-values in the network.
\end{propo}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{thm:plugin}, we have $\tau_{\text{BH}}^{(i)}(\hat{\alpha}^{(i)})\xrightarrow{\mathcal{P}} {\tau}^*$. Also, we have $\tau^*_{\text{BH}}(\alpha)\xrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}\tau^*$ according to Lemma \ref{het}.
The convergence of FDR and power follows from the convergence (in probability) and boundedness of $\text{FDP}=\frac{V}{R\vee 1}$ and $\text{TDP}=\frac{R-V}{m_1\vee 1}$, respectively.
\end{proof}
\section{Simulations}
In this section, we demonstrate our proposed algorithm in various settings. In all the experiments, we set $\alpha = 0.2$ and number of nodes $N=50$. The \emph{estimated} FDR and power are computed by averaging over $200$ trials.
The samples are distributed according to $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ under $\mathsf{H_0}$. Under $\mathsf{H_1}$,
we consider mixture alternatives (i.e., $\mathcal{N}(\mu,1)$ with random $\mu$ and we fix the distribution of $\mu$ for all nodes) and composite alternatives (i.e., we generate samples according to $\mathcal{N}(\mu^{(i)},1)$ at node $i$ with a unique distribution function for $\mu^{(i)}$).
As a reference, we perform the global (referred to as \emph{central} in the plots below) multiple testing by carrying out the BH procedure over all the p-values from all nodes, i.e., $\{{\bf P}^{1},..., {\bf P}^{N}\}$. We fix the hyper-parameters $\lambda=0.5$ for Storey's estimator and $l=0.5$ for the spacing estimator in all our simulations. The empirical performance of the spacing estimator is more stable in comparison with that of Storey's estimator, but the hyper-parameters can potentially be optimized (e.g., one can select $\lambda$ to minimize the mean-square error of the estimator via bootstrapping~\cite[Section 9]{storey2002direct}).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.31]{exp_fixed_n.eps}
\caption{Experiment~1 (Each node owns $m^{(i)}=n$ p-values.).}\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent{{\bf Experiment 1 (Same number of p-values for all nodes).} In this experiment, we set $m^{(i)}=n$ and vary it from $10^2$ to $10^5$. To focus more on the sparse setting (i.e., when $r_1$ is small), we randomly pick $r_1^{(i)}\sim \mathrm{Unif}[0,0.3]$, and compute the number of alternatives $m^{(i)}_1=\lfloor r_1^{(i)}n\rfloor$. To ensure reproducibility, we fix $r_1^{(i)}=0.3*(i/N)$ for generating the p-values. Then we run $200$ trials, where in each trial, we fix $\mu_{\text{base}}=3$, and generate samples under $\mathsf{H_1}$ by first picking $\mu\sim\mathrm{Unif}\{[-\mu_{\text{base}}-0.5, -\mu_{\text{base}}+0.5]\cup [\mu_{\text{base}}-0.5, \mu_{\text{base}}+0.5]\}$ and then generating $X^{(i)}_j\sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,1)$.}
\smallskip
\noindent{{\bf Experiment 2 (Different number of p-values for each node).} In this experiment, we vary $n$ from $10^2$ to $10^6$ and randomly sample $m^{(i)}= n^{0.2+0.8A_i}$, where $A_i\sim\mathrm{Unif}[0,1]$. To ensure reproducibility, we fix $m^{(i)}= n^{0.2+0.8*(i/N)}$ for generating the p-values. The setting is otherwise the same as in Experiment~1.}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.31]{exp_vary_n.eps}
\caption{Experiment~2 (Different $m^{(i)}$ for each node).}\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent{{\bf Experiment 3 (Vary $\mu$).} In this experiment, we consider the opposite case. We fix $m^{(i)}$'s by setting $n=10^4$ and pick $m^{(i)}= n^{0.2+0.8*(i/N)}$. We vary $\mu_{\text{base}}$ from $2$ to $5$, and generate samples under $\mathsf{H_1}$ in the same way as in Experiment~1.}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.31]{exp_vary_u.eps}
\caption{Experiment~3 (Vary $\mu$).}\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent{{\bf Experiment 4 (Heterogeneous alternatives).} We consider a setting where each node~$i$ generates samples according to a unique $\mu^{(i)}_{\text{base}}$ under $\mathsf{H_1}$. Specifically, we fix $\mu_{\text{base}}^{(i)}=2+i/N$ and pick $\mu^{(i)}\sim\mathrm{Unif}\{[-\mu_{\text{base}}^{(i)}-0.5, -\mu_{\text{base}}^{(i)}+0.5]\cup[\mu_{\text{base}}^{(i)}-0.5, \mu_{\text{base}}^{(i)}+0.5]\}$. We set $m^{(i)}= n^{0.2+0.8*(i/N)}$. And then we fix $r_1^{(i)}$, and vary $n$ from $10^3$ to $10^6$ to generate samples under $\mathsf{H_1}$ in the same way as in Experiment~1.}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.31]{exp_robust.eps}
\caption{Experiment~4 (Heterogeneous alternatives).}\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent{{\bf Experiment 5 (Dependent p-values).} Finally, we evaluate the robustness of our method by considering dependent p-values. In particular, we adopt two commonly used covariance structures: (I) $\Sigma_{i,j} = \rho^{|i-j|}$, and (II) $\Sigma_{i,i} = 1$, $\Sigma_{i,j} = \rho\cdot\boldsymbol{1} (\lceil i/20\rceil=\lceil j/20\rceil)$, where $\boldsymbol{1}(\cdot)$ denotes the indicator function. We vary $\rho$ from $0$ to $0.8$ and fix $n=10^3$ for $m^{(i)}= n^{0.2+0.8*(i/N)}$ and $\mu_{\text{base}}=3$. The setting is otherwise the same as in Experiment~1.}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.31]{exp_correlated_1.eps}
\caption{Experiment~5 with covariance structure (I).}\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.31]{exp_correlated_block.eps}
\caption{Experiment~5 with covariance structure (II).}\vspace{-1.3em}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
In this work, we have initiated a methodology for distributed large-scale multiple testing which is based on (one-shot) aggregation of proportions of the true nulls at a center node. Our simulations with Gaussian statistics show that the method is robust to deviations from the assumptions.
Considering the minimal communication budget we allow, the only potential competitor is the no-communication (or no-aggregation) method, which has the asymptotic FDR control property.
We believe that our algorithm can improve significantly upon the power of the no-communication method (in both local and global senses) for some challenging cases. We leave these comparisons for the extended version of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
In a recent paper by~Fern\'{a}ndez, Jeanjean, Mari\c{s} and the author
the following inequality of Gagliardo-Nirenberg type was proved
\begin{align}\label{eq:GN}
\|u\|_q \les \|(|D|^s-1)u\|_2^{1-\kappa}\|u\|_2^\kappa \qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)).
\end{align}
Here, $(|D|^s-1)u= \mathcal F^{-1}((|\cdot|^s-1)\hat u)$, the symbol $\les$ stands for $\leq C$ for some
positive number $C$ independent of $u$ and the parameters are supposed to satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GNConditions}
s>0,\,\kappa\geq \frac{1}{2},\,2\leq q<\infty,\, d\in\N,d\geq 2
\quad\text{and}\quad
\frac{2(1-\kappa)}{d+1}\leq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q} \leq \frac{(1-\kappa)s}{d},
\end{equation}
see~\cite[Theorem~2.6]{FerJeaManMar}.
In this paper we investigate such inequalities in greater generality both by extending the analysis to a
larger class of exponents, but also by allowing for more general Fourier symbols. We expect applications in
the context of normalized solutions of elliptic PDEs and orbital
stability~\cite{CazLio,BarJeaSoa,NorisTavaresVerzini} or long-time behaviour~\cite{Weinstein} of
time-dependent PDEs just asin the case of the classical Gagliardo-Nirenberg
Inequality~\cite{Nirenberg_OnElliptic}.
In~\cite{FerJeaManMar} and~\cite{LenzmannWeth} applications of~\eqref{eq:GN} to variational existence
results and symmetry breaking phenomena for biharmonic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations are given.
For the existence and qualitative properties of maximizers in classical Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities
we refer to~\cite{Weinstein,DelPinoDolbeault,BellFraVis,LenzmannSok,Zhang}. Interpolation inequalities in different
spaces like Lorentz spaces, Besov spaces, BMO or weighted Lebesgue spaces can be found
in~\cite{BrezisVanSch,HajMolOzaWa_Necessary,BreMiro_SobolevGN,DaoLam,CaffKohnNir,McCorRobRod_GN}.
\medskip
We shall be concerned with inequalities of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:GNgeneral}
\|u\|_q \les \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa}\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^\kappa
\end{align}
where $q,r_1,r_2\in [1,\infty],\kappa\in [0,1]$ and $P_1,P_2:\R^d\to\R$ are Fourier symbols that
may vanish on a given smooth compact hypersurface $S\subset\R^d,d\geq 2$ with at least $k\in\{1,\ldots,d-1\}$
non-vanishing principal curvatures in each point. In the case $d=1$ the symbols are allowed to have a finite
set of zeros $S\subset \R$.
We will assume that $P_i$ vanishes of order $\alpha_i$
on $S$ and behaves like $|\cdot|^{s_i}$ at infinity, see Assumption~(A1),(A2) below for a precise statement.
This covers~\eqref{eq:GN} as a special case where $d\geq 2$,
$(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,s_1,s_2)=(1,0,s,0)$ and $S$ is the unit sphere in $\R^d$, so
$k=d-1$. As an application of our results for~\eqref{eq:GNgeneral} we obtain the following generalization of
\cite[Theorem~2.6]{FerJeaManMar}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:GNhigherDspecial}
Assume $d\in\N,d\geq 2,\kappa\in [0,1],s>0$. Then
$$
\|u\|_q \les \|(|D|^s-1)u\|_r^{1-\kappa}\|u\|_r^\kappa \qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R^d))
$$
holds provided that the exponents $r\in [1,2], q\in [2,\infty]$ satisfy
$$
\frac{2(1-\kappa)}{d+1} \leq \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q} \leq \frac{(1-\kappa)s}{d}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\min\left\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\right\}
\begin{cases}
\geq \frac{d+1-2\kappa}{2d} &\text{if }\kappa>0, \\
> \frac{d+1}{2d} &\text{if }\kappa=0.
\end{cases}
$$
\end{thm}
So our result from~\cite{FerJeaManMar} is recovered as~\eqref{eq:GNConditions} is nothing
but the special case $r=2$ in the above theorem. We even obtain
sufficient conditions for general $q,r_1,r_2\in [1,\infty]$.
In the one-dimensional case we obtain the following generalization of \cite[Theorem~2.3]{FerJeaManMar}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:GN1Dspecial}
Assume $\kappa\in [0,1],s>0$. Then
$$
\|u\|_q \les \|(|D|^s-1)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|u\|_{r_2}^\kappa \qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R))
$$
holds provided that $q,r_1,r_2\in [1,\infty]$ satisfy $1-\kappa \leq \frac{
1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2} - \frac{1}{q} \leq (1-\kappa)s$.
\end{thm}
Both our main results arise as special cases of Theorem~\ref{thm:GN1D} and Theorem~\ref{thm:GNhigherD} where
interpolation inequalities of the form~\eqref{eq:GNgeneral} are proved for symbols $P_1,P_2:\R^d\to\R$ that
satisfy the following abstract conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A1)] There is a compact hypersurface
$S=\{\xi\in\R^d:F(\xi)=0\}$ with $F\in C^\infty(\R^d)$, $|\nabla F|\neq 0$ on $S$ and at least
$k\in\{1,\ldots,d-1\}$ nonvanishing principal curvatures at each point such that
$\{\xi\in\R^d: P_i(\xi)=0\}\subset S$. For $\xi$ near $S$ we have
$P_i(\xi)= a_{i+}(\xi)F(\xi)_+^{\alpha_i} + a_{i-}(\xi)F(\xi)_-^{\alpha_i}$ for smooth non-vanishing
functions $a_{i+},a_{i-}$ and $\alpha_i>-1$. In the case $\alpha_i=1$ additionally assume
$a_{i-}=-a_{i-}$ and in the case $\alpha_i=0$ additionally assume $a_{i-}=a_{i+}$.
\item[(A2)]
There are $s_1,s_2\in\R,\delta>0$ such that for $\dist(\xi,S)\geq \delta>0$ the functions
$Q_i(\xi):= \langle\xi\rangle^{s_i}/ P_i(\xi)$ satisfy for some $\eps>0$
\begin{align*}
&\left| \partial^\gamma Q_i(\xi) \right|
\les \langle\xi\rangle^{-|\gamma|}
&&\hspace{-3cm}\text{ if }\gamma\in\N_0^d,\;\, 0\leq
|\gamma|\leq \left\lfloor d/2\right\rfloor,\\
&\left| \partial^\gamma Q_i(\xi) \right|
\les \langle\xi\rangle^{-\eps-|\gamma|}
&&\hspace{-3cm}\text{ if }\gamma\in\N_0^d,\;\,
|\gamma| = \left\lfloor d/2\right\rfloor + 1.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
Here and in the following we set $\langle\xi\rangle:= (1+|\xi|^2)^{1/2}$ and
$|\gamma|:=|(\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_d)|:=\gamma_1+\ldots+\gamma_d$ for multi-indices $\gamma\in\N_0^d$,
$F(\xi)_+:=\max\{F(\xi),0\}$ and $F(\xi)_-=:-\min\{F(\xi),0\}$. In the case $d=1$ assumption (A1) is
supposed to mean $S=\{\xi\in\R: F(\xi)=0\}=\{\xi_1^*,\ldots,\xi_L^*\}$ with $F,P_i,a_{i+},a_{i-}$
as above. Given the importance of the fractional Laplacian $(-\Delta)^{s/2} = |D|^s$ we mention that one
may generalize this further by allowing the symbols $P_1,P_2$ to vanish at some finite set of points in
$\R^d\sm S$, see Remark~\ref{rem:GNandFracLap}. The choice $P_1=P_2$ or $\kappa\in\{0,1\}$ leads to
Sobolev inequalities. In the elliptic case $-\Delta-1=|D|^2-1$ such results are due to Kenig, Ruiz,
Sogge~\cite[Theorem~2.3]{KeRuSo}, Guti\'{e}rrez~\cite[Theorem~6]{Gut} and Evequoz
\cite{EveqPlane}. Our most general result from Theorem~\ref{thm:GNhigherD} contains these results as a
special case $(k,s_1,\alpha_1,\kappa)=(d-1,2,1,0)$.
Sharp results for special non-elliptic symbols with unbounded characteristic set $S$ are due to
Kenig, Ruiz, Sogge~\cite[Theorem~2.1]{KeRuSo}, Koch, Tataru \cite{KochTat_Principally} and
Jeong, Kwon, Lee~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{JeongKwonLee_Uniform}.
\begin{rem} ~
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] In the case $S=\emptyset$ the main results of this paper hold without any assumption on
$\alpha_1,\alpha_2$.
Similarly, if the Fourier support of the given functions is contained in a fixed compact subset of $\R^d$,
then all conditions involving $s_1,s_2$ can be ignored.
\item[(b)] Theorem~\ref{thm:GNhigherDspecial} and \ref{thm:GN1Dspecial} equally hold for
symbols $P_i(|D|)$ where $P_i$ are polynomials of degree $s$ with simple zeros only or no zeros at all.
\item[(c)] Our analysis may be extended to vectorial differential operators with constant
coefficients $P_1(D),P_2(D)$ where, according to Cramer's rule, the characteristic set $S$ is then
supposed to satisfy $\{\det(P_i(\xi))=0\}\subset S$ for $i=1,2$.
Such a situation occurs in the context of Maxwell's equations, Dirac equations or Lam\'{e}
equations with constant coefficients.
\item[(d)] The Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities from this paper hold for functions
with Fourier support in bounded smooth pieces of more general sets $S\subset\R^d$. In this way,
unbounded characteristic sets $S$ or characteristic sets with singularities as in
\cite[Section~3]{ManSch} may be partially analyzed, but a full analysis remains to be done. In the
special case of the wave and Schr\"odinger operator one may nevertheless implement the strategy
from~\cite{FerJeaManMar} to get such inequalities at least for $r=2$, see
Section~\ref{sec:GN_wave}.
\item[(e)] The admissible set of exponents for Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities may become larger
by imposing symmetries. For instance, the Stein-Tomas Theorem for
$O(d-k)\times O(k)$-symmetric functions from \cite{ManDOS} may substitute the
classical Stein-Tomas Theorem in Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta2} to prove better dyadic estimates. The latter
yield larger values for $A_\eps(p,q)$ in~\eqref{eq:def_Aeps}, which allows to deduce Gagliardo-Nirenberg
inequalities for a wider range of exponents.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\medskip
Our strategy is as follows. We decompose the pseudo-differential operators
$P_1(D),P_2(D)$ dyadically, both for frequencies close to the critical surface $S$ and at infinity.
Assumption (A1) allows to analyze the first-mentioned part with the aid of Bochner-Riesz estimates
from~\cite{ManSch,ChoKimLeeShim2005}. Here, only the parameters $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ will play a
role. Assumption (A2) will be used to estimate the second-mentioned part that only involves $s_1,s_2$.
Interpolating the bounds for the dyadic operators in both frequency regimes then allows to conclude. We
stress that the proof from~\cite{FerJeaManMar} does not carry over from the $L^2(\R^d)$-setting since Plancherel's Theorem does not have a counterpart in $L^r(\R^d)$
with $r\neq 2$.
\section{Preliminaries}
In the following we decompose a given Schwartz function $u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)$ in frequency space. We start
by separating the frequencies close to the critical surface from the others by defining
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u1u2}
u_1:= \mathcal F^{-1}(\tau \hat u),\;
u_2:= \mathcal F^{-1}( (1-\tau) \hat u)
\quad\text{where } \tau\in C_0^\infty(\R^d),\;
\tau =1\text{ near }S.
\end{equation}
More precisely, $\tau$ is chosen in such a way that $S$ admits local parametrizations in Euclidean
coordinates within $\supp(\tau)$, that $a_{i+},a_{i-}$ from (A1) are uniformly positive near $S$ and that
the functions $Q_i$ from (A2) behave as required for $\xi\in\R^d\sm\supp(\tau)$. The function $\tau$ is
considered as fixed from now on.
For both $u_1$ and $u_2$ we will introduce a dyadic decomposition into infinitely many annular regions in
order to prove our estimates mostly via Bourgain's summation argument~\cite{Bourgain1985}. We will need the
following abstract version of this result from~\cite[p.604]{CarberySeegerWaingerWright1999}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:SummationLemma}
Let $\beta_1,\beta_2\in\R,\theta\in (0,1)$, let $(X_1,X_2)$ and $(Y_1,Y_2)$ be real interpolation pairs of
Banach spaces. For $j \in \mathbb{N}$ let $\mathcal T_j$ be linear operators satisfying
\begin{align*}
\| \mathcal T_jf \|_{Y_1} \leq M_1\, 2^{\beta_1 j} \| f \|_{X_1}, \qquad
\| \mathcal T_jf \|_{Y_2} \leq M_2\, 2^{\beta_2 j} \| f \|_{X_2}.
\end{align*}
Then we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SummationI}
\| \sum_{j\in\N} \mathcal T_jf \|_{(Y_1,Y_2)_{\theta,\infty}}
\leq C(\beta_1,\beta_2) M_1^{1-\theta} M_2^{\theta} \|f\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\theta,1}}
\end{align}
provided that $(1-\theta)\beta_1+\theta\beta_2=0$ with $\beta_1,\beta_2\neq 0$.
In the case $(1-\theta)\beta_1+\theta\beta_2<0$ we have for all $r\in [1,\infty]$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SummationII}
\| \sum_{j\in\N} \mathcal T_jf \|_{(Y_1,Y_2)_{\theta,r}}
\leq C M_1^{1-\theta} M_2^{\theta} \|f\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\theta,r}}.
\end{align}
\end{lem}
The whole point of this result is \eqref{eq:SummationI}; the estimate~\eqref{eq:SummationII} is a
rather trivial consequence of the summability of the interpolated bounds
$$
\|\mathcal T_jf \|_{(Y_1,Y_2)_{\theta,r}}
\les 2^{j((1-\theta)\beta_1+\theta\beta_2)} \|f\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\theta,r}}
\quad\text{for all }r\in [1,\infty].
$$
Here, $(Y_1,Y_2)_{\theta,r},(X_1,X_2)_{\theta,r}$ denote real interpolation spaces~\cite{BerghLoefstrom1976}.
The choice $Y_1=L^{q_1}(\R^d),Y_2=L^{q_2}(\R^d)$ with
$\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1-\theta}{q_1}+\frac{\theta}{q_2},q_1\neq q_2$ yields the Lorentz space
$(Y_1,Y_2)_{\theta,r}=L^{q,r}(\R^d)$ whereas $q_1=q_2=q$ leads to
$(Y_1,Y_2)_{\theta,r}=L^q(\R^d)$.
In our context, the spaces $X_i$ are defined as the completion of $\{u\in \mathcal S(\R^d) : P_i(D)u\in
L^r(\R^d)\}$ with respect to the norm $\|u\|_{X_i}:=\|P_i(D)u\|_r$. Exploiting assumption (A1),(A2) we
find that for any given $u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)$ the function $P_i(D)u$ is a priori well-defined as a function
in $L^\infty(\R^d)$ because $\xi\mapsto P_i(\xi)\hat u(\xi)$ is integrable due to $\alpha_i>-1$.
(Choosing the completion of a smaller set one may extend the analysis to $\alpha_i\leq -1$.)
The link to Gagliardo-Nirenberg-type inequalities is provided by the general
interpolation property \cite[Theorem~3.1.2]{BerghLoefstrom1976}, namely
\begin{equation*
\|f\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,r}}
\leq \|f\|_{X_1}^{1-\kappa} \|f\|_{X_2}^{\kappa}
\qquad (0<\kappa<1,1\leq r\leq \infty).
\end{equation*}
In fact, choosing $X_1,X_2$ as above we obtain for $u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpolationfunctor}
\|u\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,r}}
\leq \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa}
\qquad (0<\kappa<1,1\leq r\leq \infty).
\end{equation}
The same estimate holds for $(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,r}$ replaced by the complex interpolation space
$[X_1,X_2]_{\kappa}$. This can be deduced from \eqref{eq:interpolationfunctor} and~$[X_1,X_2]_{\kappa}\subset
(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,\infty}$, see \cite[Theorem~4.7.1]{BerghLoefstrom1976}.
\section{Large frequency analysis}
We start with our analysis for large frequencies or, more precisely, for those frequencies with
uniformly positive distance to the critical surface $S$ given by our assumption (A1). To this end we first
choose a function $\eta$ such that
\begin{equation*
\eta\in C_0^\infty(\R),\quad \supp(\eta)\subset [-2,-\frac{1}{2}]\cup [\frac{1}{2},2],\quad
\sum_{j\in\Z} \eta(2^j\cdot)=1 \text{ almost everywhere on } \R,
\end{equation*}
see~\cite[Lemma~6.1.7]{BerghLoefstrom1976}. For $\xi_0\in\R^d$ define
\begin{align} \label{eq:def_Tj}
\begin{aligned}
T_j f
&:= \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta(2^j|\xi-\xi_0|) \hat f \right)
= K_j\ast f \qquad \text{where}\\
K_j(x)
&:= \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta(2^j|\xi-\xi_0|)\right)(x)
= 2^{-jd} \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta(|\cdot|)\right)(2^{-j}x)e^{ix\cdot\xi_0}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Later on, we will choose $\xi_0\in S$ in order to have
$T_ju_2=0$ for $j\geq j_0$ where $j_0\in\Z$ only depends on $\xi_0$ and $\tau$.
Indeed, \eqref{eq:u1u2} implies that $\hat u_2(\xi) = (1-\tau(\xi))\hat u(\xi)$ vanishes for
frequencies $\xi$ close to $S$. As a consequence, only the bounds for $j\searrow -\infty$ will be of
importance.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Tdelta}
Assume $d\in \N$ and let $\eta\in C_0^\infty(\R)$, $\xi_0\in \R^d$. Then we have for $j\in\Z$
$$
\|T_j\|_{p\to q} \les 2^{-jd(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})}
\qquad \text{for }1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty.
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For all $r\in [1,\infty]$ we have $\|K_j\|_r
= 2^{-jd} \|\mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta(|\cdot|)\right)(2^{-j}\cdot)\|_r
\les 2^{-j\frac{d}{r'}}$.
Hence, for $1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty$ and $\frac{1}{r}:=1+\frac{1}{q}-\frac{1}{p}$ we get from Young's
Convolution Inequality
$$
\|T_j f\|_q
\les \|K_j\|_r \|f\|_p
\les 2^{-j\frac{d}{r'}} \|f\|_p
\les 2^{-jd(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})} \|f\|_p.
$$
\end{proof}
In the following, we will need a multiplier theorem in $L^\mu(\R^d)$ for arbitrary $\mu\in
[1,\infty]$. The natural candidate - Mikhlin's multiplier theorem
\cite[Theorem~6.1.6]{BerghLoefstrom1976} - is only available for $\mu\in (1,\infty)$.
In order to avoid tiresome separate discussions we first provide a simple sufficient condition for a given
function $m:\R^d\to \R$ to be a $L^\mu$-multiplier for all $\mu\in [1,\infty]$.
The following result essentially says that a function $m$ serves our purpose provided that its derivatives
grow a bit slower near zero and decay a bit faster near infinity compared to the requirements of Mikhlin's
multiplier theorem.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:multiplier}
Let $d\in\N, k:= \lfloor d/2\rfloor +1$ and $m\in C^k(\R^d\sm\{0\})$. Then $m$ is an
$L^\mu$ multiplier for all $\mu\in [1,\infty]$ provided that there is $\eps>0$
such that
$$
|\partial^\alpha m(\xi)| \les \langle \xi\rangle^{-2\eps} |\xi|^{-k+\eps}
\text{ for all }\alpha\in\N_0^d \text{ such that }|\alpha|=k.
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We show that the assumptions imply that $\rho:= \mathcal F^{-1}m$ is integrable. Once this is shown, the
result follows from Young's Convolution Inequality because of
$$
\|\mathcal F^{-1}(m\hat f)\|_\mu
= \|\rho\ast f\|_\mu
\leq \|\rho\|_1 \| f\|_\mu.
$$
We may w.l.o.g. assume
$0<\eps\leq 2k-d$. For all $\alpha\in\N_0^d, |\alpha|=k$ we have
$$
|\mathcal F\left( (-ix)^\alpha\rho\right)(\xi)|
= |\partial^\alpha \hat \rho(\xi)|
= |\partial^\alpha m(\xi)|
\les \langle \xi\rangle^{-2\eps} |\xi|^{-k+\eps}.
$$
Hence, $\mathcal F(x^\alpha\rho)$ belongs to the space $L^{\sigma_1}(\R^d)\cap L^{\sigma_2}(\R^d)$ where
$\sigma_1:=\frac{d}{k+\eps/2},\sigma_2:=\frac{d}{k-\eps/2}$. Our choice for $\eps$ implies
$1\leq \sigma_1\leq \sigma_2\leq 2$, so the Hausdorff-Young Inequality gives
$$
|x|^k \rho \in L^{\sigma_1'}(\R^d)\cap L^{\sigma_2'}(\R^d).
$$
To conclude $\rho\in L^1(\R^d)$ with H\"older's Inequality it remains to check
$$
|x|^{-k} \in L^{\sigma_1}(\R^d)+L^{\sigma_2}(\R^d).
$$
But this follows from $|x|^{-k}\ind_{|x|\leq 1} \in L^{\sigma_1}(\R^d)$ and $|x|^{-k}\ind_{|x|>1}\in
L^{\sigma_2}(\R^d)$ due to $k\sigma_1<d<k\sigma_2$, which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
Next we provide our estimates in the large frequency regime. To this end we analyze the mapping properties
of $\mathcal T_j u:= T_j(u_2)$ where $T_j$ and $u_2=\mathcal F^{-1}((1-\tau)\hat u)$ were defined in
\eqref{eq:def_Tj},\eqref{eq:u1u2}, respectively.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:dyadicEstimatesI}
Assume $d\in\N$ and (A2) with $s_1,s_2\in\R$. Then, for $i=1,2$,
$$
\|\mathcal T_ju\|_{q} \les 2^{j(s_i-d(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}))} \|P_i(D)u\|_p.
\qquad \text{for }1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty,\;j\in\Z.
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
In order to use Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta} for $\xi_0\in S$ we set $\eta_i(z):=\eta(z) |z|^{-s_i}$ for
$z\in\R$.
Then $\eta\in C_0^\infty(\R),0\notin \supp(\eta)$ implies $\eta_i\in
C_0^\infty(\R)$ for $i=1,2$. Moreover, we have for $i=1,2$ and $j\in\Z$
\begin{align*}
\mathcal T_j u
&= \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta(2^j|\xi-\xi_0|) \hat u_2(\xi)\right) \\
&= \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta_i(2^j|\xi-\xi_0|)\, (2^j|\xi-\xi_0|)^{s_i}\,\hat
u_2(\xi)\right) \\
&= 2^{js_i} \mathcal F^{-1}\left(\eta_i(2^j|\xi-\xi_0|) m_i(\xi) P_i(\xi)\hat u(\xi)\right)
\end{align*}
where $m_i(\xi) := (1-\tau(\xi))|\xi-\xi_0|^{s_i}/P_i(\xi)$.
Since $\tau$ is smooth and identically 1 near $\xi_0\in S$, a calculation shows that our assumptions on
$P_i$ from (A2) imply that $m_i$ satisfies the assumptions of Proposition~\ref{prop:multiplier}. In fact, for
$|\alpha|=k:=\lfloor d/2\rfloor +1$ and $Q_i,\eps>0$ as in assumption (A2),
\begin{align*}
|\partial^\alpha m_i(\xi)|
&\les \sum_{0\leq \gamma\leq \alpha} \vecII{\alpha}{\gamma} \left|\partial^{\alpha-\gamma}
\left((1-\tau(\xi))|\xi-\xi_0|^{s_i} \langle \xi\rangle^{-s_i}\right)\right| |\partial^\gamma Q_i(\xi)| \\
&\les 1\cdot |\partial^\alpha Q_i(\xi)|
+ \sum_{0\leq \gamma< \alpha} \langle \xi\rangle^{-|\alpha-\gamma|-1}
|\partial^\gamma Q_i(\xi)| \\
&\les \langle \xi\rangle^{-\eps-|\gamma|}
+ \langle \xi\rangle^{-|\alpha-\gamma|-1} \langle \xi\rangle^{-|\gamma|} \\
&\les \langle \xi\rangle^{-\min\{1,\eps\}-|\alpha|}.
\end{align*}
Here we used the Leibniz rule. So, by Proposition~\ref{prop:multiplier}, $m_i$ is an $L^\mu$-multiplier
for all $\mu\in [1,\infty]$.
Hence, Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta} yields for all $q\in [p,\infty]$
\begin{align*}
\|\mathcal T_ju\|_{q}
&\les 2^{j s_i} \|\mathcal F^{-1}(\eta_i(2^j|\xi-\xi_0|) m_i(\xi)
\widehat{P_i(D)u}(\xi))\|_{q} \\
&\les 2^{j(s_i-d(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}))} \|\mathcal F^{-1}(
m_i(\xi) \widehat{P_i(D)u}(\xi))\|_p \\
&\les 2^{j(s_i-d(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}))} \|P_i(D)u\|_p.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Next we use these dyadic estimates to prove estimates of Gagliardo-Nirenberg type. We deduce our
results from a detailed analysis of the special case $P_i(D)=\bra{D}^{s_i}$ for $s_1,s_2\in\R$. This is
possible due to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:BesselPrototype}
\|\bra{D}^{s_i}u_2\|_p \les \|P_i(D)u\|_p \qquad (1\leq p\leq \infty)
\end{equation}
for symbols $P_1,P_2$ as in (A2) thanks to Proposition~\ref{prop:multiplier}. So we collect some mapping
properties of the Bessel potential operators $\bra{D}^{-s}$ where $s>0$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:BesselPotentials}
Assume $d\in\N, s>0$ and $p,q,r\in [1,\infty], u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $0\leq \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}<\frac{s}{d}$ then $\|u\|_q \les \|\bra{D}^su\|_p$.
\item[(ii)] If $0\leq \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{s}{d}$
and $1<p,q<\infty$ then $\|u\|_{q,r} \les \|\bra{D}^s u\|_{p,r}$ and $\|u\|_q\les \|\bra{D}^s u\|_p$.
\item[(iii)] If $0\leq \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{s}{d}$ and $s=d=1$
then $\|u\|_\infty \les \|\bra{D} u\|_1$.
\item[(iv)] If $0\leq \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{s}{d}$ and $1=p<q<\infty$ then
$\|u\|_{q,\infty} \les \|\bra{D}^s u \|_1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The parts (i),(iv) and the second part of (ii) are given in \cite[Corollary~1.2.6]{Graf_Modern}; the
Lorentz space mapping properties from (ii) follow from real interpolation. The estimate (iii) follows
from
$$
\|u\|_\infty
\les \|u'\|_1
= \|m(D)(\bra{D} u)\|_1
\les \|\bra{D}u\|_1\qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R)).
$$
Here we used that $m(\xi):= \xi(1+|\xi|^2)^{-1/2}$ satisfies the assumptions of
Proposition~\ref{prop:multiplier}.
\end{proof}
We finally use these estimates to prove Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities for large frequencies.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:LargeFreqInterpolated}
Assume $d\in\N$, $\kappa\in [0,1]$ and (A2) for $s_1,s_2\in\R$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:GNLargeFreq}
\|u_2\|_q \les \|P_1(D)u \|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^\kappa
\qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R^d))
\end{equation}
holds provided that the exponents $q,r_1,r_2\in [1,\infty]$ satisfy
$0\leq \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q} \leq \frac{\ov s}{d}$ as well as the
following conditions in the endpoint case $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q} =
\frac{\ov s}{d}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] if $q=\infty$ then $\frac{1}{r_1}- \frac{s_1}{d}\neq 0 \neq \frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}$ or
$r_1=r_2=\infty,s_1=s_2=0$ or $d=1, (r_1,r_2)=(\frac{1}{s_1},\frac{1}{s_2}), s_1,s_2\in\{0,1\}$,
\item[(ii)] if $1<q<\infty$ and $\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{s_1}{d}=\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}$ and
if $r_1=1,\kappa<1$ then \\ $1<r_2<q,\, \kappa\geq \frac{r_2}{q}$ or
$r_2=\infty,\frac{1}{q}\leq \kappa\leq \frac{1}{q'}$,
\item[(iii)] if $1<q<\infty$ and $\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{s_1}{d}=\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}$
if $r_2=1,\kappa>0$ then \\ $1<r_1<q,\,1-\kappa\geq \frac{r_1}{q}$ or $r_1=\infty,
\frac{1}{q}\leq 1-\kappa\leq \frac{1}{q'}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As mentioned before, it is sufficient to prove the estimates in the prototpyical case
$P_i(D)=\bra{D}^{s_i}$. So the case $\kappa\in\{0,1\}$ is covered by
Proposition~\ref{prop:BesselPotentials}~(i),(ii),(iii). So we may concentrate on $\kappa\in (0,1)$ in the
following. We combine Proposition~\ref{prop:dyadicEstimatesI} and Lemma~\ref{lem:SummationLemma} for
the Bessel potential spaces $X_i:= P_i(D)^{-1}L^{r_i}(\R^d) = \bra{D}^{-s_i}L^{r_i}(\R^d)$ and $i=1,2$. Here
we use the identity
\begin{align*}
u_2 = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{j_0} \mathcal T_j u
\quad\text{where}\quad
\|\mathcal T_ju\|_{q_i}\les 2^{j(s_i-d(\frac{1}{r_i}-\frac{1}{q_i}))} \|u\|_{X_i} \qquad (j\in\Z,
1\leq r_i\leq q_i\leq \infty),
\end{align*}
see Proposition~\ref{prop:dyadicEstimatesI}.
Our strategy is as follows. We first prove apply Lemma~\ref{lem:SummationLemma} to get strong bounds. This
will cover all non-endoint cases $0\leq \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}<\frac{\ov
s}{d}$ as well as the endpoint cases involving $q\in\{1,\infty\}$.
The remaining discussion for $1<q<\infty$ and $1<r_1,r_2<\infty$ can be taken from the literature, but
the analysis for $\{r_1,r_2\}\cap \{r_1,r_2\}\neq \emptyset$ is more delicate.
We will first address the case $\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{r_2}=\frac{s_1-s_2}{d}$ where we prove our claim using complex and real
interpolation theory. Finally, in the case $\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{r_2}\neq \frac{s_1-s_2}{d}$ we will first deduce
restricted weak-type bounds from Lemma~\ref{lem:SummationLemma} and upgrade them to strong bounds by
interpolating the restricted weak-type bounds with each other. We will need in the
following that our assumptions imply $\ov s\geq 0$.
\medskip
\textbf{Step 1:}\; We start the interpolation procedure with (non-endpoint) exponents satisfying
\begin{align}\label{eq:LargeFreqI}
0\leq \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}< \frac{\ov s}{d}.
\end{align}
In that case the interpolation estimate~\eqref{eq:SummationII} with
$(Y_1,Y_2,\theta,r):=(L^{q_1}(\R^d),L^{q_2}(\R^d),\kappa,q)$
gives the bound
$$
\| u_2\|_q
= \|\sum_{j=-\infty}^{j_0} \mathcal T_j u\|_q
\stackrel{\eqref{eq:SummationII}}\les \|u\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,q}}
\stackrel{\eqref{eq:interpolationfunctor}}\les
\| \bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \| \bra{D}^{s_2} u\|_{r_2}^\kappa.
$$
Here, \eqref{eq:SummationII} applies because \eqref{eq:LargeFreqI} allows to find $q_i\in
[r_i,\infty]$ such that
\begin{align*}
(1-\kappa)\left( s_1-d\left(\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{q_1}\right)\right)
+ \kappa \left( s_2-d\left(\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q_2}\right)\right)
> 0,\quad
\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1-\kappa}{q_1}+\frac{\kappa}{q_2}.
\end{align*}
So the claim is proved for all non-endpoint exponents given by~\eqref{eq:LargeFreqI}.
\medskip
It remains to discuss the endpoint case $0\leq \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q} =
\frac{\ov s}{d}$. Using~\eqref{eq:SummationI} for $Y_1=Y_2=L^q(\R^d)$ we get the claim for all exponents
satisfying
\begin{align}\label{eq:LargeFreqII}
&0\leq \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q} = \frac{\ov s}{d}
\quad\text{and}\quad q\geq \max\{r_1,r_2\},\; \frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{s_1}{d}\neq \frac{1}{q} \neq
\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}.
\end{align}
Here the latter two inequalities correspond to $\beta_1,\beta_2\neq 0$ in
Lemma~\ref{lem:SummationLemma}. From this we infer that the claimed endpoint estimates hold for $q\in\{1,\infty\}$ via the following case
distinction:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case $q=1$: \quad $r_1=r_2=1,s_1=s_2=0$ is trivial,
\item Case $q=1$: \quad $r_1=r_2=1,\ov s=0,s_1\neq 0\neq s_2$ is covered by~\eqref{eq:LargeFreqII},
\item Case $q=\infty$: \quad $r_1=r_2=\infty, s_1=s_2=0$ is trivial,
\item Case $q=\infty$: \quad $\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{s_1}{d}\neq 0\neq
\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}$ is covered by~\eqref{eq:LargeFreqII},
\item Case $q=\infty$: \quad $(d,r_1,r_2)=(1,\frac{1}{s_1},\frac{1}{s_2}), s_1,s_2\in\{0,1\}$
is covered by Proposition~\ref{prop:BesselPotentials}~(iii).
\end{itemize}
These are all cases involving $q\in\{1,\infty\}$ and in particular claim (i) is proved.
So we are left with those endpoint estimates for $1<q<\infty$ that
are not covered by~\eqref{eq:LargeFreqII}.
\medskip
\textbf{Step 2:}\; The claim holds for $1<r_1,r_2<\infty$ due to
$$
\|u\|_q
\les \|\bra{D}^{\ov s}u\|_{\ov r}
\les \|\bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|\bra{D}^{s_2}u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa},
$$
where $\frac{1}{\ov r}:=\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}$.
This is a consequence of Sobolev's Embedding Theorem \cite[Theorem~6.5.1]{BerghLoefstrom1976}
and the complex interpolation result from~\cite[Theorem~6.4.5~(7)]{BerghLoefstrom1976}.
So we may in the following assume $\{r_1,r_2\}\cap \{1,\infty\}\neq \emptyset$. As announced earlier, we
first deal with $\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{r_2}=\frac{s_1-s_2}{d}$.
\medskip
\textbf{Step 3:}\; So assume we are in the endpoint case with $1<q<\infty , \frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{r_2}=\frac{s_1-s_2}{d}$,
$r_1\leq r_2$ (w.l.o.g.) and $\{r_1,r_2\}\cap \{1,\infty\}\neq \emptyset$. Then
$\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{\ov s}{d}$ implies $\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{s_1}{d}= \frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}$. We distinguish the following cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case $r_1=1,r_2=1$:\; This case is excluded, so there is nothing to prove.
\item Case $r_1=1,1<r_2<q$:\; By Proposition~\ref{prop:BesselPotentials}~(ii),(iv)
we have $\|u\|_{q,\infty} \les \|\bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_1$ as well as $\|u\|_{q,r_2}\les
\|\bra{D}^{s_2}u\|_{r_2}$. Applying the interpolation identity \cite[Theorem~5.3.1]{BerghLoefstrom1976}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:InterpolationIdentity}
L^q(\R^d)= \left(L^{q,\infty}(\R^d), L^{q,\kappa q}(\R^d)\right)_{\kappa,q}, \qquad \kappa\in (0,1],
\end{equation}
we infer for all
$\kappa\in [\frac{r_2}{q},1]$
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_q
\les \|u\|_{q,\infty}^{1-\kappa} \|u\|_{q,\kappa q}^\kappa
\les \|u\|_{q,\infty}^{1-\kappa} \|u\|_{q,r_2}^\kappa
\les \|\bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_1^{1-\kappa} \|\bra{D}^{s_2}u\|_{r_2}^\kappa.
\end{align*}
\item Case $r_1=1,r_2=\infty$:\; We have to prove \eqref{eq:GNLargeFreq}
for $\frac{1}{q}\leq \kappa\leq
\frac{1}{q'}$. It is sufficient to prove the claim first for $\kappa=\frac{1}{q}$ and then for
$\kappa=\frac{1}{q'}$. We use $\|u\|_{q,\infty} \les
\|\bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_1$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:interpol0}
\|u\|_{q,2}^2
\les \|\bra{D}^{\frac{d}{2}-\frac{d}{q}}u\|_2^2
= \int_{\R^d} \bra{D}^{\frac{d}{q'}}u\cdot \bra{D}^{-\frac{d}{q}}u\,dx
\leq \| \bra{D}^{s_1} u\|_1 \|\bra{D}^{s_2} u\|_\infty.
\end{equation}
In \eqref{eq:interpol0} we subsequently used Propostiion~\ref{prop:BesselPotentials}~(ii), the
$L^2$-isometry property of the Fourier transform as well as $s_1=\frac{d}{q'},s_2=-\frac{d}{q}$.
Real interpolation of these two estimates and $L^q(\R^d)= (L^{q,\infty}(\R^d),
L^{q,2})_{2/q,q}$, which is \eqref{eq:InterpolationIdentity} for $\kappa=\frac{2}{q}$, gives
\begin{equation} \label{eq:interpol1}
\|u\|_q
\les \|u\|_{q,\infty}^{1-\frac{2}{q}} \|u\|_{q,2}^{\frac{2}{q}}
\les \|\bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_1^{\frac{1}{q'}} \|\bra{D}^{s_2}u\|_{\infty}^{\frac{1}{q}}.
\end{equation}
So the claim holds for $\kappa=\frac{1}{q}$ and we now consider $\kappa=\frac{1}{q'}$. Here we use Stein's
Interpolation Theorem \cite{Stein_Interpolation} in a more general setting
\cite[Theorem~2.1]{Voigt_Stein} for the family of linear operators $\mathcal T^s u := e^{s^2} \bra{D}^{s/2
- d/q}u$ with $s\in\C,0\leq \Real(s)\leq 1$.
We have
\begin{align*}
\|\mathcal T^{it}u\|_{\BMO(\R^d)}
&= e^{-t^2} \|\bra{D}^{it}(\bra{D}^{-\frac{d}{q}}u)\|_{\BMO(\R^d)}
\les \|\bra{D}^{-\frac{d}{q}}u\|_{\infty}, \\
\|\mathcal T^{1+it}u\|_{2}
&= e^{1-t^2} \|\bra{D}^{\frac{d}{2}-\frac{d}{q}}u\|_2
\stackrel{\eqref{eq:interpol0}}\les \| \bra{D}^{\frac{d}{q'}}u\|_1^{\frac{1}{2}}
\|\bra{D}^{-\frac{d}{q}}u\|_\infty^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
Here we used the validity of Mikhlin's Multiplier Theorem in $\BMO(\R^d)$ to deduce that
the operator norm $\bra{D}^{it}:L^\infty(\R^d)\to \BMO(\R^d)$ is polynomially bounded
with respect to $t$ and thus
compensated by the mitigating factor $e^{-t^2}$ as $|t|\to\infty$. We refer to Proposition~3.4,
Theorem~4.4 and the comments on page 20-21 in Tao's Lecture notes~\cite{Tao} where such an application in the context of
Stein's interpolation theorem is explicitly mentioned. In view of $[\BMO(\R^d),L^2(\R^d)]_\theta =
L^{2/\theta}(\R^d)$ for $0<\theta\leq 1$ we may plug in $\theta=\frac{2}{q}$ and get
in view of $s_1=\frac{d}{q'},s_2=-\frac{d}{q}$
$$
\|u\|_q
= \|\mathcal T^{\frac{2}{q}}u\|_{q}
\les \|\bra{D}^{-\frac{d}{q}}u\|_{\infty}^{1-\theta}
\left( \| \bra{D}^{\frac{d}{q'}}u\|_1^{\frac{1}{2}}
\|\bra{D}^{-\frac{d}{q}}u\|_\infty^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^\theta
= \|\bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_1^{\frac{1}{q}} \|\bra{D}^{s_2}u\|_{\infty}^{\frac{1}{q'}}.
$$
\item Case $1<r_1<r_2=\infty$:\; We have to prove \eqref{eq:GNLargeFreq} for $1<q<r_1,\kappa\geq
\frac{r_1}{q}$. We consider $\mathcal T^s u := e^{s^2} \bra{D}^{s_2+s(s_1-s_2)}u$ and obtain as before
\begin{align*}
\|\mathcal T^{it}u\|_{\BMO(\R^d)}
\les \|\bra{D}^{s_2} u\|_{\infty},\qquad
\|\mathcal T^{1+it}u\|_{r_1} \les \|\bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_{r_1}.
\end{align*}
So we conclude for $\kappa:= \frac{r_1}{q} = \frac{s_2}{s_2-s_1}$
$$
\|u\|_q
= \|\mathcal T^{\kappa} u\|_{\frac{r_1}{\kappa}}
\les \|\bra{D}^{s_2} u\|_{\infty}^{1-\kappa} \|\bra{D}^{s_1}u\|_{r_1}^\kappa.
$$
This proves the claim for $\kappa=\frac{r_1}{q}$. Since the desired bound for $\kappa=1$
follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:BesselPotentials}~(ii), we
get the claim for $\kappa\in [\frac{r_1}{q},1]$.
\item Case $1<r_1=r_2=\infty$: This case does not occur because
$\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=-\frac{1}{q}<0$.
\end{itemize}
\medskip
\textbf{Step 4:}\;
To prove the remaining estimates we first prove restricted weak-type estimates $\| u_2\|_{q,\infty} \les
\|u\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,1}}$ for all exponents satisfying
\begin{align}\label{eq:LargeFreqIII}
0\leq \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q} = \frac{\ov s}{d}
\quad\text{and}\quad 1<q<\infty
\quad\text{and}\quad \frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{r_2}\neq \frac{s_1-s_2}{d}.
\end{align}
For $s_1=s_2=0$ this is implied by H\"older's Inequality, so we
may assume $\ov s>0$ or $\ov s=0, (s_1,s_2)\neq (0,0)$. For $\ov s=0,(s_1,s_2)\neq (0,0),q=r_1=r_2$ this is
implied by the strong estimates in the case~\eqref{eq:LargeFreqII}, so we may even assume
$\ov s>0$ or $\ov s=0, (s_1,s_2)\neq (0,0),(r_1,r_2)\neq (q,q)$.
For the remaining exponents the weak estimate is a consequence of~\eqref{eq:SummationII} because
one can find $q_i\in [r_i,\infty]$ such that
\begin{align*}
&(1-\kappa)\left( s_1-d\left(\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{q_1}\right)\right)
+ \kappa \left( s_2-d\left(\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q_2}\right)\right)
= 0,\\
&\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1-\kappa}{q_1}+\frac{\kappa}{q_2},\qquad
s_i-d\left(\frac{1}{r_i}-\frac{1}{q_i}\right)\neq 0,\quad q_1\neq q_2.
\end{align*}
Indeed, this condition is equivalent to $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q} = \frac{\ov
s}{d}$ and finding $q_2$ such that
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{q}-\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}\leq \frac{\kappa}{q_2}\leq \frac{\kappa}{r_2},\quad
q_2\neq q,\quad
\frac{1}{q}-(1-\kappa)\left(\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{s_1}{d}\right) \neq \frac{\kappa}{q_2}
\neq \kappa \left(\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}\right),
\end{align*}
and such a choice is possible due to our assumptions. (In the case $\ov s=0, (s_1,s_2)\neq
(0,0),(r_1,r_2)\neq (q,q)$ choose $q_2=r_2,q_1=r_1$.) In this way we obtain $\| u_2\|_{q,\infty} \les
\|u\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,1}}$ for all exponents satisfying~\eqref{eq:LargeFreqIII}. We finally
interpolate these restricted weak-type estimates with each other to prove strong estimates for exponents
as in~\eqref{eq:LargeFreqIII}.
To this end let $\delta>0$ be sufficiently small (but fixed) and $\eps:=
\delta(\frac{s_1-s_2}{d}-\frac{1}{r_1}+\frac{1}{r_2})\neq 0$ and define $\tilde q,q^*,\tilde\kappa,\kappa^*$ via $\frac{1}{\tilde
q}-\eps=\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{q^*}+\eps$ and $\tilde \kappa-\delta=\kappa=\kappa^*+\delta$.
Then $(\tilde q,r_1,r_2,\tilde\kappa),(q^*,r_1,r_2,\kappa^*)$ satisfies
\eqref{eq:LargeFreqIII} and the reiteration property of real interpolation
\cite[Theorem~3.5.3]{BerghLoefstrom1976} gives
\begin{align*}
\|u_1\|_q
&\les \|u_1\|_{(L^{q^*}(\R^d),L^{\tilde q}(\R^d))_{\frac{1}{2},q}} \\
&\les \|u\|_{((X_1,X_2)_{\kappa^*,1},(X_1,X_2)_{\tilde\kappa,1})_{\frac{1}{2},q}} \\
&\les \|u\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,q}} \\
&\stackrel{\eqref{eq:interpolationfunctor}}\les \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa}
\end{align*}
Here the first bound uses $\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{q^*}+\frac{1}{\tilde q})$ and the third uses
$\kappa=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde\kappa+\kappa^*)$. This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
We have thus proved that the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality~\eqref{eq:GNgeneral} holds for non-critical
frequencies whenever the exponents belong to the set
\begin{align*}
\mathcal B(\kappa) := \left\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3:\; (q,r_1,r_2) \text{ as in
Proposition~\ref{prop:LargeFreqInterpolated}}
\right\}.
\end{align*}
\begin{rem} \label{rem:GNandFracLap} ~
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]
The original Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality~
$
\|\nabla^j v\|_q \les \|\nabla^m v\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|v\|_{r_2}^\kappa
$
from~\cite[p.125]{Nirenberg_OnElliptic} holds for $j,m\in\N$ provided that $\frac{1}{q}- \frac{j}{d} =
(1-\kappa)(\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{m}{d}) + \frac{\kappa}{r_2}$ and $\frac{j}{m}\leq 1-\kappa<1$. Our
result shows that ``in most cases'' the large frequency part of this estimate holds provided
that $\frac{j}{m}\leq 1-\kappa<1$ holds and $\frac{1}{q}- \frac{j}{d} \geq
(1-\kappa)(\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{m}{d}) + \frac{\kappa}{r_2}$. The exceptions are due to the fact that,
in $L^1(\R^d)$ or $L^\infty(\R^d)$, the term $\bra{D}^j u$ does not control $D^j u$, i.e., not every single
partial derivative of order $j$. This is a consequence of the unboundedness
of the Riesz transform on these spaces.
\item[(b)]
Our proof indicates which function spaces to choose in order to get some endpoint estimates in the
exceptional cases as well. Roughly speaking, one may replace $L^q(\R^d)$ by $L^{q,r}(\R^d)$ for
suitable $r>q$ and $L^\infty(\R^d)$ by $\BMO(\R^d)$ on the left hand side. On the right hand side the
Hardy space $\mathcal H^1(\R^d)$ may replace $L^1(\R^d)$.
\item[(c)] One may as well consider symbols $P_i(D)$ that vanish at some
finite set of points in $\R^d\sm S$. If for instance one has
$P_i(\xi)=b_i(\xi)|\xi-\xi^*|^{t_i}$ near $\xi^*\in\R^d\sm S$ for $t_1,t_2>-d$ and
non-vanishing $b_i\in C^\infty(\R^d)$, then one finds as in
Proposition~\ref{prop:LargeFreqInterpolated} that the interpolation estimate holds in this frequency
regime whenever $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}>\frac{\ov t}{d}$
where $\ov t:=(1-\kappa)t_1+\kappa t_2$. Under suitable extra conditions similar to the ones above, this
may be extended to the endpoint case $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{\ov
t}{d}$.
\item[(d)] The proof in the important special case $1<r_1,r_2,q<\infty$ is much shorter than the
complete analysis, see the beginning of Step 2.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\section{Critical frequency analysis}
We introduce a real number $A_\eps(p,q)$ such that $\|\tilde T_j\|_{p\to q}\les 2^{-jA_\eps(p,q)}$
holds for suitably defined dyadic operators $\tilde T_j$ that play the role of the $T_j$ in the previous
section.
Unfortunately, the definition of $A_\eps(p,q)$ is rather complicated for $d\geq 2$. It involves the number
$$
A(p,q):=\min\{A_0,A_1,A_2,A_2',A_3,A_3',A_4,A_4'\}
$$
where $A_i=A_i(p,q)$ and $A_i'=A_i(q',p')$ are given by
$$
A_0=1, \qquad
A_1 = \frac{k+2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right), \qquad
A_2 = \frac{k+2}{2} - \frac{k+1}{q}
$$
as well as
$$
A_3 =\frac{2d-k}{2}-\frac{2d-k-1}{q}, \qquad
A_4 = \frac{k+2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right)+\frac{2d-k-2}{2}-\frac{2d-k-2}{q}.
$$
The values $A_0,A_1,A_1',A_2,A_2'$ will be important for $1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$ whereas
all other exponents satisfying $1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty$ come with $A_3,A_3',A_4,A_4'$.
Then we define for $\eps>0$
\begin{align}\label{eq:def_Aeps}
A_\eps(p,q) &:=
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q} \quad\text{if }d=1, \quad\qquad
A_\eps(p,q):=
A(p,q) - \eps \cdot \ind_{(p,q)\in\mathcal E} \quad\text{if }d\geq 2.
\end{align}
Here, $\mathcal E$ denotes a set of exceptional points where we do not have strong bounds, but only weak
bounds or restricted weak-type bounds. It is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal E &:= \Big\{(p,q)\in [1,\infty]^2 :\;
\frac{1}{p}=\frac{k+2}{2(k+1)},\; \frac{1}{q}\leq
\frac{k^2}{2(k+1)(k+2)} \quad\text{or } \\
&\hspace{4cm} \frac{1}{q}=\frac{k}{2(k+1)},\; \frac{1}{p}\geq
\frac{k^2+6k+4}{2(k+1)(k+2)}\Big\}
\end{align*}
and coincides with the red points in Figure~\ref{fig:Tdeltabounds}.
\medskip
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=10]
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (1.05,0) node[right]{$\frac{1}{p}$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,1.05) node[above]{$\frac{1}{q}$};
\draw (0,0) --(1,1);
\draw (1,1) -- (1,0) node[below]{$1$};
\draw (0,1) node[left]{$1$};
\coordinate (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate (O') at (1,1);
\coordinate (ST) at (0.5,0.25);
\coordinate (ST') at (0.75,0.5);
\coordinate (R) at (0.67,0.17);
\coordinate (R') at (0.83,0.33);
\coordinate (H) at (0.5,0);
\coordinate (H') at (1,0.5);
\coordinate (C) at (0.5,0.5);
\coordinate (E) at (1,0);
\coordinate (ER) at (0.67,0);
\coordinate (ER') at (1,0.33);
\draw (0.85,0.15) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_0$};
\draw (0.65,0.4) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_1$};
\draw (0.9,0.4) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_2$};
\draw (0.6,0.1) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_2'$};
\draw (0.95,0.75) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_3$};
\draw (0.25,0.05) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_3'$};
\draw (0.7,0.6) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_4$};
\draw (0.4,0.3) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_4'$};
\draw [dotted] (0,0.5) node[left]{$\frac{1}{2}$} -- (0.5,0.5);
\draw [dotted] (0,0.25) node[left]{$\frac{k}{2(k+2)}$} -- (ST);
\draw [dotted] (0,0.17) node[left]{$\frac{k^2}{2(k+1)(k+2)}$} -- (R);
\draw [dotted] (0.75,0) node[below]{\hspace{3mm}$\frac{k+4}{2(k+2)}$} -- (ST');
\draw [dotted] (0.5,0) node[below]{$\frac{1}{2}$} -- (0.5,0.5);
\draw (C) -- (H);
\draw (C) -- (H');
\draw (C) -- (O);
\draw (C) -- (O');
\draw (ST) -- (O);
\draw (ST') -- (O');
\draw (ST) -- (R);
\draw (ST') -- (R');
\draw (R) -- (R');
\draw (R) -- (ER);
\draw (R') -- (ER');
\draw [line width = 0.4mm, draw=red] (R) -- (0.67,0) node[below]{\hspace{-3mm}$\frac{k+2}{2(k+1)}$};
\draw [line width = 0.4mm, draw=red] (R') -- (1,0.33);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Riesz diagram with the bounds for the mapping constant of $\tilde T_j$ from
Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta2}. The exceptional points from $\mathcal E$ are coloured in red.}
\label{fig:Tdeltabounds}
\end{figure}
\medskip
We first prove dyadic estimates in the frequency regime close to the
critical surface $S$. The latter can be locally parametrized as a graph $\xi_d=\psi(\xi')$ after
some permutation of coordinates, where $\xi=(\xi',\xi_d)\in\R^{d-1}\times\R\simeq \R^d$. In view of (A1)
we study operators of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:def_TildeTj}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde T_j f
&:= \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta\left(2^j(\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))\right) \chi(\xi')\hat f(\xi) \right)
= \tilde K_j\ast f \\
\text{where}\quad
\tilde K_j
&:= \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta \left(2^j(\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))\right) \chi(\xi')\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align} \label{eq:chipsi}
\begin{aligned}
&\psi\in C^\infty(\R^{d-1}),\;\chi\in C_0^\infty(\R^{d-1}) \text{ and at least }k\in\{1,\ldots,d-1\}
\\
&\text{eigenvalues of the Hessian } D^2\psi \text{ are non-zero on }\supp(\chi).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
In the degenerate case $d=1$ we interpret $\eta (2^j(\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))) \chi(\xi')$ as
$\eta(2^j(\xi-c))$ for some constant $c\in\R$.
Our analysis of the mapping properties of $\tilde T_j$ follows~\cite[Section~4]{ManSch}.
Contrary to the situation for $T_j$, only the bounds for $j\nearrow +\infty$ will be of importance.
Repeating the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta} gives the following result in the one-dimensional case.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Tdelta2d=1}
Assume $d=1$ and $\eta\in C_0^\infty(\R)$. Then we have
$$
\|\tilde T_j\|_{p\to q}
\les 2^{-j(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})}
\qquad \text{for }1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty,\;j\in\Z.
$$
\end{lem}
The bounds in higher dimensions are more complicated and depend on the number
$k\in\{1,\ldots,d-1\}$ of non-vanishing principal curvatures of $S$. We first analyze the kernel function
$\tilde K_j$ following~\cite[Lemma~4.4]{ManSch}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:kernel}
Assume $d\in\N,d\geq 2$, let $\chi,\psi,k$ be as in~\eqref{eq:chipsi} and $\eta\in C_0^\infty(\R)$.
Then the kernel function $\tilde K_j$ satisfies for $j\in\Z, j\geq j_0$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normboundsTildeKj}
\|\tilde K_j\|_r \les 2^{-j(\frac{2d-k}{2}-\frac{2d-k-1}{r})} \;\text{if }1\leq r\leq 2,\qquad
\|\tilde K_j\|_\infty \les 2^{-j}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The bound $\|\tilde K_j\|_2 \les 2^{-j/2}$ follows from Plancherel's identity and~\eqref{eq:def_TildeTj}.
Indeed,
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde K_j\|_2^2
&= \int_{\R^d} \eta(2^j(\xi_d-\psi(\xi')))^2 \chi(\xi')^2\,d(\xi',\xi_d) \\
&= \int_{\R^{d-1}} \chi(\xi')^2 \left(\int_\R \eta(2^j t)^2\,dt\right) \,d\xi' \\
&= 2^{-j} \|\chi\|_2^2 \|\eta\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
To prove \eqref{eq:normboundsTildeKj} it thus suffices to show $\|\tilde K_j\|_1 \les
2^{-j(\frac{k+2}{2}-d)}$ as well as $\|\tilde K_j\|_\infty \les 2^{-j}$ and to apply the Riesz-Thorin
interpolation theorem. These two norm bounds for the kernel function are consequences of the pointwise
bounds for arbitrary $N,M\in\N_0$
\begin{align*
\begin{aligned}
|\tilde K_j(x)|
&\les_{N,M} 2^{-j} (1+2^{-j}|x_d|)^{-M} (1+|x'|)^{-N}
&&\text{if }|x'| \geq c|x_d|, \\
|\tilde K_j(x)| &\les_M 2^{-j} (1+2^{-j}|x_d|)^{-M} (1+|x_d|)^{-\frac{k}{2}}
&&\text{if }|x'| \leq c|x_d|,
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
where $c>0$ is suitably chosen. Indeed, choosing $M,N$ sufficiently large we get
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde K_j\|_1
&\les_{N,M} \int_\R
\left( \int_{|x'|\leq c x_d} 2^{-j} (1+2^{-j}|x_d|)^{-M} (1+|x_d|)^{-\frac{k}{2}} \,dx'\right)\,dx_d \\
&\qquad
+ \int_\R \left(\int_{|x'|\geq c x_d} 2^{-j} (1+2^{-j}|x_d|)^{-M} (1+|x'|)^{-N} \,dx'
\right)\,dx_d \\
&\les_{M,N} 2^{-j} \int_\R (1+2^{-j}|x_d|)^{-M} |x_d|^{d-1}(1+|x_d|)^{-\frac{k}{2}} \,dx_d \\
&\qquad + 2^{-j} \int_\R (1+2^{-j}|x_d|)^{-M} (1+|x_d|)^{d-N} \,dx_d \\
&\les_{M,N} 2^{-j} \int_0^{2^j}
|x_d|^{d-1}(1+|x_d|)^{-\frac{k}{2}} \,dx_d
+ 2^{(M-1)j} \int_{2^j}^\infty |x_d|^{d-\frac{k}{2}-1-M} \,dx_d \\
&\les_{M,N} 2^{-j(\frac{k+2}{2}-d)}.
\end{align*}
Here we used $2^j\geq 2^{j_0}>0$. So it remains to prove the pointwise bounds by adapting
the arguments from \cite{ManSch}. We have
$$
\tilde K_j(x)
= c_d\, 2^{-j} (\mathcal F^{-1}\eta)(2^{-j}x_d) \int_{\R^{d-1}}
e^{i(x'\cdot\xi'+x_d\psi(\xi'))} \chi(\xi')\,d\xi'
$$
for some dimensional constant $c_d>0$.
We choose $c>0$ so large that the smooth phase function $\Phi(\xi')=x'\cdot\xi' +
x_d\psi(\xi')$ satisfies $|\nabla \Phi(\xi')|\geq c^{-1}|x'|$ for all $\xi'\in\R^{d-1}$ whenever $|x'|\geq
c|x_d|$.
In view of $\chi\in C_0^\infty(\R^{d-1})$ the method of non-stationary phase gives
\begin{align*}
|\tilde K_j(x)|
&\les_N 2^{-j} |(\mathcal F^{-1}\eta)(2^{-j}x_d)| (1+|x'|)^{-N} \\
&\les_{N,M} 2^{-j} (1+2^{-j}|x_d|)^{-M} (1+|x'|)^{-N}
\quad\text{for }|x'|\geq c|x_d|.
\end{align*}
In the second estimate we used that $\mathcal F^{-1}\eta$ is a Schwartz function. On the other hand, the
theory of oscillatory integrals gives (see~\cite[p.361]{Stein1993})
$$
|\tilde K_j(x)| \les_M 2^{-j} (1+2^{-j}|x_d|)^{-M} (1+|x_d|)^{-\frac{k}{2}}
\qquad\text{for } |x'| \leq c|x_d|.
$$
\end{proof}
Next we use Proposition~\ref{prop:kernel} to find upper bounds for the operator norms of $\tilde T_j$ as
maps from $L^p(\R^d)$ to $L^q(\R^d)$ where $1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty$.
The latter condition is mandatory since $\tilde T_j$ is a
translation-invariant operator covered by H\"ormander's result
from~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{Hoermander_Translation}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Tdelta2}
Assume $d\in \N,d\geq 2$ and let $\chi,\psi,k$ are as in~\eqref{eq:chipsi} and $\eta\in C_0^\infty(\R)$.
Then, for any fixed $\eps>0$,
$$
\|\tilde T_j\|_{p\to q} \les 2^{-j A_\eps(p,q)}
\qquad \text{for }1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty,\;j\in\Z,j\geq j_0.
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We first analyze the range $1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$.
Plancherel's Theorem gives
$$
\|\tilde T_j f\|_2
= \|\eta\left(2^j(\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))\right)\chi(\xi')\hat f\|_2
\les \|\hat f\|_2 = \|f\|_2
$$
due to $\eta,\chi \in L^\infty(\R^d)$. The Stein-Tomas Theorem for surfaces with $k$
non-vanishing principal curvatures~\cite[p.365]{Stein1993} yields as in \cite[Lemma~4.3]{ManSch}
\begin{equation*
\|\tilde T_j f\|_q
\les 2^{-\frac{j}{2}}\| f\|_2,\quad
\|\tilde T_j f\|_2
\les 2^{-\frac{j}{2}}\| f\|_{q'}
\qquad\text{if } \frac{1}{q}\leq \frac{k}{2(k+2)}.
\end{equation*}
The Restriction-Extension operator $f\mapsto \mathcal F^{-1}(\hat f\,d\sigma_M)$
for compact pieces $M$ of hypersurfaces with $k$ non-vanishing principal curvatures
has the mapping properties from \cite[Corollary~5.1]{ManSch}, so it is bounded for
$(p,q)$ belonging to the pentagonal region
\begin{equation} \label{eq:RestExt}
\frac{1}{p}>\frac{k+2}{2(k+1)},\quad \frac{1}{q}<\frac{k}{2(k+1)},\quad
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q} \geq \frac{2}{k+2}.
\end{equation}
So for these exponents and $M_t:= \{\xi=(\xi',\xi_d)\in \supp(\chi)\times\R: \xi_d-\psi(\xi')=t\}$ with
induced surface measure $d\sigma_{M_t}= (1+|\nabla\psi(\xi')|^2)^{1/2}\,d\xi'$ we have for $\hat g(\xi):=\chi(\xi')\hat f(\xi)
(1+|\nabla\psi(\xi')|^2)^{-1/2}$
$$
\|\tilde T_j f\|_q
\les \int_\R |\eta(2^jt)| \| \mathcal F^{-1}(\hat g\,d\sigma_{M_t}) \|_q\,dt
\les \int_\R |\eta(2^jt)| \|g\|_p \,dt
\les 2^{-j} \|f\|_p.
$$
Moreover, \cite[Corollary~5.1]{ManSch} yields restricted weak-type bounds from $L^{p,1}(\R^d)$ to
$L^{q,\infty}(\R^d)$ for all $(p,q)$ belonging to the closure of the above-mentioned pentagon, which implies
$\|\tilde T_j f\|_{q,\infty} \les 2^{-j} \|f\|_{p,1}$ in the same manner.
Interpolating all these bounds gives
$$
\|\tilde T_j\|_{p\to q}\les 2^{-j(\min\{A_0,A_1,A_2,A_2'\}-\eps\cdot\ind_{(p,q)\in\mathcal E})}
= 2^{-jA_\eps(p,q)}
\quad\text{for }1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty,\,\eps>0.
$$
This finishes the analysis in the case $1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$. For
$2\leq p\leq q\leq \infty$ or $1\leq p\leq q\leq 2$ we get from Proposition~\ref{prop:kernel}
$$
\|\tilde T_j\|_{1\to 1}+\|\tilde T_j\|_{\infty\to\infty}
\les \|\tilde K_j\|_1 \les 2^{-j(\frac{k+2}{2}-d)}.
$$
Interpolating the estimates for $(p,q)=(\infty,\infty)$ with the ones for $p=2,q\geq 2$ from above yields
the estimates in the region $A_3',A_4'$; the dual ones follow analogously. So we get
$$
\|\tilde T_j\|_{p\to q}\les 2^{-j\min\{A_3,A_3',A_4,A_4'\}}=2^{-jA_\eps(p,q)},
$$
which proves the claim.
\end{proof}
The optimality of our constants is open. It would be interesting to see
whether recent results and techniques for oscillatory integral operators by Guth, Hickman,
Iliopolou~\cite{GuthHickmanIliopoulou2019} or Kwon, Lee~\cite{KwonLee2020} (Proposition~2.4,
Proposition~2.5) can be adapted to prove better bounds, especially
in the range $1\leq p\leq q<2$ or $2<p\leq q\leq \infty$. Any theorem leading to a larger value of
$A_\eps(p,q)$ will automatically provide a larger range of exponents $q,r_1,r_2$ for which our
Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities hold. Candidates for such values $\geq A_\eps(p,q)$
are given in~\cite[Lemma~2.2]{ChoKimLeeShim2005} and \cite[Lemma~4.4]{ManSch}, but it seems nontrivial to
make use of those in our setting. Next we use the estimates for $\tilde T_j$ to discuss the relevant
operators at distance $2^{-j}$ from the critical surface where $j\nearrow +\infty$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:DyadicEstimatesII}
Assume $d\in\N$ and (A1) with $\alpha_1,\alpha_2>-1$. Then there are bounded linear operators $\mathcal
T_j:L^p(\R^d)\to L^q(\R^d)$ and $j_0\in\Z$ with
$\sum_{j=j_0}^\infty \mathcal T_j u = u_1$ such that, for $i=1,2$ and any given $\eps>0$, we have for all $u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)$,
$$
\|\mathcal T_ju\|_{q} \les 2^{j (\alpha_i-A_\eps(p,q))} \|P_i(D)u\|_p.
\qquad \text{for }1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty,\;j\in\Z, j\geq j_0.
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall $u_1= \mathcal F^{-1}(\tau\hat u)$ where $\tau$ was chosen in~\eqref{eq:u1u2}; we first consider
the case $d\geq 2$. According to Assumption~(A1) there are $\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_L\in
C_0^\infty(\R^d)$ such that $\tau_1+\ldots+\tau_L=\tau$ holds and $S\cap \supp(\tau_l) = \{ \xi \in\supp(\tau_l) : \tilde\xi_d=\psi_l(\tilde\xi') \text{ where
}\tilde\xi=\Pi_l\xi\}$. Here, $\Pi_l$ denotes some permutation of coordinates in~$\R^d$. Since $P$
vanishes of order $\alpha$ near the surface in the sense of Assumption (A1), we may write
\begin{align} \label{eq:SymbolLocalization}
\begin{aligned}
&P(\xi)^{-1}\tau_l(\xi) = \left[ \tau_{l+}(\xi)
(\tilde\xi_d-\psi_l(\tilde\xi'))_+^{-\alpha}
+ \tau_{l-}(\xi)(\tilde\xi_d-\psi_l(\tilde\xi'))_-^{-\alpha} \right] \chi_l(\tilde\xi') \\
&\text{with}\quad
\tau_{l+},\tau_{l-}\in C_0^\infty(\R^d),\; \chi_l\in C_0^\infty(\R^{d-1}),\;
\tilde\xi := \Pi_l\xi.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
for suitable functions $\chi_l,\psi_l$ that satisfy \eqref{eq:chipsi}.
In view of this we define
\begin{align*}
\mathcal T_j := \sum_{l=1}^L \mathcal T_j^l
\quad\text{where }
\mathcal T_j^l u &:= \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \tau_l(\xi)\hat u(\xi) \,
\eta(2^j(\tilde\xi_d-\psi_l(\tilde\xi'))) \chi_l(\tilde\xi') \right)\quad (\tilde
\xi=\Pi_l\xi).
\end{align*}
Since $0$ does not belong to the support of $\eta$, there is $j_0\in\Z$ such that
$u_1= \sum_{j=j_0}^\infty \mathcal T_j u$ in the sense of distributions.
We introduce the smooth function $\eta_{i}(z) := \eta(z) |z|^{-\alpha_i}$. Then
Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta2} yields
\begin{align*}
\|\mathcal T_j u\|_q
&\les \sum_{l=1}^L \|\mathcal T_j^l u\|_q \\
&= \sum_{l=1}^L \|\mathcal F^{-1}\left( \eta(2^j(\tilde\xi_d-\psi_l(\tilde\xi'))) \chi_l(\tilde\xi')\,
\tau_l(\xi)\hat u(\xi) \right)\|_q \\
&= \sum_{l=1}^L \|\mathcal F^{-1}\left(
\eta(2^j(\tilde\xi_d-\psi_l(\tilde\xi'))) \chi_l(\tilde\xi') \, P_i(\xi)^{-1}\tau_l(\xi)
\widehat{P_i(D)u}(\xi) \right)\|_q \\
&\stackrel{\eqref{eq:SymbolLocalization}}= \sum_{l=1}^L 2^{j\alpha_i} \|\mathcal F^{-1}\left(
\eta_{i}(2^j(\tilde\xi_d-\psi_l(\tilde\xi'))) \chi_l(\tilde\xi')
(\tau_{li+}(\xi)+\tau_{li-}(\xi))\widehat{P_i(D)u}(\xi) \right)\|_{q} \\
&\les \sum_{l=1}^L 2^{j(\alpha_i-A_\eps(p,q))} \|\mathcal F^{-1}\left(
(\tau_{li+}(\xi)+\tau_{li-}(\xi))\widehat{P_i(D)u}(\xi)\right)\|_p \\
&\les 2^{j(\alpha_i-A_\eps(p,q))} \|P_i(D)u\|_p
\end{align*}
In the last inequality we used that $\tau_{li+},\tau_{li-}$ are $L^p$-multipliers since their Fourier
transforms are integrable.
\end{proof}
In the forthcoming analysis we shall need the following auxiliary result.
The proof mainly follows Stein's analysis of oscillatory integrals on \cite[p.380-386]{Stein1993}.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:Lalpha}
Assume $0\leq \alpha<\frac{1}{2}$ and that $\chi,\psi$ are as in \eqref{eq:chipsi},
$\tau\in C_0^\infty(\R^d)$, set
$$
L_\alpha u:= \mathcal F^{-1}\left((\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))_+^{-\alpha} \chi(\xi')
\tau(\xi) u\right).
$$
Then $L_\alpha:L^2(\R^d)\to L^q(\R^d)$ is a bounded linear
operator for $q:= \frac{2(k+2)}{k+2-4\alpha}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Define the family of distributions $\gamma_s$ as in \cite[p.381]{Stein1993}
(called $\alpha_s$ in this book) via
$$
\gamma_s(y) = \frac{e^{s^2}}{\Gamma(s)}y^{s-1} \zeta(y) 1_{y>0}
\qquad \text{if }\Re(s)>0.
$$
where $\zeta$ is smooth with compact support and $\zeta(y)=1$ for $|y|\leq y_0$ where $y_0$
is chosen so large that $\zeta(\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))=1$ holds whenever $\chi(\xi')\tau(\xi)\neq 0$.
The family $(\gamma_s)$ is extended to all $s\in\C$ via analytic continuation.
Then introduce the family of linear operators
$$
M_s f:= \mathcal F^{-1}\left(\chi(\xi')^2 \gamma_s(\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))\hat f\right).
$$
Plancherel's Identity gives
$$
\|M_s f\|_2 \les \|f\|_2 \qquad \text{if }\Re(s)=1.
$$
On the other hand
\begin{align*}
M_s f
= \Phi\ast f,\qquad
\Phi(z):= \hat \gamma_s(-z_d) \cdot
\int_{\R^{d-1}} \chi(\xi')^2 e^{iz\cdot(\xi',\psi(\xi'))}\,d\xi'
\end{align*}
From eq.~(15) in \cite{Stein1993} and eq.~(32) in \cite{ManSch} we infer
$$
|\Phi(z)|
\les (1+|z_d|)^{-\Re(s)} (1+|z_d|)^{-\frac{k}{2}}
\les 1
\qquad\text{if }\Re(s)=-\frac{k}{2}.
$$
We conclude
$$
\|M_s f\|_\infty \les \|f\|_1 \qquad \text{if }\Re(s)=-\frac{k}{2}.
$$
Furthermore, for any given Schwartz functions $f,g$ the function $s\mapsto \int_{\R^d} (M_s f)g$ is
holomorphic in the open strip $-\frac{k}{2}<\Re(s)<1$ with continuous extension to the boundary.
So the family $M_s$ is admissible for Stein's Interpolation Theorem
\cite[Theorem~1]{Stein_Interpolation} and we obtain
$$
\|M_{1-2\alpha} f\|_q \les \|f\|_{q'} \qquad \text{if }
\theta\in [0,1],\; 1-2\alpha = (1-\theta)\cdot (-\frac{k}{2})+\theta\cdot 1,\;
\frac{1}{q} = \frac{1-\theta}{\infty}+\frac{\theta}{2}.
$$
This leads to $\theta=\frac{2(k+2-4\alpha)}{2(k+2)}$ and $q= \frac{2(k+2)}{k+2-4\alpha}$.
In view of $0<2\alpha<1$ this implies
$$
\|\mathcal F^{-1}\left(\chi(\xi')^2 (\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))_+^{-2\alpha}
\zeta(\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))
\hat f\right) \|_q \les \|f\|_{q'}.
$$
Now we consider functions $\hat f = \tau^2 \hat g$. By choice of $\zeta$ and of $y_0$ we then have
$$
\|\mathcal F^{-1}\left(\chi(\xi')^2 (\xi_d-\psi(\xi'))_+^{-2\alpha}
\tau(\xi)^2 \hat g\right) \|_q
\les \|\mathcal F^{-1}(\tau^2 \hat g)\|_{q'}
\les \|g\|_{q'}.
$$
This implies the claim given that that this operator coincides with $L_\alpha L_\alpha^*$.
\end{proof}
We now use the dyadic estimates from Proposition~\ref{prop:DyadicEstimatesII} to prove
Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities in the special case $P_1(D)=P_2(D)$ where the exponents satisfy
$A_\eps(p,q)=\alpha\in [0,1]$. This result plays the same role in the critical frequency regime as
Proposition~\ref{prop:BesselPotentials} does in the non-critical regime. For $d\geq 2$ we concentrate on exponents with $1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:SobolevIneq}
Assume $d\in\N$ and let $P:=P_1=P_2$ satisfy (A1) for $\alpha:=\alpha_1=\alpha_2\in [0,1]$. Then
$\|u_1\|_q \les \|P(D)u\|_p$ holds for all $u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)$ provided that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $d=1$ and $1\leq p,q\leq \infty$ satisfy $\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=\alpha$ and, if
$0<\alpha<1$, $(p,q)\notin \{(1,\frac{1}{1-\alpha}),(\frac{1}{\alpha},\infty)\}$,
\item[(ii)] $d\geq 2$ and $1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$ satisfy
$\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q} = \frac{2\alpha}{k+2}$ and $\min\{\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q'}\}
> \frac{k+2\alpha}{2(k+1)}$.
\end{itemize}
The estimate $\|u_1\|_{q,\infty} \les \|P(D)u\|_p$ holds for exponents as in (i),(ii) or
\begin{itemize}
\item[(iii)] $d=1,p=1,q=\frac{1}{1-\alpha}$ if $\alpha\in (0,1)$,
\item[(iv)] $d\geq 2, 1\leq p<\frac{2(k+1)}{k+2\alpha},
q=\frac{2(k+1)}{k+2-2\alpha}$ if $\alpha\in (\frac{1}{2},1]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
With the same notations as before we have
\begin{align*
\begin{aligned}
&P(\xi)^{-1}\tau_l(\xi) = \left[ \tau_{l+}(\xi)
(\tilde\xi_d-\psi_l(\tilde\xi'))_+^{-\alpha}
+ \tau_{l-}(\xi)(\tilde\xi_d-\psi_l(\tilde\xi'))_-^{-\alpha} \right] \chi_l(\tilde\xi') \\
&\text{with}\quad
\tau_{l+},\tau_{l-}\in C_0^\infty(\R^d),\; \chi_l\in C_0^\infty(\R^{d-1}),\;
\tilde\xi := \Pi_l\xi.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
for functions $\chi_l,\psi_l$ that satisfy \eqref{eq:chipsi}. So $u_1=\sum_{j=j_0}^\infty
\mathcal T_j u$. Assuming $1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$ are chosen as above we obtain (ii),(iv) as
follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case $d\geq 2, \alpha=0$. \\
Our assumptions give that $A_\eps(p,q)=\alpha=0$ only occurs for $p=q=2$. Here the
estimate $\|u_1\|_2\les \|P(D)u\|_2$ follows from Plancherel's Theorem.
\item Case $d\geq 2, \alpha\in (0,1)$. \\
We first consider the case $\alpha<\frac{1}{2}$. By assumption, $(\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q})$ lies on
the green diagonal line in Figure~\ref{fig:SobolevIneq}. By
Proposition~\ref{prop:Lalpha}, the claimed inequality holds for the endpoints of that line given
by $p=2,q=\frac{2(k+2)}{k+2-4\alpha}$ and its dual $p=\frac{2(k+2)}{k+2+4\alpha},q=2$.
Interpolating these two estimates with each other provides the desired inequality for all tuples on
the green line in Figure~\ref{fig:SobolevIneq} and thus proves the claim for $\alpha<\frac{1}{2}$. \\
Now consider the case $\alpha\geq \frac{1}{2}$. Our assumptions imply that
$(\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q})$ lies on the blue line in Figure~\ref{fig:SobolevIneq} with endpoints
excluded. In particular, $(\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q})$ is in the interior of the $A_1$-region, so
$A(\tilde p,\tilde q)=\frac{k+2}{2}(\frac{1}{\tilde p}-\frac{1}{\tilde q})$ for all $(\tilde p,\tilde
q)$ close to $(p,q)$. For small $\delta>0$ we choose $\frac{1}{q_1} = \frac{1}{q}+\delta$,
$\frac{1}{q_2} = \frac{1}{q}-\delta$. Interpolating the estimates for $(p,q_1)$ and $(p,q_2)$ with
interpolation parameter $\theta=\frac{1}{2}$ gives, due to
$(1-\theta) A_\eps(p,q_1)+\theta A_\eps(p,q_2)=\alpha$, the weak estimate $\|u\|_{q,\infty}\les
\|P(D)u\|_p$. Here we used $u_1=\sum_{j=j_0}^\infty \mathcal T_j u$, the dyadic
estimates from Proposition~\ref{prop:DyadicEstimatesII} and the Interpolation Lemma~\ref{lem:SummationLemma}.
These weak estimates hold for all $(\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q})$ on the blue line with endpoints excluded.
Interpolating these inequalities with each other gives $\|u\|_q\les \|P(D)u\|_p$ for the same set of
exponents, which proves (ii) for $\alpha\in (0,1)$. \\
The prove the weak estimate from (iv) assume $\alpha\in (\frac{1}{2},1)$. For any given
$(\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q})$ on the dashed horizontal blue line in Figure~\ref{fig:SobolevIneq} with left
endpoint excluded we can choose $q_1,q_2$ as above and the same argument gives $\|u\|_{q,\infty}\les
\|P(D)u\|_p$. Since these exponents are given by $1\leq p<\frac{2(k+1)}{k+2\alpha}$ and
$q=\frac{2(k+1)}{k+2-2\alpha}$, we are done.
\item Case $d\geq 2, \alpha=1$. \\
It was shown in \cite[Section~5]{ManSch} that the linear operators $(P(D)+i\delta)^{-1}:L^p(\R^d)\to
L^q(\R^d)$ are uniformly bounded with respect to small $|\delta|>0$ given that our additional
regularity assumptions on $P$ from (A1) imply that $S=\{\xi\in\R^d: P(\xi)=0\}$ is a smooth compact manifold with $|\nabla P|\neq 0$ on $S$.
This implies $\|u_1\|_q \les \|P(D)u\|_p$ and analogous arguments yield the weak bounds claimed in (iv).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=10]
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (1.05,0) node[right]{$\frac{1}{p}$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,1.05) node[above]{$\frac{1}{q}$};
\draw (0,0) --(1,1);
\draw (1,1) -- (1,0) node[below]{$1$};
\draw (0,1) node[left]{$1$};
\coordinate (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate (O') at (1,1);
\coordinate (ST) at (0.5,0.25);
\coordinate (ST') at (0.75,0.5);
\coordinate (R) at (0.67,0.17);
\coordinate (R') at (0.83,0.33);
\coordinate (H) at (0.5,0);
\coordinate (H') at (1,0.5);
\coordinate (C) at (0.5,0.5);
\coordinate (E) at (1,0);
\coordinate (ER) at (0.67,0);
\coordinate (ER') at (1,0.33);
\draw (0.85,0.15) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_0$};
\draw (0.65,0.4) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_1$};
\draw (0.9,0.38) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_2$};
\draw (0.62,0.1) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_2'$};
\draw (0.95,0.75) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_3$};
\draw (0.25,0.05) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_3'$};
\draw (0.7,0.6) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_4$};
\draw (0.4,0.27) node [rounded corners=8pt]
{$A_4'$};
\draw (C) -- (H);
\draw (C) -- (H');
\draw (C) -- (O);
\draw (C) -- (O');
\draw (ST) -- (O);
\draw (ST') -- (O');
\draw (ST) -- (R);
\draw (ST') -- (R');
\draw (R) -- (R');
\draw (R) -- (ER);
\draw (R') -- (ER');
\draw [dotted] (0,0.375) node[left]{$\frac{k+2-4\alpha_2}{2(k+2)}$} -- (0.5,0.375);
\draw [dotted] (0,0.312) node[left]{$\frac{(d+1-2\alpha_2)k+2-4\alpha_2}{2d(k+2)}$} --
(0.5,0.312);
\draw [line width = 0.4mm, draw=magenta] (0.5,0.312) -- (0.688,0.5);
\draw [line width = 0.4mm, draw=green] (0.5,0.375) -- (0.625,0.5);
\draw [line width = 0.4mm, draw=blue] (0.792,0.417) -- (0.583,0.208);
\draw [dashed, line width = 0.4mm, draw=blue] (1,0.417) -- (0.792,0.417);
\draw [dashed, line width = 0.4mm, draw=blue] (0.583,0.208) -- (0.583,0)
node[below]{\hspace{-3mm}$\frac{k+2\alpha_1}{2(k+1)}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{
Riesz diagram showing the exponents $1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$
satisfying $A_\eps(p,q)=\alpha$ in the case $\alpha=\alpha_1\in (\frac{1}{2},1)$
(blue) and for $\alpha=\alpha_2\in (0,\frac{1}{2})$ (green).
For the green resp. non-dashed blue exponent pairs Lemma~\ref{lem:SobolevIneq} (i),(ii) gives $\|u\|_q\leq
\|P(D)u\|_p$. In the case $\alpha=\alpha_2$ the corresponding estimates
from \cite[Theorem~1.4~(ii)]{ManSch} only hold for exponents on the magenta line.
The picture was produced with parameter values
$(d,k,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(4,2,\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{4})$.}
\label{fig:SobolevIneq}
\end{figure}
\medskip
Next we turn to the one-dimensional case $d=1$. The representation formula then reads
\begin{align} \label{eq:formulau1}
u_1
&= \sum_{l=1}^L \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \big[\tau_{l+}(\xi) (\xi-\xi_l^*)_+^{-\alpha}
+\tau_{l-}(\xi) (\xi-\xi_l^*)_-^{-\alpha}\big]\widehat{P(D)u}\right)
\end{align}
where $\{P(\xi)=0\}=\{\xi^*_1,\ldots,\xi^*_L\}$. Using our assumption
$\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=\alpha$ we obtain the claims (i),(iii) from the following arguments:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case $d=1, \alpha=0$. \\
We then have $p=q$ and we first analyze $1<p=q<\infty$. In this case
the Hilbert transform $f\mapsto \mathcal F^{-1}(\sign(\xi)\hat f)$ is bounded on $L^p(\R)$, and so is
$f\mapsto \mathcal F^{-1}(\sign(\xi-\xi_l^*)\hat f)$ for $l=1,\ldots,L$.
So the representation formula~\eqref{eq:formulau1} implies $\|u_1\|_p \les \| P(D)u \|_p$.
In the case $p=q\in \{1,\infty\}$ we make use of our additional regularity assumption
$\tau_{l}:=\tau_{l+}=\tau_{l-}$ from (A1), so
\begin{align*}
\|u_1\|_p
\leq \sum_{l=1}^L \|\mathcal F^{-1} (\tau_{l} \widehat{P(D)u})\|_p
\les \sum_{l=1}^L \| \mathcal F^{-1}(\tau_l) \ast (P(D)u) \|_p
\les \|P(D)u\|_p.
\end{align*}
Here we used that $\mathcal F^{-1}(\tau_l)$ is a Schwartz function for $l=1,\ldots,L$.
\item Case $d=1, \alpha\in (0,1)$ \\
If $1<p<q<\infty$ we deduce the claimed estimate from the boundedness of the Hilbert transform on
$L^q(\R)$ and the Riesz potential estimate $\|\mathcal F^{-1}( |\cdot|^{-\alpha}\hat f)\|_q \les
\|f\|_p$.
For $p=1,0<\alpha<1$ we have a weak estimate $\|\mathcal F^{-1}( |\cdot|^{-\alpha}\hat f)\|_{q,\infty}
\les \|f\|_1$, see~\cite[Theorem 1.2.3]{Graf_Modern}. Note that the Hilbert transform
is bounded on $L^{q,\infty}(\R)$ as well by real interpolation.
\item Case $d=1,\alpha=1$. \\
We now have $\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=1$, so $p=1,q=\infty$. We exploit
the additional smoothness assumption $\tau_{l+}=-\tau_{l-}$ from (A1). Then
$P\in C^\infty(\R)$ is a smooth function with simple zeros $\xi_1^*,\ldots,\xi_L^*$. To prove the
claimed inequality we start with the trivial estimate $\|v\|_\infty\les \|v'\|_1 = \|\mathcal
F^{-1}(i\xi \hat v)\|_1$ for all $v\in\mathcal S(\R)$. Translation in Fourier space gives
$\|v\|_\infty\les \| \mathcal F^{-1}(i(\xi-\xi_l^*)\hat v) \|_1$ for all $u\in\mathcal
S(\R),l=1,\ldots,L$.
So \eqref{eq:formulau1} implies as above
\begin{align*}
\|u_1\|_\infty
&\les \sum_{l=1}^L \|\mathcal F^{-1}((\xi-\xi_l^*)^{-1}\tau_l \widehat{P(D)u})\|_\infty\\
&\les \sum_{l=1}^L \| \mathcal F^{-1}(\tau_l\widehat{P(D)u}) \|_1 \\
&\les \|P(D)u\|_1.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
As remarked in Figure~\ref{fig:SobolevIneq}, claim (ii) of the previous lemma improves upon the
corresponding bounds from \cite[Theorem~1.4]{ManSch} in the case $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{2}$.
We finally combine all these estimates to prove Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities in the critical frequency
regime. Given the rather complicated definition of $A_\eps(p,q)$, an explicit characterization of the admissible
exponents is possible in principle, but extremely laborious. We prefer to avoid most of the
computations. Instead, we describe the set of admissible exponents in an abstract way and provide the
required computations in the reasonably simple special case $1\leq p\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$ that allows to
prove our main results. Proceeding in this way it becomes clear, how eventual improvements of
Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta2} affect the final range of exponents. Once more we exploit Bourgain's summation
argument, which allows us to argue almost as in the large frequency regime. On a formal level, comparing
Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta} (large frequencies) with Lemma~\ref{lem:Tdelta2} (critical frequencies),
we essentially have to replace $s_i-d(\frac{1}{r_i}-\frac{1}{q_i})$ by $A_\eps(r_i,q_i)-\alpha_i$ because
the summation index now ranges from some $j=j_0$ to $+\infty$ and not from $j=j_0$ to $-\infty$.
It will be convenient to formulate our sufficient conditions in terms of $\ov \alpha:=
(1-\kappa)\alpha_1+\kappa\alpha_2$.
\medskip
We provide a definition of the set $\mathcal A(\kappa)$ of exponents $(q,r_1,r_2)$ that are
admissible for
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GN_u1}
\|u_1\|_q \les \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa}\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^\kappa
\qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)).
\end{equation}
Lemma~\ref{lem:SobolevIneq} provides the definition for $\kappa\in\{0,1\}$, namely
\begin{align} \label{eq:A(0)}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal A(0) &:= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3: (q,r_1,\alpha_1) \text{ as in
Lemma~\ref{lem:SobolevIneq}~(i),(ii)} \Big\}, \\
\mathcal A(1) &:= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3: (q,r_2,\alpha_2) \text{ as in
Lemma~\ref{lem:SobolevIneq}~(i),(ii)} \Big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
In the case $0<\kappa<1$ the definition is more involved and relies on the
Interpolation Lemma~\ref{lem:SummationLemma} and the dyadic estimates for critical frequencies from
Proposition~\ref{prop:DyadicEstimatesII}.
Combining the latter with~\eqref{eq:SummationII} we obtain $\|u_1\|_q\les \|u\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,q}}$
and deduce \eqref{eq:GN_u1} for exponents $(q,r_1,r_2)$ belonging to the set
\begin{align*}
\mathcal A_1(\kappa)
&:= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3: \text{ There are }
\eps>0,\; q_1\in [r_1,\infty],\; q_2\in [r_2,\infty], \text{ such that} \\
&\qquad \frac{1}{q}=\frac{1-\kappa}{q_1}+\frac{\kappa}{q_2} \text{ and }
(1-\kappa) A_\eps(r_1,q_1)+ \kappa A_\eps(r_2,q_2)> \ov\alpha \Big\}.
\intertext{This result covers all non-endpoint cases in our considerations
further below. Using~\eqref{eq:SummationI} with $Y_1=Y_2=L^q(\R^d)$ we obtain $\|u_1\|_q
\les \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa}\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^\kappa$ for exponents in}
\mathcal A_2(\kappa)
&:= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3: q\geq \max\{r_1,r_2\} \text{ and there is }
\eps>0 \text{ such that }\\
&\qquad (1-\kappa) A_\eps(r_1,q) + \kappa A_\eps(r_2,q)= \ov\alpha,\,
A_\eps(r_i,q)\neq \alpha_i \,(i=1,2)
\Big\}.
\intertext{
Next we use $\|u\|_q = \|u\|_q^{1-\kappa}\|u\|_q^\kappa$ to deduce further
estimates from Lemma~\ref{lem:SobolevIneq} for exponents in }
\mathcal A_3(\kappa)
&:= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3:
(q,r_1,\alpha_1),\,(q,r_2,\alpha_2) \text{ as in Lemma~\ref{lem:SobolevIneq}~(i),(ii)} \Big\}.
\intertext{Using \eqref{eq:SummationI}
with $Y_1=L^{q_1}(\R^d),Y_2=L^{q_2}(\R^d)$ we get the weak bound
$\|u_1\|_{q,\infty} \les \|u\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,1}}$ for exponents belonging to}
\mathcal A_4^w(\kappa)
&:= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3: \text{ There are }\eps>0,\;
q_1\in [r_1,\infty],\; q_2\in [r_2,\infty] \text{ such that} \\
&\qquad (1-\kappa) A_\eps(r_1,q_1) + \kappa A_\eps(r_2,q_2)=
\ov\alpha,\; \frac{1}{q}=\frac{1-\kappa}{q_1}+\frac{\kappa}{q_2},\; \alpha_i \neq
A_\eps(r_i,q_i),\;q_1\neq q_2 \Big\}.
\intertext{Interpolating the (weak or strong) endpoint estimates
for $\mathcal A_2(\kappa)\cup\mathcal A_3(\kappa)\cup \mathcal A_4^w(\kappa)$
with each other exactly as in the final step of the proof of of
Proposition~\ref{prop:LargeFreqInterpolated} we deduce $\|u_1\|_q \les \|u\|_{(X_1,X_2)_{\kappa,q}} \les \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa}\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^\kappa
$ for exponents from}
\mathcal A_4(\kappa)
&:= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3: \text{ There are } \eps\neq 0,\delta>0,\, \tilde q,q^*\in
[1,\infty],\,\tilde\kappa,\kappa^*\in (0,1) \text{ with } \\
&\qquad \frac{1}{\tilde q}-\eps = \frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{q^*}+\eps,\,
\tilde\kappa-\delta=\kappa=\kappa^*+\delta
\text{ and } \\
&\qquad (\tilde q,r_1,r_2) \in\mathcal A^w_4(\tilde\kappa)\cup\mathcal
A_3(\tilde\kappa)\cup\mathcal A_2(\tilde\kappa),\; (q^*,r_1,r_2) \in\mathcal A^w_4(\kappa^*)\cup\mathcal
A_3(\kappa^*)\cup\mathcal A_2(\kappa^*) \Big\}.
\end{align*}
Summarizing these interpolation results we obtain the following interpolation inequality in the critical
frequency regime.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:CritFreqInterpolated}
Assume $d\in\N, \kappa\in [0,1]$ and (A1) for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2>-1$. Then
$$
\| u_1 \|_q \les \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^\kappa
\qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R^d))
$$
holds provided that $(q,r_1,r_2)\in\mathcal A(\kappa):= \mathcal A_1(\kappa)\cup\mathcal A_2(\kappa)\cup
\mathcal A_3(\kappa)\cup\mathcal A_4(\kappa)$.
\end{prop}
\section{Gagliardo-Nirenberg Inequalities, Proofs of
Theorem~\ref{thm:GNhigherDspecial} and Theorem~\ref{thm:GN1Dspecial}.}
We first discuss the one-dimensional case. As before, we use the notation
$$
\ov\alpha:=(1-\kappa)\alpha_1+\kappa\alpha_2
\qquad\text{and}\qquad \ov s:= (1-\kappa)s_1+\kappa s_2.
$$
\begin{thm} \label{thm:GN1D}
Assume $d=1,\kappa\in [0,1]$ and that (A1),(A2) hold for $s_1,s_2\in\R$ and $\alpha_1,\alpha_2>-1$ such
that $0<\ov\alpha\leq \ov s$. Then
$$
\|u\|_q \les \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa}
\qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R))
$$
holds provided that $q,r_1,r_2\in [1,\infty]$ satisfy
$\ov\alpha\leq \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q} \leq \ov s$
as well as the conditions (i),(ii),(iii) and (iv),(v),(vi) in the endpoint cases
$\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=\ov s$ and
$\ov\alpha=\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}$, respectively:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] if $q=\infty$ then $\frac{1}{r_1}- s_1\neq 0 \neq \frac{1}{r_2}-s_2$ or
$(r_1,r_2)=(\frac{1}{s_1},\frac{1}{s_2}), s_1,s_2\in \{0,1\}$,
\item[(ii)] if $1<q<\infty, \frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{s_1}{d}=\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}$ and
$r_1=1$ then \\ $1<r_2<q,\, \kappa\geq \frac{r_2}{q}$ or $r_2=\infty,\frac{1}{q}\leq \kappa\leq
\frac{1}{q'}$,
\item[(iii)] if $1<q<\infty$ and $\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{s_1}{d}=\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{s_2}{d}$
and $r_2=1$ then \\ $1<r_1<q,\,1-\kappa\geq \frac{r_1}{q}$ or $r_1=\infty,\frac{1}{q}\leq
1-\kappa\leq \frac{1}{q'}$,
\item[(iv)] if $q=\infty$ then $\frac{1}{r_1}-\alpha_1\neq 0\neq \frac{1}{r_2}-\alpha_2$ or
$(r_1,r_2)=(\frac{1}{\alpha_1},\frac{1}{\alpha_2}), \alpha_1,\alpha_2\in \{0,1\}$,
\item[(v)]
if $1<q<\infty, \frac{1}{r_1}-\alpha_1=\frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{r_2}-\alpha_2$
then \\
$\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in [0,1]$ and $r_1=1,\kappa<1$ only if $1<r_2<q,\, \kappa\geq \frac{r_2}{q}$,
\item[(vi)]
if $1<q<\infty, \frac{1}{r_1}-\alpha_1=\frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{r_2}-\alpha_2$
then \\
$\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in [0,1]$ and $r_2=1,\kappa>0$ only if $1<r_1<q,\, 1-\kappa\geq \frac{r_1}{q}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop:LargeFreqInterpolated} shows that the large frequency part of the inequality
(involving $s_1,s_2$ and thus (i),(ii),(iii)) holds. In view of Proposition~\ref{prop:CritFreqInterpolated}
it remains to show that all exponents satisfying
$\ov\alpha\leq \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}$ with (iv),(v),(vi) in the endpoint case
$\ov\alpha= \frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}$ are covered by $\mathcal A(\kappa)$.
In the case $\kappa=0$ this holds by definition of $\mathcal A(0)$ from~\eqref{eq:A(0)}
because the requirement $(r_1,q)\notin\{1,\frac{1}{1-\alpha},\frac{1}{\alpha},\infty\}$ if $0<\alpha<1$
from Lemma~\ref{lem:SobolevIneq}~(i) is met by (iv),(v),(vi). The discussion for $\kappa=1$ is analogous.
So from now on consider the case $0<\kappa<1$.
\medskip
We now retrieve some information about $\mathcal A(\kappa)$ by exploiting the formula
$A_\eps(p,q)=\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}$ for $1\leq p\leq q\leq\infty$, see~\eqref{eq:def_Aeps}.
Going back to the definition of the sets $\mathcal A_i(\kappa)$ we find
\begin{align*}
\mathcal A_1(\kappa)
&= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3:\,
\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}>\ov\alpha \Big\}, \\
\mathcal A_2(\kappa)
&\supset \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3:\,
\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=\ov\alpha,\,
0\leq \frac{1}{r_i}-\frac{1}{q}\neq \alpha_i \text{ for }i=1,2\Big\}, \\
\mathcal A_3(\kappa)
&\supset \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3:
\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}= \ov\alpha,\,
\frac{1}{r_i}-\frac{1}{q}=\alpha_i\in [0,1]
\text{ and } \\
&\qquad (r_i,q)\notin
\big\{\big(1,\frac{1}{1-\alpha_i}\big),\big(\frac{1}{\alpha_i},\infty\big)\big\} \text{ if
}\alpha_i\in (0,1) \text{ for }i=1,2\Big\}.
\end{align*}
Since the interpolation inequality holds for these exponents, our claim is proved in the following cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}>\ov\alpha$: see $\mathcal A_1(\kappa)$.
\item $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=\ov\alpha$ and $q=1$:
we necessarily have $\ov \alpha=0,r_1=r_2=1$, which is covered by $\mathcal A_2(\kappa)$
for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2\neq 0$ or $\mathcal A_3(\kappa)$ for $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$, respectively.
\item $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=\ov\alpha$ and $q=\infty$:
$\frac{1}{r_1}-\alpha_1\neq 0\neq \frac{1}{r_2}-\alpha_2$ is covered by $\mathcal A_2(\kappa)$
and $\frac{1}{r_1}-\alpha_1=0=\frac{1}{r_2}-\alpha_2$ with $\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in\{0,1\}$ is covered by
$\mathcal A_3(\kappa)$.
\end{itemize}
So it remains to show the remaining endpoint estimates dealing with $1<q<\infty$. By definition of
$\mathcal A_4^w(\kappa)$ we have restricted weak-type estimates for exponents from
\begin{align*}
\mathcal A_4^w(\kappa)
&= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3:\,
\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}= \ov\alpha\text{ and there are }
q_1\in [r_1,\infty], q_2\in [r_2,\infty] \\
&\qquad \text{ such that }
q_1\neq q_2,\; \frac{1}{r_i}-\frac{1}{q_i}\neq \alpha_i \,(i=1,2),\;
\frac{1-\kappa}{q_1}+\frac{\kappa}{q_2} = \frac{1}{q}
\Big\}
\\
&= \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3:\,
\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}= \ov\alpha,\;
1<q<\infty \Big\}.
\end{align*}
(Indeed, thanks to $\ov \alpha>0$ we may choose $\frac{1}{q_1} := \frac{1}{r_1}-\eps$ and
$\frac{\kappa}{q_2} := \frac{1}{q}-\frac{1-\kappa}{q_1}$ for small $\eps>0$ provided that $1\leq
r_1<\infty$, analogously for $r_2<\infty$.) This implies
$$
\mathcal A_4(\kappa)
\supset \Big\{ (q,r_1,r_2)\in [1,\infty]^3:\,
\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q} = \ov\alpha,\,
1<q<\infty, \, \frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{r_2} \neq \alpha_1-\alpha_2 \Big\}.
$$
This yields the claim for the following exponents:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=\ov\alpha,\,1<q<\infty$ and
$\frac{1}{r_1}-\frac{1}{r_2}\neq \alpha_1-\alpha_2$, which is covered by $\mathcal A_4(\kappa)$,
\item $\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}=\ov\alpha,\,1<q<\infty$ and
$\frac{1}{r_i}-\frac{1}{q} = \alpha_i\in [0,1]$ with
$(r_i,q)\neq (1,\frac{1}{1-\alpha_i})$ if $\alpha_i\in (0,1)$, which is covered by $\mathcal A_3(\kappa)$.
\end{itemize}
So it remains to prove the claim for
\begin{align*}
&1<q<\infty,\;\frac{1}{r_1}-\alpha_1=\frac{1}{q} =
\frac{1}{r_2}-\alpha_2 \qquad\text{and} \\
&\big[\; r_1=1<r_2<q,\; 1>\kappa\geq \frac{r_2}{q} \quad\text{or}\quad r_2=1<r_1<q,\; 1>1-\kappa\geq
\frac{r_1}{q}\; \big].
\end{align*}
By symmetry we may concentrate on $r_1=1<r_2<q, 1> \kappa\geq
\frac{r_2}{q}$ where the estimate follows from
$$
\|u\|_q
\stackrel{\eqref{eq:InterpolationIdentity}}\les \|u\|_{q,\infty}^{1-\kappa} \|u\|_{q,\kappa
q}^{\kappa} \les \|u\|_{q,\infty}^{1-\kappa} \|u\|_{q,r_2}^{\kappa}
\les \|P_1(D)u\|_1^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa}.
$$
Here we used Proposition~\ref{prop:BesselPotentials}~(iv) and ~(ii) (for $r=r_2$).
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:GN1Dspecial}:} We apply Theorem~\ref{thm:GN1D}
to the symbols $P_1(D)=|D|^s-1,s>0$ and $P_2(D)=I$ that satisfy the hypotheses of the
Theorem for $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,s_1,s_2)=(1,0,s,0)$. Then $\ov\alpha=1-\kappa,\ov s= (1-\kappa)s$, so
Theorem~\ref{thm:GN1D} implies that the Gagliardo-Nirenberg Inequality holds provided that $1-\kappa\leq
\frac{1-\kappa}{r_1}+\frac{\kappa}{r_2}-\frac{1}{q}\leq (1-\kappa)s$.
The latter restriction comes from Theorem~\ref{thm:GN1D}~(i) and one checks that (ii)-(vi) are not restrictive
for our choice of parameters $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,s_1,s_2)=(1,0,s,0),s>0$. \qed
\medskip
We continue with the higher-dimensional case where a computation of $\mathcal A(\kappa)\cap \mathcal
B(\kappa)$ is rather cumbersome. To simplify the discussion we concentrate on the special case
$r_1=r_2=r\in [1,2]$ and $q\in [2,\infty]$ and only consider the special ansatz $q_1=q_2=q$ in the
definition of the sets $\mathcal A_i(\kappa)$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:GNhigherD}
Assume $d\in\N,d\geq 2, \kappa\in [0,1]$ and that (A1),(A2) hold for $s_1,s_2\in\R$ and
$\alpha_1,\alpha_2>-1$ such that $0\leq \ov\alpha\leq 1$.
Then
$$
\|u\|_q \les \|P_1(D)u\|_r^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_r^{\kappa}
\qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R^d))
$$
holds provided that $\ov\alpha<1$, $\alpha_1\neq\alpha_2$, $0<\kappa<1$ and
the exponents $r\in [1,2],q\in [2,\infty]$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GNconditionsTHM}
\frac{2\ov\alpha}{k+2}
\leq \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}
\leq \frac{\ov s}{d}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\min\left\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\right\}
\geq \frac{k+2\ov\alpha}{2(k+1)}
\end{equation}
as well as $(q,r)\neq (\infty,\frac{d}{\ov s})$ if $s_1=s_2= \ov s\in (0,d]$. In the case
$\ov\alpha=1$ or $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$ or $\kappa\in\{0,1\}$ the same is true provided that the last condition
in \eqref{eq:GNconditionsTHM} is replaced by $\min\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\} >
\frac{k+2\ov\alpha}{2(k+1)}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The conditions for large frequencies (involving $s_1,s_2$) were shown to be sufficient in
Proposition~\ref{prop:LargeFreqInterpolated}. So we concentrate on the critical frequency part involving
$\alpha_1,\alpha_2$. The following computations are based on the formula
$A_\eps(r,q) = A(r,q)-\eps\cdot \ind_{(p,q)\in\mathcal E}$ where
$$
A(r,q)=\min\left\{1,\frac{k+2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}\right),\frac{k+2}{2}-
\frac{k+1}{q},-\frac{k}{2}+\frac{k+1}{r}\right\}
$$
for $1\leq r\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty$, see \eqref{eq:def_Aeps} and Figure~\ref{fig:Tdeltabounds}.
Our definitions of $\mathcal A_1(\kappa),\mathcal A_2(\kappa),\mathcal A_3(\kappa)$ yield in the case
$0<\kappa<1$
\begin{align*}
\mathcal A_1(\kappa)
&\supset \{(q,r,r)\in [2,\infty]\times [1,2]^2 : A_\eps(r,q)> \ov\alpha \text{ for some }\eps>0\},\\
\mathcal A_2(\kappa)
&\supset \{(q,r,r)\in [2,\infty]\times [1,2]^2 : A_\eps(r,q)= \ov\alpha \text{ for some }\eps>0,\,
\alpha_1\neq \ov\alpha\neq\alpha_2\}, \\
\mathcal A_3(\kappa)
&\supset \Big\{(q,r,r)\in [2,\infty]\times [1,2]^2 : A_\eps(r,q)= \ov\alpha \text{ for some }\eps>0,\,
\alpha_1=\ov\alpha=\alpha_2\in [0,1] \\
&\hspace{5.5cm} \text{and
}\min\left\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\right\}> \frac{k+2\ov\alpha}{2(k+1)}\Big\}.
\end{align*}
From $\mathcal A(\kappa)\supset \mathcal A_1(\kappa)\cup \mathcal A_2(\kappa)\cup \mathcal A_3(\kappa)$
we thus get
\begin{align*}
\mathcal A(\kappa)
&\supset \Big\{(q,r,r)\in [2,\infty]\times [1,2]^2 : A_\eps(r,q)\geq \ov\alpha \text{ for some
}\eps>0 \text{ and}\\
&\hspace{2cm}\text{if }A_\eps(r,q)=\ov\alpha=\alpha_1=\alpha_2\in
[0,1] \text{ then }
\min\left\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\right\}> \frac{k+2\ov\alpha}{2(k+1)} \Big\}.
\end{align*}
Since $A_\eps(r,q)\geq \ov\alpha$ for some $\eps>0$ is equivalent to
$$
\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}
\geq \frac{2\ov\alpha}{k+2}\quad\text{and}\quad
\min\left\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\right\} \,
\begin{cases}
\,\geq \frac{k+2\ov\alpha}{2(k+1)} &\text{if }\ov\alpha<1 \text{ and }\alpha_1\neq \alpha_2 \\
\,> \frac{k+2\ov\alpha}{2(k+1)} &\text{if }\ov\alpha=1 \text{ or }\alpha_1=\alpha_2.
\end{cases},
$$
This proves the claim for $0<\kappa<1$. In the case $\kappa\in \{0,1\}$ the claim follows
from \eqref{eq:A(0)} and Lemma~\ref{lem:SobolevIneq}~(i),(ii).
\end{proof}
\noindent\textbf{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:GNhigherDspecial}:} We apply Theorem~\ref{thm:GNhigherD} to
$P_1(D)=|D|^s-1, P_2(D)=I$. Again, the hypotheses of the Theorem hold for
$(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,s_1,s_2,k)=(1,0,s,0,d-1)$ because $S$ is the unit sphere with $d-1$ non-vanishing
principal curvatures.
\qed
\section{Local Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities}
In~\cite{FerJeaManMar} it was shown that a ``local'' version of Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities is of
interest, too. Here one looks for a larger set of exponents where~\eqref{eq:GNgeneral} holds
under the additional hypothesis $\|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}\leq R\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}$ where $R>0$ is fixed, see
Corollary~2.10 in that paper. A simple consequence of our estimates above is the following.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:LocalGN}
Assume $d\in\N,\kappa\in [0,1]$ and (A1),(A2) for $s_1,s_2\in\R$ and $\alpha_1,\alpha_2>-1$. Then
the inequality
$$
\| u \|_q \les (R^{\kappa-\kappa_1}+R^{\kappa-\kappa_2})\|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa}
\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^\kappa
$$
holds for all $u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)$ and satisfying $\|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}\leq R\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}$
provided that $(q,r_1,r_2)\in \mathcal A(\kappa_1)\cap \mathcal
B(\kappa_2)$ holds for some $\kappa_1,\kappa_2\in [0,\kappa]$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Choose $\kappa_1,\kappa_2$ as required. Then Proposition~\ref{prop:CritFreqInterpolated} gives
\begin{align*}
\|u_1\|_q
&\les\|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa_1} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa_1} \\
&= (\|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{-1})^{\kappa-\kappa_1} \cdot \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa}
\|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa} \\
&\les R^{\kappa-\kappa_1} \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa}.
\intertext{Similarly, Proposition~\ref{prop:LargeFreqInterpolated} implies} \|u_2\|_q
&\les R^{\kappa-\kappa_2} \|P_1(D)u\|_{r_1}^{1-\kappa} \|P_2(D)u\|_{r_2}^{\kappa}.
\end{align*}
Summing up these inequalities gives the claim.
\end{proof}
In the context of our particular example $P_1(D)=|D|^s-1,s>0$ and $P_2(D)=I$ this gives the following
generalization of~\cite[Corollary~2.10]{FerJeaManMar}.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:LocalGN2}
Assume $d\in\N,d\geq 2,\kappa\in (0,1),s>0$. Then
$$
\|u\|_q \les (R^{\kappa}+1) \|(|D|^s-1)u\|_r^{1-\kappa}\|u\|_r^\kappa
$$
holds for all $u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)$ satisfying $\|(|D|^s-1)u\|_r\leq R\|u\|_r$ provided
that $(q,r)\neq (\infty,\frac{d}{s})$ if $0<s\leq d$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $d=1,\, 1\leq r,q\leq \infty\;\text{and}\; 1-\kappa \leq \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q} \leq s$
\quad or
\item[(ii)] $d\geq 2, 1\leq r\leq 2\leq q\leq \infty\;\text{and}\; \frac{2(1-\kappa)}{k+2}
\leq \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}
\leq \frac{s}{d},\, \min\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\} \geq
\frac{k+2-2\kappa}{2(k+1)}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This corresponds to the special case $(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)=(\kappa,0)$ and
$(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,s_1,s_2,k,r_1,r_2)=(1,0,s,0,d-1,r,r)$ in
Corollary~\ref{cor:LocalGN}. The computation of $\mathcal A(\kappa)$ and $\mathcal B(0)$ can be done as
in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:GNhigherD}. Note that the assumptions imply $\ov\alpha=1-\kappa \in (0,1), \alpha_1\neq \alpha_2$ and
$0<\kappa<1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities with unbounded characteristic sets} \label{sec:GN_wave}
In the previous sections we provided a systematic study of Gagliardo-Nirenberg Inequalities where the
characteristic set $S$ of the symbols is smooth and compact. In the case of unbounded characteristic sets our
analysis works for Schwartz functions whose Fourier transform is supported in some smooth and compact piece
of $S$, but an argument for general Schwartz functions is lacking so far, even in
the case of simple differentiable operators with suitable scaling behaviour like the wave operator or the Schr\"odinger operator.
In the $L^2$-setting, a less technical approach based on Plancherel's identity can be used.
We follow the ideas presented in \cite{FerJeaManMar} to prove Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:GN_wave}
\|u\|_q &\les \|\partial_{tt} u -\Delta u\|_r^{1-\kappa} \|u\|_r^\kappa \qquad (u\in\mathcal S(\R^d)),
\\
\|v\|_q &\les \|i\partial_t v - \Delta v\|_r^{1-\kappa} \|v\|_r^\kappa
\qquad (v\in\mathcal S(\R^d)).
\label{eq:GN_Schroe}
\end{align}
where $r=2$. We denote the space-time variable by $z=(x,t)\in\R^{d-1}\times\R=\R^d$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:GN_wave}
Let $d\in\N$. Then~\eqref{eq:GN_wave} holds provided that $r=2,q=\frac{2d}{d-4+4\kappa}$
where $\frac{1}{2}\leq\kappa\leq 1$ if $d\geq 3$
and $\frac{1}{2}<\kappa\leq 1$ if $d=2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We first consider the case $d\geq 3$, define $\mathcal C_t:= \{\xi=(\xi',\xi_d)\in\R^d:
\xi_d^2-|\xi'|^2=t\}$ and the induced surface measure $\sigma_t$. Then we have the representation formula
\begin{align*}
u(z)
= c_d \int_{\R^d} \hat u(\xi) e^{iz\cdot\xi}\,d\xi
= \frac{c_d}{2} \int_\R \int_{\mathcal C_t} \hat u(\xi)|\xi|^{-1} e^{iz\cdot\xi}\,d\sigma_t(\xi)\,dt
\end{align*}
where $c_d=(2\pi)^{-d/2}$. Strichartz' inequality from \cite{Strich} (Theorem I, case III (b)) implies that
we have for $\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}\leq q\leq \frac{2d}{d-2}$
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_q
&\les \int_\R \|\mathcal F^{-1}\left(\hat u |\cdot|^{-1}\,d\sigma_t\right)\|_q \,dt \\
&\les \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{4}-\frac{d}{2q}} \|\hat u |\cdot|^{-1}\|_{L^2(\mathcal C_t,\,d\sigma_t)}
\,dt
\\
&\les \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-2}{4}-\frac{d}{2q}} \|\hat u |\cdot|^{-1/2}\|_{L^2(\mathcal C_t,\,d\sigma_t)}
\,dt.
\end{align*}
Here, the factor $|t|^{\frac{d-1}{4}-\frac{d}{2q}}$ is obtained via scaling and in the last estimate we used
$|\xi|\geq \sqrt{|t|}$ for $\xi\in\mathcal C_t$.
On the other hand, Plancherel's Theorem gives
\begin{align*}
\|\partial_{tt}u-\Delta u\|_2^2
&= \int_{\R^d} |\xi_d^2-|\xi'|^2|^2|\hat u(\xi)|^2 \,d\xi \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_\R \int_{\mathcal C_t} |t|^2 |\hat u(\xi)|^2|\xi|^{-1} \,d\sigma_t(\xi)\,dt \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\int_\R t^2 \|\hat u |\cdot|^{-1/2}\|_{L^2(\mathcal C_t,\,d\sigma_t)}^2 \,dt
\intertext{and }
\|u\|_2^2
&= \frac{1}{2}\int_\R \|\hat u |\cdot|^{-1/2}\|_{L^2(\mathcal C_t,\,d\sigma_t)}^2 \,dt.
\end{align*}
Writing $\varphi(t):= \|\hat u |\cdot|^{-1/2}\|_{L^2(\mathcal C_t,\,d\sigma_t)}$ it remains to
prove that the quotient
\begin{align*}
\frac{\int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-2}{4}-\frac{d}{2q}} \varphi(t)\,dt}{
(\int_\R t^{2}\varphi(t)^2\,dt)^{\frac{1-\kappa}{2}}
(\int_\R \varphi(t)^2\,dt)^{\frac{\kappa}{2}}
}
\end{align*}
is bounded independently of $\varphi$. According to \cite[Lemma~2.1]{FerJeaManMar}, with
$w(t)=|t|^{\frac{d-2}{4}-\frac{d}{2q}}$, $w_1(t)=1$ and $w_2(t)=t$, this is the case if and only if the
following quantity is finite:
\begin{align*}
\sup_{s>0} s^{\frac{1-\kappa}{2}}\left\|\frac{w}{(w_1^2+s w_2^2)^{1/2}}\right\|_{L^2(\R)}
&= \sup_{s>0} s^{\frac{1-\kappa}{2}}
\left( \int_\R \frac{|t|^{\frac{d-2}{2}-\frac{d}{q}}}{1+st^2}\,dt\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
&= \sup_{s>0} s^{\frac{1-\kappa}{2}-\frac{1}{4}(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{d}{q})}
\left( \int_\R \frac{|\rho|^{\frac{d-2}{2}-\frac{d}{q}}}{1+\rho^2}\,d\rho\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
This leads to $q=\frac{2d}{d-4+4\kappa}$. In view of
$\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}\leq q\leq \frac{2d}{d-2}$ this requires $\frac{1}{2}\leq \kappa\leq \frac{d+2}{2(d+1)}$,
but the upper bound for $\kappa$ may be removed just as in \cite[p.20-21]{FerJeaManMar} by combining the
already established inequality for $\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$ with
$$
\|u\|_q\leq \|u\|_2^{1-\theta}\|u\|_{\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}}^\theta
\qquad 2\leq q\leq \frac{2(d+1)}{d-1},\quad
\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1-\theta}{2}+\frac{\theta}{\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}}.
$$
In the case $d=2$ the analogous reasoning based on Theorem I, case III (c) \cite{Strich}
shows that the above estimates are valid for
$6=\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}\leq q< \frac{2d}{d-2}=\infty$ and thus $\frac{1}{2}<\kappa\leq
\frac{d+2}{2(d+1)}$. The same interpolation trick then allows to extend this to the whole range
$\kappa>\frac{1}{2}$,
\end{proof}
We now apply this method to the Schr\"odinger operator.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:GN_Schroe}
Let $d\in\N,d\geq 2$. Then~\eqref{eq:GN_Schroe} holds provided that $r=2,q=\frac{2(d+1)}{d-3+4\kappa}$
and $\frac{1}{2}\leq\kappa\leq 1$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Define $\mathcal P_t:= \{\xi=(\xi',\xi_d)\in\R^d: \xi_d-|\xi'|^2=t\}$ and the induced surface measure
$\sigma_t$. Plancherel's identity gives
\begin{align*}
\|v\|_2^2
&= \int_\R \int_{\R^{d-1}} |\hat v(\xi',t+|\xi'|^2)|^2 \,d\xi' \,dt \\
&= \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\int_{\R^{d-1}} |\hat v(\sqrt t \xi',t(1+|\xi'|^2))|^2
\,d\xi' \,dt \\
&= \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}} \int_{\R^{d-1}} |\hat v_t|^2 \sqrt{1+4|\xi'|^2} \,d\xi' \,dt \\
&= \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}} \|\hat v_t \|_{L^2(\mathcal P_1,\,d\sigma_1)}^2 \,dt
\intertext{ where $\hat v_t(\xi):= \hat v(\sqrt t \xi',t\xi_d) (1+4|\xi'|^2)^{-1/4}$.
Similarly,}
\|i\partial_t v-\Delta v\|_2^2
&= \int_\R t^{2+\frac{d-1}{2}} \|\hat v_t \|_{L^2(\mathcal P_1,\,d\sigma_1)}^2 \,dt.
\end{align*}
Strichartz' inequality from \cite{Strich} (Theorem I, case I) implies for
$q=\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$
\begin{align*}
\|v\|_q
&= \left\| c_d \int_\R \int_{\R^{d-1}} \hat v(\xi',t+|\xi'|^2) e^{iz\cdot
(\xi',t+|\xi'|^2)}\,d\xi'\,dt\right\|_q \\
&\les \int_\R \left\| \int_{\R^{d-1}} \hat v(\xi',t+|\xi'|^2) e^{iz\cdot (\xi',t+|\xi'|^2)}\,d\xi'
\right\|_q \,dt \\
&\les \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}} \left\| \int_{\R^{d-1}} \hat v(\sqrt t\xi',t(1+|\xi'|^2))
e^{iz\cdot (\sqrt t\xi',t(1+|\xi'|^2))}\,d\xi' \right\|_q \,dt \\
&\les \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}} \left\| \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \hat v(\sqrt t\xi',t\xi_d)
(1+4|\xi'|^2)^{-1/2}\,d\sigma_1\right)(\sqrt tz',tz_1) \right\|_q \,dt \\
&= \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}-\frac{d+1}{2q}} \left\| \mathcal F^{-1}\left( \hat v(\sqrt t\xi',t\xi_d)
(1+4|\xi'|^2)^{-1/2}\,d\sigma_1\right) \right\|_q \,dt \\
&\les \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}-\frac{d+1}{2q}} \left\| \hat v(\sqrt t\xi',t\xi_d)
(1+4|\xi'|^2)^{-1/2} \right\|_{L^2(\mathcal P_1,\,d\sigma_1)} \,dt \\
&\les \int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}-\frac{d+1}{2q}} \| \hat v_t\|_{L^2(\mathcal P_1,\,d\sigma_1)} \,dt.
\end{align*}
We set $\varphi(t):= |t|^{\frac{d-1}{4}}\|\hat v_t\|_{L^2(\mathcal P_1,\,d\sigma_1)}$ and it
remains to show that the quotient
\begin{align*}
\frac{\int_\R |t|^{\frac{d-1}{4}-\frac{d+1}{2q}} \varphi(t)\,dt}{
(\int_\R t^{2}\varphi(t)^2\,dt)^{\frac{1-\kappa}{2}}
(\int_\R \varphi(t)^2\,dt)^{\frac{\kappa}{2}}
}
\end{align*}
is bounded independently of $\varphi$. We apply \cite[Lemma~2.1]{FerJeaManMar} once more.
\begin{align*}
\sup_{s>0} s^{\frac{1-\kappa}{2}} \left(\int_\R \frac{ |t|^{\frac{d-1}{2}-\frac{d+1}{q}}}{1+st^2}\,dt \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
&= \sup_{s>0} s^{\frac{1-\kappa}{2}} \left( \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt s}\right)^{\frac{d+1}{2}-\frac{d+1}{q}}
\int_\R \frac{|\rho|^{\frac{d-1}{2}-\frac{d+1}{q}}}{1+\rho^2}\,d\rho \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
&= \sup_{s>0} s^{\frac{1-\kappa}{2}-\frac{d+1}{8}+\frac{d+1}{4q}}
\left(\int_\R \frac{|\rho|^{\frac{d-1}{2}-\frac{d+1}{q}}}{1+\rho^2}\,d\rho \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
This term is indeed finite for $q=\frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$ and $\kappa=\frac{1}{2}$, which proves the claim in
this special case. The claim for general $\kappa\geq \frac{1}{2}$ follows as above by interpolation.
\end{proof}
We conjecture that at least for $1< r\leq 2\leq q<\infty$ and $0<\kappa<1$ the
inequality~\eqref{eq:GN_wave} actually holds for exponents
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GN_wave_general}
\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{2(1-\kappa)}{d},\qquad
\min\left\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\right\} \geq \frac{d-2\kappa}{2(d-1)}
\end{equation}
whereas the corresponding inequality involving the Schr\"odinger operator holds whenever
$$
\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{2(1-\kappa)}{d+1},\qquad
\min\left\{\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{q'}\right\} \geq \frac{d+1-2\kappa}{2d}.
$$
Note that the Sobolev inequalities \cite[Theorem~1.1]{JeongKwonLee_Uniform} then take the form of the
endpoint estimate $\kappa=0$ in ~\eqref{eq:GN_wave_general}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author thanks Robert Schippa and Louis Jeanjean
for helpful comments related to this work. Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research
Foundation) -- Project-ID 258734477 -- SFB~1173.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Reversible logic promises the ultimate performance in high-efficiency digital
computing at the gate level, and this has the potential to influence industry
based computing which uses irreversible gates, but more research is needed on
reversible circuits. Superconducting circuits provide an excellent platform for
digital gate innovation, in both irreversible and reversible logic types, where
both use single-flux quanta (SFQ). Irreversible superconducting logic has been
developed since the 1980s, and has now grown to several families identified as
RSFQ \cite{LikMukSem1985, LikSem1991},
AQFP \cite{Harada1987_QFP, YoshikawaETAL2021}, RQL \cite{HerrETAL2011},
and RSFQ descendants \cite{Rylov2019, Kiri2019, TanETAL2015, VolETAL2013,
KirETAL2011}. These logic types have demonstrated advanced 4-8 bit processing
\cite{TimurALU, RSFQMicroprocessorFujimaki, 8-bitERSFQVernik, YoshikawaETAL2021}
and one of them is used to realize a multi-band analog-to-digital receiver \cite{Gupta}.
In the irreversible superconducting gates, the energy efficiency is limited by
the dissipative switching between bit states. The switching involves the damped
$2\pi$-transition between two potential minima of a current-biased and
resistively-shunted JJ, comparable to the switching that occurs in a biased JJ
of a SQUID. The energy dissipated per switching is approximately equal to the
bias current times the superconducting flux quantum, and is on the same order as
the energy barrier. Since bit energy and energy barriers are relatively high
($\gg k_B T$),
the energy cost of an irreversible logic gate is generally much higher than the
lower theoretical limit of $\ln(2) k_B T$, which is related to the reduction of entropy from bit erasure \cite{Landauer1961}.
Though reversible digital gates can avoid switching energy costs in computing,
and have the potential to impact the future outlook of digital computing, they
are rarely explored.
In superconducting logic, reversible gates are studied
in the families named nSQUID \cite{SemDanAve2003, RenSemETAL2009, RenSem2011},
Reversible QFP \cite{RQFPgate},
and RFL \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL, WusOsb2020_CNOT, OsbWus2018_CNOT}.
The former two rely on adiabatic clocking and power such that the circuit state
always stays close to (the state of) the minimum in potential energy throughout
the switching process. The dissipated (switching) energy is typically lowered in
proportion to the clock speed. Even though these logic types are efficient at a multi-GHz speed, the adiabatically powered multi-phase clock adds complexity to the architecture and limits the practical clock speed relative to other superconducting logic such that an alternative should be studied. In contrast, the latter one is ballistic and could provide a relative advantage in speed or architecture.
In reversible logic, the Josephson
junctions are under-damped for energy-efficient switching \cite{Crutchfield}.
If carefully designed, reversible gates allow for dissipation much smaller
than the bit energy in an interesting set of reversible processes (dependent on the initial bit states). Logical
reversibility, i.e. the bit-preserving and one-to-one mapping of the logic
function, is a necessary condition for energy-efficiency but is insufficient by
itself.
For historical context, we note that in an influential work prior to the
1980's development of modern irreversible logic \cite{LikSem1991},
the Bell-Labs team of Anderson, Dynes, and Fulton (ADF)
proposed a ``flux shuttle" \cite{FulDynAnd1973_fluxshuttle}.
The shuttle is based on long Josephson junctions (LJJs)
and an SFQ
which is advanced along the circuit by current
pulses \cite{FulDun1973_expfluxshuttle} -- it acts as a shift register
because the SFQ can be interpreted as a bit state according to its presence (or absence). As an aside, after the advent of SFQ logic, types were proposed where a bit was encoded with an SFQ in one of two locations to help address synchronous-bit timing challenges \cite{DualRailPolonsky,DualRailJapan,Sherwood2021}.
Similar to most SFQ logic, the ADF flux shuttle is thermodynamically irreversible
because its operation relies on resistive damping.
In particular, a large fraction of the bit energy dissipates
when the SFQ is stopped in a potential well for bit storage
and energy is supplied again when shifting the bit forward to the next storage cell.
Recently, a helpful abstract model for asynchronous ballistic reversible
computing was put forth \cite{Frank2017}, which describes asynchronous ballistic
reversible gate requirements and argues for their discovery. In the same group,
a ballistic reversible memory cell was proposed \cite{FrankETAL2019_ISEC}, which
uses a single port for both input and output states. However, the cell is not
obviously usable in currently known gate architectures. These architectures are
"feed-forward" because they require an input and output port allowing the output
signal to be distinct and usable as an input to a subsequent gate.
The ballistic-reversible gates of RFL are by design multiport gates and
include the fundamental 1-bit gates (NOT and ID), a 2-bit NSWAP
\cite{WusOsb2020_RFL} gate, and a 2-input IDSN \cite{WusOsb2020_CNOT} gate. However, the latter ones are 2-bit input gates that require synchronous inputs, which implies a strict timing requirement that is desirable to overcome. For background, previous (synchronous-input) ballistic RFL can be viewed as an
advancement over the model of billiard ball computing \cite{FredTof1982,
Adamatzky}. The result of a billiard ball gate consists of the conditional
presence of the bit on one of multiple possible paths. These paths have an error
in a planar (2D) scattering processes related to the imprecision of the macroscopic
hardware. On the other hand, RFL gates have bit lines consisting of input and output LJJ pairs, where an output bit is always carried on the same bit line as the input, independent of the bit state (assuming specified precision margins). These bit lines are 1D and thus guide the bit forward without error in state.
Here we propose ballistic shift registers (BSRs) --
multi-port ballistic gates which use memory.
The circuits can store one bit of information in the form of a (static)
SFQ in a storage cell.
Similar to the ADF flux shuttle,
a BSR uses fluxons moving in LJJs as input and output bits (for clarity, here and below we typically use the term fluxon for an SFQ within an LJJ).
However, the BSR is ballistic because its operation is solely powered by
the energy of the input bit.
Unlike the `asymmetric' bit-state encoding in the ADF flux shuttle
(fluxon presence vs absence), the BSR uses the two degenerate flux states (1 and
-1) to represent the bit states, both for the moving bit (at input and output)
and the stored bit.
By combining the scattering-based reversible dynamics of RFL with an internal
(stored) state, the BSR gates constitute the first set of
asynchronous ballistic computing circuits. These gates are suitable for feed-forward
computing, where the output port is separate from the input. Additionally, we
found by using the storage loop that we could choose dynamics that are favorable
in combination. For one half of the possible cases, the BSR uses dynamics that
are similar to the NOT gate, which requires a resonance for polarity
inversion \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL}. In the other half of the cases, the BSR uses
transmission dynamics, which are simpler than the previously known ID resonance
gate \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL}. This combination improves the parameter margins
compared with the 2-bit synchronous IDSN gate \cite{WusOsb2020_CNOT},
which combines the NOT and ID dynamical cases.
Another feature besides asynchronous input bits is the ability to have a
logical depth of 2 -- according to simulations, two of our gates can be combined
in sequence directly, without external power. In addition, we show a 2-input
BSR, the first 2-bit asynchronous ballistic gate circuit. It allows one to write a bit to the register and then transfer it to a second bit line using an input fluxon on a second bit line.
The BSR gates have wide parameter margins even for high efficiency. In the case studied, the gate efficiency is set to 86\% such that with present-day
Nb-fabrication, we estimate their energy cost at
$<3.7 \,\text{zJ}$. These asynchronous ballistic gates add functionality for
practical SFQ logic. Similar to previous RFL gates, they have the potential to
exploit naturally large JJ switching rates to realize high-throughput logic that
is comparable to other SFQ logic.
This article is organized as follows:
In Sec.~\ref{sec:SR} we present the 1-input BSR, analyze its steady states
and discuss the operation of the BSR for both a 1-bit and a multi-bit serial shift register.
The 2-input BSR is introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:2-inputSR}, and
Sec.~\ref{sec:margins} gives an overview of the operation margins.
In the remaining section before the conclusion, Sec.~\ref{sec:CCM},
we analyze the BSR dynamics by means of a
collective coordinate model (CCM),
which is shown to quantitatively describe the BSR dynamics and
help with the interpretation of the gate dynamics.
The end of Sec.~\ref{sec:SR} (\ref{sec:discussion} not \ref{sec:CCM})
provides a discussion which includes technical findings on:
energy efficiency, speed, energy-delay product, and logical depth.
\section{BSR circuit and operation}\label{sec:SR}
The Anderson-Dynes-Fulton (ADF) flux shuttle
is an important historical step in the development of SFQ digital electronics,
because it interprets SFQ as bits and it is closely related to RSFQ shift registers
even though it predates RSFQ by approximately a decade \cite{LikSem1991_App2}.
In the ADF flux shuttle, the SFQ can be localized in a potential well
generated by device geometry or magnetic fields, and can be
moved forward to the next potential well by current pulses \cite{FulDun1973_expfluxshuttle}.
In contrast, RSFQ shift registers use DC current bias and SFQ clock signals to forward the bits.
To do this, RSFQ uses D Flip Flops (also called an RS Flip Flops) as shift register cells.
In contrast, RSFQ shift registers require only dc currents.
An SFQ represents the logic 1-state, while
the 0-state is represented by an absence of flux at the same position.
When an SFQ arrives at a JJ of the RSFQ shift register,
it adds to the existing dc-current bias, such that the JJ
switches phase by $2\pi$ and thereby shifts the SFQ to the next circuit cell.
This operation principle is used generally in RSFQ logic gates \cite{LikSem1991}
as well as other SFQ logic gates.
As the JJs in RSFQ circuits are critically damped and biased near their
critical current $I_c$, the $2\pi$-phase switching
is accompanied by an energy dissipation of $\sim I_c \Phi_0$,
where $\Phi_0$ is the flux quantum.
This dissipated energy is of the same order of magnitude
as the energy of the 1-state bit.
For context, note that a fluxon bit in an LJJ can be related to the SFQ energy
in a typical digital cell:
the typical bit energy for an SFQ is $\sim J_c d^2 \Phi_0$ with JJ critical
current density $J_c$ and diameter $d$ and that of a fluxon in a long Josephson
junction is $\sim J_c w \lambda_J \Phi_0$ for a long junction
with width $w$ and Josephson penetration depth $\lambda_J$,
where the latter determines the fluxon length.
Reversible fluxon logic (RFL) represents the bit states 0 and 1
by the two possible polarities $\sigma=\pm 1$ of a fluxon,
corresponding to the sign of its flux $\pm \Phi_0$
and denoted as fluxon ($+$) and antifluxon ($-$).
Switching between the degenerate bit states (polarity inversion) and other
logic operations may be achieved in ballistic gates
\cite{WusOsb2020_RFL, WusOsb2020_CNOT, Liuqi2019},
which are undriven and solely powered by the energy of the input fluxon(s).
Previous ballistic reversible gates of RFL
had been designed without internal state memory,
implying that the operation of a multi-bit gate requires synchronous input bits.
Although specialized store-and-launch gates \cite{OsbWus2018_CNOT, WusOsb2020_CNOT}
have been designed for the purpose of synchronization (and routing),
others have advocated for `asynchronous' ballistic reversible gates \cite{Frank2017}.
Asynchronous multi-bit gates have the advantage that the timing of the input bits
no longer needs to be precise.
They merely have to arrive with a minimum delay time between them
to allow quiescence before the next arrival.
Asynchronous ballistic gates require an internal state,
by which an interaction between subsequent input bits is mediated.
In order to generate output that depends on the input of a previous scattering,
the internal state has to: be changeable by an input bit,
and determine the output state of the ballistic scattering.
The storage cell of the ballistic shift register (BSR) provides exactly such
functionality, in that it can store a bit state
in form of a flux quantum with positive or negative flux orientation $S=\pm 1$.
As we describe below,
the stored state $S$ may change during the scattering dynamics,
depending on the input fluxon state $\sigma$.
The scattering type (output fluxon state)
in turn depends on the current value of $S$,
but is independent of the input timing, regardless of what input ports are used.
\subsection{Circuit}
\begin{figure}[bt]
\includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{
(a) Circuit schematic for a 1-input BSR,
consisting of one input and one output LJJ (3 cells shown for each)
connected by a circuit interface, which is made from
three capacitance-shunted JJs,
where two of these are left and right `termination JJs' with $(\hat C_J,\hat I_c)$
and the third is the `rail JJ' with $(C_J^{B}, I_c^{B})$.
An inductor $L_s$ in parallel with the rail JJ is made to store one SFQ,
where a clockwise (counterclockwise) circulating current $I_s$ corresponds
to flux state $S=1$ ($S=-1$) and rail phase $\phi^{B} \approx 2\pi S$.
The parameters of the interface and storage cell are set to enable energy-efficient
forward-scattering from one LJJ to the other
for all combinations of stored flux state $S=\pm 1$
and input flux state $\sigma=\pm 1$, for a range of input velocities.
External circuitry coupled inductively to $L_s$
may be optionally used to assist initialization of the BSR (loading), giving $|S|=1$.
(b) Operation table for 1-input BSR characterized by
SWAP-operation between stored and moving flux states: ($S',\sigma'$)=SWAP($S,\sigma$).
Schematical illustration of BSR operation is shown for third row of table,
with $S=-1$, $\sigma=1$, and resulting $S'=1$, $\sigma'=-1$.
The LJJ trilayer is illustrated using grey for superconductor
and blue for tunneling barrier.
(c) Operation table for the pioneering ADF flux shuttle \cite{FulDynAnd1973_fluxshuttle},
which is based on the presence of an SFQ as the bit state.
Schematic illustration of the shuttle operation is shown for third row of table,
where a fluxon settles as a static SFQ in a storage cell due to damping
(shown as shunt resistors), and is subsequently released as a fluxon
by application of a bias current $I_b$.
}
\label{fig:circuit_SR}
\end{figure}
The most basic BSR is the 2-port circuit shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(a).
It consists of a storage cell,
one LJJ each for input and output, and a special interface cell between them.
The LJJs form a part of the gate and also
serve as fluxon in- and output channels.
The side arms of the interface cell are formed by two JJs with parameters
$(\hat C_J,\hat I_c)$. Each of them terminates one of the LJJs and thus they are
referred to as `termination JJs'.
The upper rails of the LJJs are joined by a negligible inductance
(on the upper side of the interface cell),
while the lower rails are connected by the so-called `rail JJ'
(of the interface cell), with parameters $(C_J^{B},I_c^{B})$.
The rail JJ is also part of the
storage cell which is closed by a parallel inductor $L_s$.
Given suitable parameters ($2\pi L_s I_c^{B}/\Phi_0 \gtrsim 5$),
the storage cell can store
one bit of information in form of a steady circulating current.
A clockwise (counterclockwise) circulating current corresponds
to a positive (negative) flux orientation $S=1$ ($S=-1$),
and rail-JJ phase $\phi^{B} \approx 2\pi S$.
Similar to the 1-bit ballistic RFL gates, the NOT or ID,
the interface of the BSR is designed to enable
forward-scattering, starting from a fluxon entering
on one LJJ to a possibly newly created fluxon exiting on the other LJJ.
The ballistic gates require specific parameter values in the interface to achieve the operation.
The ballistic scattering involves the temporary breaking of the fluxon at the gate interface and a short oscillation of an interface mode.
In previous 1-bit ballistic RFL gates, i.e., the NOT and ID,
the polarity of the exiting fluxon is determined by the polarity of the incoming
fluxon alone.
In contrast, the output bit of the BSR is also dependent on the stored bit state $S$.
The ballistic scattering dynamics generates the regular operations
of a shift register, summarized in the table of Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(b).
One of the four possible operations of the BSR is sketched in
Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(b).
In comparison with the operation of the ADF flux shuttle
\cite{FulDynAnd1973_fluxshuttle, FulDun1973_expfluxshuttle},
Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(c),
it uses no external drive power to advance the stored SFQ from the storage cell.
Instead, the incoming bit state is swapped efficiently with the stored one
in a reversible process.
We refer to the BSR of Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(a),
where fluxons can arrive on only one input LJJ,
as a {\em 1-input} BSR,
to distinguish it from a BSR with separate write and read channels,
cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_2input_SR}.
The circuit dynamics of the 1-input BSR is described by the Lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Lagrangian}
\mathcal{L} &=& \mathcal{L}_l + \mathcal{L}_r + \mathcal{L}_I
\,, \\
\mathcal{L}_l
&=& \frac{E_0 a}{\lambda_J} \sum_{n \geq 1} \left[
\frac{1}{2} \frac{(\dot{\phi}_n^{(l)})^2}{\omega_J^2}
+ \cos\phi_n^{(l)}
- \frac{(\phi_{n-1}^{(l)}-\phi_{n}^{(l)})^2}{2 (a/\lambda_J)^2} \right]
\,, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{L}_r
&=& \frac{E_0 a}{\lambda_J} \sum_{n \geq 1} \left[
\frac{1}{2} \frac{(\dot{\phi}_n^{(r)})^2}{\omega_J^2}
+ \cos\phi_n^{(r)}
- \frac{(\phi_{n}^{(r)}-\phi_{n-1}^{(r)})^2}{2 (a/\lambda_J)^2} \right]
\,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Herein, $\mathcal{L}_{l,r}$ are the Lagrangian components of the left and right LJJ,
respectively, and $\mathcal{L}_I$ describes the interface which connects them.
The JJs in the discrete LJJs have capacitance and critical current of $(C_J, I_c)$,
and each unit cell of length $a$ has the inductance $L$.
The characteristic time, length, speed and energy scales of the LJJ
are set by the Josephson plasma frequency
$\omega_J = 2\pi \nu_J = \sqrt{2\pi I_c/(\Phi_0 C_J)}$,
the Josephson penetration depth,
$\lambda_J = a \sqrt{\Phi_0/(2\pi L I_c)}$,
the Swihart velocity $c=\omega_J \lambda_J$,
and the energy scale $E_0 = I_c \Phi_0 \lambda_J/(2\pi a)$
(A static fluxon in the LJJ has energy $8 E_0$, cf.~\Eq{eq:Efluxon}).
In our design the inductance in the interface cell is assumed to be
negligible, as indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(a),
and in this situation the phase of the rail JJ of the interface is not
independent but fixed by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:phiBB}
&&\phi^{B} =
\phi_L-\phi_R \,, \\
\label{eq:phiL_phiR}
&& \phi_L := \phi_{n=0}^{(l)} \quad\text{and}\quad
\phi_R := \phi_{n=0}^{(r)}
\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where we introduce shorthand notations for the termination JJ phases in
\Eq{eq:phiL_phiR}.
With this approximation, the interface Lagrangian corresponding
to Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(a) reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Lc_BB1_Lshunted}
&&\mathcal{L}_I
= \frac{E_0 a}{\lambda_J} \left\{
\frac{1}{2} \frac{\hat C_J}{C_J \omega_J^2} \left[\dot{\phi}_L^2 + \dot{\phi}_R^2 \right]
+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{C_J^{B}}{C_J} \frac{(\dot{\phi}_L - \dot{\phi}_R)^2}{\omega_J^2}
\right. \nonumber \\
&&\hspace*{1.5cm}
+ \frac{\hat I_c}{I_c} \left[ \cos\phi_L + \cos\phi_R \right]
+ \frac{I_c^{B}}{I_c} \cos(\phi_L-\phi_R) \nonumber \\
&&\hspace*{1.5cm} \Biggl.
- \frac{1}{2} \frac{L \lambda_J^2}{L_s a^2} (\phi_L - \phi_R + 2\pi f_E)^2
\Biggr\}
\end{eqnarray}
where the parameter $f_E$ quantifies an external flux $f_E \Phi_0$
applied to the storage cell, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(a).
A finite $f_E$ may be useful during the initialization of the BSR,
i.e. the initial loading of an SFQ into the storage cell,
but it is not necessary in principle.
During regular BSR operations, an SFQ is already
stored and $f_E$ is set to zero.
In this work we present results on: regular BSR operations (where $f_E=0$)
and initialization results using $f_E=0$.
\subsection{Steady states of the circuit (before input)}\label{sec:SR_initialization}
To analyze the bit-storage characteristics of the BSR
we first study the steady states of the BSR circuit
(in the absence of a moving fluxon).
It is helpful to first compare the BSR to the earlier ballistic gate circuit
without a storage cell.
Schematically, in the limit of infinite storage cell inductance $L_s \to \infty$
the BSR circuit is equivalent to the circuit of the ID and NOT gates \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL}.
The steady states of \Eq{eq:Lagrangian}
are then given by uniform phase fields in the left and right LJJ,
$\phi^{(l)}_n = 2\pi k_L$ and
$\phi^{(r)}_n = 2\pi k_R$ ($k_{L,R} \in \mathbb{Z}$),
while the rail phase assumes the value $\phi^{B} = 2\pi (k_L-k_R)$.
Herein, the integers $k_{L,R}$ label the `vacuum' states (ground states)
of the $\phi$-periodic LJJ potential \cite{Rajaraman}.
Similar to uncoupled LJJs, all configurations $(k_L,k_R)$ are degenerate here,
and the dynamics are not dependent on their initial values.
When a fluxon from the left LJJ is scattered forward
without (with) polarity inversion it realizes an ID (NOT) gate;
it transfers the system from a state with $(k_L,k_R)$
to the state with $(k_L + 2\pi \sigma, k_R \pm 2\pi \sigma)$.
By the way, the dynamics of the NOT gate, but not the ID gate,
will be used below for the BSR.
In the presence of finite $L_s$ in the BSRm
the degeneracy of different configurations
$(k_L,k_R)$ is lifted due to the contribution
$\propto (\phi_L - \phi_R)^2/(2L_s)$ in the potential, cf.~\Eq{eq:Lc_BB1_Lshunted}.
Large values of the rail phase $\phi^{B}=\phi_L-\phi_R$
(and of the vacuum level difference $2\pi(k_L-k_R)$
to the left and right of the interface) become energetically inaccessible.
At finite $|k_L-k_R| > 0$,
while the LJJ phases far away from the interface
are still confined to their respective vacuum levels $2\pi k_{L,R}$,
the LJJ phases near the interface are perturbed.
We therefore model the LJJ phases (in the absence of a fluxon)
as bound states with evanescent fields of the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:boundstate_kLR}
\phi_n^{(l)} &=& (\phi_L - 2\pi k_L) e^{-\mu a n} + 2\pi k_L \\
\phi_n^{(r)} &=& (\phi_R - 2\pi k_R) e^{-\mu a n} + 2\pi k_R \,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu$ is the inverse decay length.
Assuming that the bound-state amplitudes $\phi_{L,R} - 2\pi k_{L,R}$ are small,
the corresponding rail-phase, $\phi^{B}=\phi_L-\phi_R$,
is approximated by the vacuum level difference, $\phi^{B} \approx 2\pi (k_L-k_R) = 2\pi S$.
The flux state $S$ in the storage cell
is determined by the difference in configuration at the left and right side of the interface,
$S=k_L-k_R$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{
BSR-circuit potential
$U_{S} := \text{min}_{(k_L,k_R)} \left( \tilde U_{(k_L,k_R)} \right)$
in the bound-state approximation, \Eq{eq:boundstate_kLR}, which
describes LJJ excitations localized at the interface
as a function of the termination-JJ phases $\phi_{L,R}$.
The potential is $4\pi$-periodic in the sum of the phases $\phi_L+\phi_R$
at constant phase difference $\phi_L-\phi_R$,
due to the combined $2\pi$-periodicity in the two components.
However, the potential has an approximate parabolic dependence on
$\phi^{B}=\phi_L-\phi_R$ due to energy storage in $L_s$.
Each configuration $(k_L,k_R)$ exists only locally in a
diamond-shaped domain, and for $\phi^{B} \lesssim 4\pi$,
each diamond contains a well which supports a stored flux state $S=k_L-k_R$.
Steady states in wells with $S=\pm 1$ (black points) have
energy $E_S = 2.5 E_0 \approx 2\pi^2 L\lambda_J/(L_s a) S^2 E_0$.
Additional equipotential lines are shown at $E_S + E_{\text{fl}}$,
for fluxon energy $E_{\text{fl}} = 10 E_0$, indicating the $\phi_{L,R}$-range
accessible for an incident fluxon with velocity $v=0.6c$.
The 4 trajectories (red, blue, orange, light blue points)
show the phase evolution of the termination JJs,
$\phi_L(t)=\phi_{0}^{(l)}(t)$, $\phi_R(t)=\phi_{0}^{(r)}(t)$,
obtained from the full circuit simulation for incident fluxon
and initially stored state $S = \pm 1$.
Solid (dashed) arrows indicate the resulting transitions to another well
of the potential, for $\sigma=1$ ($\sigma=-1$).
The flux state in the new well is $S'=\pm S$ if $S=\pm \sigma$.
The system parameters
are dimensioned such that the potential $U_{S}$ allows
these transition types, and also the transition from $S=k_L-k_R=0$
to $|S|=1$ for the initialization (SFQ-loading) of the BSR.
Note that $U_{S}$ assumes the LJJ fields of the bound-state form,
\Eq{eq:boundstate_kLR}, in the absence of a fluxon.
The superimposed scattering trajectories are therefore not described
by $U_{S}$ alone.
The BSR parameters and parameter ranges are given on the left side of Table \ref{tab:margins}.
}
\label{fig:U_bs}
\end{figure}
Inserting \Eq{eq:boundstate_kLR}
in the Lagrangian~\eqref{eq:Lagrangian},
the potential can be expressed, in the limit of small bound-state amplitudes,
as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:U_bs}
&&\tilde U_{(k_L,k_R)} = \frac{E_0 a}{\lambda_J} \left\{
-\frac{\hat I_c + I_{c,\text{eff}}}{I_c} \left[ \cos\phi_L + \cos\phi_R \right]
\right. \nonumber \\
&&\hspace*{0.4cm} - \frac{I_c^{B}}{I_c} \cos(\phi_L-\phi_R)
+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{L \lambda_J^2}{L_s a^2} (\phi_L - \phi_R + 2\pi f_E)^2
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace*{0.4cm}
+\frac{1}{2} \frac{L \lambda_J^2}{L_{\text{eff}} a^2}
\left[ (\phi_L - 2\pi k_L)^2 + (\phi_R - 2\pi k_R)^2 \right] \Biggr\}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Referenced from the interface, each LJJ contribution is
reduced to an effective JJ and an effective inductance,
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{c,\text{eff}} &=& I_c / (e^{2\mu a} - 1) \\
L_{\text{eff}} &=& L (e^{\mu a} + 1) / (e^{\mu a} - 1)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where both are in parallel with the corresponding termination JJ ($\hat I_c$).
In these expressions the inverse decay length $\mu$ of the bound state
is not yet determined. However, we can estimate $\mu$ from the condition that
the bound state fulfills the dispersion relation in the LJJ bulk,
$\omega_{\text{bulk}}^2 = \omega_J^2 + 2c^2/a^2 \left(1 - \cosh(a\mu)\right)$.
Being interested in steady states of the interface,
we can set $\omega=0$ and obtain the estimate
$\mu = a^{-1} \cosh^{-1}\left( 1 + a^2/(2\lambda_J^2) \right)$.
The potential shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:U_bs} is obtained from \Eq{eq:U_bs}
by choosing the energy-minimizing configuration,
$U_{S} := \text{min}_{(k_L,k_R)}\left( \tilde U_{(k_L,k_R)} \right)$,
for each point $(\phi_L,\phi_R)$.
The resulting diamond-shaped domains are labeled in Fig.~\ref{fig:U_bs}
by the locally minimizing $(k_L,k_R)$.
For not too large $\phi^{B}=\phi_L-\phi_R$, the potential $U_{S}$
has a local minimum in each of these domains $(k_L,k_R)$,
and these steady states correspond to a stored flux state $S=k_L-k_R$.
Degenerate global minima are found
at $\phi^{B}=\phi_L-\phi_R=0$ in the domains
with zero stored flux, $(k_L-k_R)=0$.
States with a single stored flux quantum
are found in the domains with $|k_L-k_R|=1$,
with the local minima at
$\phi^{B}=\phi_L-\phi_R \approx 2\pi (k_L-k_R) = \pm 2\pi$.
From the vertical position of the minima, $\phi_L+\phi_R = 2\pi(k_L+k_R)$,
it follows that the bound-state amplitudes on the left and right sides of the interface
are equal and opposite, $(\phi_L-2\pi k_L) + (\phi_R-2\pi k_R) = 0$.
During normal operation of the BSR, the parameters satisfy
$f_E=0$, $\max(I_c^{B}, \hat I_c, I_{c,\text{eff}}) \gg \Phi_0/(2\pi L_s)$,
and $|S| \leq 1$, where
the bound-state amplitudes are small and the phase fields in the left and right LJJ
are nearly uniform.
For a single stored flux quantum $S$ in the BSR,
we can thus approximate $(\phi_L,\phi_R)$ in \Eq{eq:boundstate_kLR} as $(2\pi k_L, 2\pi k_R)$.
From \Eq{eq:boundstate_kLR} it follows that the stored energy relative to the empty BSR ($S=0$) is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:E_S__bs__ccm}
E_S = \frac{2\pi^2 L\lambda_J}{L_s a} (k_L - k_R)^2 E_0
= \frac{2\pi^2 L\lambda_J}{L_s a} S^2 E_0
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
If the BSR is initialized with $|S| \leq 1$,
an incoming fluxon with velocity $v$ and energy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Efluxon}
E_{\text{fl}}(v) = 8 E_0\left(1-(v/c)^2\right)^{-1/2}
\end{equation}
can transfer the BSR into a new stored flux state
with energy $E_S' \leq E_S + E_{\text{fl}}(v)$.
The equipotential lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:U_bs} indicate the corresponding
$\phi_{L,R}$-range accessible from $|S|=1$.
Energetically, it is not possible to load a 2nd SFQ ($|S|=2$)
into the storage cell,
whereas transitions to other states with $|S|=1$ or $S=0$ are energetically possible.
\subsection{Fluxon scattering dynamics}\label{sec:SR_operation}
Figure~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent} illustrates
the BSR operation, where each of the four subfigures shows the circuit
simulations for two consecutive input fluxons.
In all four cases, the BSR is assumed to initially contain
a stored flux quantum $S=-1$.
This means that the circuit is
initialized in a bound state of the form of \Eq{eq:boundstate_kLR},
with $(k_L,k_R)=(0,1)$ and corresponding steady state values of $\phi_{L,R}$.
The incoming fluxon(s) are treated in simulation as additional contributions
to the initial phase and voltage distribution in the left LJJ,
far away from the interface.
An input fluxon (antifluxon),
which has positive (negative) polarity $\sigma=1 (-1)$,
is parametrized by the ideal phase distribution
$\phi(x,t) = 4 \arctan\left(\exp\left(-\sigma (x - v t)/W) \right)\right)$
with velocity $v$ and width $W = \lambda_J (1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}$.
This corresponds to a positive (negative) voltage pulse with maximum (minimum)
$\pm 2 \Phi_0 \nu_J v (1-v^2/c^2)^{-1/2}$.
We compute the fluxon dynamics from numerical integration of
the $(N_l + N_r + 3)$ classical circuit equations of motion
for the $(N_l + N_r)$ JJs in the LJJs,
together with the termination and rail JJs of the interface.
The left panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent}
show the resulting JJ-voltages $V_n^{(l,r)}$
at positions $x_n = \mp a (n + 1/2) \lessgtr 0$ ($n=0,1,2,\ldots$)
in the left and right LJJ.
The position of the interface is $x = 0$.
The right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent} show
the evolution of the rail phase $\phi^{B}(t)$
from the initial value $\phi^{B}(0) \approx -2\pi$.
\begin{figure}[tb]\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{figure3.pdf}
\caption{
Operations of the shift register initialized with the stored flux quantum $S=-1$,
under four different input sequences of two fluxons:
$(\sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2}) = (1,1), (1,-1), (-1,1), (-1,-1)$.
Left panels show dynamics of JJ-voltages $V_n$ at positions
$x_n \lessgtr 0$ in the left (input) and right (output) LJJ, respectively.
The color scale shows blue tracks for fluxons $(\sigma=1)$
and orange for antifluxons $(\sigma=-1)$.
Right panels show evolution of the rail-JJ phase $\phi^{B}$
from initial state $\phi^{B} \approx 2\pi S$.
In cases where $\sigma = -S$,
the fluxon scatters forward as an output fluxon with inverted polarity,
$\sigma' = S$,
and the stored state after the scattering becomes $S'=\sigma$.
In the other cases, $\sigma = S$, the fluxon is simply transmitted with short delay, and the stored state remains unchanged.
All cases fulfill ($S',\sigma'$) = SWAP($S,\sigma$),
thus generate the state map of a 1-bit shift register, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(b).
The BSR parameters, as listed in Table \ref{tab:margins},
are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:U_bs}
and input fluxons enter with $v_0 = 0.6 c$.
}
\label{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent}(a) shows at the earliest times,
a first fluxon with polarity $\sigma=+1$ traveling
in the left LJJ with nearly constant speed $v_0 = 0.6 c$.
As it reaches the interface, the fluxon breaks into two parts,
i.e.~its phase- and voltage-fields become discontinuous.
In the process, the energy of the fluxon is coherently transferred
to a localized excitation involving
the left and right LJJs in form of time-dependent evanescent fields.
The localized excitation lasts long enough for its own brief oscillation,
and afterwards generates a large field profile in the right LJJ,
which eventually moves as a free fluxon in the right LJJ,
away from the influence of the interface.
During the whole process, the phase $\phi^{B}$ of the rail JJ changes
monotonously from $\phi^{B} \approx -2\pi$ to $\approx 2\pi$.
This $4\pi$-phase change indicates the simultaneous transfer
of the input fluxon's (positive) SFQ-state $\sigma=1$ into the storage cell
and of the initially stored (negative) SFQ $S=-1$ out of the storage cell.
Thusly after the scattering, the new orientation of the stored flux quantum is $S'=1$,
and the output fluxon carries the negative SFQ-state, $\sigma'=-1$,
as indicated by the negative sign of the voltage peak.
The fluxon scattering dynamics in this case are similar to that of
the fundamental (1-bit) NOT gate \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL} (without a storage cell).
When the second input fluxon with $\sigma=1$ arrives
(Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent}(a), $\omega_J t \approx 12$),
the input SFQ state now equals the stored SFQ state, $S=1$.
The resulting scattering dynamics at the interface therefore differs
significantly from that of the preceding fluxon.
The interface here acts mostly as a low potential barrier by which the fluxon is slowed down
temporarily while retaining its fluxon identity, with unchanged polarity.
During the fluxon transmission the rail JJ is only weakly excited away from
$\phi^{B} \approx 2\pi$, indicating that no significant flux transfer occurs.
Accordingly, both the fluxon's state $\sigma$ and the stored flux state $S$
are unchanged in this process.
While the result of the fluxon scattering is here the same as in the fundamental ballistic ID gate
(the polarity of the outgoing fluxon is identical to that of the incoming one),
the scattering dynamics is different:
the fluxon here retains its topological identity throughout the process,
whereas in the fundamental ID gate it breaks up into two partial fluxons at the interface
and generates a large localized oscillation as a result
(which has a longer duration compared with the temporary oscillation
in the fundamental NOT gate).
The difference of the transmission-type dynamics of the BSR
compared with the dynamics of an actual ID-gate originates from the added term
$(\phi^{B})^2/(2 L_s)$ in the interface potential, \Eq{eq:Lc_BB1_Lshunted}.
It limits the $\phi^{B}$-range accessible with the fluxon's initial energy $E_{\text{fl}}$
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:U_bs} and discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:SR_initialization}).
As a result, the rail phase in the BSR cannot increase from an initial value
$\phi^{B} \approx 2\pi$ by $\Delta \phi^{B} \approx +4\pi$.
The transmission-type dynamics creates an advantage for the margins of the BSR
(see Sec.~\ref{sec:margins})
relative to the fundamental ID gate, which has somewhat sensitive margins
in comparison with the fundamental NOT gate due to the longer resonant oscillation.
In summary, the inductor $L_s$ enables bit storage,
changes the dynamics relative to previous RFL gates,
and improves operation margins compared to an earlier gate.
Figure \ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent} demonstrates
that the scattering dynamics results for all state pairs ($S,\sigma$)
in a new state pair,
which is related to the old one in the form of a SWAP-operation,
($S',\sigma'$) = SWAP($S,\sigma$).
The ballistic scattering dynamics in the BSR circuit thus generates
the state map of a 1-bit shift register, Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(b).
As described above, two different types of scattering dynamics are involved,
and in both types the SWAP happens with almost ideal efficiency
(cf.~Sec.~\ref{sec:margins}).
The BSR operations can be illustrated as inter-well transitions
in the circuit potential $U_{S}$,
induced by the incoming fluxon.
This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:U_bs} by the
trajectories $(\phi_L,\phi_R)(t)$ (data points),
where $\phi_{L,R}(t)$ are taken from the full circuit simulation.
Note that the circuit potential shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:U_bs}
assumes the LJJ fields have the form of a bound state, \Eq{eq:boundstate_kLR},
but does not take into account the fluxon.
For example, a fluxon with $\sigma=1$ leads to a transition (red)
from the initial state in the well with $(k_L,k_R)=(0,1)$
to the well with $(k_L,k_R)=(1,0)$,
and this changes the stored flux state $S=-1 \to 1$.
In contrast, a fluxon with $\sigma=-1$ induces an $S$-preserving transition (blue),
namely to the well with $(k_L,k_R)=(-1,0)$, which is fully equivalent
to the initial well.
The underlying circuit dynamics for these two processes corresponds to the first
fluxon scattering in Figs.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent}(a) and (c),
respectively.
Equivalent dynamics are observed
for an initial stored flux state $S=1$,
e.g. initially $(k_L,k_R)=(1,0)$,
if the polarity of the incoming fluxon is inverted at the same time.
Thus, an incoming fluxon with $\sigma=-1$ ($\sigma=1$) induces a transition
that inverts (preserves) $S$, as shown by the orange (light blue) trajectories.
The dynamics shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent}
illustrate the regular BSR operations,
where initially a flux quantum is already stored in the storage cell.
Without this initialization, the BSR will not perform all the intended
reversible operations.
To initialize, an SFQ can be loaded into the empty storage cell
by sending in a fluxon which is stopped at the interface
such that its flux is transferred to the storage cell.
We find that it is possible to load an SFQ using no external flux ($f_E=0$).
However, the initialization fluxon could be back reflected if too slow.
In practice, an external flux ($f_E\neq0$)
would likely be applied to the storage cell during loading,
to prevent such reflection.
\subsection{Consecutively arranged shift registers}\label{sec:serialSR}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{figure4.pdf}
\caption{
A 2-bit Serial-In-Serial-Out (SISO) shift register (a) and its dynamics (b-e)
for a single input fluxon, $\sigma = +1$,
and four different initial configurations of the two stored bits:
$(S_1,S_2)=(-1,-1)$, $(-1,1)$, $(1,-1)$, and $(1,1)$.
As in Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent},
the left panels show the JJ voltages
$V_n$ in the LJJs, where a fluxon ($\sigma=1$) is seen as a blue track
and an antifluxon ($\sigma=-1$) is seen as an orange track.
The two BSR are located at $x_n=0$ and at
$x_n = (N+2)a = 40 a \sim 15 \lambda_J$, respectively,
though smaller distances are also possible.
The right panels show the evolution of the rail-JJ phases $\phi^{Bi}$ of the two BSR ($i=1,2$).
The numbers printed in each of the left panels
are the relative speed $v_1/v_0$ ($v_2/v_1$) after passing through the first (second)
BSR.
The BSR parameters are the same as in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent}.
}
\label{fig:serial2bit_SR}
\end{figure}
A multi-bit shift register can be constructed from consecutively arranged BSRs,
constituting a Serial-In-Serial-Out (SISO) register.
As an example, Fig.~\ref{fig:serial2bit_SR} shows
a 2-bit serial shift register and its dynamics.
The two bits are stored in one of four different configurations
$(S_1,S_2)=(-1,-1)$, $(-1,1)$, $(1,-1)$, and $(1,1)$.
Subfigures~\ref{fig:serial2bit_SR}(b-e) show the gate dynamics
for each of these initial configurations
and a single input fluxon, here with $\sigma=+1$.
The two BSR are located at $x=0$ and $x\approx 15 \lambda_J$
(separated by $N+2 =40$ LJJ cells).
As in Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent},
the stored flux quanta can be inferred from the values
of the rail-JJ phases $\phi^{B1}$ and $\phi^{B2}$ in the right panels of
each subfigure, using that $\phi^{Bi} \approx 2\pi S_i$ ($i=1,2$).
The operation of the entire 2-bit shift register is powered by the
energy of the input fluxon, which looses only a fraction of its kinetic energy
in each of the scatterings.
The numbers printed in the left panels are the output-to-input velocity ratios
after each scattering, $v_{1}/v_{0}$ and $v_{2}/v_{1}$,
where again we use initial velocity $v_0=0.6c$.
The lowest velocity ratio ($0.91$) corresponds to $95\%$ energy conservation
according to \Eq{eq:Efluxon}.
For each scattering type (NOT and transmission),
both stages of the 2-bit shift register give approximately
the same velocity ratios ($\approx 0.91$ for NOT, $\approx 0.95$ for transmission),
corresponding to those of a 1-bit BSR (see Sec.~\ref{sec:margins}).
The observed small variability in forward-scattering efficiency
at the 1st and 2nd BSR
(e.g. between 0.95 and 0.96 for the two consecutive transmissions in panel (e))
can be attributed to the presence of fluctuations in the connecting LJJ
and at the 2nd BSR prior to the fluxon arrival there.
These fluctuations are emitted from the first BSR during the first scattering event.
\subsection{2-input shift register}\label{sec:2-inputSR}
\begin{figure}[b]\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figure5.png}
\caption{
Circuit schematic of the 2-input shift register,
where the upper and lower LJJ pairs form separate fluxon scattering channels
(bit lines)
with a shared storage cell between them.
The inductance of the storage cell is $L_s$
and the interface cells of both scattering channels are symmetric.
Efficient BSR operation takes place with parameter values given in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent},
and operation margins given in the right side of Table \ref{tab:margins}.
}
\label{fig:circuit_2input_SR}
\end{figure}
The 1-bit BSR, shown in Fig~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(a), has one input LJJ
and one output LJJ.
Together they form a single channel called a bit line for the forward-scattering fluxon.
This {\it 1-input} 1-bit BSR may be generalized to
a {\it 2-input} 1-bit BSR, where a storage cell
is shared between two such scattering channels,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_2input_SR}.
We have verified in simulations that the 2-input structure
also acts as an energy-efficient 1-bit BSR,
using the same interface parameters as for the 1-input 1-bit BSR,
cf.~Table \ref{tab:margins}.
For the operation of this BSR, it is irrelevant which of the
two input LJJs a fluxon is sent in on --
the dynamics for both input cases is equivalent
and it is qualitatively equivalent to the dynamics of the 1-input BSR.
In the 2-input device the role of the rail-JJ phase $\phi^{B}$ of the 1-input BSR
is taken over by the phase difference of the two rail JJs,
$\phi^{B} \to \phi^{B}-\phi^{C}$.
Motivated by the small difference in parameter margins
between the 1-input and the 2-input version of the BSR,
cf.~Table \ref{tab:margins},
we expect that a version with many inputs would also operate.
This implies that a stored bit of information could be routed to one of many outputs.
Despite the shared storage cell
there is no strong dynamic coupling between the upper and lower part of the gate.
By that we mean that even during the NOT-type scattering
an input fluxon on the upper (lower) LJJ induces a large phase
change of $4\pi$ only in the adjacent $\phi^{B}$ ($\phi^{C}$),
and a relatively small temporary excitation in $\phi^{C}$ ($\phi^{B}$),
resulting in an output fluxon only on the upper (lower) output LJJ.
A similar observation holds for the transmission-type scattering,
however in this case no significant phase change takes place even in the adjacent rail JJ.
With this property, the 2-input BSR may be used as an SFQ memory with
separate write and read lines.
\subsection{Margins}\label{sec:margins}
\begin{table}[b]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.5}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|l|l||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{parameter} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{1-input BSR}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{2-input BSR}\\
\hline
$\:p$ & $p_0$
& $\negthinspace\frac{p_\text{min} - p_0}{p_0}\negthinspace$
& $\negthinspace\frac{p_\text{max} - p_0}{p_0}\negthinspace$
& $\frac{\Delta p}{p_0}$
& $\negthinspace\frac{p_\text{min} - p_0}{p_0}\negthinspace$
& $\negthinspace\frac{p_\text{max} - p_0}{p_0}\negthinspace$
& $\frac{\Delta p}{p_0}$
\\
\hline
$C_J^{B}/C_J$
& 7.5
& -31\% & \phantom{1}+61\% & \phantom{1}92\%
& -35\% & \phantom{1}+56\% & \phantom{1}91\% \\
$\hat C_J/C_J$
& 5.4
& -39\% & \phantom{1}+68\% & 107\%
& -37\% & \phantom{1}+79\% & 116\% \\
$I_c^{B}/I_c$
& 4.7
& -29\% & \phantom{1}+18\% & \phantom{1}47\%
& -30\% & \phantom{1}+16\% & \phantom{1}46\% \\
$\hat I_c/I_c$
& 1.6
& -90\% & \phantom{1}+16\% & 106\%
& -78\% & \phantom{1}+20\% & \phantom{1}98\% \\
$L_s/L$
& 20
& -37\% & +130\% & 167\%
& -35\% & +124\% & 159\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Interface parameters and margins
for 1-input BSR, Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(a),
and 2-input BSR, Fig~\ref{fig:circuit_2input_SR}.
Margins are defined by a required output-to-input velocity ratio $v_f/v_0 \geq 0.6$,
cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:margins}, corresponding to an energy efficiency
$E_{\text{fl}}(v_f)/E_{\text{fl}}(v_0) \geq 0.86$ for initial $v_0=0.6 c$.
This condition is met by all regular BSR operations,
i.e.~for any combinations of $S=\pm 1$ and $\sigma = \pm 1$.
In case of the 2-input BSR, it is also independent
of the choice of input LJJ.
In both BSR types the parameters allow for a velocity retention up to
$v_f/v_0 = 0.91$, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:margins}.
}
\label{tab:margins}
\end{table}
An optimal set of circuit parameters for an energy-efficient BSR
are given by the first and second columns in Table \ref{tab:margins}.
These parameters optimize the elastic nature of both scattering types
(NOT and transmission) of the BSR operation, such that the dominant
fraction of the input fluxon's energy is conserved in the forward-scattered fluxon.
The resulting output-to-input velocity ratio $v_f/v_0$
of the optimized dynamics amounts to $0.91$ and $0.95$, respectively.
For an input fluxon with $v_0 = 0.6c$
the average energy efficiency of the BSR therefore is 96\%
according to \Eq{eq:Efluxon}.
Figure \ref{fig:margins} shows the output-to-input velocity ratio under
variations of different parameters.
Setting the minimum ratio $v_f/v_0$ to $0.6$
(corresponding to an energy efficiency
$E_{\text{fl}}(v_f)/E_{\text{fl}}(v_0) \geq 0.86$ for initial $v_0=0.6 c$),
we find the operation margins for the BSR,
as shown in the next three columns in Table \ref{tab:margins}.
The current limiting factor of the BSR design,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:margins}(f),
is the somewhat restricted range of input velocities for the transmission-type
BSR dynamics.
In this case, the interface's potential barriers which are proportional to
$I_c^{B}$ and $\hat I_c$
impose a sharp lower operation limit of $v_0 \geq 0.53 c$,
though other parameters can be used to reduce this lower velocity limit.
Of the parameter margins, $I_c^{B}$ is the smallest with a range of $47\%$.
The margins of the 2-input BSR, shown in the last three columns of Table \ref{tab:margins},
are almost the same as those of the 1-input BSR.
This is consistent with our observation earlier,
that the dynamics on each (upper or lower) bit line
is only very weakly affected by the presence of the other bit line.
As long as there is no excitation on the extra bit line,
it mainly acts as an inductance added to the storage loop.
Therefore, we expect that a BSR gate with more bit lines (an N-input BSR)
will operate similarly well.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{figure6.pdf}
\caption{
Margins of 1-input BSR:
the output-to-input velocity (retention) ratio, $v_f/v_0$,
(a-e) for $v_0/c=0.6$, as a function of varied
interface parameters, $C_J^{B}$, $\hat C_J$, $L_s$, $I_c^{B}$, and $\hat I_c$, respectively;
(f) for fixed interface parameters but varied initial velocity $v_0$.
In (a-f), all parameters except the varied one
are kept constant at values given in Table \ref{tab:margins}.
Error bars mark the amplitudes of velocity oscillations (an uncertainty) after scattering.
Shaded regions illustrate the ranges wherein both scattering types
(NOT (red) and transmission (blue))
fulfill $v_f/v_0 \geq 0.6$, i.e. $E_{\text{fl}}(v_f)/E_{\text{fl}}(v_0) \geq 0.86$.
This condition produces the margins given in the left side of Table \ref{tab:margins}.
}
\label{fig:margins}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
Superconducting memory has been developed
for the irreversible types: RSFQ \cite{ram1_RSFQ,ram2_RSFQ, PolKirSemLik1995},
RQL \cite{sc_memory_RQL}, and AQFP \cite{sc_memory_QFP},
where an all-superconducting memory achieved a density of
up to $1 \,\text{Mb}/\text{cm}^2$,
Ref.~\onlinecite{Tolpygo2019},
and the incorporation of magnetic elements
provides a route to higher density without further advancements in lithography \cite{sc_memory_0piSQUID}.
The shift register, being more relevant here, is a fast memory
placed on-chip with the processing components of the logic,
related to ``registers'' and cache.
It has been demonstrated in RSFQ \cite{SR_RSFQ}, RQL \cite{HerrETAL2011},
and AQFP \cite{SR_AQFP}.
It has also been adapted for memory arrays in processors \cite{SR2_RSFQ, YoshikawaETAL2021}.
In contrast to these schemes, the BSR uses an SFQ without external bias
(or $\pi$-junctions).
Also unlike non-destructive readout, the readout of the BSR always moves the stored bit.
As we have shown, the read and write operation is accomplished by ballistic data input.
Based on our results for the SISO and parallel 2- or N-input shift register,
we expect that it should be extensible into many-bit memory arrays.
The 2-bit SISO shift register, made from two 1-bit BSR,
shows that ballistic gates can be performed in sequence without external power.
This usage should apply equally well to the 2-bit SR.
These sequenced structures have a logical depth of two without external power,
which provides a useful feature generally
in the context of sequenced logic functions
(see e.g., Ref.~\onlinecite{MajorityGateLogic}).
Logic gates generally have different execution times (delays) \cite{Sutherland1991},
and in SFQ logic, delays and jitter lead to requirements
for clock and bit synchronization \cite{DualRailPolonsky,DualRailJapan,Sherwood2021} and sometimes bit arbitration \cite{TaharaETAL2001}.
However, some progress has been made recently in this area with the
introduction of a second time-constant within an AND and OR gate
to conveniently define a timing window for receiving the SFQ (bit=1 state) \cite{Rylov2019}.
Additionally, our asynchronous gates provide a positive development for SFQ logic
because the timing requirement basically reduces to a requirement of bit order.
When setting the gate energy efficiency to $\geq 86 \%$,
we obtain the wide parameter margins shown in Table \ref{tab:margins}.
It follows that the energy cost per operation is $E_{\text{op}}<0.14 E_B$,
where $E_B$ is the energy of the input bit (which is independent of its bit state).
For the assumed input velocity of the fluxon $v_0/c=0.6$
this bit energy is $E_B = 10 E_0$,
compared with the rest energy $8 E_0$ of a stationary bit (cf.~\Eq{eq:Efluxon}).
Herein, the energy scale $E_0 = I_c \Phi_0 \lambda_J/(2\pi a)$
depends on the LJJ fabrication.
The BSR can be fabricated from digital foundry materials,
such as Nb superconductor with an AlOx barrier, similar to previous RFL gates \cite{Liuqi2019}.
For example, in an LJJ built with the discreteness used in our simulations,
$a/\lambda_J = \sqrt{2\pi I_c L/\Phi_0} = 1/\sqrt{7}$,
and with $I_c=3 \cdot 10^{-6} \,\text{A}$,
an energy cost of $< 3.7 \,\text{zJ}/\text{op}$ would result.
When experimentally optimized and realized,
this could compare favorably with state-of-the-art
logic efficiency results (cf.~Ref.~\onlinecite{YoshikawaETAL2013}).
With other materials, one could in principle lower $E_B$ closer to $k_B T$
to achieve an even lower energy cost.
Although it is beyond the scope of this work to specify a full architecture for RFL,
it is obvious that the BSRs could be tested by a train of fluxons
traveling with some interval between them.
For example in the simulation data of Fig.~\ref{fig:phi_x_t_SR_190619__2fluxonevent},
the input fluxons arrive with a time interval of $T = 8/\nu_J$ for clarity
(smaller intervals are possible).
The energy cost estimated above from the circuit simulation includes loss due to
plasma waves.
At very high Josephson frequencies comparable to the superconducting gap, additional
loss due to quasiparticles is expected and would therefore
set an upper limit to the Josephson frequency $\nu_J$ and the resulting operation speed.
Assuming circuits are made with a Joshephson frequency $\nu_J=44 \,\text{GHz}$
and the above-mentioned time interval is used between bits,
we calculate a real time interval of $182 \,\text{ps}/\text{op}$.
From the rate ($5.5 \,\text{GHz}$) and the above energy calculation,
the maximum power loss per bit (during operations) is estimated
as $20 \,\text{pW}$. Our gates allow a combined benefit of asynchronous timing and energy efficiency.
With these modest assumptions, the maximum energy delay product (EDP) for the
shift register is less than $6.6 \cdot 10^{-31} \,\text{Js} = 10^3 h$.
Clocking will cost energy as well, and will be addressed in future work.
However, we note that an EDP on the order of $1 \cdot 10^{-22} \,\text{Js}$
may be achieved in a one-stage clocked RSFQ architecture \cite{Sherwood2021}.
In the future we can target much lower EDP due to the lower energy costs
in reversible logic (see, e.g., Ref.~\onlinecite{WusOsb2020_CNOT} for a clock-triggered gate).
\section{Collective coordinate analysis}\label{sec:CCM}
For solitons and other collective excitations of a many-body system,
the collective coordinate (CC) method is a powerful way to
reduce the many degrees of freedom to a few essential coordinates \cite{Rajaraman}.
We have previously developed such a CC model for the fundamental
(1-bit) RFL gates \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL}.
Here we extend the model to the BSR, in particular the 1-input
BSR of Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}.
To this end we parametrize the LJJ fields left and right of the
interface (at $x=0$) with the ansatz
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\phi(x<0) =
\big(\negthinspace\phi^{(\sigma, X_L)} + \phi^{(-\sigma, -X_L)}\big)(x)
+ 2\pi ( k_L -1 +\sigma)
\,, \nonumber \\
\label{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR}
&&\phi(x>0) =
\big(\negthinspace\phi^{(-\sigma, X_R)} + \phi^{(\sigma, -X_R)}\big)(x)
+ 2\pi (k_R -1)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Each (left and right) field consists
of a linear superposition of a fluxon and its mirror antifluxon,
where $\phi^{(\sigma, X)}$ is the phase field of a fluxon
of polarity $\sigma$
which we model as a kink equivalent to the soliton solution
of the LJJ field \cite{Rajaraman},
$\phi^{(\sigma, X)}(x,t) = 4 \arctan\left( e^{-\sigma (x-X)/W} \right)$.
Herein, the time-dependent fluxon positions $X_{L,R}(t)$
serve as the dynamical coordinates of the model,
while the fluxon width $W$ is taken to be constant
in a so-called adiabatic approximation \cite{DauxoisPeyrard}.
As in Sec.~\ref{sec:SR_initialization}
the integers $k_{L,R}$ describe the vacuum levels of the left and right
phase fields before the arrival of the fluxon.
The resulting rail-JJ phase $\phi^{B} = \phi_L-\phi_R = 2\pi (k_L - k_R)$
corresponds to an initial orientation $S = (k_L-k_R)$ of the stored flux quantum.
In comparison, the CC model developed for 1-bit RFL gates \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL}
is based on \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR} with the special case $k_L-k_R=0$.
The ansatz \eqref{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR} neglects that for $S \neq 0$
the LJJ fields may deviate in the vicinity of the interface
from the vacuum levels, as modelled by the bound states, \Eq{eq:boundstate_kLR}.
However, considering the relatively small bound-state amplitudes of the BSR
with $|S|=1$, this approximation seems justified.
\subsection{CC Model Parametrization and Potential}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure7.pdf}
\caption{
CC potentials $U(X_L,X_R$) and trajectories $(X_L,X_R)(t)$ (red line)
for a 1-input BSR with polarity $\sigma=1$ of incoming fluxon
and with initally stored state (a) $S=0$, (b) $S=1$ and (c) $S=-1$.
Equipotential lines at the following energies are shown:
stored bit energy $E_S = 2\pi^2 (L\lambda_J)/(L_s a) S^2$ (black),
initial energy $E_{\text{init}} = E_S + E_{\text{fl}}$ (gray),
and potential energy at center, $U(0,0)= 2\pi^2 (L\lambda_J)/(L_s a) (S + \sigma)^2$ (brown).
The CC model is based on the mirror-fluxon ansatz, \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR},
which is illustrated in the insets for various points $(X_L,X_R)$
in coordinate space.
The initial field distribution before fluxon arrival
corresponds to the point $X_L \ll -\lambda_J$ and $X_R=0$ (left inset),
where the fields to the left and right of the interface are $2\pi k_L$ and $2\pi k_R$,
with $k_L-k_R=S$.
The CC trajectories (red) show solutions of the CC equations of motion,
\Eq{eq:EOM_CCM0},
and illustrate (a) loading of the storage cell with a flux quantum (not optimized),
(b) transmission-type BSR dynamics and (c) NOT-type BSR dynamics.
In all cases, the CC trajectories
show good agreement with trajectories
obtained from the full circuit simulation results $\phi^{(l,r)}_n(t)$
fit to the form of \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR} (blue markers).
The BSR parameters are those of table~\ref{tab:margins}.
Note that $U$ depends on the initial stored state $S$ and the input-fluxon polarity $\sigma$ as the product $\sigma S$,
such that for $\sigma=-1$ the potential (and dynamics) of panels (b) and (c)
would be exchanged, while panel (a) would remain unchanged.
}
\label{fig:ccm}
\end{figure*}
Examples for the parametrization of \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR}
are shown in the insets of Fig.~\ref{fig:ccm}
for different points in coordinate space $(X_L,X_R)$.
Subfigures (a-c) represent the different configurations
$(k_L,k_R)=$ $(0,0)$, $(1,0)$, and $(0,1)$, respectively,
for fluxon polarity $\sigma=1$.
A fluxon ($\sigma=1$) initially situated in the left LJJ far
away from the interface at $X/\lambda_J \ll -1$,
is approximated by \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR} with the coordinate
$X_L = X$, while $X_R = 0$ describes the absence of excitations in the
right LJJ (see left-most inset in all panels (a-c)).
For this initial state, \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR}
forms a step at the interface ($x=0$)
between $2\pi k_L$ to the left and $2\pi k_R$ to the right,
corresponding to the initially stored flux state $S = (k_L-k_R)$.
With $k_{L,R}$ and $\sigma$ set by the initial state,
\Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR}
fulfills the boundary conditions,
$\phi(x\to -\infty) = 2\pi k_L + 2\pi \sigma$
and $\phi(x\to \infty) = 2\pi k_R$, for any finite $X_{L,R}$.
Under these boundary conditions,
four different asymptotic single-fluxon states
are permitted and these
can be parametrized through suitable choice of $X_{L,R}$:
a fluxon (antifluxon) in the left LJJ is parametrized by $X_L<0$ ($X_L>0$)
together with $X_R=0$ and
a fluxon (antifluxon) in the right LJJ is parametrized by $X_L=0$
together with $X_R<0$ ($X_R>0$).
In the center of the coordinate space, $(X_L,X_R)=(0,0)$,
the phase distribution forms a step
between $2\pi (k_L + \sigma)$ to the left and $2\pi k_R$
to the right of the interface, where
$\phi^{B} = 2\pi (k_L-k_R + \sigma)$.
At points near $(X_L,X_R)\approx (0,0)$,
the step is modified by the possible excitations near the interface, see e.g.
the inset in bottom right corner of Fig.~\ref{fig:ccm}(c).
In the corners of the configuration space where $(|X_L|\gg 1, |X_R|\gg 1)$,
\Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR} describes unavailable (high-energy) two-fluxon states
(not shown).
Using \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR} we can derive
the collective coordinate model for the BSR.
This derivation is discussed in detail in Appendix \ref{app:CCM},
while here we simply summarize the results.
After inserting \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR}
into the system Lagrangian, \Eq{eq:Lagrangian} is simplified to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L_CCM}
\frac{\mathcal{L}}{E_0} =
\frac{1}{2}
\left(\!\!\begin{array}{c} \dot X_L \\[1ex] \dot X_R \end{array} \!\!\right)
\mathbf{M}
\left(\!\!\begin{array}{c} \dot X_L \\[1ex] \dot X_R \end{array} \!\!\right)
- U(X_L,X_R)
\end{equation}
where $U(X_L,X_R)$ is the dimensionless CC potential,
and the mass matrix $\mathbf{M}$ is composed of the coordinate-dependent,
dimensionless elements
$M_{ii} = m_i(X_i)$ and $M_{i,j \neq i} = m_{LR}(X_L,X_R)$ ($i,j=L,R$).
The CC potential $U$, masses $m_i$ and mass coupling $m_{LR}$
are given
in \Eqs{eqA:U_CCM}, \eqref{eqA:mXi} and \eqref{eqA:mXLXR}, respectively.
Compared with the CC model of the 1-bit RFL gates \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL},
an additional term
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:uS_CCM}
&& u_s
= \frac{1}{2} \left( \sigma(\phi_L - \phi_R + 2\pi f_E )\right)^2
= \frac{1}{2} \Bigl( 2\pi \sigma (k_L-k_R) \Bigr. \\
&&\quad \bigl.+\, 8 \arctan e^{X_L/W} - 8 \arctan e^{-X_R/W} + 2\pi (1 + \sigma f_E)
\bigr)^2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
contributes to the CC potential $U$, cf.~\Eq{eqA:U_CCM},
which stems from the shunt current through the inductor $L_s$.
The diagonal elements $m_i$ of the mass matrix $\mathbf{M}$
vary with $X_i$ near the interface,
but asymptotically ($|X_i| \ll \lambda_J$)
approach a constant value, $m_i = 8\lambda_J/W$.
The mass coupling $m_{LR}$ is exponentially suppressed far away from the
interface, but is finite near it.
It is proportional to the rail-JJ capacitance $C_J^B$,
and this explains the important role of $C_J^B$ for the forward-scattering of a fluxon
from one LJJ to another in many gates.
In the fundamental (NOT and ID) RFL gates, mass coupling is the dominant coupling mechanism
between the LJJs, whereas coupling generated by the potential is negligible
since the potential gradient always acts
perpendicular to the coordinate axes, $\left. \partial U/\partial X_i\right|_{X_i=0} = 0$.
Relative to the fundmental RFL gates,
the BSR has an added contribution $u_s$ in the CC potential $U$
which can generate a much stronger coupling between $X_L$ and $X_R$,
depending on the configuration $(k_L,k_R)$.
The CC potential $U$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ccm} for the BSR parameters
of table~\ref{tab:margins}, $\sigma=1$,
and three different configurations $(k_L,k_R)$.
We emphasize that $U$
depends parametrically on parameters of
the initial state, namely on the initially stored SFQ, $S=k_L-k_R$,
and on the polarity $\sigma$ of the incoming fluxon.
Specifically, the dependence enters in form of the product $\sigma \cdot S$,
as can be seen from \Eq{eq:uS_CCM}
for the case of zero external flux through the storage cell, $f_E=0$.
All other contributions to the CC potential,
$U_0$, $u_1$, and $u_2$ in \Eq{eqA:U_CCM},
are independent of both $\sigma$ and $S$.
Note that the product $\sigma \cdot S$ preserves the circuit's invariance
under phase-inversion ($\sigma \to -\sigma$ and $S \to -S$),
which would only be broken in presence of finite $f_E$.
Most contributions to the CC potential, $U_0$, $u_1$, and $u_2$ in \Eq{eqA:U_CCM},
have mirror symmetry about the line $X_R = -X_L$,
whereas $u_s$ has this symmetry only for $\sigma(k_L-k_R) = -1$,
as can be seen from \Eq{eq:uS_CCM} for $f_E=0$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ccm} the mirror symmetry is thus seen only in panel (c),
where $\sigma (k_L-k_R)=-1$,
while in the other cases it is broken.
The asymmetry is particularly strong for $\sigma (k_L-k_R)=+1$, panel (b).
A fluxon initially at position $X\ll-\lambda_J$, moving with velocity $v_0$,
is parametrized by $(X_L,X_R)=(X,0)$,
$(\dot X_L, \dot X_R) = (v_0, 0)$, and the related fluxon width
$W/\lambda_J = \sqrt{1-v_0^2/c^2}$.
For these initial conditions,
the initial energy of the system is found from \Eq{eq:L_CCM}
to be $E_{\text{init}} = E_S + E_{\text{fl}}(v_0)$.
Herein, $E_{\text{fl}}(v_0)$ is the initial fluxon energy, \Eq{eq:Efluxon}, and
$E_S$ is the energy of the initially stored flux quantum $S$,
as given in \Eq{eq:E_S__bs__ccm}.
The coordinate space accessible during free evolution
with energy $E_{\text{init}}$ is indicated by the corresponding
equipotential lines (gray) in Figs.~\ref{fig:ccm}(a-c).
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ccm}(c) this space consists of a central well which connects
four asymptotic `scattering valleys'. All of these correspond to a single fluxon,
but differ by its polarity or its position in either the left or right LJJ,
cf.~description above.
In Figs.~\ref{fig:ccm}(a,b),
only two of these valleys are connected as a result of the potential's asymmetry,
namely the fluxon's input valley ($X_L<0$, $X_R\approx 0$),
with the valley ($X_L\approx0$, $X_R< 0$)
that corresponds to a forward-scattered fluxon.
The Lagrangian, \Eq{eq:L_CCM}, generates the coupled equations of motion,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:EOM_CCM0}
\left(\!\!\begin{array}{c} \ddot X_L \\[1ex] \ddot X_R \end{array} \!\!\right)
= - \mathbf{M}^{-1} \left(\!\!\begin{array}{l}
c^2 \frac{\partial U}{\partial X_L}
+ \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial m_L}{\partial X_L} \dot X_L^2
+ \frac{\partial m_{LR}}{\partial X_R} \dot X_R^2 \\[1ex]
c^2 \frac{\partial U}{\partial X_R}
+ \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial m_R}{\partial X_R} \dot X_R^2
+ \frac{\partial m_{LR}}{\partial X_L} \dot X_L^2
\end{array} \!\!\right)
,\quad
\end{eqnarray}
which describe the free dynamics of the coordinates $X_{L,R}$
for fixed initial values of $S$ and $\sigma$.
Recall that in our CC model, \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR},
$S$ and $\sigma$ are mere parameters determined by the initial state.
However, as will become clearer in the discussion below,
the corresponding values $S'$ and $\sigma'$ after the scattering
can also be deduced from the asymptotic states of the evolution.
\subsection{CC Model Results}
From \Eq{eq:EOM_CCM0} we obtain the CC trajectories $(X_L,X_R)(t)$
shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:ccm}(a-c) (red lines).
We also compare the CC trajectories with `simulated' trajectories
which are obtained by fitting the phases $\phi^{l,r}_n(t)$ of the
full circuit simulations to \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR} (blue markers).
As Fig.~\ref{fig:ccm} demonstrates,
there is generally very good qualitative and quantitative agreement
with the CC model trajectory.
Next we describe how an empty BSR circuit is loaded with an SFQ such that it is
initialized for regular BSR operation.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ccm}(a) the trajectory of the incoming fluxon enters the
central potential well where it bounces multiple times.
Since no damping has been included in the CC dynamics, \Eq{eq:EOM_CCM0},
the trajectory may eventually exit the well,
corresponding to a fluxon emitted from the interface
into the left or right LJJ (insets).
In the circuit simulations, however, even though no resistances
are included, the generation of plasma waves at the interface
effectively constitutes a weak damping mechanism which prevents
later escape from the interface.
For the coordinates trapped near the center point $(X_L,X_R)\approx (0,0)$,
the phase distribution is close to a step profile
(inset pointing to center of coordinate space),
whereas the initial fluxon profile has vanished.
From a comparison with the initial state
(inset pointing to left side of coordinate space),
where no flux was stored in the BSR ($S=0$),
it is clear that a flux quantum has now been added to the storage cell,
i.e., $S'=1= S+\sigma$.
While Fig.~\ref{fig:ccm}(a) shows the dynamics for a high-energy
fluxon ($\dot X_L(0) = v_0 = 0.6c$)
in absence of an external flux $f_E$ through the storage cell,
the loading process can be improved by using a low-energy fluxon,
to decrease the amount of energy that must be lost to capture the fluxon,
and $f_E \neq 0$, to lower the interface potential that causes back reflection.
Figure \ref{fig:ccm}(b) shows results for the initial state $S=1$.
Here the central well of $U$ is separated by a potential barrier from the
input valley. The trajectory is shown to follow along the curved potential into
the scattering valley, which corresponds to a fluxon in the right LJJ,
while $S$ remains unaffected (inset).
This process thus corresponds to the transmission of a fluxon
without topological change
-- the initial phase difference of $2\pi$ between the left and right LJJ
is therefore roughly maintained during the scattering.
In comparison, the dynamics of an ID gate is more complicated (as well as longer
in duration), strongly relying
on mass-coupling forces (cf.~Fig.~4(a) in Ref.~\onlinecite{WusOsb2020_RFL}).
Figure \ref{fig:ccm}(c) shows results for the BSR initially in the state $S=-1$.
Here the CC potential
resembles that of a fundamental 1-bit gates
(cf.~Fig.~4(a) in Ref.~\onlinecite{WusOsb2020_RFL}).
The resulting CC dynamics is similar to the NOT fundamental gate dynamics
(cf.~Fig.~7(c1) in Ref.~\onlinecite{WusOsb2020_RFL}), and can be explained
by the combined effect of the strong mass-coupling (large $C_J^{B}$)
together with the forces from the potential ($I_c^{B}$, $L_s$)
and the mass-gradients ($C_J^{B}$, $\hat C_J$).
The resulting state after the scattering corresponds to a forward-scattered
antifluxon, while the stored flux has been inverted, $S' = \sigma = -S$ (inset).
As these examples show, the CC model
-- though heavily simplifying the many-JJ circuit to a reduced system
with two degrees of freedom --
describes the fluxon scattering in the BSR accurately.
Furthermore, it is a good tool to interpret and predict fluxon dynamics at circuit interfaces.
With the help of the CC model, we were able to understand how
the product $\sigma \cdot S$,
which represents the relative polarity of moving and stored bit states,
changes the potential landscape.
This in turn changes the scattering dynamics,
as we described for the three relevant cases
(initialization and the two distinct BSR gate operations).
\section{Conclusion}
Reversible logic may progress digital computing generally because it allows
great improvements in computing efficiency at the gate level. In contrast,
end-of-the-roadmap CMOS will have orders of magnitude higher energy cost per bit
switching. The type of reversible logic which we study here (RFL) is ballistic.
By introducing asynchronous ballistic gates in this work, we expect greater
practicality in our reversible logic since the timing requirements are reduced.
The ADF (Anderson, Dynes, and Fulton) flux shuttle provided
a pioneering design for a shift register prior to the start of SFQ logic. That
logic
is thermodynamically irreversible with the bit's energy dissipated during every
logic operation. In contrast to the ADF shuttle, which has bits encoded by SFQ presence, our RFL ballistic gates conditionally invert fluxon polarity, where the fluxon
polarity encodes the bit state. In this work we introduce BSRs (Ballistic Shift Registers) which add the feature of memory to previous ballistic multi-port gates. The BSRs rely only on ballistic scattering dynamics between the input fluxon and stored SFQ. Here the gate dynamics fall into two cases which consist of the resonant NOT case, generally used in RFL, and a simpler transmission case.
We have performed circuit simulations of a 1-input BSR,
as well as a shift register composed of two 1-input BSR gates in sequence.
In another design we introduced a 2-input BSR which can be used as a register
with separate write and read ports or alternatively as a device to shift the bit
state between different bit lines. Furthermore, we discuss how this may be
helpful for a register-based memory.
Since the ballistic scattering depends on the stored bit state (unlike previous
RFL gates), the 1-input and 2-input BSR constitute the first set of
asynchronous reversible logic gates appropriate for feed forward computing. The
former (1-input) gate is shown to allow the execution of two in sequence without
external power. The latter gate allows more bit lines to be added. We discussed
how this is related to logical depth and timing requirements.
Most importantly technically, perhaps, is that the BSR has wide process margins,
where all parameter margins are above $46 \%$ when the energy efficiency is set
to 86\%, for example. This is far above the variation in today's standard
fabrication processes
such that BSRs can be tested.
In addition to full circuit simulations, we have modelled the BSR dynamics
by a collective coordinate model which reduces the many-JJ degrees of freedom
to only two coordinates. With the help of this model, the
state-dependent scattering dynamics can be understood from
effective potentials in fluxon coordinate space -- the BSR scattering potentials
are dependent on the initial fluxon and SFQ states.
All SFQ logic types switch in a time equal or greater than the natural
oscillation period of the Josephson junctions. Our logic is a fast reversible
logic type in that it is designed to switch in only a few Josephson periods, as
opposed to the speed-constraint of adiabatically powered reversible logic.
Consecutive BSR operations are shown to be possible in less than 8 Josephson
periods. We do not currently see the need for an adiabatic clock in contrast to
other reversible logic families and this helps enable logic at high speed. Thus,
we are optimistic that our ballistic logic may enable high-throughput
high-efficiency computation with unpowered gate sequences.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
KDO would like to thank
the Herrs, M.~Frank, R.~Lewis, N.~Missert, I.~Sutherland, V.~Semenov, K.~O'Brien, B.~Sarabi, C.~Richardson and N.~Yoshikawa for stimulating scientific discussions.
We thank Seeqc (www.seeqc.com) for their professional foundry services
which were used to fabricate RFL gates.
WW would like to thank the Physics Department
at the University of Otago for its hospitality.
\begin{appendix}
\section{Collective coordinate analysis}\label{app:CCM}
Here we sketch the derivation of a collective coordinate model
for the 1-input BSR of Fig.~\ref{fig:circuit_SR}(a), leading to the results
discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:CCM}.
The procedure is similar to the collective coordinate analysis for
other RFL gates \cite{WusOsb2020_RFL}.
The starting point is the circuit Lagrangian,
\Eqs{eq:Lagrangian} with the interface contribution, \Eq{eq:Lc_BB1_Lshunted}.
Inserting the mirror fluxon ansatz, \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR},
the LJJ contributions become
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqA:L_CCM_LJJonly}
&& \frac{1}{E_0} \left(\mathcal{L}_l + \mathcal{L}_r \right)
= \sum_{i=L,R} \frac{m_0(X_i)}{2} \frac{\dot{X}_i^2}{c^2} - U_0(X_L,X_R)
\,, \\
\label{eqA:U0_CCM_LJJonly}
&& U_0 = \sum_{i=L,R} \Biggl\{
\frac{4\lambda_J}{W} \left( 1 - \frac{2 z_i}{\sinh(2 z_i)} \right) \Biggr.\\
&&\hspace*{1.5cm} \Biggl.+ \frac{2 W}{\lambda_J}
\tanh(z_i) \;\text{sech}} %\negmedskip^2(z_i) \left[ 2 z_i + \sinh(2 z_i) \right] \Biggr\}
\,, \nonumber \\
\label{eqA:m0_CCM_LJJonly}
&& m_0(X_i) = \frac{8\lambda_J}{W} \left(1 + \frac{2 z_i}{\sinh(2z_i)} \right)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $z_i = X_i/W$ ($i=L,R$).
To obtain these expressions, we have replaced the
LJJ sums in $\mathcal{L}_{l,r}$ by integrals,
based on the small discreteness, $a/\lambda_J \ll 1$.
We have evaluated all integrals with boundaries $(-\infty,0)$ and $(0,\infty)$,
which corresponds to including the interface's termination JJs as part of the LJJ.
To correct for this, the corresponding energies have to be subtracted
in the interface Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_I$, \Eq{eq:Lc_BB1_Lshunted},
such that $\hat C_J \to \hat C_J - C_J$ and $\hat I_c \to \hat I_c - I_c$.
After inserting the ansatz \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR} also into $\mathcal{L}_I$,
the full system Lagrangian reads
\begin{equation}\label{eqA:L_CCM}
\frac{\mathcal{L}}{E_0} =
\frac{m_{\!L}\dot{X}_{\!L}^2}{2c^2} + \frac{m_{\!R}\dot{X}_{\!R}^2}{2c^2}
+ m_{\!LR} \frac{\dot{X}_{\!L} \dot{X}_{\!R}}{c^2} - U(X_{\!L},X_{\!R})
\,.
\end{equation}
Herein, the interface modifies
the dimensionless mass of \Eq{eqA:m0_CCM_LJJonly} and
also contributes a mass-coupling term,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqA:mXi}
&&m_i(X_i) = m_0(X_i) + \frac{\hat C_J-C_J + C_J^{B}}{C_J \lambda_J/a} (g_I(X_i))^2
\,,\\
\label{eqA:mXLXR}
&&m_{\!LR}(X_L,X_R) = \frac{C_J^{B}}{C_J \lambda_J/a} g_I(X_L) g_I(X_R)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the factor $g_I(X_i) = 4 \left(\lambda_J/W\right) \;\text{sech}} %\negmedskip(X_i/W)$
describes the local influence of the interface.
The dimensionless CC potential of \Eq{eqA:U0_CCM_LJJonly} is also modified,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqA:U_CCM}
U = U_0 + \frac{\hat I_c-I_c+I_c^{B}}{I_c\lambda_J/a} u_1
+ \frac{I_c^{B}}{I_c\lambda_J/a} u_2
+ \frac{L \lambda_J/a}{L_s} u_s
\,,
\end{equation}
with the interface contributions to the potential,
\begin{align}
\label{eqA:u1_CCM}
u_1 &= \sum_{i=L,R} 8 \;\text{sech}} %\negmedskip^2(z_i) \tanh^2(z_i)
\,, \\
\label{eqA:u2_CCM}
u_2 &= - \prod_{i=L,R} \left[ 8 \;\text{sech}} %\negmedskip^2(z_i) \tanh^2(z_i) \right]
\, \\
&+ \prod_{i=L,R} \left[4 \;\text{sech}} %\negmedskip(z_i) \tanh(z_i) \left( 1 - 2 \;\text{sech}} %\negmedskip^2(z_i) \right) \right] \nonumber \\
\intertext{and} \nonumber\\
\label{eqA:u3_CCM}
u_s
&= \frac{1}{2} \left( \sigma(\phi_L-\phi_R) + 2\pi \sigma f_E\right)^2
\,.
\end{align}
Using $\phi_L = \phi(x=0^{-}) = 8\arctan e^{\sigma X_L/W} + 2\pi (k_L -1 + \sigma)$
and $\phi_R = \phi(x=0^{+}) = 8\arctan e^{-\sigma X_R/W} + 2\pi (k_R -1)$
from \Eq{eq:fluxoncombination_kLR},
the storage-cell contribution $u_s$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqA:u3_CCM_v2}
&&u_s
= \frac{1}{2} \Bigl(
8 \arctan e^{X_L/W} - 8 \arctan e^{-X_R/W} \Bigr. \nonumber \\
&&\hspace*{1.2cm} \Bigl. +\,2\pi\sigma(k_L-k_R) + 2\pi ( 1 + \sigma f_E) \Bigr)^2
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Structural topology optimization attempts to find the efficient distribution of materials within a design domain under specific loading and boundary conditions. Unlike size and shape optimization, topology optimization allows for the creation of a material distribution without the need for a pre-determined structural arrangement. This gives engineers a strong tool for identifying creative and high-performance solutions ideas throughout the conceptual design phase and that's not even mentioning the huge impact that optimizing geometry and topology has on structural form.
Since Bendsoe and Kikuchi's \cite{bendsoe1988generating} early work on this problem, numerous research have been conducted in a wide range of physics issues, including stiffness maximization in structures, compliant mechanism design, and temperature maximization \cite{yoon2018multiphysics, zhu2019temperature, kazemi2020multi, chakraborty2019surrogate, giraldo2020multi}.
Density-based methods, implicit boundary moving methods (level set and phase field methods), and topological derivate based methods are the three major categories of shape and topology optimization methods \cite{sigmund2013topology}. In the first group, a fixed grid of finite elements is utilised to find the best void/solid material layout that minimises a specified objective function. The homogenization technique and Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization (SIMP) are two of the most common topology optimization methods existing in the literature. The second group of techniques includes those that employ implicit representations of structural boundaries. Such a boundary can be changed using the Level-Set Method (LSM) or phase field models by tracking the motion of a level-set function or altering the interfacial dynamics of phase field equations. The third group of methods is based on an explicit description of the structural form via a computational mesh or computer assisted design. In this work, density-based topology optimization techniques has been used because of its simplicity and wider use.
Topology optimization has made significant advances in theory and practise over the last decade, but computing needs continue to be a key impediment. Some complex activities, such as solving huge equation systems, estimating sensitivities, and choosing filtering strategies, are required in the topology optimization pipeline. As a result, if the model is big, topology optimization might take hours or even days \cite{sigmund2020eml}. Topology optimization necessitates high-performance computing (HPC), which addresses the challenge using task-level parallel computing.
It is becoming increasingly common to use graphics processing units (GPUs) for non-graphics applications, and this trend is only expected to increase in near future. As a result of its high computing capacity for Massive Parallel Processing (MPP) at a reasonable price, these graphics cards are being used in conjunction with a CPU to accelerate compute-intensive applications. Because of memory issues and lack of data-level parallelism, this is not an easy goal to achieve. Although the GPU's arithmetic processing engine is rapid, the memory from which this data is supplied may be slower. In addition to the non-coalesced global storage, shared memory access creating bank conflict, device (GPU) memory bandwidth is frequently insufficient. Simultaneous Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) parallel computation, for which GPU architectures are designed, cannot be used due to the lack of data. Topology optimization methods must, therefore, be properly formulated and selected so that they can take full advantage of massively parallel architectures while avoiding memory problems, which severely limit GPU performance.
Still researchers have tried to overcome the challenges and GPU computing has been utilized successfully in a wide range of engineering and scientific issues that need numerical analysis.
The goal is to use data locality to decrease the computational cost of the topology optimization process. Wadbro and Berggren \cite{wadbro2009megapixel} advocated using GPU computation to evaluate high-resolution finite element models in heat conduction topology optimization in their early work. To decrease device memory needs, they used a Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) technique with an assembly-free element-wise implementation. Schmidt and Schulz \cite{schmidt20112589} suggested a GPU-based nodal-wise assembly-free PCG solution for addressing elasticity issues at iterations of the minimization of the structural compliance problem with the SIMP technique.
The iterative solver's matrix-vector operations provided significant speed up by utilizing shared memory in the proposal. Reducing the grain size in the assembly-free GPU implementation is another way to boost GPU speed \cite{martinez2015fine}.
Multigrid techniques have benefited from the usage of GPU computing. These methods are among the most effective and widely used for resolving large linear equation systems. In structural mechanics Krylov subspace techniques frequently utilize these approaches as a preconditioner. The primary drawback of employing GPU computing to create geometric multigrid techniques is the amount of memory required to store the coefficient matrix and interpolation operators at various levels. Therefore, Dick et al \cite{dick2011real} developed an efficient nodal-wise matrix-free GPU implementation of the geometric multigrid technique with stencil computing for elasticity problems solved by the finite element method for this purpose. In order to avoid storing the coefficient matrix, they employ a Cartesian grid and parallel GPU computation to do ``on-the-fly'' calculations instead. By utilizing a stencil algorithm, data locality may be used as well.
This enables the merging of memory access into a single memory transaction and provides fast stencil-based ``on-the-fly'' grid transfer operators. Other notable work in this area includes \cite{schmidt20112589, martinez2015fine, dick2011real, baiges2019large, li2021topology, xie2020hierarchical}.
In spite of several research works efficient GPU implementation has still remained a challenging field due to asynchronous computational nature of CPU and GPU, memory size and bandwidth limitation of GPUs and non availability of software tools for easy integration and customization;
the objective of this paper is to address some of these limitations.
To that end, we propose a hybrid scheme that exploits the optimal capacity of both GPU and CPU by appropriate distribution of the computations.
For example while most of the matrix-vector or matrix-matrix multiplications are performed in GPU, some of the additions that are required are done in OpenMP parallization in CPU. This takes advantages of the computational efficiency of the CPU and GPU architecture and make the end user program efficient. For further computational savings, we propose the use of multigrid algorithm; this results is significant computational efficiency as the solution to the fine level discretization is obtained by mapping the problem to a coarse grid resolution and solving it there and back-interpolating to the fine grid level. We further optimize it modifying these mapping and interpolation schemes based on a homogenization technique which requires even much less storage of the data. This facilitates the most parts of the computation to be carried out ~``on-th-fly''~ rather than retrieving the data from the computer memory and doing the operations. This essentially saves a significant portion of the remaining memory requirement of the variable storage. Finally the developed tool in integrated with TOP3D125 MATLAB code which gives easy understanding and seamless modifications several other aspects of the topology optimization algorithm like use of a different filtering scheme, different optimization routine, or even different physics equation altogether as long as it is in the form of $\mathbf K \bm u =\bm f $.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the standard density based topology optimization algorithm is described. In section 3 multigrid pre-conditioned conjugate gradient approach is explained. In the next section its efficient hybrid implementation is detailed. Subsequently several numerical experiments are carried out in section 5. Finally a homogenization based approach is described in section 6 and important observations are summarized in section 7.
\section{Density-based topology optimization}\label{sec:ps}
A binary programming problem, topology optimization aims to find the optimal material layout (solid and void) that minimizes an objective function \cite{bendsoe1989optimal}. When designing a material layout, it's important to adhere to a set of design constraints. As a result of their conceptual simplicity, density-based methods are the most widely used topology optimization methods in commercial or industrial software. Usually the design domain is discretized for two-fold benefit. First one is to update the density of each discretized element independent of others and the second one is to use the above discretization scheme to compute response of the system using finite element methods. It is possible to formulate the topology optimization problem as follows \cite{bendsoe2003topology}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:topopt}
\begin{split}
\min_{\rho} : \;\;\;\; & c(\bm \rho,\bm u) \\
\text{s.t} : \;\;\;\; & \mathbf K(\bm \rho) \bm u = \bm{f} \\
\;\;\;\; & V(\bm \rho) \leq V_0\\
\;\;\;\; & 0 \leq \rho(x) \leq 1, {x} \in \mathbb R,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the cost function, $\bm{\rho}$ denotes density design variables, $ \bm{u} $ represents the response of the system, $\mathbf K $ is the global stiffness matrix, $\bm{f} $ is the force vector, and $\bm{x}$ is array of discretized elements. The design domain is demarcated by $\mathbb R$ and the target volume of optimized shape $V(\bm{\rho})$ must be smaller than a prescribed value $V_0$. The unknown density parameters, $\rho(\bm{x})$, are utilized to adjust the finite element's stiffness in the regular mesh. Although discrete densities are desirable, use of continuous form helps in easy gradient computation and smooth transition at boundaries. In reality, this parameterization results in design with huge regions of intermediate densities that, while numerically ideal, are impractical to produce \cite{mlejnek1992some}.
Hence the density is modified to an artificial density form for computational convenience and drive the solution to binary 0 (void) or 1(solid material). Typically, this problem is handled utilizing implicit relaxation/penalization approaches, which force the topology design towards solid/void topology. The solid isotropic material with pennalization (SIMP) approach employs implicit penalization techniques through a power-law interpolation function between void and solid to calculate the stiffness matrix of each element $\mathbf K_e$ similar to \cite{zhou1991coc} as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:K_mod}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf K_e = \mathbf K_{min}+\bm \rho_e^p (\mathbf K_0-\mathbf K_{min}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf K_{0} $ corresponds stiffness matrix when an element is fully solid and $\mathbf K_{min} $ corresponds to minimum stiffness for least allowable density of an element. The later is provided to avoid singularity issue. Even though the use of material interpolation scheme allows for the creation of designs which are almost solid and void, they destroy the optimization problem's convexity thereby, increasing the risk of ending up in a local minimum. As a result, continuation methods are commonly used when solving optimization problems in order to avoid premature convergence to local minima. Continuation-based methods take ``global'' information into account and are more likely to ensure ``global'' convergence, or at the very least, convergence to better designs \cite{sigmund1998numerical}.
To prevent numerical challenges and modelling issues such as mesh-dependency of solution and checker-board patterns, the topology optimization problem should also be regularized utilizing extra density field constraints. The sensitivity filter is employed in this study since it has been demonstrated in practice to be successful in providing mesh-independent solutions \cite{bourdin2001filters}. Furthermore, gradient filtering is motivated by continuum mechanics and may favour convergence of particular length scales over others, therefore hastening convergence. The sensitivity filter provides computational advantages because it is not included in the optimality criteria (OC) updating scheme loop.
The sensitivity filter, as shown below, adds some kind of smoothing on the derivatives of the objective function as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sensitivity filter}
\frac{\partial \hat c (\bm \rho)}{\partial \rho_e} = \frac{\sum_{i \in NB_e}w(x_i, x_e)\rho_i \frac{\partial c (\bm \rho)}{\partial \rho _i}}{\max {(\gamma, \rho_e)}\sum_{NB_e}{w(x_i, x_e)}}
\end{equation}
where $NB_e$ is an element's neighbourhood set, $w(x_i, x_e)$ is a weighting function, and $\gamma > 0 $ is a small number to prevent division by zero. In present work, the weighting function is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Neighbourhood}
\begin{aligned}
w(x_i,x_e) = \begin{dcases*}
r-||x_i-x_e|| & if $||x_i-x_e|| \leq r$\\
0 & if $||x_i-x_e|| \geq r$
\end{dcases*}
\end{aligned},
\end{equation}
while an element's neighbourhood is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NB_dist}
\begin{aligned}
NB_e \coloneqq \{i \mid dist(i,e) \leq r\},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the filter radius and $dist(i, e)$ emphasizes that it includes all elements $i$ within the distance $R$ from the center of element $e$.
Although SIMP can be used for solving a wide array of problems including heat sinks and other multi-physics problems \cite{zeng2019topology,sigmund1998topology}, we are interested in minimization of structural compliance,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:compliance objective}
\begin{aligned}
c = \bm{f}^{T}\bm{u},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $ \bm{f}$ is the applied force vector and $ \bm{u} $ is the corresponding displacement vector.
Considering the discretized linear state system $\mathbf K \bm u = \bm f$ the sensitivities of Eq. \eqref{eq:compliance objective} using adjoint state method (solving for $u^*$ in $\mathbf K \bm u^* = \frac{\partial c}{\partial \bm u}$) with respect to $ \bm \rho $, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sensitivity}
\begin{aligned}
c_{\rho} = \frac{\partial c}{\partial \bm \rho} = -\bm u^{*T} \frac {\partial \mathbf {K}}{\partial \bm \rho} \bm{u} = -\bm u^{*T} (p\rho^{p-1}(\mathbf {K}_{0}-\mathbf {K_{min}})) \bm{u}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $p$ is a penalty factor (usually 3 but can be obtained more accurately by continuation methods) and $(.)^T$ is the transpose of the vector. These sensitivities given by Eq. \eqref{eq:sensitivity} permit to update the design variables $\bm \rho$ using some sequential convex approximations, such as Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) \cite{wilson1963simplicial} or Method of Moving Asymptotes (MMA) \cite{svanberg1987method}. The Optimality Criterion (OC) updating scheme proposed by \cite{bendsoe1995optimization} is adopted in this work due to its numerical efficiency. The OC updating scheme is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:OCUp1}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_{e_{k+1}} = \begin{dcases*}
\text{max} \{ ( 1-m) ,0 \} & if $\rho_{e_k}B^{\eta}_{e_k} \leq \text{max} \{ ( 1-m ),0 \}$, \\
\text{min} \{ ( 1+m ) ,1 \} & if \text{min} $\{ ( 1+m ),1 \} \leq \rho_{e_k}B^{\eta}_{e_k}$, \\
(\rho_{e_k}B^{\eta}_{e_k})^q & otherwise,
\end{dcases*}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $ m $ is a positive move-limit, $\eta$ is a numerical damping coefficient (usually $\eta = 1/2 $), q is a penalty factor to further achieve black-and-white typologies (typically $q = 2$ ) and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bisect}
\begin{aligned}
B_{e_k} = -\frac{\partial c(\rho)}{\partial \rho_e} \left( \lambda \frac{ \partial V(\rho)}{\partial \rho_e} \right )^{-1}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent is the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) optimality condition. The Lagrange multiplier $ \lambda $ is found using bisection method. The algorithm stops when maximum number of iterations is reached or when the change in the variable $||\rho _{e_{k+1}} - \rho_{e_k} ||_{\infty}$ and change in objective function $ |c_{k+1} - c_k | $ fall below a prescribed value.
The topology optimization pipeline's main bottleneck is the solution of the first constraint in Eq. \eqref{eq:topopt} which is typically calculated using finite element analysis (FEA). This stage entails two computationally demanding tasks: assembling the local element equations into a global system of equations and solving that resultant linear system.
These computationally expensive tasks may result in an unsustainable situation in terms of computing time and memory usage. This issue is more prominent when working with large-scale models \cite{papadrakakis2011new} or when the system response must be re-evaluated again and again, as in topology optimization. Iterative solvers and assembly-free techniques have been widely utilized to reduce FEA memory requirement at the expense of increasing the processing time of the solution step, which is usually eased by parallel computing. This is explained in the next section.
\section{Multigrid pre-conditioned approach}\label{sec:sec3}
\subsection{Pre-conditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) Method}
The equation to be solved in the optimization loop discussed earlier is of the form of:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lin_sys}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf K \bm u =\bm f
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent Efficient direct solution method involves cholesky or LU decomposition, where matrix $\mathbf K$ is decomposed into a lower triangular and an upper triangular matrix system and subsequently solved using forward and back substitution staying away from matrix inversion all throughout. However, for large systems, this is still prohibitive and inefficient especially when matrix $\mathbf K$ is very large and a sparse one \cite{davis2006direct}.
The conjugate gradient technique is a mathematical methodology for numerically solving system of linear equations, specifically those with positive-definite matrices. It essentially solves Eq. \eqref{eq:lin_sys} but as a minimization problem of the following alternate quadratic form:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cg_q}
\begin{aligned}
f(\bm x) = \frac{1}{2}\bm u^{T}\mathbf K \bm u - \bm u^{T} \bm f.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For positive definite system matrices (which is actually the case in many natural physical phenomena), the traditional Conjugate Gradient technique is the preferred iterative method \cite{hestenes1952methods}. It is used to minimize the functional $F(\bm{u})=\Vert \mathbf {K} \bm u- \bm f \Vert_{\mathbf {K}^{-1}}$ by multiplying the matrix vector just once in each iteration. As a matter of fact, this approach can theoretically arrive at the answer in less than $n$ iterations. In-fact the convergence rate can be given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:condn_0}
\begin{aligned}
\Vert \bm u- \bm u_k \Vert_{\mathbf K^{-1}} \leq \Vert \bm u - \bm u_0 \Vert_{\mathbf K^{-1}} \left( \frac{\sqrt{\kappa} -1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1} \right)^k
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\kappa$ is the matrix $\mathbf K$'s condition number, and $k$ is the number of iterations. It takes a long time for the system to reach convergence for $ \kappa > > 1$. Hence the original equation is usually modified for improved convergence by pre-multiplying both sides of Eq. \eqref{eq:lin_sys} by $\mathbf M^{-1}$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:condn_1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf {M^{-1}K} \bm u = \mathbf M^{-1}\bm f,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf M$ is a matrix or an operator such that $\kappa (\mathbf {M^{-1} K})<< \kappa (\mathbf K)$, and it is used to precondition the linear system in order to assure and accelerate convergence.
There is a minimal expense involved in building an effective preconditioner $(\mathbf M^{-1})$ and the condition number should be as near to unity as feasible and independent of the number $n$. Incomplete Cholesky factorization, diagonal scaling, and Factorized Sparse Approximate Inverses (FSAI) are examples of classical preconditioners that do not offer mesh-independent convergence rates. In this study, contemporary multilevel/multigrid approach which is numerically scalable is used instead (e.g., \cite{vassilevski2008multilevel}). The PCG algorithm is depicted in algorithm \ref{alg:PCG}.
\begin{algorithm}[ht!]
\caption{ Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient Method}
\label{alg:PCG}
\textbf{Initialization}: $ x_0 = 0, r_0 = b, z_0 = M^{-1}r_0 = 0, k=1, p_0 = z_0, \alpha_0 = r_0^Tr_0/(p_0^TAp_0) $\\
\While {$r_k^{T}r_k > $ tol} {
$k = k+1$ \\
$x_{k+1} = x_k + \alpha_kp_k$ \\
$r_{k+1} = r_k - \alpha_kAp_k$ \\
$z_{k+1} = M^{-1}r_{k+1} $\\
$ \beta_{k+1} = r_{k+1}^Tz_{k+1}/(r_kz_k) $\\
$p_{k+1} = z_{k+1} + \beta_{k+1}p_k$\\
$\alpha_{k+1} = r_{k+1}^T z_{k+1}/(p_{k+1}Ap_{k+1})$
}
\textbf{return $\bm x_{k+1}$}
\end{algorithm}
Multigrid Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (MGCG) method has been successfully used in the discretized finite element solution part to solve the state space equation. This high-efficiency iterative technique has been used for solving large-scale linear equation because of its highly efficient preconditioning technique, faster convergence and minimal computational effort involment and scalability. The multigrid method upon which the preconditioner is built is described below.
\subsection{Multigrid Method (MG)}
Solution of the linear system of equation $\mathbf K \bm u = \bm f$ by classical iterative scheme, is generally done by resolving $\mathbf K$ into matrices $\mathbf M$ and $\mathbf N$ with non-singular $\mathbf M$, such that $\mathbf K = \mathbf {M-N}$.
Thus,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MG_M_N}
\begin{split}
\mathbf M \bm{u} & = \mathbf N \bm{u} +\bm f \\
& \text{or} \\
\bm{u} & = \underbrace{\mathbf M^{-1}\mathbf N}_{S} \bm{u} + \mathbf M^{-1} \bm f
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Given an initial iterate $\bm u^{(0)}$, a fixed point iteration can be applied to this equation
\begin{equation}
\bm{u}^{(m+1)} = \mathbf S\bm{u}^{(m)} + \mathbf M^{-1} \bm f,\;\; m=0,1,2,3, \ldots
\end{equation}
This basic iterative approach might also be damped with damping coefficient $\omega$:
\begin{equation}
\bm{u}^{*} = \mathbf S \bm{u}^{(m)} + \mathbf M^{-1} f, \,\,\, \bm{u}^{(m+1)} = \omega \bm{u}^{*} + (1-\omega ) \bm{u}^{(m)}
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}
\bm u^{(m+1)}=(\omega \mathbf S+(1-\omega)\mathbb I) \bm u^{(m)}+\omega \mathbf M^{-1} \bm{f}
\end{equation}
If $\bm{u}$ is the actual solution of the original equation and $\bm{u}^{(m)}$ is the approximation computed using above, the error is denoted by,
\begin{equation}
\bm{e}^{(m)} = \bm{u} - \bm{u}^{(m)}
\end{equation}
and the residual is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:residual}
\bm{r}^{(m)} = \bm{f} - \mathbf A \bm{u}^{(m)}
\\ \Longrightarrow \mathbf A \bm{e}^{(m)} = \bm{r}^{(m)}
\end{equation}
When $ \mathbf M = \text{diag} (A) = D $ in Eq. \eqref{eq:MG_M_N}, a straightforward calculation can show that, the iterative solution is of the form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jacobi}
\begin{aligned}
\bm u^{(m+1)} = \bm u^{(m)} + D^{-1}\bm r^{(m)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This is known as the Jacobi method. With damping coefficient $\omega$, the damped Jacobi method can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm u^{(m+1)} = \bm u^{(m)} + \omega D^{-1}\bm r^{(m)}, \,\,\, \omega \in (0,1].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In multigrid (MG) methods, the residual calculation step (Eq.
\eqref{eq:residual}) is used for updating the current iterate $\bm u^{(m)}$. An approximation $\tilde{\bm e}^{(m)}$ of $\bm e^{(m)}$
is computed from Eq. \eqref{eq:jacobi} and the new iterate is given by $\bm u^{(m+1)} =\bm u^{(m)} + \tilde{\bm e}^{(m)}$.
Another important component of MG method is the grid transfer mechanism. A simple way for the same is depicted below in Fig \ref{fig:restr} in which a uniform refinement step consists of dividing in halves all intervals of domain $\Omega^{2h}$ in order to obtain the domain of $\Omega^h$.
Consequently, we solve $\mathbf K^h \bm u^h=\bm f^h,$ with $\bm u \in \Omega^h$. Projection of error from $\Omega^h$ to $\Omega^{2h}$ is called restriction (denoted by $ I_{h}^{2h})$ and that from $\Omega^{2h}$ to $\Omega^h$ is called prolongation or interpolation (denoted by $ I_{2h}^h)$
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width = 0.80\textwidth]{1_MG_Grid_trans_1.pdf}}\hspace{2mm
\caption{Coarse and fine grid}
\label{fig:coarse-fine-grid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width = 0.80\textwidth]{2_MG_Restriction_1.pdf}}\hspace{2mm
\caption{A simple restriction Operation }
\label{fig:restr}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width = 0.80\textwidth]{3_MG_Interpolation_1.pdf}}\hspace{2mm
\caption{Linear interpolation operation}
\label{fig:linint}
\end{figure}
The iterative single level methods (e.g Jacobi solution) can quickly reduce the high frequency components of the mistake, but it performs poorly for low frequency errors.
The MG technique is well known for being one of the most efficient strategies to enhance the convergence rate. The goal of MG is to build multiple grids at different scale (resolution) of discretization. Then, at each level, repeated relaxations are performed to reduce high-frequency errors on tiny grids and low-frequency errors on coarse grids.
A linear system can be solved with the help of MG at a cost of $O(n)$. Smoothing and coarse-grid correction are two complimentary procedures that work together to produce optimal performance. Gauss-Seidel or Jacobi stationary iterative methods are commonly used to smoothing out the solution and decreasing oscillation errors. The combination of smoothing, restriction, and prolongation works very well and results in converged solution. A simple two grid algorithm is depicted in algorithm \ref{alg:2grid}. This algorithm basically transfers the equation from fine grid of $\Omega^h$ domain to the two times coarser grid of $\Omega^{2h}$, solves it there and interpolates back to the finer grid.
The important question now, is the solution in coarser grid which is step 4 of algorithm 2. Looking carefully it is again essentially a linear system and can be solved in a manner we started solving in algorithm 2. This necessitates the repeated application of two-grid algorithm and gives rise to recursive hierarchical MultiGrid solution. This typical flow of processes is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:V-Cycle}, which is commonly known as V-cycle. The corresponding algorithm is written in algorithm \ref{alg:vgrid}. This approach splits the grids into multiple sizes and computes the precise answer only at the coarsest grid corresponding to the largest discretization size. In this multilayer mesh method, the finest mesh level is denoted by $l$ (level) = 1, whereas $l$ (level) = $L$ represents a coarser level as we can see in Fig. \ref{fig:multiscale}. This popular V-cycle method is utilized in this study. The combination of multigrid with conjugate gradient method simplifies the computational complexity of the problem significantly and its comparison with direct solver with number of degrees of freedom N is shown in Table \ref{tab:exp1_B2D}. Storage requirement as well as computational time is proportional to $N$ in mgcg but in direct solver it is $N\sqrt{N}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width = 0.50\textwidth]{4_V-Cycle.pdf}}\hspace{2mm
\caption{Multigrid levels from coarse to fine}
\label{fig:multiscale}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width = 0.50\textwidth]{5_V-Cycle_2.pdf}}\hspace{2mm}
\caption{Schematic diagram of V-cycle with various operations}
\label{fig:V-Cycle}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfigure[]
{
\includegraphics[width = 0.40\textwidth]{6_1_3_2_Single-Grid_Vs_Multigrid_1.pdf}}
\hspace{2mm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.40\textwidth]{6_2_3_2_Single-Grid_Vs_Multigrid_2.pdf}
\caption{(a) Single level (b) Multigrid Convergence}
\label{fig:Single_Grid Vs MultiGrid}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!hbt]
\centering
\caption{MGCG vs Direct Solver}
\label{tab:exp1_B2D}
\begin{tabular}{|p{4cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Criteria} & \textbf{MGCG} & \textbf{Direct Solver} \\
\hline
Memory & $N$ & $N\sqrt{N}$ \\
\hline
Computational Time & $N$ & $N\sqrt{N}$\\
\hline
Precision & Approximate & Precise\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{ Two-grid algorithm \textbf {u} = MG\textbf{(u, f, K, h, S)}}
\label{alg:2grid}
\textbf{Pre-smooth:} $\bm u^h = \bm {u}^h+\bm S^{-1} \bm (f^h - \mathbf K^h \bm u^h) \,\,\,\, \text{on} \,\,\, \Omega^h$ \\
\textbf{Residual:} Compute Residual $\bm r^h = \bm f^h - \mathbf K^h \bm u^h$ \\
\textbf {Restriction: } Projection of $\bm r^h$ to $\bm r^{2h} \text{ to } \Omega^{2h}$. $ \bm r^{2h} = I_h^{2h} \bm r^h$ \\
\textbf{Solution on coarse Grid:} solve on $\Omega^{2h}. \,\,\, \mathbf K ^{2h} \bm e^{2h} = \bm r^{2h}$\\
\textbf{Interpolation:} Projection of $e^{2h} \text{ to } \Omega^h. \,\,\, e^h = I_{2h}^h e^{2h} $ \\
\textbf{Update:} $\bm u^h = \bm u^h + \bm e^h$ \\
\textbf{Post-smooth:} $\bm u^h = \bm {u}^h+\bm S^{-1} \bm (f^h - \mathbf K^h \bm u^h) \,\,\,\, \text{on} \,\,\, \Omega^h$ \\
\textbf{return:} $\bm u $ \\
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[ht!]
\caption{ Multigrid Method with V-cycle $u^h \leftarrow MG_v(u^h,f^h, S, h ) $ of equation $\mathbf K^h \bm u^h = \bm f^h$}
\label{alg:vgrid}
\textbf{Pre-smoothing}: $\bm u^h = \bm {u}^h+\bm S^{-1} \bm (f^h - \mathbf K^h \bm u^h) \,\,\,\, \text{on} \,\,\, \Omega^h$ \\
\uIf{$\Omega^h $ is the coarsest grid}{Solve the problem directly}
\Else{Restrict to next coarser grid: $ \bm r^{2h} = \mathbf I_h^{2h} ( \bm f^h - \mathbf K^h \bm u^h)$ \\
Set initial iterate on next coarser grid: $\bm u^{2h} = 0 $\\
Call the V-cycle scheme one time for next coarser grid: $\bm u^{2h} \leftarrow MG_v(\bm u^{2h} ,\bm f^{2h})$}
\textbf{Prolongation correction}: $\bm u^h = \bm u^h + \mathbf I_{2h}^h \bm u^{2h} $ \\
\textbf{Post smoothing}: $\bm u^h = \bm {u}^h+\bm S^{-1} \bm (f^h - \mathbf K^h \bm u^h) \,\,\,\, \text{on} \,\,\, \Omega^h$ \\
\textbf{Return}: $\bm u $\\
\end{algorithm}
\section{GPU implementation of SIMP method}\label{sec:GPU_impl}
MG techniques, although relatively efficient, also suffers from the curse-of-dimensionality; this is particularly true when dealing with real-life systems having millions of degree-of-freedom. In this section, we propose a hybrid implementation of the SIMP method that exploits both GPU and MPI programming. We first discuss the CUDA architecture for GPU implementation followed by the proposed framework.
\subsection {CUDA Architecture}
GPUs were created to meet the market's need of fast and realistic 3D rendering in real time. Their tremendous computational capability at a reasonable cost is making them increasingly attractive in non-graphics HPC applications. The schematic diagram of a modern turing architecture GPU in depicted in figure \ref{fig:GPU Architecture}(a) and \ref{fig:GPU Architecture}(b) below. Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA), a programming paradigm developed by Nvidia, is currently the most widely used GPU programming model. So-called data-parallel computing (data/SIMD parallelism) can be performed on the GPU by leveraging several processor cores. ``Kernel'', a C Language Extension function, is used to run the parallel code (one instruction, multiple data). According to, the kernel call should indicate the number of CUDA threads structured as a grid of thread blocks, as seen in figure \ref{fig:GPU Architecture}(a) \cite{NvidagpuGduide113}. The software level hierarchy is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:GPU Architecture}(c) \cite{NvidagpuGduide113}.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
{
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 0.60\textwidth]{7_1_CUDA_GPU_Architecture_Turing_1.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width = 0.29\textwidth]{7_2_CUDA_GPU_Architecture_Turing_2.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.80\textwidth]{7_3_4_1_CUDA_Arch_NVIDIA.pdf}}\hspace{2mm}
\caption{CUDA GPU Architecture}
\label{fig:GPU Architecture}
}
\end{figure}
The CUDA Architecture consists of numerous components (Fig. \ref{fig:GPU Architecture}), including (i) NVIDIA GPU's Parallel computation Engines (computation blocks), (ii) OS hardware initialization support, (iii) Kernel-level support, (iv) User mode driver providing developers with a device level API, (v) Set of parallel computing functions and functions via PTX instruction architecture (ISA). We exploit first four feature in the implementation strategy described below.
\subsection{Hybrid Topology Optimization Framework}
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{ Topology Optimization (Eq. \eqref{eq:topopt}), \\Given data: design domain geometry and discretization (\text{ nelx, nely, nelz}), loading ($\bm f$ )and boundary condition ($\text{fixeddofs}$), target volume fraction}
\label{alg:simp}
\textbf{Initialize}: Initialization of empirical parameters $ \bm \rho, p, r, m, \eta, \text{ch}=1, k=0 $ \\
\textbf{Stiffness Matrix}: Compute $\mathbf K_0$ \\
\textbf{Prepare filter}: Compute $\bm w$ \Comment*[r]{Eq. \ref{eq:Neighbourhood}, \ref{eq:NB_dist}}
\While{\text{ch} > 0.01}
{
Compute modified stiffness $\mathbf K_e $ \Comment*[r]{Eq. \ref{eq:K_mod}}
Direct solve for $\bm u \text{ in } \mathbf K_e \bm u = \bm f $ \\
Sensitivity computation $\frac{\partial c}{\partial \bm \rho}$ \Comment*[r]{Eq. \ref{eq:sensitivity}}
Filtering of sensitivities \Comment*[r]{Eq. \ref{eq:sensitivity filter}}
Update $\bm \rho_{k+1} $ from $\bm \rho_{k} $ \Comment*[r]{Eq. \ref{eq:OCUp1}, \ref{eq:bisect}}
$k=k+1$ \Comment*[r]{loop count}
}
\textbf{Return}: The final $\bm \rho$ and visualization\\
\end{algorithm}
We revisit the standard topology optimization algorithm using SIMP method (Algorithm \ref{alg:simp}). We note that step 6 corresponds to majority of the computational cost. One obvious solution is to leverage the powerful CUDA platform. However, CUDA has limited memory and hence, shifting the computation to CUDA will compromise the scalability of the algorithm. To address this issue, we propose a computing framework that leverage the strength of both GPU and Open Multi-Processing using CPU cores.
The proposed topology optimization framework has multiple components. First and foremost, we replace the direct solver in step 6 of Algorithm \ref{alg:simp} with Multigrid preconditioned conjugate gradient (MGCG) \cite{amir2014multigrid}.
To further optimize the process, the MGCG solver's computation has been offloaded to GPU's highly efficient computational architecture. A 3-Dimensional MATLAB code for MGCG-based minimal compliance topology optimization has been developed here using the density based SIMP formulation. The computational intensive linear equation solver part in redesign loop of topology optimization is written in CUDA C language and compiled using NVIDIA nvcc compiler and called from MATLAB backbone using it's mex function capability. It is worthwhile to mention that the program developed utilizes both GPU and CPU cores. To be specific, the computationally expensive operations like matrix multiplication and matrix inversions are carried out using GPU. For clarity of the readers, the broad framework fo the proposed approach is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:topopt_flowchart}. The beauty of the developed framework is that the mex function call can be used as a black box to solve any linear system of equations of the form $\mathbf K \bm u =\bm f $ in cartesian discretization with 8-noded brick elements. Subsequently, it can be trivially incorporated within other topology optimization algorithms as well.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{8_1_Flowchart.pdf}}\hspace{2mm}
\caption{Topology Optimization Framework}
\label{fig:topopt_flowchart}
\end{figure}
Next, we shift our focus to the MGCG algorithm within the proposed algorithm. Although MGCG is significantly efficient as compared to a direct solver, it still accounts for majority of the computational cost. To accelerate this step, we divide it into two parts as shown in figure \ref{fig:MGCG-V-Cycle}; the first one corresponds to the conjugate gradient loop and the second one corresponds to the multigrid preconditioning inside the conjugate gradient loop.
Preconditioning enhances the convergence rat and multigrid based preconditioning improves overall stability of the algorithm. The MATLAB code calls the compiled MGCG CUDA code using the mex function capability. Also, the main loop of MGCG algorithm is controlled on CPU memory. But the important variables are synchronized to GPU memory as well because the matrix multiplications and additions in steps 2 to 9 of MGCG algorithm in Fig. \ref{fig:MGCG-V-Cycle} are to be carried out in GPU in an heavily multithreaded environment. The addition and subtraction operation of step 3 and 4 can be carried out in CPU only as these don't require huge multithreading. But flow of data from GPU device memory to host CPU memory adds time to overall process making it little less efficient. Hence these are also carried out in GPU. Similarly the main loop of multigrid V-cycle (which is basically step 6 of MGCG main loop) is controlled in CPU which then subsequently calls GPU kernel functions for the operations in steps 1 to 7 etc.
Although GPU multithreading is highly recommended, sometimes unavailability of NVIDIA GPU or incompatibility issue prevent from execution of task. Hence two separate functions are developed, one is TopOptMGCGOMP which is a purely CPU multi-threaded version (with no GPU related hardware and software requirement), and it utilizes open-source Open Multi-Processing(OpenMP) package to implement efficient CPU multi-threading. Another one is the hybrid TopOptCUDA version, which uses NVIDIA GPU using CUDA development package and CPU. Efficiency of both versions depend upon the relative strength of the CPU and GPU pair and numerical comparison between both the parts are given in section 5. The challenge in the CUDA version is that although GPU's have tremendous multithreading potential it's native memory storage is quite limited and if it has to access data from host CPU memory, a significant time is spent on data transfer from CPU to GPU readable memory. Hence effective strategy has been developed to store as little data as possible in GPU memory without hindering the computation itself. This is described in Section 4.2.1. Also a simple homogenization technique is shown to facilitate further significant reduction in storage requirement in Section 4.2.2.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{9_2_Flowchart.pdf}}\hspace{2mm}
\caption{CUDA (MGCG) Framework}
\label{fig:MGCG-V-Cycle}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Use of local stiffness Matrix for various computation}
Instead of using assembled stiffness matrix for each and every computation, majority of the computation has been done with local stiffness matrices. This essentially saves precious GPU memory used for extremely fast computation. Each node inside of design domain is common to 8 elements, so sum of density times local stiffness matrices of these 8 elements gives the value equal to global stiffness value of that node. This strategy helps to perform nodal computations of all matrix and vector product and addition without explicit storage of global assembled matrices. In previous two subsections while calculating residue for each iteration in MGCG similar strategy can be seen to be in use. Although this increases number of floating point operation by roughly two times this technique decreases memory consumption significantly.
\subsubsection {Homogenization Strategy}
To optimize the memory requirement, we utilize the well-known homogenization strategy. This is a simple yet effective technique to further optimize memory requirements. Traditionally while moving from a fine grid for the equation to coarse grid in V-cycle, restriction operation is used on $\bm f$ and $\mathbf K$ for transformation $\bm f^{2h} = \mathbf I_h^{2h} \bm f^h$ as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:linint}. The restriction operation is generally a Galerkin approximation given by equation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf I_h^{2h} = \frac{1}{4}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 2 & 1 & & & \\
& 1 & 2 & 1 & & \\
& & 1 & 2 & 1 & \\
& & & ... & & \\
& & & & ... & \\
& & & 1 & 2 & 1
\end{bmatrix},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf K^{2h} = \mathbf I_h^{2h} \mathbf K^h \mathbf I_{2h}^h.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This type of restriction leads to storage of local element stiffness matrices at coarser level. One one hand this eliminates the need for on-the-fly computation; however, the memory requirement increases. To reduce the memory requirement, we employ a homogenization scheme where we density of the coarse element is computed as mean of density values of eight neighboring elements at the finer level; this enables on-the-fly computation of the local stiffness matrix and reduces the need for storage.
\subsubsection {Memory}
Suppose a structural design domain has $n$ degrees of freedom. Referring to MGCG algorithm in Fig. \ref{fig:MGCG-V-Cycle}, the memory cost of the GPU can be divided into two parts; one corresponding to storage requirement in the preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) loop and the other part is in the V-cycle. There are four unique variables ($P, Q(=AP), R \text{ and } Z)$ in the PCG iterations and five others in the V-cycle iterations. Each of these variables are of dimension $n \times 1$. So the total storage comes out to be $4n + 5n = 9n$. But in the V-cycle loop, the variables are also required to be stored in in each successive coarser levels each having $1/8$ times the size of previous finer level. Thus, the storage requirement due to the V-cycle part can be increased by $20 \%$ and hence, the total storage requirement is $4n + 1.2 \times 5n = 10n$. For clarity of readers, the above calculation is summarized in Table \ref{tab:GPU_variables}.
\begin{table}[!hbt]
\centering
\caption{Storage requirement in GPU memory}
\label{tab:GPU_variables}
\begin{tabular}{|p{2cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|p{2cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Loop} & \textbf{Vectors} & \textbf{Dimension of each vector} & \textbf{Sub Total} \\
\hline
PCG & $ P, Q, R, Z $ & $n\times 1$ & 4n\\
\hline
V-cycle & $U, F, R, CX, AD $ & $n\times 1$ & 5n\\
\hline \hline
\textbf{Total} & \multicolumn{3}{r|}{$4n + 1.2 \times 5n = 10n$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To further illustrate the memory requirement, we consider a structural system having 100 millions degrees of freedom. We further assume that each variable has double precision. With this setup, the storage requirement will be approximately equal to $100 \times 10^ 6 \times 10 \times 8 \,\,\, bytes = 8 \text{GB}$.
Decreasing the precision will even increase the capability of solving bigger size problems. Even with double precision it is quite modest considering 100 million elements can be fit into a standard desktop GPU having 8GB of memory these days.
\section{Numerical Experiments}\label{sec:Nu_Ex}
In this section, we present four numerical examples to illustrate the efficacy and robustness of the proposed approach. The examples are arranged in the increasing order of complexity and involves real-life scenarios such as bridges, buildings, and design dependent loading. We compare the results obtained with those obtained using the state-of-the-art topology optimization algorithms currently available (TOP3D125 and GPU based topology optimization code \cite{wu2015system}). Computational time, no. of iterations, and average memory required have been considered as comparison metrics. Finally, to illustrate the versatility of the proposed approach, the developed topology optimization framework is tested on three computational environment: (a) standard GPU workstation with 8GB VRAM (System 1), (b) old GPU workstation with 2GB VRAM (System 2), and (c) regular GPU laptop with 4GB VRAM (System 3). The detailed specifications of the computational environmental is described in the appendix.
\subsection{Example 1: 3D cantilever beam}
As the first example, we consider a 3D cantilever beam subjected to line load $q$. The loading, boundary condition and design domain are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:cant_loading}. As already stated, the objective here is to minimize the structural compliance. We consider two separate cases, one where the design domain is discretized into $64 \times 32 \times 32$ elements and another where the design domain is discretized into $128 \times 64 \times 64$ elements. Subsequently, the two cases have $65,536$ and $524,288$ design variables.
Fig. \ref{fig:cant_loading} (b) and (c) show the optimal topology obtained using the method proposed in \cite{ferrari2020new} and the proposed approach for grid size of $64 \times 32 \times 32$. We observe that the results obtained using the proposed approach matches exactly with that obtained using \cite{ferrari2020new}; this essentially validates the accuracy of the proposed approach. For illustrating the efficiency of the proposed approach, we compare the computationally efficiency and memory requirements.
Table \ref{tab:com_sys1} depicts the comparison of the proposed approach with the state-of-the-art topology optimization framework proposed in \cite{ferrari2020new}. Additionally we show the computational gain achieved by including only multigrid preconditioned iterative solver (TOP3D125MGCG), multigrid preconditioned iterative solver parallelized using OMP (TOP3D125MGCGOMP), and multigrid preconditioned iterative solver parallelized using GPU and CUDA (TOP3D125MGCGCUDA). We observe that TOP3D125MGCGCUDA on the standard workstation is approximately 45 times faster as compared to the optimized code presented in \cite{ferrari2020new}. As compared the OMP version of the code, the CUDA version proposed is about 3 times faster. The gain in computational memory is even more significant with the proposed approach. While the TOP3D125 \cite{ferrari2020new} requires 15.08 GB memory, the proposed TOP3DMGCGOMP and TOP3DMGCGCUDA require only 3.27, 2.60, and 2.03 GB memory only. It is noteworthy to mention that the memory for TOP3DMGCGCUDA represents GPU memory. The advantage of the proposed framework becomes more prominent for grid size of $128 \times 64 \times 64$. The state-of-art Top125 fails in this case due to huge memory requirement. The MGCG based frameworks, one the other hand, yields satisfactory results with minimal increase in the memory requirements. The CUDA based framework is approximately 2 times and 1.5 times faster as compared to TOP3D125MGCG and TOP3D125MGCGOMP, respectively. Similar observations can be found when run on systems 2 and 3 respectively (Fig. \ref{fig:cant_conv}).
Finally, to illustrate the scalability of the proposed GPU based framework, we conduct a case study by varying the number of degrees of freedom of the system (achieved by varying the discretization). We compare TOP3D125MGCG and TOP125MGCGCUDA. It is observed that both memory and time per iteration required for the proposed CUDA based topology optimization framework increases at a much slower rate as compared to the MGCG version. This indicates the superior scalability of the proposed approach.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.25\textwidth]{10_1_6_1_1_1.pdf}}
\hspace{8mm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.25\textwidth]{10_2_6_1_1_2.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.3\textwidth]{10_3_6_1_1_2_obtained.pdf}}
\caption{(a) Cantilever Beam Problem Description (b) Result obtained from \cite{ferrari2020new} (c) Result obtained from our code for 64x32x32 discretization}
\label{fig:cant_loading}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of performance of various codes in system 1}
\label{tab:com_sys1}
\begin{tabular}{|p{4.5cm}|p{3cm}|p{2cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Code} & \textbf{Discretization} & \textbf{Time per iteration} & \textbf{Memory requirement (GB) } & \textbf{No of iterations to converge} \\
\hline
TOP3D125 & 64x32x32 & 44.7s & 15.08 & 64\\
\hline
TOP3D125MGCG & 64x32x32 & 6.4s & 3.27 & 64\\
\hline
TOP3D125MGCGOMP & 64x32x32 & 2.6s & 2.60 & 64\\
\hline
TOP3D125MGCGCUDA & 64x32x32 & 1.0s & 0.04 (2.03) & 64\\
\hline
TOP3D125 & 128x64x64 & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Out of memory}\\
\hline
TOP3D125MGCG & 128x64x64 & 44.9 & 3.98 & 49\\
\hline
TOP3D125MGCGOMP & 128x64x64 & 33.8s & 2.35 & 49\\
\hline
TOP3D125MGCGCUDA & 128x64x64 & 21.3s & 0.414 (2.79) & 49\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{11_1_6_1_1_convergence_of_objective_tight.pdf}}
\hspace{2mm
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{11_2_6_1_2_time_of_iter_tight.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{11_3_6_1_3_time_of_iter_K620_tight.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{11_4_6_1_4_time_of_iter_3_sys_tight.pdf}}
\caption{(a) Cantilever Beam (64 x 32 x 32) Convergence of objective function (b) Time of iterations in system 1 (c) Time of iterations in system 2 (d) Comparison of CUDA codes in 3 systems}
\label{fig:cant_conv}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.46\textwidth]{12_1_6_Memory_vs_ndof.pdf}}
\hspace{0.1mm
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.47\textwidth]{12_2_6_Time_vs_ndof.pdf}}
\caption{Memory and time of computation comparison}
\label{fig:time-memo-comp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example 2: Arch Bridge}
As the second example, we illustrate the performance of the developed framework on passive void and passive solid region within design domain to obtain bridge like shapes similar to \cite{xie2014application}. Similar to previous example, we study two different cases. In the first case, we consider a $140m \times 10m \times 20m$ design domain. The top layer having $1.5m$ thickness is considered as passive solid region (non-design domain) as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Arch_1}(a). Similarly, at the midway of $140m$ length a small void region of thickness $1m$ is treated as passive void. Boundary conditions and loading include simple support at four bottom corners and an uniformly distributed load (UDL) of $100 N/m^2$ on the top surface.
A discretization of $448 \times 32 \times 64$ is considered with a target volume fraction of 0.14. The resultant shape of compliance minimization problem is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Arch_1}(c). The output is an arch bridge whereas an easy guess could be that of a bench kind of shape.
Compared to the output from \cite{xie2014application}, our result looks mostly similar; this validates the accuracy of the proposed approach for this problem.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\textwidth]{13_1_6_1_2_1.pdf}}
\hspace{8mm
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.4\textwidth]{13_2_6_1_2_2.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.4\textwidth]{13_3_6_1_2_2_obtained.pdf}}
\caption{Arch Bridge Example (a) Problem Definition (b) Initial Guess and solution from BESO (c) Solution from our code}
\label{fig:Arch_1}
\end{figure}
A second similar case is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Arch_2} where the span of the design domain is $40m$. Carriageway width and height are respectively $10m$ and $20.6m$. At the mid-height, a non-designable (passive solid) layer of 0.6m thick is considered corresponding to the deck of the bridge. Also just above it, a void region of $40m \times 8.8m \times 10m$ is considered corresponding to space required for vehicular passage. The uniformly distributed loading on the deck and the boundary conditions are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Arch_2}(a). The optimization is carried out with using a discretization of $256 \times 64 \times 128$ which accumulates to around 2 millions 8-noded 3D elements. The final shape after 49 iterations comes out to be an arch bridge as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Arch_2}(c).
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\textwidth]{14_1_6_1_2_3.pdf}}
\hspace{8mm
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\textwidth]{14_2_6_1_2_3_obtained.pdf}}
\caption{Arch Bridge Example (configuration 2) (a) Problem Description (b) Minimum Compliance design}
\label{fig:Arch_2}
\end{figure}
The summary of computing time and memory requirement of two type of arch bridges described above is summarized in Table \ref{tab:arch_bridge}. We observe that the proposed hybrid topology optimization framework is highly efficient both in terms of computational efficiency (26.27 and 224.18 s per iteration) and computational memory (0.486 GB and 1.14 GB) and can run even on a old system with 2 GB GPU memory.
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\centering
\caption{Arch Bridge analysis details}
\label{tab:arch_bridge}
\begin{tabular}{|p{4cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Design domain dimension} & \textbf{Discretization} & \textbf{Total no. of iterations} & \textbf{Time per iteration} & \textbf{Avg. memory} \\
\hline
140m $\times$ 10m $\times $ 20m & 448 $\times$ 32 $\times $ 64 & 57 & 26.27 s & 0.486 GB\\
\hline
40m $\times$ 10m $\times $ 20m & 256 $\times$ 64 $\times $ 128 & 49 & 224.18 s & 1.14 GB\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Example 3: High Rise Building}
In this example, a high rise tall building has been analyzed. The building is acted upon by the wind loading and the lateral load resisting frame system is to be obtained from minimization of compliance. The plan dimension of the building is $64m \times 64m$. The height to plan dimension ration $H/B = 4$. For simplicity, the base of the building is kept fixed and a constant magnitude of lateral loading is applied at all floor levels across the elevation of the building on one side of the building. A similar work is recently reported in \cite{cascone2021stress} in which the authors have obtained a diagrid pattern (Fig. \ref{fig:High_rise} (c)) of eccentric bracing system by aligning material along principal stress directions.
In our experiment, a discretization of $64 \times$ 64 $\times 256$ is considered. Subsequently, we have over 1 million design variables. The core of the building is kept hollow\footnote{for numerical stability, we consider a very small stiffness of $1/10^6$ }. A bracing system similar to \cite{cascone2021stress} has been obtained corresponding to a volume fraction of 0.12 in the active perimeter region. As for computational time, the proposed approach takes around 33s per iteration and 64 iteration to yield converged solutions. As for computational memory, the proposed approach require only 0.71 GB of GPU memory. The final optimized configuration is shown in Fig \ref{fig:High_rise}.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.2\textwidth]{15_1_6_1_3_1.pdf}}
\hspace{2mm
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.3\textwidth]{15_2_6_1_3_2.pdf}}
\hspace{2mm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.3\textwidth]{15_3_6_1_3_3.pdf}}
\hspace{2mm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.1\textwidth]{15_4_6_1_3_3_obtained_2D.pdf}}
\hspace{2mm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.1\textwidth]{15_5_6_1_3_3_obtained_3D.pdf}}
\hspace{2mm}
\caption{High Rise Building: (a) Problem Description \cite{cascone2021stress} (b) Concept Design of real world transit bay tower \cite{sarkisian2010organic} (c) Various Principal stress inspired Design from \cite{cascone2021stress} (d) Our 2D designs (e) 3D design}
\label{fig:High_rise}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example 4: Foot Bridge}
As the fourth example, we optimize a foot bridge for gravity loading. Since gravity load is dependent on the amount of material present, the load varies with each iteration and complicates the optimization process. Subsequently, higher number of iterations is necessary to achieve converged solution. The design domain for the problem is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:foot_bridge}(a) wherein gray parallelepiped whose surface is the passive void region and internal light green tube is passive solid region. Dark blue layer represents the active region. Gravity loading proportional to volume of active and passive solid is applied in each optimization iteration and support structure for the tubular passage is obtained. A discretization of 1152 $\times $ 64 $\times$ 256 (which is around 58 millions of elements) is considered and optimization is carried out for a target volume fraction of 0.125 in the support structure region. The optimized configuration obtained using the proposed approach is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:foot_bridge}(b). We observe that the pattern is almost similar to an actual solution from literature \cite{xie2014application}. Overall the proposed approach converges in 49 iterations and requires 3.924 GB GPU memory as detailed in Table \ref{tab:foot_bridge}.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{16_1_Crosswalk_2.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{16_2_Copy_CW_53_iters.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.9\textwidth]{16_3_crosswalk_lit.pdf}}
\hspace{2mm
\caption{(a) Design Domain highlight(b) Optimized support system for the foot bridge obtained (c)Solution from literature \cite{xie2014application}}
\label{fig:foot_bridge}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\centering
\caption{Foot Bridge analysis details}
\label{tab:foot_bridge}
\begin{tabular}{|p{4cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Design domain dimension} & \textbf{Discretization} & \textbf{Total no. of iterations} & \textbf{Time per iteration} & \textbf{Avg. memory} \\
\hline
180m $\times$ 10m $\times $ 40m & 1152 $\times $ 64 $\times$ 256 & 49 & 2850 s & 3.924 GB\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Homogenization enhanced hybrid topology optimization approach}
In the previous section, we illustrated the performance of the proposed approach in solving four topology optimization problems. While we illustrated the efficacy of the proposed approach, it was observed that the proposed framework has memory cost in Gigabytes (GB) to the GPU which may restrict the applicability of the method to realistic scenarios. One way to address this issue is to introduce a homogenization step in the interpolation phase (from coarser to finer grid) of the V-cycle \cite{alcouffe1981multi,hoekema1998multigrid}. The basic idea here is to represent the density of an element by computing the average value of eight finer elements; this reduces the storage requirement of stiffness matrices of each element in the coarser grids in the V-cycle part of the algorithm. Thus, this method is seen to perform significant better in memory cost to GPU and has improved convergence. The comparison of memory requirements in a benchmark cantilever beam is summarized in Table \ref{tab:homogenization}. We observe that the use of homogenization reduces the memory requirement by 40-50$ \% $ depending on the problem size and other factors.
\begin{table}[!hbt]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of performance of homogenized multigrid approach}
\label{tab:homogenization}
\begin{tabular}{|p{4cm}|p{3cm}|p{2cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Algorithm} & \textbf{Discretization} & \textbf{Time per iteration} & \textbf{Memory (avg. in iteration)} & \textbf{No of iterations to converge} \\
\hline
2015 and 2017 GPU TO approach \cite{wu2015system} & 64x32x32 & 1s & 40 MB & 64\\
\hline
Our Homogenized MG Code & 64x32x32 & 3s & 19 MB & 64\\
\hline
2015 and 2017 GPU TO approach \cite{wu2015system} & 128x64x64 & 21.6s & 414 MB & 49\\
\hline
Our Homogenized MG Code & 128x64x64 & 22.4s & 243 MB & 49\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Finally, we consider a high-rise building problem having plan area of $54m \times 54m$. The height of the building is $162m$. The objective here is to illustrate the capability of the proposed algorithm in solving a highly heterogeneous system. We have considered the system to be subjected to parabolic loading profile \cite{cascone2021stress}. We consider the floors to be of concrete with Elastic modulus of 25000 MPa. The objective here is to minimize the structural compliance; however, unlike the previous examples, we keep a track on on the maximum top story drift following the Eurocode for building \cite{standard2010eurocode,standard2004eurocode}. The analysis of this structure is carried to calculate displacement subjected to the lateral loading. Table \ref{tab:homogenization_comp} summarizes the performance of standard Galerkin scheme and homogenization based scheme on this system. We observe that the homogenization approach has around 43\% less cost to GPU memory and its iterations takes less time due to faster convergence of the MGCG iterations per each optimization redesign loop. The optimized topology obtained is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Tall_B_Homo}. We observe that the top floor drift for the optimized configuration is 0.026m which is significantly lower than the allowed threshold.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width = 0.15\textwidth]{17_Tall_Building_floors.pdf}}
\caption{Optimized configuration for the high-rise building problem}
\label{fig:Tall_B_Homo}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\centering
\caption{Homogenization approach on high rise building}
\label{tab:homogenization_comp}
\begin{tabular}{|p{4cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Approach} & \textbf{Discretization} & \textbf{Total no. of iterations} & \textbf{Time per iteration} & \textbf{Avg. memory} \\
\hline
Standard (Galerkin) & 64 $\times $ 64 $\times$ 320 & 84 & 102.58 s & 1.08 GB\\
\hline
Homogenization & 64 $\times $ 64 $\times$ 320 & 81 & 86.37 s & 0.62 GB\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:Conl}
In this work, we have proposed a new GPU enhanced hybrid topology optimization framework for structural compliance minimization. The proposed approach replaces the primary bottleneck associated with direct solution of state space system with an efficient mutltigrid conjugate gradient method. The proposed approach utilizes both CPU and GPU; in specific, all tedious arithmetic computations have been shifted to the highly multithreaded cores of modern GPU based on CUDA architecture. Additionally, we have utilized a simple homogenization scheme within the proposed approach that drastically reduces the memory requirement and improves the computational efficiency. Overall, the proposed approach is highly efficient and easily scales to systems having millions of degree of freedoms.
Two version of our framework has been developed and implemented - one for CUDA GPU based system (TOP3D125CUDA) and another for purely CPU system (TOP3D125OMP). Several examples are solved to illustrate the performance of the proposed approach. In a standard cantilever beam benchmark problem, our CUDA based algorithm is about two times faster and consumes 7-8 times lower memory compared to contemporary efficient implementation. Similarly the OMP version is also 1.5 times faster, although it consumes similar memory compared to the state-of-the-art implementations. It is worthwhile to note that the increased efficiency is achieved without any compromise in the accuracy. One of the primary feature of the proposed approach is its scalability. It easily scales to millions of degrees of freedom. The proposed framework consumes only 1.1 GB of GPU memory and computational time of around 4 minutes for solving the arch-bridge problem having over 2 million degrees of freedom. Additionally a further extension of our algorithm to incorporate a homogenization scheme is shown to reduce the memory requirement by around 40-50\% in the cantilever benchmark problem. Also with homogenization approach in place a rough calculation shows that a system with 100 millions of 3D elements can fit into the memory of a standard 8GB GPU for analysis. Faster convergence of the homogenization approach in the high rise building having high heterogeneity has also been demonstrated. Overall our framework produced excellent results across various examples with significant efficiency in computation and memory requirement.
Despite the excellent performance, the proposed framework has certain limitations. Firstly, in its current form, the proposed framework is applicable to structured mesh. For unstructured mesh, an additional step involving dividing the problem domain into sub-regions having similar discretization is necessary. Secondly, the developed CUDA based framework will only work with NVIDIA GPUs. This is not a significant limitation when one considers the fact that NVIDIA currently has over 77\% \cite {otterness2020amd} market share. Also, the developed OMP version of the framework is universal and will work on any windows based system. In future, some of these limitations will be addressed.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge the financial support received from IIT Rookee in form of MHRD, Govt. Of India, fellowship.
\section*{Conflict of interests} The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
\section*{Replication of results} Matlab codes as well as the dependent CUDA C routines for the examples shown in this work will be available freely in GitHub once the paper is accepted.
|
\section{Introduction}
There are many measures for how far a given permutation $w\in S_n$ is from being the identity. The most classical are length and reflection length, which are defined as follows. Let $s_i$ denote the adjacent transposition $s_i=(i\,\,i+1)$ and $t_{ij}$ the transposition $t_{ij}=(i\,\,j)$. The {\bf length} of $w$, denoted $\ell(w)$, is the smallest integer $\ell$ such that there exist indices $i_1,\ldots,i_\ell$ with $w=s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_\ell}$. It is classically known that the length of $w$ is equal to the number of inversions of $w$; an {\bf inversion} is a pair $(a,b)$ such that $a<b$ but $w(a)>w(b)$. The {\bf reflection length} of $w$, which we will denote $\ell_T(w)$, is the smallest integer $r$ such that there exist indices $i_1,\ldots,i_r$ and $j_1,\ldots,j_r$ with $w=t_{i_1j_1}\cdots t_{i_rj_r}$. It is classically known that $\ell_T(w)$ is equal to $n-\cyc(w)$, where $\cyc(w)$ denotes the number of cycles in the cycle decomposition of $w$.
Another such measure is {\bf total displacement}, defined by Knuth~\cite{KnuAOCP} as $\td(w)=\sum_{i=1}^n |w(i)-i|$ and first studied by Diaconis and Graham~\cite{DG} under the name Spearman's disarray. Diaconis and Graham showed that $\ell(w)+\ell_T(w)\leq\td(w)$ for all permutations $w$ and asked for a characterization of those permutations for which equality holds. More recently, Petersen and Tenner~\cite{PT} defined a statistic they call {\bf depth} on arbitrary Coxeter groups and showed that, for any permutation, its total displacement is always twice its depth. Following their terminology, we call the permutations for which the Diaconis--Graham bound is an equality the {\bf shallow} permutations.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\cyclefig{7,5,6,3,4,2,1}
\caption{\label{diag:7563421}Knot diagram for $w=7563421$}
\end{figure}
In a recent paper, Cornwell and McNew~\cite{CM} interpreted the cycle diagram of a permutation as a knot diagram and studied the permutations whose corresponding knots are the trivial knot or the trivial link. Given a permutation $w$, to obtain the {\bf cycle diagram}, draw a horizontal line between the points $(i,i)$ and $(w^{-1}(i),i)$ for each $i$ and a vertical line between $(j,j)$ and $(j,w(j))$ for each $j$. Turn the cycle diagram into a {\bf knot diagram} by designating every vertical line to cross over any horizontal line it meets. For example, Figure~\ref{diag:7563421} shows the knot diagram for $w=7563421$. They say that a permutation is {\bf unlinked} if the knot diagram of the permutation is a diagram for the unlink, a collection of circles embedded trivially in $\mathbb{R}^3$. In their paper, they mainly consider derangements, but it is easy to modify their definitions to consider all permutations by treating each fixed point as a tiny unknotted loop.
Our main result is the following:
\begin{thm}
A permutation is shallow if and only if it is unlinked.
\end{thm}
Readers can check that Figure~\ref{diag:7563421} shows that the diagram of $w=7563421$ is a diagram of the unlink with 2 components, and $\ell(w)=19$, $\ell_T(w)=5$, and $\td(w)=24$, so $\ell(w)+\ell_T(w)=\td(w)$.
Using this theorem and further results of Cornwell and McNew~\cite[Theorem 6.5]{CM}, we obtain a generating function counting shallow permutations. Let $P$ be the set of shallow permutations, and let
$$G(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{P\cap S_n} x^n.$$ Then $G$ satisfies the following recurrence.
\begin{cor}
The generating function $G$ satisfies the following recurrence:
$$x^2G^3 + (x^2 - 3x + 1)G^2 + (3x-2)G + 1 =0.$$
\end{cor}
This is sequence A301897 (defined as the number of shallow permutations) in the OEIS~\cite{OEIS}.
While this paper was being prepared, Berman and Tenner~\cite{BM21} gave another characterization of shallow cycles that could also be compared with the work of Cornwell and McNew to give our results.
Our proof relies on a recursive description of the set of unlinked permutations due to Cornwell and McNew and a different recursive description of the set of shallow permutations due to Hadjicostas and Monico~\cite{HM}. We show by induction that all permutations satisfying the description of Cornwell and McNew are shallow and separately that all permutations satisfying the description of Hadjicostas and Monico are unlinked.
The shallow permutations have another surprising connection not previously noted in the literature. Given a permutation $w$, Bagno, Biagioli, Novick, and the last author~\cite{BBNW} defined the {\bf reduced reflection length} $\ell_R(w)$ as the smallest integer $q$ such that there exist $i_1,\ldots,i_q$ and $j_1,\ldots,j_q$ such that $w=t_{i_1j_1}\cdots t_{i_qj_q}$ and $\ell(w)=\sum_{k=1}^q \ell(t_{i_kj_k})$ and show that the shallow permutations are equivalently the permutations for which $\ell_T(w)=\ell_R(w)$. Bennett and Blok~\cite{BB} show, using somewhat different language, that reduced reflection length is the rank function on the universal Grassman order introduced by Bergeron and Sottile~\cite{BS} to study questions in Schubert calculus.
Section 2 describes the recursive characterizations of Cornwell and McNew and of Hadjicostas and Monico, while the proof of our main theorem is given in Section 3.
I originally conjectured Theorem 1.1 out of work on a related conjecture in an undergraduate directed research seminar in Spring 2019. I thank the students in the seminar, specifically Jacob Alderink, Noah Jones, Sam Johnson, and Matthew Mills, for ideas that helped spark this work. I also thank Nathan McNew for the Tikz code to draw the figures. Finally, I learned about the work of Cornwell and McNew at Permutation Patterns 2018 and thank the organizers of that conference.
\section{Characterizations of shallow and unlinked permutations}
We now describe the recursive characterizations of unlinked and shallow permutations.
Let $w\in S_n$ be a permutation. Denote by $\fl_i(w)$ the {\bf $i$-th flattening} of $w$, which is defined by removing the $i$-th entry of $w$ (in one-line notation) and then renumbering down by 1 every entry greater than $w(i)$.
Formally, $$\fl_i(w)(k)=\begin{cases}
w(k) &\mbox{if } k<i \mbox{and } w(k)<w(i) \\
w(k)-1 &\mbox{if } k<i \mbox{and } w(k)>w(i) \\
w(k+1) &\mbox{if } k>i \mbox{and } w(k)<w(i) \\
w(k+1)-1 &\mbox{if } k>i \mbox{and } w(k)>w(i) \\
\end{cases}$$
Cornwell and McNew~\cite{CM} give the following recursive characterization of permutations with unlinked cycle diagrams.
\begin{thm}
Suppose $w$ is unlinked. Then either
\begin{itemize}
\item $w\in S_1$ (so $w=1$ in one-line notation), OR
\item There exists $i$ with $|w(i)-i|\leq 1$, and $\fl_i(w)$ is unlinked.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
This characterization is assembled from several statements in their paper, and we consider all permutations instead of only derangements, so we explain how to obtain this statement from their work. References to specific statements are by the numbering in~\cite{CM}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $w\in S_n$ is unlinked. If $w(i)=i$ for some $i$, then $|w(i)-i|=0$ and $\fl_i(w)$ is unlinked. This handles the case where $w$ has a fixed point.
Applying Lemma 6.3 repeatedly until some $\tau_i$ is a single cycle, we see that $w$ has some cycle involving the consecutive entries $j, j+1, \ldots, k$. Now Proposition 5.10 applied to this cycle shows that there is some index $i$ with $j\leq i\leq k$ such that $|w(i)-i|=1$. The process of going from the diagram $D$ to the diagram $D_0$ described in the second paragraph of the proof of Proposition 5.11 is precisely $\fl_i$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Let $w=7563421$. Then $w(4)=3$, so $|w(4)-4|=1$. Furthermore, $\fl_4(w)=645321$, which is also unlinked.
\end{example}
Given a permutation $w\in S_n$, an index $j$ is a {\bf left-to-right maximum} if $w(j)>w(i)$ for all $i<j$. An index $j$ is a {\bf right-to-left minimum} if $w(j)<w(i)$ for all $i>j$.
Hadjicostas and Monico~\cite[Theorem 4.1]{HM} give the following recursive characterization of shallow permutations.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:shallow}
Suppose $w\in S_n$ is shallow. Then either
\begin{itemize}
\item $w\in S_1$ (so $w=1$ in one line notation), OR
\item $w(n)=n$, and the permutation $w'\in S_{n-1}$ with $w'(i)=w(i)$ for all $i$ is shallow, OR
\item $w(n)=k$, $w^{-1}(n)=j$, and the permutation $w'\in S_{n-1}$ defined by setting $w'(i)=w(i)$ for $i\neq j$ and $w'(j)=k$ is shallow with either a left-to-right maximum or right-to-left minimum at $j$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{example}
If $w=7563421$, then $w'=156342$ is shallow with both a left-to-right maximum and a right-to-left minimum at position $1$. If $w=45231$, then $w'=4123$ is shallow with a right-to-left minimum at position $2$.
\end{example}
\section{Proof of Main Theorem}
To prove our main theorem, we use the two recursive characterizations. We split the proof into two parts, first using the characterization of Cornwell and McNew to prove the fllowing.
\begin{proposition}
Every unlinked permutation is shallow.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We prove this proposition by induction on $n$. Let $w$ be an unlinked permutation.
For the base case, clearly $\ell(w)+\ell_T(w)=\td(w)$ for the permutation $w=1$. (Both sides are 0.)
For the inductive case, suppose there exists $i$ with $|w(i)-i|\leq 1$ and $\fl_i(w)$ unlinked. Given integers $a$ and $b$, let $a'=a$ if $a<i$ and $a'=a-1$ if $a>i$,
and similarly $b'=b$ if $b<i$ and $b'=b-1$ if $b>i$. Then note that for $a,b\neq i$, $(a,b)$ is an inversion of $w$ if and only if
$(a',b')$ is an inversion of $\fl_i(w)$. Hence $\ell(w)-\ell(\fl_i(w))$ is equal to the number of inversions involving $i$, or, in notation, the number of pairs $(a,i)$ with $a<i$ and $w(a)>w(i)$ and pairs $(i,b)$ with $i<b$ and $w(i)>w(b)$.
We now split into three cases depending on whether $w(i)-i$ is $0$, $1$, or $-1$.
If $w(i)-i=0$, then $\ell_T(\fl_i(w))=\ell_T(w)$, as $\fl_i(w)$ has one fewer cycle, namely the fixed point $i$ that was removed, and $\fl_i(w)$ is a permutation of one fewer element.
Furthermore, since $w(i)=i$, $|\fl_i(w)(a')-a'|=|w(a)-a|$ if and only if $(a,i)$ or $(i,a)$ is not an inversion of $w$, and $|\fl_i(w)(a')-a'|=|w(a)-a|-1$ if it is an inversion. (Note that this is
so simple because the sign of $w(a)-a$ is determined by whether $(a,i)$ is an inversion or $(i,a)$ is an inversion.) Also $w(i)-i=0$. Hence $\ell(w)-\ell(\fl_i(w))=\td(w)-\td(\fl_i(w))$.
By the inductive hypothesis we can assume $\ell(\fl_i(w))+\ell_T(\fl_i(w))=\td(\fl_i(w))$, so $\ell(w)+\ell_T(w)=\td(w)$.
If $w(i)-i=-1$, then the cycle decomposition of $\fl_i(w)$ is the same as that of $w$ except that $i$ is removed and every $b>i$ is replaced by $b-1$. (In particular, $\fl_i(w)(w^{-1}(i))=w(i)=i-1$.) Hence $\ell_T(\fl_i(w))=\ell_T(w)-1$. Furthermore, also in this case, $|\fl_i(w)(a')-a'|=|w(a)-a|$ if and only if $(a,i)$ or $(i,a)$ is not an inversion of $w$, and $|\fl_i(w)(a')-a'|=|w(a)-a|-1$ if it is an inversion. However, $|w(i)-i|=1$, so $\td(w)-\td(\fl_i(w))=\ell(w)-\ell(\fl_i(w))+1$.
Again by the inductive hypothesis we can assume $\ell(\fl_i(w))+\ell_T(\fl_i(w))=\td(\fl_i(w))$, so $\ell(w)+\ell_T(w)=\td(w)$.
The proof where $w(i)-i=1$ is similar to the previous case, as again we have $\ell_T(\fl_i(w))=\ell_T(w)-1$ and $\td(w)-\td(\fl_i(w))=\ell(w)-\ell(\fl_i(w))+1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Let $w=7563421$, and let $i=4$, so $w(i)-i=-1$. Then$\fl_4(w)=645321$, with $\ell_T(\fl_4(w))=4$. Furthermore, $\td(w)-\td(\fl_4(w))=6$, and $\ell(w)-\ell(\fl_4(w))=5$.
\end{example}
We now follow the recursive characterization of Hadjicostas and Monico to prove the following:
\begin{proposition}
Every shallow permutation is unlinked.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We prove this by induction on $n$.
If $w\in S_1$, then the associated link is a single small unknotted and unlinked loop.
If $w(n)=n$, $w'\in S_{n-1}$ is defined by $w'(i)=w(i)$ for all $i$ with $1\leq i\leq n-1$, and $w'$ is unlinked, then the cycle diagram of $w$ is obtained from that of $w'$ by adding a small unknotted and unlinked loop at the top right, so it is also unlinked.
Now suppose $w(n)=k$, $w^{-1}(n)=j$, $w'$ as defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:shallow} is shallow, and $w'(j)=k$ is a right-to-left minimum. The cycle diagram of $w$ can be obtained from the cycle diagram of $w'$ by deleting the vertical segment
from $(j,j)$ to $(j,k)$ and replacing it with segments from $(j,j)$ to $(j,n)$ to $(n,n)$ to $(n,k)$ to $(j,k)$. Since $(j,k)$ is a right-to-left minimum in $w'$, the only crossings made by the new
segments are on the vertical segment from $(j,j)$ to $(j,n)$. Since they are on a vertical segment, these are all overcrossings. Hence this long loop in the link associated to $w$ can be
slid around over the top of the knot and shrunk to the vertical segment from $(j,j)$ to $(j,k)$, which also only has overcrossings. Therefore, the link types of $w$ and $w'$ are the same.
By induction, $w'$ is unlinked, so $w$ is also unlinked.
One has a similar argument if $w'(j)=k$ is a left-to-right maximum, except that the crossings are undercrossings associated to horizontal segments and hence the isotopy takes place under the rest of the link. If $w'(j)=k$ is both a left-to-right maximum and a right-to-left minimum, then $j=k$ and the new segments make no crossings at all, forming a free unknotted link component.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Let $w=7563421$. Here we have $k=1$, $j=1$, and $j=k$ is both a left-to-right maximum and a right-to-left minimum. One can see that the cycle $(17)$ produces a free unknotted link component that can be shrunk to a little loop at $1$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\cyclefig{4,5,2,3,1}\,\,\cyclefig{4,1,2,3}
\caption{\label{diag:45231isotopy}Knot diagrams for $w=45231$ and $w'=4123$}
\end{figure}
Now let $w=45231$. Then $k=1$, $j=2$, and $w'=4123$. One can see from Figure~\ref{diag:45231isotopy} that the knot diagrams for $w=45231$ and $w'=4123$ are isotopic as described above.
\end{example}
|
\section{Introduction}
Nuclear polarized $^3\!$He gas has many applications in basic research and technology development. It can, for example, be used as a polarized neutron target \cite{Kri09} for studying the neutron structure in scattering experiments, {\em e.g.\/} with polarized electrons~\cite{Tan98}. The development of compact polarized $^3\!$He-ion sources \cite{Fin69, Bur74, Slo81, Max14} provides additional options for the study of spin degrees of freedom in nuclear and particle physics. For laser-induced nuclear fusion reactions, spin-polarized fuel has the potential to provide a higher energy output. For example, calculations for the isospin-symmetric D(T,\textit{n})$^4\!$He reaction with fully polarized fuel predict an increase of the nuclear fusion cross-section by a factor of 1.5, while the energy gain increases by about 45\,$\%$~\cite{Tem12}. In case of the D-$^3\!$He reaction a reduction of the required laser driver energy for ignition of about 60\,$\%$ has been predicted as compared to unpolarized fusion~\cite{Hon91}.
A crucial question in the field of laser-induced particle acceleration is the influence of strong electro-magnetic laser and plasma fields on the spin polarization of the created particle beams. In simple words, two scenarios are conceivable: either the interaction times are long compared to the Larmor frequencies in the local fields and the spin orientation of a pre-polarized target is affected and destroyed, or the short (up to few ps) laser pulses (and the plasma) have only little effect on the spin alignment, and the polarization is conserved. For a detailed theoretical study of these effects we refer to the paper by Thomas et al.\cite{Thomas20}. Therefore, an experimental proof of nuclear spin-polarization conservation inside a (laser-induced) plasma is of high relevance also for fusion science.
In order to address the above mentioned questions, experiments with nuclear polarized targets are needed. Such studies are very challenging since the energy differences of spin states in the strong plasma fields are of the order of meV only and, thus, much smaller than the typical thermal energies in the keV regime. As a first step of an experimental campaign, a measurement of proton distributions and their polarization, accelerated from ("standard") unpolarized foils, was performed at the Arcturus laser at Heinrich Heine University D\"usseldorf, Germany\cite{Raab14}. As a second step, ion energy spectra and their angular distributions were measured with unpolarized $^{3,4}$He gas jets at the PHELIX laser, GSI Darmstadt, Germany\cite{Ilhan_PhD,Engin_2019,PHELIX_laser}. Concluding experiments with polarized $^3\!$He gas require the development of a novel target system, which is the subject of this article (n.b.: $^4\!$He nuclei cannot be polarized, since they carry no spin).
\section{Polarization and relaxation of the nuclear spin}
$^3\!$He gas has several advantages as compared to other polarizable materials. It can rather easily be polarized through optical pumping~\cite{polarization_method} and stored over a long time at room temperature in moderate (mT) holding fields. The polarization of the $^3\!$He gas decays exponentially with a relaxation time constant that is governed by several effects, {\em i.e.\/}~the gradient of the magnetic field, dipolar relaxation, gas impurities, and surface relaxation on the walls of the storage vessel.
The homogeneity of the magnetic field is extremely important for achieving long relaxation time constants~\cite{Sch65, Cat88a, Cat88b, Has90, Hie10}. Therefore, all disturbing factors must be excluded or their influence at least minimized. All components in the vicinity of the polarized $^3\!$He gas should be made from non-magnetic materials, even if they are not in direct contact with the gas. Since also all electro-magnetic excitations have to be avoided, standard magnetic valves ({\em e.g.\/}~driven by solenoids) must not be used in the gas lines.
Dipolar relaxation is the intrinsic polarization decrease due to magnetic dipole-dipole interactions between two $^3\!$He nuclei. This effect is thus proportional to the gas pressure inside the vessel and the gas lines \cite{New93, Kri09}. Glass vessels with a maximal allowed pressure of 3\,bar are typically used for the storage of polarized $^3\!$He. The relaxation-time constant is typically about 270\,h.
An admixture of paramagnetic oxygen drastically decreases the relaxation time\cite{Saa95, Den99, Den00, Hie06}. Therefore, careful cleaning, flushing and pumping procedures are mandatory for the gas lines before the operation with polarized $^3\!$He. Surface relaxation is caused by the contact of the $^3\!$He nuclei with molecules of wall materials via adsorption and diffusion effects. According to Refs.\!\cite{Den06, Sch06}, both effects are proportional to the surface-to-volume ratio of the gas vessel. Thus, spherical balloons produced at Mainz Univ.\ from Cs-layered glass can provide a relaxation-time constant in the range 430--570\,h~\cite{Den06, Sch06, Ric02}.
The standard 3\,bar pressure of the polarized $^3\!$He gas in storage vessels is not sufficient for the experiments with laser-induced plasmas. Here, pressures in the range 20--30\,bar are needed to drive the gas through the nozzle and to achieve the required densities at the laser-plasma interaction point\cite{Engin_2019}. Therefore, additional compression of the polarized helium is required. Due to the increased depolarization, the duration of this compression should be as short as possible and be applied only to a minimal fraction of the polarized gas needed for the laser-induced ion-acceleration process.
\section{Static magnetic holding field}
A constant homogeneous magnetic field is required to maintain the polarization of the $^3\!$He gas over sufficiently long time ({\em i.e.\/}~many hours). This can, in principle, be achieved by two set-ups, Helmholtz coils or permanent magnets. We chose permanent magnets due to specific conditions of future applications, like operation of the system in the vacuum of laser-interaction chambers and the presence of huge EMPs from the laser-plasma interactions. Under such conditions, Helmholtz coils require a specific cooling system and the influence of EMPs on the magnetic field gradient is unclear. Clearly, the construction of the magnet system must fulfill the geometrical boundary conditions imposed by the vacuum chamber, in our case it has been adapted to the one of PHELIX.
All these issues could be realized with a set of permanent magnets arranged in the geometry of a Halbach cylinder. In this geometry, each permanent magnet is oriented in such way to form a resulting common homogeneous field in the desired direction inside the cylinder. To be more specific, the magnet system consists of 48 NdFeB permanent magnets combined in eight vertical columns arranged in a circle with diameter 1100\,mm~\cite{Soltner_2010, Soltner_magnet, Burgmer}. The distance between the columns is 420.95\,mm. Each NdFeB magnet has an octagonal cross-section with an energy product of 45\,MGOe~\cite{ChenYang}. Figure~\ref{fig:permanent-magnets} shows a sketch of the magnet system. There are 6 magnets in each column divided into two groups (2$\times$3 magnets), with a vertical distance of 471.71\,mm between the group centers (blue color). In this way, two rings of magnets are created. The resulting field is oriented horizontally and in the volume of the polarized $^3\!$He its magnitude amounts to about 1.3\,mT (at the center of the system). The estimated dominant relative field gradient in the horizontal direction is
$(\delta B_z /\delta z)/B_0 \approx 3.5 \times 10^{-4}$\,cm$^{-1}$, {\em cf.\/}~Ref.~\cite{Soltner_magnet}.
The quality of the magnetic system was verified with a glass vessel containing polarized $^3\!$He located at the center of the system. Four calibrated flux-gate magnetometers~\cite{fluxmaster} with a measurement range 0.1--200\,nT were used pairwise~\cite{Nauschutt, Sonja_Maier_Thesis, Wohlgemuth} to observe any field changes during the operation. The measured relaxation time constant of polarized $^3\!$He inside the magnet system was 21\,h~\cite{Soltner_magnet}. This is sufficient for one working day at the planned experiments, where a fresh vessel with polarized $^3\!$He gas is used per day.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{permanent_magnet-2
\caption{\label{fig:permanent-magnets} Layout of the permanent magnet system.}
\end{figure}
\section{Coil system}
In order to minimize the systematic error of the measured $^3\!$He$^{2+}$ beam polarization, it is mandatory to change the spin orientation of the prepolarized $^3\!$He gas for different laser shots relative to the laser-propagation direction. This is realized by a secondary magnet system composed of four concentric coils which provide a better field homogeneity than a Helmholtz set-up comprising just a pair of coils, see Fig.~\ref{fig:Helmholtz-coils}. The field direction is also oriented horizontally, but perpendicular to the field of the permanent magnets. The resulting magnetic field of both systems can thus be rotated in the horizontal plane by changing and/or reversing the current in the coils.
Each coil is made of a coiled Cu sheet with a cross section of 40$\times$40\,mm$^2$. The housing has a width and thickness of 56\,mm, and the outer and inner diameters are 803\,mm and 695\,mm, respectively. The magnitude of the magnetic field at the center of the concentric coils system as function of the driving current was calibrated with a flux-gate magnetometer fine-adjusted perpendicular to the permanent magnetic field. The dependence is linear and described by
$B=503\times I$, where $B$ (in $\mu$T) is the common magnetic field generated by the four concentric coils at the center of the system, and $I$ (in A) is the current applied to the coils. The planned current of 10\,A corresponds to a field strength of 5.03\,mT. In this case the resulting magnetic field will be rotated by 75.5$^\circ$ relative to the original direction of the permanent magnetic field. Figure~\ref{fig:photo_magnet system} shows the fully assembled magnet system in the laboratory.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{slide_completely-b3
\caption{\label{fig:Helmholtz-coils} Arrangement of the magnet system with permanent magnets and four concentric coils. The transport vessel with $^3\!$He (gray sphere) can be seen at the center and the compressor below. The PHELIX laser beam is indicated by the red cone.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{P1330930
\caption{\label{fig:photo_magnet system} Fully assembled magnet system in the laboratory.}
\end{figure}
\section{Generation and transport of polarized $^3\!$He gas}
The nuclear-polarized $^3\!$He gas is obtained by Metastable Optical Pumping (MEOP)~\cite{polarization_method}, which is then stored in a ball-shaped glass vessel \cite{Hie10} shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:glass-ball}. The glass material is GE 180. The diameter of the ball is 130\,mm, which corresponds to a volume of 1.15\,liter. The glass ball is filled with $^3\!$He gas to a typical pressure of 3\,bar. In order to preserve the polarization of $^3\!$He gas on the way from the polarizer (located in a different building of FZ J\"ulich) to the laboratory, the glass ball is transported inside a transport box\cite{Hie10} (see Fig.~\ref{fig:transport-box}), which again provides a homogeneous magnetic holding field induced by permanent magnets.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{IMG_2974-b
\caption{\label{fig:glass-ball} Glass ball, manufactured at FZ J\"ulich, for the storage of polarized $^3\!$He.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Spin_box_2
\caption{\label{fig:transport-box} Magnetic transport box \cite{Hie10} with a single glass ball for polarized $^3\!$He gas. Alternatively, boxes are available that can accommodate three glass balls at the same time.}
\end{figure}
\section{Gas Compressor with Nozzle}
The pressure of the delivered polarized $^3\!$He gas from the polarizer is limited to 3\,bar as upper limit in the transport vessel. On the other hand, for the PHELIX experiments a typical maximum particle density of a few $10^{19}$\,cm$^{-3}$ at the interaction point with the laser pulse is required\cite{Engin_2019}. This value depends on several parameters, like the backing pressure of the gas in front of the nozzle exit, the shape and the minimal diameter of the nozzle, and the distance between the nozzle exit and the laser focus. For given other parameters (see below) the pressure in front of the nozzle should be in the range of 18--27\,bar. This requires an additional compression of the polarized $^3\!$He gas for a short time duration, directly before the laser shot. The completely non-magnetic compressor shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:compressor} was developed and built for this particular application.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{compressor_drawing-b
\newline
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{IMG_2833_36-b
\caption{\label{fig:compressor} Top: Drawing of the compressor unit (edited figure from Ref.~\cite{Patrick_Spiller}). The piston is in the upper position, {\em i.e.\/}~the $^3\!$He gas is compressed. Bottom: Photo of the compressor unit with the nozzle mounted on the top.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{compressor_nitrogen_test_15_april_2021_article-b4
\caption{\label{fig:compression-steps} Decrease of the input pressure after each compression for two possible options. Step 0 corresponds to the initial pressure of 3\,bar in the glass ball.}
\end{figure}
One of the main requirements is the use of non-magnetic materials for such a compressor device. Any magnetizable material --- even stainless steel --- will cause an instantaneous reduction of the $^3\!$He polarization. While in the past a similar compressor had completely been built from aluminium~\cite{aluminium_compressor}, in our case, a composite design from titanium and aluminium was chosen due to the required higher pressures. Titanium was used for the compression chamber (top part) as the volume with the high pressure and for the piston. The housing of the compressor is made from (cheaper) aluminium.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{anstieg_Norbert_piezo_opening_time-b
\caption{\label{fig:piezo-opening} Time characteristics of the piezo element P-602\cite{piezo_element} used for the fast opening valve.}
\end{figure}
For sealing O-rings made from the Flexible 80A Resin from Formlabs are used. The piston moves up and down by a pneumatic gas pressure of 6\,bar. This operation gas must not contain any oxygen in order to avoid depolarization of the $^3\!$He gas in case of leakages into the compressor {\em i.e.\/}~into the polarized $^3$He gas. Therefore, standard pressurized air is prohibited and cheap industrial gases like nitrogen or argon can be used instead. Both gases were used during preparatory tests, but later argon was selected since it is easily removed from the recycled $^3\!$He gas by cryogenic purification methods.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{4.6_gesaettigt-b3
\caption{\label{fig:calibration-line} Dependence of the compressed gas pressure on the input gas pressure (edited figure from Ref.\cite{Patrick_Spiller}).}
\end{figure}
The upper part of the compressor is equipped with a pre-valve in the $^3\!$He input tube, and a fast valve with a nozzle at the exit (see below). The operation cycle starts with the lower position of the piston. The polarized $^3\!$He gas is filled into the compression chamber with a maximum pressure of 3\,bar. Under realistic conditions the input pressure is not higher than 2.5\,bar due to losses by the filling of the input gas lines and their covolume. During subsequent compression cycles the input pressure decreases step by step, due to the finite, residual amount of the $^3\!$He gas in the transport vessel. Figure~\ref{fig:compression-steps} shows the decrease of the input pressure after each compression for two possible options: either with removal of the unused $^3\!$He gas from the lines between two fillings or without removal. The first scenario leads to a faster pressure reduction, but it is needed for most laser-acceleration applications. High-intensity lasers like PHELIX have a minimum time interval between two shots of 1.5\,h. During this time, the polarized $^3\!$He gas in the lines would basically lose its polarization due to the contact with the material of the thin gas lines (bad surface-to-volume ratio and hence many collisions with the tube walls) and due to magnetic field inhomogeneities since the lines are not located at the center of the magnet system with the glass ball, where the magnetic field conditions are best. Therefore, it is mandatory to evacuate unused gas from the lines and refill them again from the glass ball shortly before the next laser shot, which reduces the amount of usable gas. Without the evacuation, an input pressure of 1.5\,bar is reached at the 8$^\mathrm{th}$ compression, and with evacuation procedure, only 5 compressions are possible in total. The pneumatic (radial diaphragm) pre-valve --- which is able to stay closed at pressures up to 50\,bar --- in the input line prevents back-flow of compressed gas into the vessel. Like all the screws needed for its mounting it is also made from titanium to ensure polarizion conservation.
Short-pulse laser applications like ion acceleration require operation in vacuum. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a high-density gas jet for a short time only, just before the laser pulse, to minimize deterioration of the vacuum conditions. The valve should completely be opened within a few-ms time window to form a sharp density profile. In our case, conventional electromagnetic valves are prohibited since they would reduce or completely destroy the helium polarization due to magnetic field gradients and hydraulic or pneumatic valves would be too slow. Piezo elements may provide the fast opening of the valve, however, commercial standard piezo-driven valves work at much lower pressures (up to 12\,bar). Therefore, a new fast opening valve was designed and built. A piezo actuator P-602 \cite{piezo_element} with an adjustment range of 1\,mm at a maximum frequency of 150\,Hz was chosen. In order to increase this range up to 2\,mm, two such actuators were combined.
Figure~\ref{fig:piezo-opening} shows the measured reaction time ($\sim$ 6.6\,ms) of the piezo element. The piezo-valve piston is mounted inside the top of the compressor to avoid additional dead volume. The piston is made from titanium and has a cylindrical rubber sealing on top. The distance between the opening aperture of the valve and the nozzle has been minimized to a few mm. When the compressor is idle (most of the time of the experiment) the piezo elements have no applied voltage and, hence, the piston is down and the valve is opened. Directly before compression, a voltage is applied to the piezo elements which causes a displacement, the piston moves up and the valve is closed. The filling with the (polarized) $^3\!$He gas, the compression and the opening of the piezo valve are integrated into the common trigger sequence of the laser-shot procedure.
With the compressor piston in its lower position the volume of the compression chamber is 90\,ml. After compression the volume is reduced to about 5.5\,ml. The compression factor is expected to be 16.4 and for an input pressure of 3\,bar a working pressure of 49\,bar should be achievable. In reality, the connection with the pre-valve and the nozzle added some volume, which is difficult to calculate precisely. Therefore, a calibration procedure was carried out for the compressor, where the calibration was done with Ar as compressed gas and pressurized air at 6\,bar as operation gas. Figure~\ref{fig:calibration-line} presents the calibration function between the pressures of compressed and input gas. The drop at input pressures above 7\,bar is due to backward flow in the pneumatic pre-valve. Short tests with a higher input pressure of 10\,bar in the pneumatic line revealed recovery of the linear relation between input and output pressures.
The density distribution in the gas jet is one of the key parameters for laser-plasma experiments. Our previous measurements at PHELIX~\cite{Engin_2019} revealed that this density should not fall below $4\times 10^{18}$\,cm$^{-3}$, otherwise the number of laser-accelerated ions becomes too small for the polarimetry. For this reason the useful gas-jet density was chosen to be in the range of $(3-4)\times 10^{19}$\,cm$^{-3}$. The particle density profile is basically determined by the nozzle geometry, a flat profile with sharp edges --- which is most favorable for ion acceleration --- can be generated by a supersonic de-Laval nozzle. Our nozzle with Mach numbers of $M_{\rm super} \approx 3.44$ and $M_{\rm sub} \approx 0.14$, a minimum diameter of 0.5\,mm and nozzle exit of 1\,mm is made from titanium\cite{Ilhan_PhD}. The nozzle flange is mounted directly above the outlet of the piezo valve, see Fig.~\ref{fig:nozzle}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{IMG_2838-b
\caption{\label{fig:nozzle} Nozzle mounted on the top of the compressor. The cone-shaped grooves follow the direction of the laser beam. At the lower left side of the nozzle a needle for focus adjustment can be placed.}
\end{figure}
The density distribution of the gas jets was measured and calibrated with the help of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (see Fig.~\ref{fig:inreferomery-logic} in Ref.\cite{Sakia_Noorzayee})
For these tests the compressor was placed in a vacuum chamber with glass windows for the laser beam and the interferometric images were recorded with a CCD camera. Figure~\ref{fig:interferometry-photos} shows examples of such images without and with the jet. The data analysis procedures and extraction of the density distributions are described in Ref. \cite{Sakia_Noorzayee}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{interferomery_logic-2-big-b
\caption{\label{fig:inreferomery-logic} Sketch of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer for the measurement of the gas-density profile\cite{Sakia_Noorzayee}}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:jet-profile} shows a measured horizontal profile of the jet density 500\,$\mu$m above the nozzle edge. The expected plateau shape is confirmed. The particle density depends linearly on the backing pressure (see Fig.~\ref{fig:density-pressure-1}) and, thus, also on the $^3\!$He input pressure. The density of the jet decreases with the distance from the nozzle, see Fig.~\ref{fig:density-pressure-1}. Figure~\ref{fig:density-pressure-2} presents the temporal evolution of the particle density for different heights above the nozzle edge at 27.1\,bar backing pressure. The gas jet reaches its maximum density at 14\,ms after the trigger for opening the piezo valve\cite{Sakia_Noorzayee} and remains stable for at least 30\,ms after that. The main results of the interferometric measurements are summarized in Table~\ref{table:pressure-densities}. It is seen that the desired gas-jet density range of $(3-4)\times 10^{19}$cm$^{-3}$ is achievable with the gas from the transport vessel, but the input pressure should not drop below 1.5 \,bar. This limits the operation with one glass ball to five compressions with evacuation of $^3\!$He gas from the tubes between the laser shots. This is well suited for experiments at the PHELIX laser, which permits a maximum of six shots per day.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{interferomery_photos-b
\caption{\label{fig:interferometry-photos} Interferometric images above the nozzle (black area at the lower edges) before gas-jet opening (left) and at 47.2 bar backing pressure 32\,ms after triggering (right). \cite{Sakia_Noorzayee}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{hoehenscan3bar-b3
\caption{\label{fig:jet-profile} Horizontal distribution of the particle density at 27.1\,bar and 500\,$\mu$m above the nozzle edge, 32\,ms after valve opening\cite{Sakia_Noorzayee_privat}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{density_pressure-1-b3
\caption{\label{fig:density-pressure-1} Maximum particle density for different backing pressure values between 17.8 and 53.4\,bar\cite{Sakia_Noorzayee}. The data are for 500 $\mu$m (blue dots) and for 1000 $\mu$m above the nozzle edge (brown dots).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{density_pressure-2-b3
\caption{\label{fig:density-pressure-2} Time profile of the particle density for different heights above the nozzle edge at 27.1 bar backing pressure \cite{Sakia_Noorzayee}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|p{1,9cm}|p{2,2cm}|p{2,2cm}|p{2,2cm}|}
\hline
Initial pressure (bar) & Backing pressure (bar) & Particle density at 500\,$\mu$m (cm$^{-3}$) & Particle density at 1000\,$\mu$m (cm$^{-3}$) \\
\hline
1 & 14.2 & $1.72\times 10^{19}$ & $1.38 \times 10^{19}$ \\
1.5 & 17.8 & $2.75\times 10^{19}$ & $1.61\times 10^{19}$\\
2 & 20.7 & $3.13\times 10^{19}$ & $2.17\times 10^{19}$ \\
2.5 & 24.1 & $3.31\times 10^{19}$ & $2.73\times 10^{19}$\\
3 & 27.1 & $4.06\times 10^{19}$ & $3.09\times 10^{19}$\\
3.5 & 30.8 & $2.97\times 10^{19}$ & $1.99\times 10^{19}$\\
4 & 33.9 & $5.16\times 10^{19}$ & $3.76\times 10^{19}$\\
4.5 & 37.4 & $5.18\times 10^{19}$ & $4.19\times 10^{19}$\\
5 & 41.1 & $6.06\times 10^{19}$ & $4.41\times 10^{19}$ \\
5.5 & 44.0 & $5.99\times 10^{19}$ & $4.37\times 10^{19}$\\
6 & 47.2 & $6.95\times 10^{19}$ & $5.52\times 10^{19}$ \\
7 & 53.4 & $8.13\times 10^{19}$ & $6.41\times 10^{19}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{table:pressure-densities} Achievable gas densities at 500\,$\mu$m and 1000\,$\mu$m above the nozzle for various values of the input and backing pressures in the compressor\cite{Sakia_Noorzayee}.}
\end{table}
\section{Adjustment system}
For laser-plasma applications, such as ion acceleration, it is mandatory to adjust the gas jet ({\em i.e.\/}~the upper nozzle edge) with sub-mm precision relative to the laser focus. The typical required accuracy is given by the diameter of the laser focus, at PHELIX this amounts to 15--20\,$\mu$m. Also the vertical separation of 0.5\,mm between the laser beam axis and nozzle exit has to be controlled with high accuracy, since a smaller distance causes rapid degradation of the nozzle surface by the formed plasma and, consequently, of the jet quality. In addition, the gas jet must be precisely aligned with the collimator apertures of the $^3\!$He$^{2+}$ polarimeters, which are mounted at 90$^\circ$ relative to the laser propagation direction.
All these issues were realized through the movement of the nozzle with the whole compressor unit, which has a mass of about 10\,kg. The compressor unit rests on the adjustment system providing linear movements in any direction. This is provided by three linear actuators with stepper motors. Movement in the horizontal $X$-$Y$ plane is achieved via linear actuators. The vertical displacement is realized by a horizontal actuator with a wedge connection. Figure~\ref{fig:adjustment} shows a drawing of the adjustment system.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{adjustment_new
\caption{\label{fig:adjustment} Adjustment system with the compressor.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{nozzle_and_needle-b
\caption{\label{fig:nozzle-needle} Nozzle with the needle for fine adjustment.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{Verfahrensschema2-b2
\caption{\label{fig:gas-system} Schematic view of the gas system. The components that are located in the magnet system and inside the vacuum chamber are indicated by the gray rectangle. The $^3\!$He, Ar and vacuum lines are represented by different colors.}
\end{figure*}
A set of three distance laser sensors NCDT1700 was used for the control of the movement. A LabVIEW-based software receives the information from the sensors and sends the signals to the stepper motors. Independent movement of the compressor in all three directions is possible in step sizes from 1\,$\mu$m up to 2\,mm. The total range of the movement is $\pm 20$\,mm in $X$ and $Y$, and $\pm 2.5$\,mm in $Z$ direction.
The position of the nozzle was observed and verified with an additional diagnostics system based on two perpendicular ($X$ and $Y$ directions) lasers and images from CCD cameras. The fine positioning was performed with the image of a needle with a 50\,$\mu$m tip. The needle was mounted on the top of the nozzle flange (see Fig.~\ref{fig:nozzle-needle}).
\section{Auxiliary gas system}
For its use at a laser facility, the whole target must be ready for operation in a surrounding vacuum chamber. This includes the transfer of the polarized gas from the vessel to the compressor, as well as the supply of the operating Ar gas to the compressor. Also all components and pipes that are in contact with the polarized gas must be carefully cleaned shortly before target operation by repeated pumping and flushing with Ar. All this requires a system of auxiliary gas lines, vacuum pumps and valves.
Most critical are those valves which are in direct contact with the polarized gas. For their remote control inside a vacuum chamber
electromagnetic drivers are prohibited since they would distort the polarization. Therefore, tailored pneumatic valves produced from non-magnetic materials were designed and produced\cite{Swagelok}, which are operated by compressed Ar instead of air. Outside the vacuum chamber and far from the polarized gas commercial pneumatic B\"urkert valves\cite{Burkert} types 5420 and 6013 are used for the pneumatic system and commercial hand valves\cite{Leybold} for the vacuum pipes.
Due to its high price of 2200 EUR/liter the used $^3\!$He gas needs to be collected in recycling tanks. For this purpose a 50 liter aluminum tank is connected to the output of a scroll pump. The evacuation of the $^3\!$He gas from the gas lines and its recycling should be made before each disconnection of the transport vessel from the gas system or any other opening of the system.
The operating gas system consists of several sub-units for $^3\!$He and Ar gas, vacuum lines, as well as recycling and pneumatic systems. A schematic overview can be found in Fig.~\ref{fig:gas-system}.
\section{Control system}
Remote control of the system is needed for operations inside the vacuum chamber and for implementation of a trigger commands sequence on a ms time scale for synchronization with the accelerating laser. The corresponding electronics is located inside a rack supplied with additional protection against the EMP signals from the laser–plasma interactions. The rack contains all the external pneumatic valves, a power-supply unit for the concentric coils, a power supply for the piezo units, trigger control unit and computer with a touch screen for hand operation during preparatory procedures. The control software is based on LabView and consists of three units: for adjustment of the nozzle position, for applying the selected values of the current to the concentric coils and for operation of the pneumatic system with the compressor and the piezo valve. Figure~\ref{fig:rack} shows the rack with the control system as well as the magnetic system located inside a model of the laser vacuum chamber.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Photo_review_summary_1
\caption{\label{fig:rack} Rack with the control system (left side) and the magnetic system located inside a model of the laser vacuum chamber (right).}
\end{figure}
\section{Test operation with two glass vessels}
For commissioning, debugging and a full-scale test of the target system a set of preparatory experiments has been carried out. The main goal was to study the factors influencing the polarization of the $^3\!$He gas in the jet after compression and vacuum injection. Measurements of the initial and final polarizations of the helium gas were achieved by the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method. This equipment is a part of the helium polarizer. In order to perform these measurements, the used $^3\!$He gas was collected in a second identical glass vessel, which was also located inside the homogeneous magnetic field just above the input ball. The second ball was connected to the compressor through a short gas line with an adapter (instead of the nozzle) on top of the compressor. This test set-up is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:two-balls}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{pol_He3_compression_test_2
\caption{\label{fig:two-balls} Test with polarized $^3\!$He. The input vessel with 3 bar is the lower one and the collection glass ball above.}
\end{figure}
One of the first tasks was the search for a safe transfer procedure of the transport (input) vessel into the magnetic system without destroying the initial helium polarization. The problem is to avoid the zero-transition points of the magnetic field created by the Halbach cylinder geometry, since here the polarization would immediately disappear. The first option to achieve a safe transfer is to apply a high current to the concentric coils and to create a dominating strong magnetic field, which keeps its orientation far outside the magnet system without any zero transitions on the way from the transport box. In this case it should be possible to insert the glass ball from the side along the field direction. Our tests show that such a field is possible to create, but smallest deviations from the central trajectory lead to an essential loss of polarization when passing through two neighbouring permanent magnets. Another option is the transfer of the glass vessel from above (through a flange in the lid of the PHELIX vacuum chamber). The Halbach arrangement of permanent magnets has no zero crossing along this direction\cite{Soltner_2010}. This idea was successfully confirmed during the tests.
As the next step, the preservation of the $^3\!$He gas polarization was ensured for the input vessel at its nominal position inside the holding field. For this test the vessel was kept for one hour with closed output valve and without contact of the gas with the gas lines. The following NMR measurement did not show any reduction of polarization.
The tests were then repeated with operation of the concentric coils in order to check the influence of changing magnetic field on the polarization losses. The current was smoothly increased up to 10\,A, was kept constant for 10\,min and afterwards smoothly decreased back to zero. No influence on the degree of polarization was found.
After these initial studies polarization conservation during complete compression cycles was tested. In each of these tests 9 compressions were carried out using polarized $^3\!$He gas from the input vessel with 3\,bar. Each compression cycle includes the downward movement of the compressor piston, the filling of the compressor volume, the compression up to pressures of 18--24\,bar and the rapid opening of the piezo valve. Afterwards the pressures in the input and the second glass ball are almost identical and amount to around 1.4\,bar (some gas remains in the gas lines). Then the polarization of the helium was measured in both vessels and compared. This relative measurement allows us to exclude any unnoticed loss effects during transport of the input vessel from the $^3\!$He polarizer. The tests reveal that the polarization is very sensitive to any contact of the $^3\!$He gas with various materials on the way from the transport to the second glass vessel. Even if these materials are not obviously magnetic (like stainless steel or brass), they can induce an essential loss of polarization. Most of the gas lines and valves thus consist of plastic, Teflon or titanium, but several (relatively small) elements are made from stainless steel. For a more detailed investigation of this effect the transport glass ball was kept inside the magnetic system and connected to the gas lines with opened output valve. Thus the polarized $^3\!$He gas was in contact with few of the stainless-steel elements without compression. Afterwards the output valve was closed and the polarization inside the glass ball was measured by NMR. Most of the gas stayed in the glass ball, only 4--5$\%$ remained in the gas line. During a duration of 1 or 2 hours the polarization loss turned out to be in the range of 35--38$\%$ and does not depend on the gas pressure (1.6 or 3\,bar).
After a whole series of further tests and implementation of improvements, a degree of $^3\!$He polarization after compression in the range 38--44$\%$ (compared to the remaining initial gas in the input vessel) was achieved. It should be noted that these numbers were obtained with the Ti nozzle exchanged against an adapter from brass to conduct the polarized gas to the second glass ball. This additional component also contains a few stainless-steel elements and thus contributes to the reduction of polarization in the second glass ball. This effect --- its extent is difficult to quantify --- will be absent in laser-plasma experiments. Further studies to increase the degree of polarization in the gas jet are under way. One important detail is that another valve must be implemented directly behind the hand valve of the glass ball. The reason is that before the target operation is started the complete vacuum chamber must be pumped for hours and in this time a rather long part of the gas lines is open to the 3He gas reservoir. During this time the volume-to-surface ratio is decreased and the polarization lifetime of the gas in the ball drops.
\section{Conclusion}
A target providing nuclear polarized $^3\!$He gas jets for laser-plasma applications has been designed, built and tested in the laboratory.
Jet densities of $(3-4)\times 10^{19}$\,cm$^{-3}$ at the laser-interaction point have been achieved. The measured degree of $^3\!$He polarization is sufficient for proof-of-principle polarization experiments at high-power laser facilities. First such measurements have been carried out in August 2021 at the PHELIX facility, GSI Darmstadt. The data are still being analyzed and the results will be topic of a separate publication. In the meantime laboratory tests are continued with the goal to further increase the achievable degree of jet polarization. Another improvement can be the implementation of an NMR-system to measure the $^3\!$He polarization directly at the apparatus. For this purpose the permanent homogeneous magnetic field of 1.5 mT would induce a Larmor frequency of about 30 kHz that can be easily detected.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work has been carried out in the framework of the {\em Ju}SPARC (Jülich Short-Pulse Particle and Radiation Center) project\cite{jusparc} and has been supported by the ATHENA consortium (Accelerator Technology HElmholtz iNfrAstructure) in the ARD programme (Accelerator Research and Development) of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres. Special thanks go to W.~Heil (retired Professor from Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz) for providing the $^3\!$He polarizer and for answering many emergency calls, and to V.~Bagnoud, B.~Zielbauer (PHELIX group) for valuable discussions. P.F. acknowledges financial support by FZ J\"ulich (cooperation with NRC "Kurchatov Institute", Moscow).
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we study the spectral stability of the $curl curl $ operator on an electromagnetic cavity $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ upon perturbation of the shape of $\Omega$.
The cavity $\Omega$ is a bounded connected open set (shortly, a bounded domain), the boundary of which is enough regular to
guarantee the validity of the celebrated Gaffney inequality, that is
\begin{equation}\label{gaffintro}
\norm{u}_{H^1(\Omega)^3} \le C\left( \norm{u}_{L^2(\Omega)^3} + \norm{\operatorname{curl} u}_{L^2(\Omega)^3} + \norm{\operatorname{div} u}_{L^2(\Omega)} \right)
\end{equation}
for all vector fields $u\in L^2(\Omega)^3$ with distributional $\operatorname{curl} u \in L^2(\Omega)^3$ and $\operatorname{div} u \in L^2(\Omega)$, and satisfying the so-called electric boundary conditions
$$
\nu \times u=0, \ {\rm on}\ \partial\Omega \, .
$$
Here $\nu $ denotes the unit outer normal to $\partial\Omega$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ is the standard Sobolev space of functions in $L^2(\Omega)$ with first order weak derivatives in $L^2(\Omega)$.
It is classical that the Gaffney inequality holds for domains $\Omega$ with boundaries of class $C^{2}$, but the regularity can be relaxed in order to
include boundaries of class $C^{1,\beta}$ with $\beta >1/2$, see \cite{fil, PrFil15}.
The eigenvalue problem under consideration is
\begin{equation}\label{main}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\operatorname{curl}\, \operatorname{curl} u = \lambda u,& \ \ {\rm in}\ \Omega ,\\
\nu \times u = 0 ,& \ \ {\rm on}\ \partial \Omega ,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
and is immediately derived from the time-harmonic Maxwell's equations
\begin{equation}\label{Maxwelltimeharm}
\operatorname{curl} E - {\rm i} \, \omega \, H = 0\,,\,\,\operatorname{curl} H + {\rm i} \, \omega \, E = 0\, ,
\end{equation}
where $E, H$ denote the spatial parts of the electric and the magnetic field respectively and $\omega > 0$ is the angular frequency.
Indeed, taking the curl in the first equation of
\eqref{Maxwelltimeharm} and setting $\lambda =\omega^2$, one immediately obtains problem \eqref{main}. Note that here the medium filling $\Omega$ is homogeneous and isotropic and for simplicity the corresponding electric permittivity $\varepsilon$ and magnetic permeability $\mu$ have been normalized by setting $\varepsilon =\mu =1$.
The boundary conditions are those of a perfect conductor, namely $\nu \times E=0 \ \ {\rm and }\ \ H\cdot \nu =0$. Thus, the vector field $u$ in \eqref{main} plays the role of the electric field $E$ (similarly, the magnetic field would satisfy the same equation but with the other boundary conditions $u\cdot \nu =0$ and $\nu \times \operatorname{curl}\, u =0 $).
We observe that the study of electromagnetic cavities is quite important in applications, for example in designing cavity resonators or shielding structures for electronic circuits, see e.g., \cite[Chp.~10]{hanyak}. We also refer to
\cite{ces, kihe, monk, ned, rsy} for details and references concerning the mathematical theory of electromagnetism. See also \cite{co91, cocoercive, coda, coda2, lamstra, pauly, yin}.
The spectrum of problem \eqref{main} is discrete and consists of a divergent sequence of positive eigenvalues $\lambda_n[\Omega]$ of finite multiplicity.
In this paper, we study the dependence of $\lambda_n[\Omega]$ and the corresponding eigenfunctions upon variation of $\Omega$.
It seems to us that very little is known in the literature. The case of domain perturbations of the form $\Phi (\Omega)$ where $\Phi $ is a regular diffeomorphism
from $\Omega$ to $\Phi (\Omega )$ are considered in \cite{jimbo} and \cite{lamzac} where differentiability results and Hadamard type formulas for shape derivatives are proved. We also quote the pioneering work \cite{hira} where the Hadamard formula was found on the base of heuristic computations. We note that shape derivatives are used in inverse electromagnetic scattering in \cite{he1, he2, he3}.
The aim of the present paper is to prove spectral stability results under less stringent assumptions on the families of domain perturbations. For this purpose, we adopt the approach of \cite{arrlam} further developed in \cite{arrferlam, ferra, ferralamb, ferlam}.
Given a fixed domain $\Omega$, we consider a family of domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$, $\epsilon>0$ converging to $\Omega$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. The convergence of $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ to $\Omega$ will be described by means of a fixed atlas ${\mathcal{A}}$, that is a finite collection of rotated parallelepipeds
$V_j$, $j=1,\dots , s$ covering the domains under consideration and such that if $V_j$ touches the boundaries of the domains then $\Omega\cap V_j$ and $\Omega_{\epsilon}\cap V_j$ are given by the subgraphs of two functions $g_j, g_{\epsilon ,j}$ in two variables, say $\bar x= (x_1,x_2)$. Thus the convergence of $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ to $\Omega$ is understood in terms of the convergence of $g_{\epsilon ,j}$ to $g_j$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
It is not surprising that if $g_{\epsilon ,j}$ converges uniformly to $g_j$ together with its first and second derivatives as $\epsilon \to 0$ (in which case one talks of $C^2$-convergence) then we have spectral stability of the $curl curl $ operator, which means that the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the problem in $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ converge to those in $\Omega$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. It is also not surprising that if $g_{\epsilon ,j}$ converges uniformly to $g_j$ together with its first derivatives
and
\begin{equation}\label{unic2}
\sup_{\epsilon >0}\sup_{ \bar x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2} |D ^2g_{\epsilon ,j } (\bar x )| \ne \infty
\end{equation}
then we have spectral stability again. (These results are also immediate consequences of the results of the present paper.) The main question here is whether it is possible to relax condition \eqref{unic2}. For example, if we assume that $g_{\epsilon , j}$ is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{model}
g_{\epsilon , j} =\epsilon^{\alpha }b_j(\bar x / \epsilon )
\end{equation}
where $\alpha >0$ and $b_j$ is a fixed $C^{1,1}$ function, condition $\eqref{unic2}$ is encoded by the inequality $\alpha \geq 2$. In this model case, the question
is whether one can get spectral stability for $\alpha <2$. Note that a profile of the form \eqref{model} is typical in the study of boundary homogenization problems
and thin domains, see for example \cite{arrferlam, arrlam, arrvil, capevi, casado, ferralamb, ferlam, ferlam2}.
This problem was solved for the biharmonic operator with intermediate boundary conditions (modelling an elastic hinged plate) in \cite{arrlam} where condition \eqref{unic2} is relaxed by introducing a suitable notion of weighted convergence which allows to prove spectral stability for $\alpha >3/2$ in the model problem above. That condition is described here in \eqref{assumptions}. It is remarkable that the threshold $3/2$ is sharp since for $\alpha \le 3/2 $ spectral stability does not occur for the probelm discussed in \cite{arrlam} (in particular, it is proved in \cite{arrlam} that for $\alpha <3/2$ a degeneration phenomenon occurs and for $\alpha =3/2$ a strange term in the limit appears, as in many homogenization problems). An analogous trichotomy is found in \cite{ferlam} for the biharmonic operator subject to certain Steklov type boundary conditions.
In this paper, we prove that the relaxed convergence \eqref{assumptions} guarantees the spectral stability of the $curl curl $ operator. Our result requires that the Gaffney inequality \eqref{gaffintro}
holds for all domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ with a constant $C$ independent of $\epsilon$. Again, if one does not assume the validity of
the uniform bound \eqref{unic2}, then proving that a uniform Gaffney inequality holds is highly non-trivial. Here we manage to do this, by exploting
the approach of \cite[Ch.~14]{Mazya} based on the use of Sobolev multipliers and the notion of domains of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2(\delta)$.
In particular, if we assume that
\begin{equation}\label{unic32}
|\nabla g_{\epsilon,j } (\bar x) -\nabla g_{\epsilon,j } (\bar y)|\le M |\bar x-\bar y|^{\beta }
\end{equation}
for all $ \bar x, \bar y\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, with $\beta \in ]1/2,1]$ and $M$ independent of $\epsilon$, and we also assume that the $\sup$-norms of functions $|\nabla g_{\epsilon, j } |$ are sufficienlty small, then our domains belong to the class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2(\delta)$ with $\delta $ small enough. This allows to apply \cite[Thm.~14.5.1]{Mazya}
which guarantees the validity of a uniform $H^2$-\,a priori estimate for the Dirichlet Laplacian which, in turn, is equivalent to the uniform Gaffney inequality.
In conclusion, the convergence of the domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ to $\Omega$ in the sense of \eqref{assumptions} combined with the validity of \eqref{unic32}
and the smallness of the gradients of the profile functions $g_{\epsilon, j}$ guarantees the spectral stability of the $curl curl $ operator.
Note that, in principle, since $\Omega$ is of class $C^1$ one may think of choosing from the very beginning an atlas which guarantees that the gradients
of the profile functions are as small as required (indeed, it is enough to adapt the atlas to the tangent planes of a sufficiently big number of boundary points of $\Omega$). Then the convergence in the sense of \eqref{assumptions} would imply the smallness of the gradients of the profile functions of $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ as well.
By setting $\beta = \alpha-1$, we deduce that a uniform Gaffney inequality holds for the example provided by \eqref{model} if $\alpha > 3/2$. Moreover, if $\alpha >3/2$ then spectral stability occurs for the same example since in this case also the convergence \eqref{assumptions} occurs.
The case $\alpha \le 3/2$ is more involved and we plan to address it in a forthcoming paper, see Remark \ref{finalremark}.
We note that if $\alpha <3/2$ one cannot expect the validity of uniform Gaffney inequalities, in particular because the regularity assumptions $C^{1,\beta}$ for $\beta >1/2$ is optimal for the validity of the Gaffney inequality itself, see \cite{fil, PrFil15}.
One of the main tools used in this paper is a Piola-type transform which allows to pull back functions from $\Omega$ to $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ preserving
the boundary conditions. In particular the transformation depends on $\epsilon$ and is constructed in such a way that for any fixed compact set $K$ contained in $\Omega\cap\Omega_{\epsilon}$, it does not modify the values of the vector fields on $K$ for $\epsilon$ sufficiently small. Our Piola transform is constructed by
pasting together local Piola transforms defined in each local chart of the atlas and for this reason it is called here {\it Atlas Piola transform}. We believe that our construction has its own interest.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to preliminaries and notation concerning the atlas classes, the functions spaces and the weak formulations
of our problems. Section 3 is devoted to the construction of the Atlas Piola transform and to the proof of its main properties, see Theorem~\ref{Piolamain}.
In Section 4 we prove our main stability theorem, namely Theorem~\ref{principale}.
Section 5 is devoted to the proof
of uniform a priori estimates and uniform Gaffney inequalities - see Corollaries~\ref{aprioricorol}, \ref{aprioricorol2} - and contains the corresponding applications to the spectral stability problems, see Theorems~\ref{principaleholder}, \ref{mainhomo}.
\section{Preliminaries and notation}
\subsection{Classes of open sets}
In this paper we consider open sets $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, in particular in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, with sufficiently regular boundaries. This means that $\Omega$ can be described in a neighborhood of any point of the boundary as the subgraph of a sufficiently regular function $g$ defined in a local system of orthogonal coordinates. The regularity of $\Omega$
depends on the regularity of the functions $g$. Since we aim at studying domain perturbation problems, following \cite{burlam} and \cite{ferlam}, we find convenient
to use the notion of {\it atlas}, that is a collection ${\mathcal{A}}$ of rotated parallelepipeds $V_j$, $j=1, \dots , s$, which cover $\Omega$ and such that if $V_j $ touches the boundary of $\Omega$ then $\Omega\cap V_j$ is a subgraph of a function $g_j$. The parallelepipeds will also be called {\it local charts}.
More precisely, in Definition \ref{atlas} below the atlas $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $(\rho,s,s',\{V_j\}_{j=1}^s, \{r_j\}^s_{j=1})$ where $s$ is the total number of cuboids used to cover $\Omega$, $s'$ is the number of cuboids touching the boundary of $\Omega$, $V_j$ are the cuboids, $r_j$ are the rotations used to change variables in the representations of the local charts, and $\rho$ is a parameter controlling the minima and maxima of the functions $g_j$.
Note that in this paper the atlas ${\mathcal{A}}$ will be often fixed, while the functions $g_j$, hence $\Omega$, will be perturbed.
Given a set $V\subset \mathbb{R}^N$ and a parameter $\rho >0$, we write
$V_\rho :=\set{x \in V : d(x, \partial V) > \rho}$.
\begin{defn} \label{atlas}
Let $\rho>0, s,s' \in \mathbb{N}, s' \leq s$ and $\{V_j\}_{j=1}^s$ be a family of bounded open cuboids (i.e. rotations of rectangle parallelepipeds in $\mathbb{R}^N$) and $\{r_j\}^s_{j=1}$ be a family of rotations in $\mathbb{R}^N$. We say that $\mathcal{A}=(\rho,s,s',\{V_j\}_{j=1}^s, \{r_j\}^s_{j=1}$) is an atlas in $\mathbb{R}^N$ with parameters $\rho,s,s',\{V_j\}_{j=1}^s, \{r_j\}^s_{j=1}$, briefly an atlas in $\mathbb{R}^N$.
A bounded domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ is said to be of class $C^{k,\gamma}_M(\mathcal{A})$ with $k \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{0\}$, $\gamma \in [0,1]$ and $M>0$ if it satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*),font=\upshape]
\item $\Omega \subset \bigcup_{j=1}^s (V_j)_\rho$ and $(V_j)_\rho \cap \Omega \neq \emptyset$;
\item $V_j \cap \partial\Omega \neq \emptyset$ for $j=1,\dots,s'$ and $V_j \cap \partial \Omega = \emptyset$ for $s'+1 \leq j \leq s$;
\item for $j=1,\dots,s$ we have
$$r_j(V_j)=\set{x \in \mathbb{R}^N : a_{ij} < x_i < b_{ij}, i=1,\dots , N},$$
for $j=1,\dots,s'$ we have
$$r_j(V_j \cap \Omega) = \set{x=(\bar{x},x_N) \in \mathbb{R}^N : \bar{x}\in W_j, a_{Nj}<x_N<g_j(\bar{x})},$$
where $\bar{x}=(x_1,x_2)$,
$$W_j=\set{\bar{x}\in \mathbb{R}^{N-1}, a_{ij}<x_i<b_{ij}, i=1,\dots , N-1}$$
and the functions $g_j \in C^{k,\gamma}(\overline{W_j})$ for any $j=1,\dots, s'$. Moreover, for $j=1,\dots,s'$
$$a_{Nj}+\rho\leq g_j(\bar{x})\leq b_{Nj} - \rho$$
for all $\bar{x}\in \overline{W_j}$.
\item $$\sup_{|\alpha| \le k}\| D^{\alpha}g_j \|_{L^{\infty}(W_j)}+ \sup_{|\alpha | =k}\sup_{\substack{\bar x, \bar y \in W_j\\ \bar x\ne \bar y }}\frac{|D^{\alpha}g_j(\bar x)-D^{\alpha}g_j(\bar y)|}{|\bar x -\bar y|^{\gamma }}\le M$$
for $j=1,\dots,s'$.
\end{enumerate}
We say that $\Omega$ is of class $C^{k,\gamma}(\mathcal{A}) $ if it is of class $C^{k,\gamma}_M(\mathcal{A}) $ for some $M>0$; we say that $\Omega$ is of class $C^{k,\gamma}$ if it is of class $C^{k,\gamma}(\mathcal{A})$ for some atlas $\mathcal{A}$.
\end{defn}
\subsection{Function spaces}
In this section, we recall basic facts and notation for the function spaces that will be used in the following. We refer e.g., to \cite[Ch.~2]{gira} for more details.
Here by $\Omega$ we denote a bounded domain - that is, a bounded connected open set - in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Since the differential problems under consideration are associated with self-adjoint operators, the space $L^2(\Omega)$ is understood here as a space of real-valued functions and is endowed with the scalar product $\int_{\Omega}u\cdot v \, dx $ defined for all vector fields $u,v\in L^2(\Omega)^3$. The space of vector fields
$u\in L^2(\Omega)^3 $ with distributional curl in $L^2(\Omega)^3$ is denoted by $H(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega)$ and is endowed with the norm defined by
$$ ||u||_{H(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega)} = \left( ||u||^{2}_{L^2(\Omega)^3 } + ||\operatorname{curl} u||^{2}_{L^2(\Omega)^3 } \right)^{1/2} $$
for all $u\in H(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega)$. The closure in $H(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega)$ of the space of ${\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}$-functions with compact support in $\Omega$ is denoted by
$H_{0}(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega)$. The following lemma characterizes the space $H_0(\operatorname{curl},\Omega)$ and
is analogous to the well-known characterization of the Sobolev space $H^1_0(\Omega)$ (see e.g., \cite{bre}).
We include a short proof.
Here by $v^0$ we denote the extension-by-zero of a vector field $v$, that is
$$v^0 =
\begin{cases}
v & \text{if }x \in \Omega,\vspace{1mm} \\
0 & \text{if }x \in \mathbb{R}^3 \setminus \Omega\, .
\end{cases}
$$
\begin{lemma} \label{extbyzero}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open set of class $C^{0,1}$ and $u \in H(\operatorname{curl},\Omega)$. Then
$u \in H_0(\operatorname{curl},\Omega)$ if and only if
$u^0\in H(\operatorname{curl},\mathbb{R}^3)$, in which case $\operatorname{curl}(u^0) = (\operatorname{curl}u)^0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $u^0$ belongs to $H(\operatorname{curl},\mathbb{R}^3)$. Thus, there exists $v \in (L^2(\mathbb{R}^3))^3$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{weak:curl}
\int_ \Omega u \cdot \operatorname{curl}\varphi \, dx = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} v \cdot \varphi \, dx \qquad \text{for all }\varphi \in (C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^3))^3.
\end{equation}
Since it holds in particular for all test functions $\varphi \in (C^\infty_c(\Omega))^3$, then necessarily $v=\operatorname{curl}u$ on $\Omega$. On the other hand, since we can take any $\varphi \in (C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^3 \setminus \bar{\Omega}))^3,$ we see that $v=0$ outside $\Omega$. Hence we can rewrite \eqref{weak:curl} as follows
\begin{equation} \label{weak:curl:Omega}
\int_ \Omega u \cdot \operatorname{curl}\varphi \, dx = \int_{\Omega} \operatorname{curl}u \cdot \varphi \, dx \qquad \text{for all }\varphi \in (C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^3))^3.
\end{equation}
By \cite[Lemma 2.4]{gira} it follows that $u \in H_0(\operatorname{curl},\Omega)$. The converse implication is straighforward.
\end{proof}
We note that if $\Omega $ is sufficiently regular, say of class $C^{0,1}$, the space $H_0(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega)$ coincides with the set of square integrable vector fields in $\Omega$ whose curl is also square integrable, and such that their tangential trace at the boundary $\partial \Omega$ is zero (see \cite[Thm. 2.12]{gira}). In particular, we have that
$$H_0(\operatorname{curl},\Omega) \cap (C^\infty(\bar{\Omega}))^3 = \set {u \in (C^\infty(\bar{\Omega}))^3 : \nu \times u\rvert_{\partial \Omega} =0},$$
where $C^\infty(\bar{\Omega})$ denotes smooth compactly supported functions of $\mathbb{R}^3$ restricted to $\bar{\Omega}$.
We denote by $ H(\operatorname{div}, \Omega) $ the space of vector fields
$u\in L^2(\Omega)^3 $ with distributional divergence in $L^2(\Omega)^3$, endowed with the norm defined by
$$ ||u||_{H(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)} = \left( ||u||^{2}_{ L^2(\Omega)^3} + ||\operatorname{div} u||^{2}_{L^2(\Omega)} \right)^{1/2} $$
for all $u\in H(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)$.
Finally, we set
$$
||u||_{ X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle }(\Omega) }\! =\! \left( ||u||^{2}_{ L^2(\Omega)^3} + ||\operatorname{curl} u||^{2}_{L^2(\Omega)^3} + ||\operatorname{div} u||^{2}_{L^2(\Omega)} \right)^{1/2} ,
$$
and we consider the space
$$
X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega) := H_0(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega) \cap H (\operatorname{div}, \Omega)
$$
endowed with the norm defined above, that is $ ||u||_{ X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega) }\! =\! ||u||_{ X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle }(\Omega) }\! $
for all $u\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega) $.
We also set $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\operatorname{div} 0, \Omega) := \{u \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega) : \operatorname{div} u = 0 \,\, {\rm in}\ \Omega \}$.
Recall that $H^1(\Omega)$ is the standard Sobolev space of functions in $L^2(\Omega)$ with first order weak derivatives in $L^2(\Omega)$.
The celebrated Gaffney inequality allows to prove that the space $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega) $ is continuously embedded into the space $H^1(\Omega)^3$ provided
$\Omega$ is sufficiently regular. Namely, we have the following result, see e.g. \cite[Theorem~3.7]{gira}.
\begin{theorem}\label{gaffneythm} Let $\Omega$ is a bounded open set in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ of class $C^{1,1}$. Then $ X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}( \Omega)$ is continuously embedded into
$H^1(\Omega)^3$, and there exists
$C>0$ such that the Gaffney inequality
\begin{equation}\label{gaff}\| u\|_{H^1(\Omega)^3}\le C ||u||_{ X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega) },\end{equation}
holds for all $u\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}( \Omega)$.
\end{theorem}
By the previous theorem it immediately follows that the space $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega) $ is compactly embedded into $L^2(\Omega)^3$, since this is true for the space
$H^1(\Omega)^3$.
As we shall see, the regularity assumptions on $\Omega$ in Theorem~\ref{gaffneythm} can be relaxed since the inequality holds for domains of class $C^{1, \beta}$ with $\beta \in ]1/2, 1]$, but some care is required, see Section~\ref{unifsec}.
\subsection{Weak formulations and resolvent operators}
Since for our purposes we prefer to work in the space $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega)$ rather than in the space $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\operatorname{div}\, 0, \Omega) $, following \cite{cocoercive, coda}, we introduce a penalty term
in the equation and we replace problem \eqref{main} by the problem
\begin{equation}\label{mainpen}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\operatorname{curl}\, \operatorname{curl} u -\tau \nabla \operatorname{div} u = \lambda u,& \ \ {\rm in}\ \Omega ,\\
\operatorname{div} u =0,& \ \ {\rm on}\ \partial \Omega ,\\
\nu \times u = 0 ,& \ \ {\rm on}\ \partial \Omega ,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\tau $ is any fixed positive real number.
It is easy to see that problem \eqref{mainpen} can be formulated in the weak sense as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{mainpenweak}
\int_{\Omega}\operatorname{curl} u \cdot \operatorname{curl} \varphi \, dx+\tau \int_{\Omega} \operatorname{div} u\, \operatorname{div} \varphi \,dx=\lambda \int_{\Omega} u \cdot \varphi \, dx, \ \ {\rm for\ all}\ \varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega ),
\end{equation}
in the unknowns $u\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega)$ and $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Is obvious that the solutions of \eqref{main} are exactly the divergence free solutions of \eqref{mainpenweak}. (Moreover, the weak formulation of \eqref{main} can be obtained simply by replacing $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega )$ by $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\operatorname{div} 0, \Omega )$ in \eqref{mainpenweak}.)
Problem \eqref{mainpenweak} admits also solutions which are not divergence free and which are given by the gradients of the solutions to the Helmohltz
equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Namely, $u=\nabla f $ where $f$ solves the following problem
\begin{equation}\label{hel}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\Delta f = \Lambda f,& \ \ {\rm in}\ \Omega ,\\
f = 0 ,& \ \ {\rm on}\ \partial \Omega ,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
with $\Lambda =\frac{\lambda}{\tau}$. In fact, we have the following result from \cite{coda}.
\begin{lemma}\label{union} If $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ of class ${\mathcal{C}}^{0,1}$, then the set of all eigenpairs $(\lambda , u)$ of problem \eqref{mainpen} is the union of the set of all eigenpairs $(\lambda , u)$ of problem \eqref{main} and the set of all eigenpairs of the form $(\tau \Lambda , \nabla f )$ where $ (\Lambda , f)$ is an eigenpair of problem \eqref{hel}.
\end{lemma}
Thus, we can directly study problem \eqref{mainpenweak} rather than the original problem \eqref{main}: this will always be understood in the following.
In fact, studying the spectral stability of problem \eqref{mainpenweak} is equivalent to studying the spectral stability of problem \eqref{main} because the spurious eigenpairs introduced by the penalty term are given by the eigenpairs of the Dirichlet Laplacian which are stable for our class of domain perturbations (see \cite{arrlam}).
In order to study spectral stability problems, it is also convenient to recast the eigenvalue problems under consideration in the form of eigenvalue problems
for compact self-adjoint operators and this can be done by passing to the analysis of the corresponding resolvent operators. A direct way of doing so, consists
in defining the operator $T$ from $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega )$ to its dual $(X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega))'$ by setting
\begin{equation}\label{operatort}
<Tu, \varphi>= \int_{\Omega}\operatorname{curl} u \cdot \operatorname{curl} \varphi \, dx+\tau \int_{\Omega} \operatorname{div} u\, \operatorname{div} \varphi \, dx ,
\end{equation}
for all $u,\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega )$, and considering the map
$J$ from $L^2(\Omega)^3$ to $(X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega))'$ defined by
$$
<Ju, \varphi>=\int_{\Omega} u \cdot \varphi \, dx ,
$$
for all $u\in L^2(\Omega)^3$ and $\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega )$.
By restricting $J$ to $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ (and denoting the restriction by the same symbol $J$), and using the Riesz Theorem it turns out that the operator $T+J$ is a homeomorphism from $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega )$ to its dual. The inverse operator $(T+J)^{-1}$ will serve for our purposes as discussed above. In fact, the following theorem holds.
\begin{lemma}\label{esse} If $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ such that the embedding $\iota$ of $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega )$ into $L^2(\Omega)^3$ is compact, then the
operator $S_{\Omega}$ from $L^2(\Omega)^3$ to itself defined by
$$
S_{\Omega } u=\iota \circ (T+J)^{-1}\circ J
$$
is a non-negative compact self-adjoint operator in $L^2(\Omega)^3$ whose eigenvalues $\mu$ are related to the eigenvalues $\lambda $ of problem \eqref{mainpenweak} by the equality $\mu =(\lambda +1)^{-1}$.
\end{lemma}
By the previous lemma and standard spectral theory it follows that the spectrum $\sigma (S_{\Omega})$ of $S_{\Omega}$ can be represented as $\sigma (S_{\Omega})=\{0\} \cup \{\mu_n (\Omega ) \}_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}} $, where
$\mu_n(\Omega )$, $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ is a decreasing sequence of positive eigenvalues of finite multiplicity, which converges to zero. Consequently,
the eigenvalues of problem \eqref{mainpenweak} can be represented by the sequence $\lambda_n(\Omega ) $, $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ defined by $
\lambda_n(\Omega )= \mu_n^{-1}(\Omega )-1
$. Moreover, the classical Min-Max Principle yields the following variational representation
\begin{equation}\label{minmax}
\lambda_n(\Omega )= \min_{ \substack{ V\subset X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega ) \\ {\rm dim }V=n } }\ \, \max _{u\in V\setminus\{0\} }
\frac{ \int_{\Omega} |\operatorname{curl} u|^2 dx + \tau \int_\Omega |\operatorname{div} u |^2 dx }{\int_{\Omega} |u|^2\, dx}.
\end{equation}
\bigskip
\section{A Piola-type approximation of the identity}
Given two domains $\Omega$ and $\tilde \Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and a diffeomorphism $\Phi :\tilde\Omega \to \Omega$ of class $C^{1,1}$, the standard
way to pull-back vector fields from $ X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega) $ to $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\tilde\Omega) $ consists in using the (covariant) Piola transform defined by
\begin{equation}\label{pullback}
u(x)= \left((v \circ \Phi) \operatorname{D}\Phi \,\right)(x),\ \ {\rm for\ all }\ x\in \tilde\Omega ,
\end{equation}
for all $v\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$, see e.g., \cite{monk}.
In fact, it turns out that $v\in H_0(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega) $ if and only if $u\in H_0(\operatorname{curl}, \tilde \Omega) $, in which case we have
\begin{equation}
(\operatorname{curl} v ) \circ \Phi = \frac{\operatorname{curl} u \left(\operatorname{D} \Phi \right)^{T}} {\operatorname{det} \left( \operatorname{D} \Phi \right)} \, .
\label{changecurl0}
\end{equation}
Note that for functions $u,v$ in $H^1$ we also have
\begin{equation}
\label{changediv0}
(\displaystyle \operatorname{div} v) \circ \Phi = \frac{\operatorname{div} \left[ u (\operatorname{D}\Phi )^{-1} (\operatorname{D}\Phi )^{-T} \operatorname{det}(\operatorname{D} \Phi ) \right]}{\operatorname{det} (\operatorname{D} \Phi ) },
\end{equation}
and in this case $v \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega) \cap H^1(\Omega)^3$ if and only if $u \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\tilde \Omega) \cap H^1(\tilde \Omega)^3$. See \cite{lamzac} for more details.
Unfortunately, given two domains $\Omega$ and $\tilde \Omega$, in general it is not possible to define explicitly a diffeomorphism between $\Omega$ and $\tilde \Omega$ (even if it is known a priori that the two domains are diffeomorphic). Nevertheless, it is important for our purposes to define an operator which allows to pass from
$ X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega) $ to $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\tilde\Omega) $ as the Piola transform does.
This can be done by assuming that $\Omega$ and $\tilde\Omega$ belong to the same atlas class and using a partition of unity in order to paste together Piola transforms
defined locally, as described in the following.
Note that the specific choice of local Piola transforms reflects our need for a transformation close to the identity.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a fixed atlas in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and let $\Omega, \tilde \Omega$ be two domains of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$. Let $g_j,\tilde g_j$ be the profile functions of $\Omega$ and $\tilde \Omega$ as in Definition~\ref{atlas}. Assume that $k \in ]0,+\infty[$ is such that
\begin{equation}\label{basic}
k>\max_{j=1,\dots, s'}\| \tilde g_j-g_j \|_{\infty}, \ {\rm and }\ \tilde g_j-k>a_{3,j}+\rho,\ \forall j = 1,\dots,s'.
\end{equation}
For any $j=1,\dots,s'$ we set
\begin{equation}\label{hatgj}
\hat{g}_j:= \tilde g_j -k
\end{equation}
and we define the map $h_{j}: r_j(\overline{\tilde \Omega \cap V_j}) \to \mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation}\label{accaj}
h_{j}(\bar{x},x_3) := \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \quad \text{if } a_{3j}\leq x_3\leq \hat{g}_{j}(\bar{x}),\\
(\tilde g_{j}(\bar{x})-g_j(\bar{x})) \left(\frac{x_3-\hat{g}_{j} (\bar{x})}{\tilde g_{j}(\bar{x})- \hat{g}_{j} (\bar{x})}\right)^3, & \quad \text{if } \hat{g}_{j} (\bar{x})<x_3\leq \tilde g_{j}(\bar{x}),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
and the map
\begin{equation}
\label{fij}
\Phi_{j} : r_j(\overline{\tilde \Omega \cap V_j}) \to r_j(\overline{\Omega \cap V_j}), \qquad \Phi_{j}(\bar{x},x_3):=(\bar{x}, x_3 - h_{j}(\bar{x},x_3)).
\end{equation}
Note that $\Phi_{j}$ coincides with the identity map on the set
\begin{equation}
\label{kappaj}K_{j} :=\set{(\bar{x},x_3) \in W_j \times ]a_{3j},b_{3j}[ \ : a_{3j}<x_3<\hat{g}_{j}(\bar{x})}.
\end{equation}
Finally, if $s'+1\leq j\leq s$ we define $\Phi_{j}: r_j(\overline{V_j}) \to r_j(\overline{V_j})$ to be the identity map.
Observe that since $h_{j} \in C^{1,1}(r_j(\overline{\tilde\Omega \cap V_j}))$, then $\Phi_{j}$ is of class $C^{1,1}$, and so is the following map
\begin{equation}\label{psij}\Psi_{j} : \overline{\tilde \Omega \cap V_j} \to \overline{\Omega \cap V_j}, \qquad \Psi_{j} : = r_j^{-1} \circ \Phi_{j} \circ r_j.
\end{equation}
An easy computation shows that if
\begin{equation}\label{basic2}
k>\frac{3}{\alpha}\max_{j=1,\dots, s'}\| \tilde g_j-g_j \|_{\infty}
\end{equation}
for some constant $\alpha \in ]0,1[$ then
\begin{equation}\label{basic3}
0<1-\alpha \leq \operatorname{det}(\operatorname{D}\Psi_{j}(x)) \leq 1+\alpha \quad \text{for any } x\in \tilde\Omega \cap V_j.
\end{equation}
Let $\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^s$ be a $C^{\infty}$-partition of unity associated with the open cover $\{V_j\}_{j=1}^s$ of the compact set $\overline{\cup_{j=1}^s(V_{j})_{\rho}}$
that is $0\leq \psi_j \leq 1$, $\operatorname{supp}(\psi_j) \subset V_j$ for all $j=1,\dots,s$, and $\sum_{j=1}^s \psi_j \equiv 1$ in $\overline{\cup_{j=1}^s(V_{j})_{\rho}}$, in particular also in $\overline{\Omega\cup\tilde\Omega}$. Note that this is a partition of unity is independent of $\Omega, \tilde \Omega$ in the atlas class under consideration.
Since for any $\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ we have $\varphi=\sum_{j=1}^s \varphi_j$ where $\varphi_j=\psi_j \varphi$, then it is natural to give the following definition (note that here we consider open sets of class $C^{1,1}$ hence the spaces $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}$ are embedded into $H^1$).
\begin{defn} Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be an atlas in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and $\Omega, \tilde\Omega$ be two domains of class $C^{1,1}({\mathcal{A}})$. Assume that $k>0$ satisfies \eqref{basic}, and $\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^s$ is a partition of unity as above. The {\em Atlas Piola transform} from $\Omega$ to $\tilde \Omega$, with parameters ${\mathcal{A}}$, $k$, and $\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^s$, is the map from $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ to $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\tilde\Omega)$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{defE}
\mathcal{P} \varphi:=\sum_{j=1}^{s'} \tilde{\varphi}_{j} + \sum_{j=s'+1}^s \varphi_j
\end{equation}
for all $\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$, where
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\varphi}_{j}(x):= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}\label{tildefij}
(\varphi_j \circ \Psi_{j}(x)) \operatorname{D}\Psi_{j}(x), & \text{if } x\in \tilde \Omega \cap V_j,\vspace{1mm}\\
0, & \text{if } x\in \tilde\Omega \setminus V_j,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
for any $j=1,\dots,s'$.
\end{defn}
Note that $\mathcal{P}\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\tilde{\Omega})$ because $(\varphi_j \circ \Psi_{j}) \operatorname{D}\Psi_{j} \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\tilde{\Omega} \cap V_j)$ (observe that the support of $\varphi_j$ is compact in $V_j$), hence $\tilde{\varphi}_j \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\tilde{\Omega})$.
This Atlas Piola transform will be used in this paper for a family $\Omega_\epsilon, \epsilon>0$ of domains of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$, converging in some sense to a domain $\Omega$ of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$. In this case, $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ will play the role of the domain $\tilde \Omega$ and
the corresponding transformation will allow us to pass from $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ to $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_{\epsilon})$.
Given a family of domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$, $\epsilon >0$, and a fixed domain $\Omega$, all of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$, we shall denote by $g_{\epsilon,j}$ and $g_j$ the corresponding profile functions (defined on $W_j$) of $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ and $\Omega$ respectively, as in Definition~\ref{atlas}.
Following \cite{arrlam,ferlam}, we use a notion of convergence for the open sets $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ to $\Omega$, which is expressed in terms of convergence of the the profile functions $g_{\epsilon,j}$ to $g_j$. Namely, we assume that for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\kappa_\epsilon>0$ such that for any $j\in \set{1,\dots,s'}$
\begin{equation} \label{assumptions}
\begin{split}
&(i) \hspace{9pt} \kappa_\epsilon>\max_{ j=1,\dots , s' } \norm{g_{\epsilon,j} - g_j}_{L^\infty(W_j)};\\
&(ii) \hspace{4pt} \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \kappa_\epsilon =0;\\
&(iii) \hspace{4pt} \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{ \max_{ j=1,\dots , s' } \norm{D^\beta(g_{\epsilon,j} -g_j)}_{L^\infty(W_j)}}{\kappa_\epsilon^{3/2 - |\beta|}}=0 \quad \text{ for all }\ \beta \in \mathbb{N}^3 \text{ with } |\beta| \leq 2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that if every function $g_{\epsilon,j}$ converges to $g_j$ uniformly together with the first order derivatives and condition \eqref{unic2} is satisfied (in particular, if the second order derivatives of $g_{\epsilon,j}$ converge uniformly to those of $g_j$) then conditions \eqref{assumptions} are fulfilled, see \cite{arrlam}.
Note also that the exponent $3/2$ in \eqref{assumptions} turns out to be optimal in the analysis of \cite{arrlam} and plays a crucial role for instance in proving inequality \eqref{estimateAbis}.
We now fix a partition of unity $\{ \psi_j\}_{j=1}^s$ associated with the covering of cuboids of the atlas ${\mathcal{A}}$ as above, and independent of $\Omega_{\epsilon}$
and $\Omega$. We also choose $k=6 \kappa_{\epsilon}$ and we denote by ${\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon}$ the Atlas Piola transform from $\Omega$ to $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ (with parameters ${\mathcal{A}}$, $k$, $\{ \psi_j\}_{j=1}^s$ ).
Note that conditions \eqref{basic}, \eqref{basic2} \eqref{basic3} are satisfied with $\alpha =1/2$ if $\epsilon$ is sufficiently small.
In the following, we shall denote by $\hat g_{\epsilon, j}$, $h_{\epsilon, j}$, $\Phi_{\epsilon ,j}$, $K_{\epsilon ,j}$, $\Psi_{\epsilon ,j}$, $\tilde \varphi_{\epsilon ,j}$ all quantities defined in \eqref{hatgj}, \eqref{accaj}, \eqref{fij}, \eqref{kappaj}, \eqref{psij}, \eqref{tildefij} respectively, with $\tilde \Omega = \Omega_{\epsilon}$ and $k=6\kappa_{\epsilon}$.
Then we can prove the following theorem. We note that in the proof, some technical issues related to pasting together functions defined in different charts are treated in the spirit of the arguments used in \cite{ferlam} for the Sobolev spaces $H^2(\Omega)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{Piolamain}
Let $\Omega_\epsilon, \epsilon>0$, and $\Omega$ be bounded domains of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$. Assume that $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ converges to $\Omega$ as $\epsilon\to 0$ in the sense of \eqref{assumptions}. Let ${\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon}$ be the Atlas Piola transform from $\Omega$ to $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ defined for $\epsilon $ sufficiently small as above. Then the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*),font=\upshape]
\item for any $\epsilon>0$ the function ${\mathcal P}_\epsilon$ maps $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ to $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_\epsilon)$ with continuity;
\item for any compact set ${\mathcal{K}}$ contained in $\Omega$ there exists $\epsilon_{\mathcal{K}} >0 $ such that
\begin{equation}\label{identity}
({\mathcal P}_\epsilon \varphi )(x)= \varphi (x),\ \ \forall x\in {\mathcal{K}}
\end{equation}
for all $\epsilon \in ]0,\epsilon_{\mathcal{K}}[$ and $\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$;
\item the limit
\begin{equation}
\norm{{\mathcal P}_\epsilon \varphi}_{X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega_\epsilon)} \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{} \norm{\varphi}_{X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N} (\Omega)},
\end{equation}
holds for all $\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$;
\item the limit
\begin{equation}
\norm{{\mathcal P}_\epsilon \varphi -\varphi }_{ X (\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega )} \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{} 0 ,
\end{equation}
holds for all $\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $\varphi\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ be fixed. Note that $\Omega$ is of class $C^{1,1}$ hence the Gaffney inequality holds and $\varphi\in H^1(\Omega)^3$.
Moreover, $\varphi_j\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ for all $j=1,\dots , s'$ hence $\tilde \varphi_{\epsilon , j }$ belongs to $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_{\epsilon } )$ for all $j=1,\dots , s'$. It follows that ${\mathcal P}_\epsilon \varphi \in
X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_\epsilon)$.
The continuity of the operator follows by standard calculus, the Gaffney inequality and formulas \eqref{changecurl0}, \eqref{changediv0}. Thus, statement (i) holds.
For any fixed compact set ${\mathcal{K}}$ contained in $\Omega$, since $\hat g_{\epsilon , j}$ converges uniformly to $g_j$, we have
$${\mathcal{K}}\cap V_j\subset r_j^{-1} (K_{\epsilon , j} ) $$ for all $j=1, \dots , s'$ and $\epsilon$ sufficiently small; this, combined with the fact that $\Phi_{\epsilon ,j}$ coincides with the identity on $K_{\epsilon ,j }$, it follows that
$\tilde \varphi_{\epsilon, j}=\varphi_j$ on ${\mathcal{K}}$ for all $\epsilon$ sufficiently small and \eqref{identity} follows.
We now prove statement (iii). We have to prove the following limiting relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{ {\mathcal P}_\epsilon \varphi}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\varphi}^2, \label{limitEvarphi}\\
& & \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{\operatorname{curl} {\mathcal P}_\epsilon \varphi}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\operatorname{curl} \varphi}^2, \label{limitcurlEvarphi} \\
& & \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{\operatorname{div}{\mathcal P}_\epsilon \varphi}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\operatorname{div}\varphi}^2. \label{limitdivEvarphi}
\end{eqnarray}
We begin by proving \eqref{limitEvarphi}. To see this, it just suffices to show that
\begin{equation}\label{integrale1}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h} = \int_\Omega \varphi_j \cdot \varphi_h,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{integrale2}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \varphi_i = \int_\Omega \varphi_j \cdot \varphi_i
\end{equation}
for any $j,h \in \set{1,\dots,s'}$ and $i\in \set{s'+1,\dots,s}$.
We will only show \eqref{integrale1}, since the computations to prove \eqref{integrale2} are similar.
We will first see that
\begin{equation} \label{tildephigoesto0}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 =0.
\end{equation}
Notice that for any $j \in \set{1,\dots, s'}$ we have $\abs{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})}\to 0$ as $\epsilon$ goes to 0.
Moreover, if $w\in \mathbb{R}^3$ is a vector, then $\abs{w \operatorname{D}\Psi_{\epsilon,j}}= \abs{w \operatorname{D}\Phi_{\epsilon,j}} \leq C \abs{w}$, since
$$
\operatorname{D}\Phi_{\epsilon,j}=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0\\
-\frac{\partial h_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_1} & -\frac{\partial h_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_2} & 1-\frac{\partial h_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_3} \\
\end{pmatrix}
$$
and the first derivatives of $h_{\epsilon,j}$ are all bounded due to the hypothesis on the functions $g_{\epsilon,j}$ (see also \eqref{estimatederh}). Note that here and in what follows, by $c$ we denote a constant independent of $\epsilon $ which may vary from line to line.
Then by using also \eqref{basic3}, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 dy &= \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{(\varphi_j \circ \Psi_{\epsilon,j}) \operatorname{D}\Psi_{\epsilon,j}}^2 dy \\
&\leq c \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\varphi_j \circ \Psi_{\epsilon,j}}^2 dy\\
&= c \int_{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \frac{\abs{\varphi_j}^2}{\abs{\operatorname{det}(\operatorname{D}\Psi_{\epsilon,j}) \circ \Psi^{(-1)}_{\epsilon,j}}} \, dx\\
&\leq c \int_{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\varphi_j}^2 dx \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{}0.
\end{align*}
By \eqref{tildephigoesto0} we deduce that
\begin{equation} \label{tildephigoestophi}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\varphi_j}^2.
\end{equation}
Indeed, since $\Psi_{\epsilon,j}$ is the identity on $r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j}) \subset \Omega \cap \Omega_{\epsilon}$,
using \eqref{tildephigoesto0} yields
$$\int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 = \int_{r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 + \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j)\setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{} \int_{\Omega \cap V_j} \abs{\varphi_j}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\varphi_j}^2.$$
Observe now that
\begin{equation} \label{dottildephisplitintegral}
\begin{split}
&\int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h}= \int_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j \cap V_h} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h}\\
& \quad =\int_{r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j}) \cap r_h^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,h})} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h} + \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j \cap V_h) \setminus (r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j}) \cap r_h^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,h}))} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It is obvious that
\begin{equation} \label{dottildephigoestodotphi}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j}) \cap r_h^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,h})} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h} = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j}) \cap r_h^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,h})} \varphi_j \cdot \varphi_h =\int_\Omega \varphi_j \cdot \varphi_h.
\end{equation}
Here and in the following we will make use of the identity
\begin{equation} \label{setidentity}
\begin{split}
&(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j \cap V_h) \setminus (r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j}) \cap r_h^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,h}))= \\
& \qquad [(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j \cap V_h) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})] \cup [(r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j}) \setminus r^{-1}_h (K_{\epsilon,h})) \cap V_h ].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Observe that by \eqref{tildephigoesto0}, \eqref{tildephigoestophi} we get
\begin{equation} \label{dottildephigoesto'}
\begin{split}
&\abs{\int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j \cap V_h) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h}} \\
& \qquad \leq \left( \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2} \left( \int_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_h} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h}}^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2} \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{}0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{dottildephigoesto0''}
\begin{split}
&\abs{\int_{(r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j}) \setminus r^{-1}_h (K_{\epsilon,h})) \cap V_h } \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h}} \\
&\quad \leq \left( \int_{r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2} \left( \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_h) \setminus r^{-1}_h(K_{\epsilon,h})} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h}}^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2} \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{}0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Hence, by formula \eqref{setidentity}, we see that the second term of the sum in \eqref{dottildephisplitintegral} vanishes as $\epsilon$ goes to zero, hence we deduce the validity of \eqref{integrale1} from \eqref{dottildephisplitintegral} and \eqref{dottildephigoestodotphi}.
We now prove \eqref{limitcurlEvarphi}. Again, we need to check that
\begin{equation} \label{curlintegrale1}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \operatorname{curl} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \cdot \operatorname{curl}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h} = \int_\Omega \operatorname{curl}\varphi_j \cdot \operatorname{curl} \varphi_h
\end{equation}
for any $j,h \in \set{1,\dots,s'}$. Note that
$$
\operatorname{D}\Phi^{(-1)}_{\epsilon,j}=\frac{1}{\operatorname{det}(\operatorname{D}\Phi_{\epsilon,j})}\begin{pmatrix}
1-\frac{\partial h_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_3} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1-\frac{\partial h_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_3} & 0 \\
\frac{\partial h_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial h_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_2} & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \circ \Phi^{(-1)}_{\epsilon,j},
$$
and recall that $\Psi_{\epsilon,j} = r_j^{-1} \circ \Phi_{\epsilon,j} \circ r_j$. Moreover, by \eqref{changecurl0} we have
$$\operatorname{curl} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} = \left( \operatorname{curl}\varphi_j \circ \Psi_{\epsilon,j} \right) (\operatorname{D}\Psi_{\epsilon,j})^{-T} \operatorname{det}\operatorname{D}(\Psi_{\epsilon,j}) \ \ {\rm on}\ \Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j$$
so that
$$\abs{\operatorname{curl}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}} \leq c \abs{\operatorname{curl}\varphi_j \circ \Psi_{\epsilon,j}}.$$
Then, with computations analogous to those performed above, we get
\begin{equation} \label{curltildephigoesto0}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\operatorname{curl}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 =0.
\end{equation}
It is also obvious that
\begin{equation} \label{curltildephionKepsilon}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\operatorname{curl}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\operatorname{curl}\varphi_j}^2
\end{equation}
and thus
\begin{equation} \label{curltildephigoestolphi}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{\operatorname{curl}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\operatorname{curl}\varphi_j}^2.
\end{equation}
By using the same argument above, formula \eqref{setidentity} together with the new identities \eqref{curltildephigoesto0}, \eqref{curltildephionKepsilon} and \eqref{curltildephigoestolphi}, we obtain \eqref{curlintegrale1} .
Finally, we prove \eqref{limitdivEvarphi}. To do so, we need to prove that
\begin{equation} \label{divintegrale1}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \operatorname{div} \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \operatorname{div}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,h} = \int_\Omega \operatorname{div}\varphi_j \operatorname{div}\varphi_h
\end{equation}
for any $j,h \in \set{1,\dots,s'}$. Here and in the rest of the proof, the vectors under consideration will be represented as follows: $\varphi_j=(\varphi_j^1, \varphi_j^2, \varphi_j^3)$ and $\Psi_{\epsilon,j}=(\Psi_{\epsilon,j}^1, \Psi_{\epsilon,j}^2, \Psi_{\epsilon,j}^3)$.
Since $\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ and the Gaffney inequality holds on $\Omega$, it follows that $\varphi \in H^1(\Omega)^3$. Thus, recalling that $\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}(x) = (\varphi_j \circ \Psi_{\epsilon,j}(x)) \operatorname{D}\Psi_{\epsilon,j}(x)$ for all $x \in \Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j$, it is possible to apply the chain rule and obtain that
\begin{equation} \label{type:A:and:B}
\operatorname{div}(\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j})= \sum_{m,n,i=1}^3 \underbrace{\left( \frac{\partial \varphi_j^m}{\partial x_n}(\Psi_{\epsilon,j}) \frac{\partial \Psi_{\epsilon,j}^n}{\partial x_i} \frac{\partial \Psi_{\epsilon,j}^m}{\partial x_i}\right)}_{\text{type A}} + \sum_{m,i=1}^3 \underbrace{\varphi^m_j (\Psi_{\epsilon,j}) \frac{\partial^2 \Psi^m_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_i^2}}_{\text{type B}} \quad \text{in } \Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j,
\end{equation}
where the terms in the first sum are called of type A and the others are called terms of type B.
Recall that $h_{\epsilon,j}$ are the functions in \eqref{accaj} used to define the diffeomorphisms $ \Phi_{\epsilon,j}$. We observe that by the Leibniz rule we have
$$D^\alpha h_{\epsilon,j}(x) = \sum_{0 \leq \gamma \leq \alpha} \binom{\alpha}{\gamma} D^\gamma \left( g_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{x}) - g_j(\bar{x}) \right) D^{\alpha - \gamma} \left( \frac{x_3 - \hat{g}_{\epsilon,j} (\bar{x})}{g_{\epsilon,j} (\bar{x})- \hat{g}_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{x})} \right)^3$$
hence by standard calculus (note that the denominator in the previous formula is the constant $k=6\kappa_{\epsilon}$) and \eqref{assumptions} we get
\begin{equation}
\abs{D^{\alpha - \gamma} \left( \frac{x_3 - \hat{g}_{\epsilon,j} (\bar{x})}{g_{\epsilon,j} (\bar{x})- \hat{g}_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{x})} \right)^3} \leq \frac{c}{\abs{g_{\epsilon,j} (\bar{x}) - \hat{g}_{\epsilon,j} (\bar{x})}^{|\alpha| - |\gamma|}} \leq \frac{c}{\kappa_\epsilon^{|\alpha|-|\gamma|}}.
\end{equation}
Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{estimatederh}
\norm{D^\alpha h_{\epsilon,j}}_\infty \leq c \sum_{0 \leq \gamma \leq \alpha} \frac{\norm{D^\gamma (g_{\epsilon,j} - g_j)}_\infty}{\kappa_\epsilon^{|\alpha|- |\gamma|}}
\end{equation}
for all $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small. It follows by the definitions of $\Psi_{\epsilon,j}, \Phi_{\epsilon,j}$, by \eqref{estimatederh} and part $(iii)$ of condition \eqref{assumptions}, that for all $m,i =1,2,3$
\begin{equation} \label{secondderpsi}
\norm{\frac{\partial^2 \Psi^m_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_i^2}}_{L^\infty(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j)} = o(\kappa_\epsilon^{-1/2}),\ \ {\rm as}\ \epsilon \to 0.
\end{equation}
We claim that
\begin{equation} \label{divtildephigoesto0}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\operatorname{div}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 =0.
\end{equation}
To prove that, we analyse first the terms of type A in \eqref{type:A:and:B}. By changing variables in integrals we get:
\begin{equation} \label{estimateA}
\begin{split}
&\int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\frac{\partial \varphi_j^m}{\partial x_n} \circ \Psi_{\epsilon,j}}^2 \abs{\frac{\partial \Psi_{\epsilon,j}^n}{\partial x_i}}^2 \abs{\frac{\partial \Psi_{\epsilon,j}^m}{\partial x_i}}^2 dy\\
&\leq c \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\frac{\partial \varphi_j^m}{\partial x_n} \circ \Psi_{\epsilon,j}}^2 dy\\
&=c \int_{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\frac{\partial \varphi_j^m}{\partial x_n}}^2 \frac{1}{\abs{\operatorname{det}(\operatorname{D}\Psi_{\epsilon,j}) \circ \Psi^{(-1)}_{\epsilon,j}}} \, dx\\
&\leq c \int_{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\frac{\partial \varphi_j^m}{\partial x_n}}^2 dx \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{} 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We now consider the terms of type B. By setting $\eta_j(z) := \varphi_j(r^{-1}_j(z))$ and recalling \eqref{secondderpsi} we have that
\begin{equation}\label{estimateAbis}
\begin{split}
&\int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\varphi_j^m (\Psi_{\epsilon,j}) \frac{\partial^2 \Psi^m_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_i^2}}^2 dy \\
& \qquad \leq \norm{\frac{\partial^2 \Psi^m_{\epsilon,j}}{\partial x_i^2}}^2_{L^\infty(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j)} \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\varphi_j (\Psi_{\epsilon,j})}^2 dy\\
& \qquad = o(\kappa_\epsilon^{-1}) \int_{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\varphi_j}^2 \frac{1}{\abs{\operatorname{det}(\operatorname{D}\Psi_{\epsilon,j}) \circ \Psi^{(-1)}_{\epsilon,j}}} \, dx\\
& \qquad \leq o(\kappa_\epsilon^{-1}) \int_{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\varphi_j(x)}^2 dx \\
&\qquad = o(\kappa_\epsilon^{-1}) \int_{r_j(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus K_{\epsilon,j}} \abs{\eta_j (z)}^2 dz \\
& \qquad = o(\kappa_\epsilon^{-1}) \int_{W_j} \left( \int_{{\hat g}_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{z})}^{g_j(\bar{z})} \abs{\eta_j(\bar{z},z_3)}^2 dz_3 \right) d\bar{z} \\
&\qquad \leq o(\kappa_\epsilon^{-1}) \int_{W_j} \abs{g_j(\bar{z}) - {\hat g}_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{z})} \norm{\eta_j(\bar{z}, \cdot)}^2_{L^\infty(a_{3j}, g_j(\bar{z}))^3} d\bar{z} \\
&\qquad \leq o(\kappa_\epsilon^{-1}) \norm{g_j - {\hat g}_{\epsilon,j}}_{L^\infty(W_j)} \int_{W_j} \norm{\eta_j(\bar{z}, \cdot)}^2_{H^1(a_{3j}, g_j(\bar{z}))^3} d\bar{z} \\
&\qquad \leq o(\kappa_\epsilon^{-1}) \, \kappa_\epsilon \norm{\eta_j}_{H^1(r_j(\Omega \cap V_j))^3}^2 \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{} 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here we have used the following one dimensional embedding estimate for Sobolev functions (see e.g., Burenkov \cite{bur}):
\begin{equation*}
\norm{f}_{L^\infty(a,b)} \leq c \norm{f}_{H^1(a,b)}
\end{equation*}
for all $f \in H^1(a,b)$, where the constant $c=c(d)$ is uniformly bounded for $\abs{b-a}>d$. We conclude that \eqref{divtildephigoesto0} holds.
Using \eqref{divtildephigoesto0}, the fact that $\Psi_{\epsilon,j}$ in $r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})$ coincides with the identity and that \\
$\abs{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \to 0$ as $\epsilon$ goes to 0, we deduce that
\begin{equation} \label{divtildephionKepsilon}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\operatorname{div}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\operatorname{div}\varphi_j}^2,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{divtildephigoestophi}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{\operatorname{div}\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 = \int_\Omega \abs{\operatorname{div}\varphi_j}^2.
\end{equation}
With \eqref{divtildephigoesto0}, \eqref{divtildephionKepsilon} and \eqref{divtildephigoestophi} in mind, in order to prove \eqref{divintegrale1}, it suffices to reproduce the same argument used before starting from \eqref{dottildephisplitintegral} combined with formula \eqref{setidentity}. We omit the details.
Thus statement (iii) is proved.
The proof of statement (iv) follows by the same considerations above. First of all, for any $j=1, \dots, s'$ the function $\tilde \varphi_{\epsilon, j}$ coincides with $\varphi_j$
on $r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon , j})$. Thus ${\mathcal P}_{\epsilon}\varphi =\varphi $ on
$(\cup_{j=1,\dots , s'} r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon , j}) ) \cup ( \cup_{j=s'+1, \dots , s} V_j)$.
It follows that
$$\| {\mathcal P}_{\epsilon}\varphi - \varphi \|_{X(\Omega_{\epsilon}\cap \Omega )} \le \| {\mathcal P}_{\epsilon}\varphi - \varphi \|_{X( \cup_{j=1,\dots , s'} (\Omega_{\epsilon}\cap V_j) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon , j} ) )}
$$
This combined with by the limiting relations \eqref{tildephigoesto0}, \eqref{curltildephigoesto0} and \eqref{divtildephigoesto0} yields the validity of statement (iv).
\end{proof}
\section{Spectral stability}
\label{sezione4}
Let $\Omega_\epsilon$, $\epsilon >0$, and $\Omega$ be bounded domains in $\mathbb{R}^3$ of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$. For simplicity, it is convenient to set $\Omega_0=\Omega$. In this section, we prove that if
$\Omega_{\epsilon}$ converges to $\Omega$ as $\epsilon\to 0$ in the sense of \eqref{assumptions}, and a uniform Gaffney inequality holds on the domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ then we have spectral stability for the $\operatorname{curl}\cu $ operator defined on the domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ with respect to the reference domain $\Omega$.
By uniform Gaffney inequality, we mean that the spaces $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_{\epsilon})$ are embedded into $H^1(\Omega_{\epsilon})^3$ and there exists a positive constant $C$ independent of $\epsilon$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{unigaff}
\| u\|_{H^1(\Omega_{\epsilon})^3}\le C \| u\|_{X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_{\epsilon})}\, ,
\end{equation}
for all $u\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_{\epsilon})$ and $\epsilon >0$. (Note that by Theorem~\ref{gaffneythm}, for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists a positive constant $C_{\epsilon}$, possibly depending on $\epsilon$, such that \eqref{unigaff} holds, but here we need a constant independent of $\epsilon$).
To do so, for any $\epsilon \geq 0$, we denote by $S_{\epsilon}$ the operator $S_{\Omega_{\epsilon}}$ from $L^2(\Omega_{\epsilon})$ to itself defined in Lemma~\ref{esse}.
Recall that if $f_\epsilon\in L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3$ is the datum of the following Poisson problem
\begin{equation}\label{Poissonprob}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\operatorname{curl}\operatorname{curl} v_\epsilon -\tau \nabla \operatorname{div}v_\epsilon + v_\epsilon = f_\epsilon, & \quad \text{in } \Omega_\epsilon,\\
\operatorname{div}v_\epsilon=0,& \quad \text{on } \partial \Omega_\epsilon,\\
v_\epsilon \times \nu = 0, & \quad \text{on } \partial\Omega_\epsilon,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
then the unique solution $ v_{\epsilon }\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_{\epsilon })$ is precisely $S_{\epsilon}f_{\epsilon }$, that is $v_{\epsilon }=S_{\epsilon}f_{\epsilon }$.
Recall that $\tau $ is a fixed positive constant (one could normalise it by setting $\tau =1$ but we prefer to keep it as it is also with reference to other papers
where it is important to have the possibility to use different values of $\tau$, see for example \cite[Remark~2.13]{lamzac}).
In this section we prove that $S_{\epsilon}$ compactly converges to $S_{0}$ as $\epsilon \to 0$, and this implies spectra stability. This has to be understood in the following sense.
We denote by $E=\{ E_\epsilon \}_{\epsilon >0} $ the family of the extension-by-zero operators $E_\epsilon:L^2(\Omega)^3 \to L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{def:extby0}
E_\epsilon \varphi =\varphi^0= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\varphi, & \quad \text{if } x\in \Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega,\vspace{1mm}\\
0, & \quad \text{if } x \in \Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega ,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
for all $\varphi \in L^2(\Omega)^3$.
Note that under our assumptions we have that for all $\varphi \in L^2(\Omega)^3$
$$\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \norm{E_\epsilon \varphi}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} = \norm{\varphi}_{L^2(\Omega)^3},$$
since
$\abs{\Omega \setminus (\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega)} \to 0$ as $\epsilon$ goes to 0. We recall the following definition from \cite{Vai}, see also \cite{arcalo} and \cite{capi}.
\begin{defn} Let $u_{\epsilon}\in L^2(\Omega_{\epsilon })$, for $\epsilon >0$, be a family of functions. We say that $u_{\epsilon}$ $E$-converges to $u_0\in L^2(\Omega)$ as $\epsilon \to 0$ and we write $u_{\epsilon}\xrightarrow{E} u_0$ if
$$
\| u_{\epsilon} -E_{\epsilon }u_0\|_{L^2(\Omega_{\epsilon })}\to 0,\ \ {\rm as}\ \ \epsilon \to 0\, .
$$
We also say that $S_{\epsilon }$ $E$-converges to $S_0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$ and we write $S_{\epsilon}\xrightarrow{EE} S_0$ if
for any family of functions $f_{\epsilon }\in L^2(\Omega_{\epsilon })$, we have
$$
f_{\epsilon } \xrightarrow{E} f_0\ \ \Longrightarrow \ \ S_{\epsilon }f_{\epsilon } \xrightarrow{E} S_0f_0\, .
$$
Finally, we say that $S_{\epsilon }$ $E$-compact converges to $S_0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$ and we write $S_{\epsilon}\xrightarrow{C} S_0$ if $S_{\epsilon}\xrightarrow{EE} S_0$ and for any family of functions $f_{\epsilon }\in L^2(\Omega_{\epsilon })$, with $\| f_{\epsilon } \|_{L^2(\Omega_{\epsilon})}=1$ and any sequence of positive numbers $\epsilon_n$
with $\epsilon_n\to 0$, there exists a subsequence $\epsilon_{n_k}$ and $u\in L^2(\Omega)$ such that $ S_{\epsilon_{n_k}}f_{n_k} \xrightarrow{E} u $.
\end{defn}
The following theorem from \cite[Thm.~6.3]{Vai} holds.
\begin{theorem}\label{vainikko} If
$S_{\epsilon}\xrightarrow{C} S_0$ then the eigenvalues of the operator $S_{\epsilon}$ converge to the eigenvalues of the operator $S_0$, and the eigenfunctions of the operator $S_{\epsilon}$ $E$-converge to the eigenfunctions of the operator $S_{0}$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
\end{theorem}
If we denote by $\mu_n(\epsilon)$, $n\in \mathbb{N}$ the sequence of eigenvalues of $S_{\epsilon}$ and by $u_n(\epsilon)$, $n\in \mathbb{N}$ a corresponding orthonormal sequence of eigenfunctions, then the stability of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions stated above has to be interpreted in the following sense:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mu_n(\epsilon )\to \mu_n(0)$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
\item[(ii)] For any sequence $\epsilon_k$, $k\in \mathbb{N}$, converging to zero there exists an orthonormal sequence of eigenfunctions $u_n(0)$, $n\in \mathbb{N}$ in $L^2(\Omega)^3$ such that, possibly passing to a subsequence of $\epsilon_k$, $u_n(\epsilon_k) \xrightarrow{E} u_n(0)$.
\item[(iii)] Given $m$ eigenvalues $\mu_n(0), \dots , \mu_{n+m-1}(0)$ with
$\mu_n(0)\ne \mu_{n-1}(0)$ and $\mu_{n+m-1}(0)\ne \mu_{n+m}(0)$
and corresponding orthonormal eigenfunctions $u_n(0), \dots , u_{n+m-1}(0)$,
there exist $m$ orthonormal generalized eigenfunctions (i.e. linear combinations of eigenfunctions) $v_n(\epsilon ), \dots , v_{n+m-1}(\epsilon )$ associated with $\mu_n(\epsilon ), \dots ,
\mu_{n+m-1}(\epsilon )$ such that $v_{n+i}(\epsilon ) \xrightarrow{E} u_{n+i}(0)$ for all $i=0, 1,\dots , m-1$.
\end{itemize}
Recall that $\mu $ is an eigenvalue of $S_\epsilon$ if and only if $\lambda=\mu^{-1}$ is an eigenvalue of the problem
\begin{equation}\label{eigen}
\begin{cases}
\operatorname{curl}\operatorname{curl} v_\epsilon -\tau \nabla \operatorname{div}v_\epsilon +v_\epsilon =\lambda v_\epsilon, & \text{in }\Omega_\epsilon,\\
\operatorname{div}v_\epsilon=0, & \text{on }\partial\Omega_\epsilon,\\
v_\epsilon \times \nu =0, & \text{on }\partial\Omega_\epsilon.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and that the corresponding eigenfunctions are the same. Note that the eigenvalues of \eqref{eigen} differ from those of \eqref{mainpen} just by a translation. Thus, studying the stability of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the problem \eqref{eigen} or \eqref{mainpen}, is equivalent to studying the spectral stability of the family of operators $S_{\epsilon}$. To do so, we recall that the weak formulation of problem \eqref{Poissonprob}
reads as follows: find $v_\epsilon \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_\epsilon)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Poissonprobweak}
\int_{\Omega_\epsilon} v_\epsilon \cdot \eta \, dx + \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \operatorname{curl}v_\epsilon \cdot \operatorname{curl}\eta \, dx + \tau \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \operatorname{div}v_\epsilon \operatorname{div}\eta \, dx = \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} f_\epsilon \cdot \eta \, dx
\end{equation}
for all $\eta \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_\epsilon)$.
Suppose that for every $\epsilon>0$ we have that $\norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} \leq C$ for some $C>0$. Then, setting $\eta = v_\epsilon$ in \eqref{Poissonprobweak} and observing that $\int_{\Omega_\epsilon} f_\epsilon \cdot v_\epsilon \, dx \leq \frac{1}{2} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon}\abs{f_\epsilon}^2 \, dx + \frac{1}{2} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{v_\epsilon}^2 \, dx$, we get
$$\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{v_\epsilon}^2 \, dx + \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{\operatorname{curl}v_\epsilon}^2 \, dx + \tau \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{\operatorname{div}v_\epsilon}^2 \, dx \leq \frac{1}{2} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \abs{f_\epsilon}^2 \, dx.$$
This in turn implies that for all $\epsilon>0$
\begin{equation} \label{normveps}
\begin{split}
\norm{v_\epsilon}_{X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_\epsilon)} &= \left( \norm{v_\epsilon}^2_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} + \,\norm{\operatorname{curl} v_\epsilon}^2_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} + \,\norm{\operatorname{div}v_\epsilon}^2_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)} \right)^{1/2}
\leq c \norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)} =O(1).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In order to prove the $E$-convergence of the operators $S_{\epsilon}$, it is necessary to consider the limit of functions $v_{\epsilon}$. We note that if $\Omega \subset \Omega_{\epsilon}$ for all $\epsilon >0$ then it would suffice to consider the restriction of $v_{\epsilon}$ to $\Omega$ and pass to the weak limit in $\Omega$. Otherwise, it is convenient to extend functions $v_{\epsilon }$ to the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. To do so, we observe that by the uniform Gaffney inequality combined with
inequality \eqref{normveps} it follows that $\| v_{\epsilon }\|_{H^1(\Omega_{\epsilon})^3}$ is uniformly bounded. Moreover, the domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ belong to the same Lipschitz class $C^{0,1}_M({\mathcal{A}})$ for some $M>0$ hence the functions $v_{\epsilon }$ can be extended to the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$
with a uniformly bounded norm, see e.g., \cite{bur}. Thus, in the sequel we shall directly make the following assumption:
\begin{equation}\label{globalass}
v_{\epsilon }\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^3)^3\cap X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_{\epsilon}),\ \ \sup_{\epsilon>0}\| v_{\epsilon }\|_{\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^3)^3}\ne \infty\, .
\end{equation}
Thus the family $\{v_\epsilon\rvert_{ \Omega } \}_{\epsilon>0}$ is bounded in $H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega) \cap H(\operatorname{div}; \Omega)$ and we can extract a sequence $\{v_{\epsilon_n}\rvert_\Omega\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$, with $\epsilon_n \to 0$ as $n$ goes to $\infty$, such that
\begin{equation} \label{def:weaklimit:v}
v_{\epsilon_n}\rvert_\Omega \underset{n \to \infty}{\rightharpoonup} v \qquad \text{weakly in } H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega) \cap H(\operatorname{div}; \Omega)
\end{equation}
for some $v \in H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega) \cap H(\operatorname{div}; \Omega)$. It turns out that $v$ preserves the boundary conditions as the following lemma clarifies.
\begin{lemma} \label{v:is:XN} Assume that for some $\epsilon_n>0$ with $\epsilon_n\to 0$, there exists $v\in H(\operatorname{curl},\Omega) \cap H(\operatorname{div},\Omega)$ such that $\{v_{\epsilon_n}\rvert_\Omega\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ weakly converges to $v$ in $H(\operatorname{curl},\Omega) \cap H(\operatorname{div},\Omega)$. Then $v \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove that $v \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ we just need to make sure that $v\in H_0(\operatorname{curl},\Omega)$.
Since $v_{\epsilon_n} \in H_0(\operatorname{curl},\Omega_\epsilon)$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, by \Cref{extbyzero} we know that the extension-by-zero $v_{\epsilon_n}^0$ of $v_{\epsilon_n}$ belongs to $H(\operatorname{curl},\mathbb{R}^3)$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$. By the reflexivity of $H(\operatorname{curl},\mathbb{R}^3)$ and the boundedness of the sequence $\set{v^0_{\epsilon_n}}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$, we deduce that possibly passing to a subsequence, there exists a function $\tilde{v} \in H(\operatorname{curl}, \mathbb{R}^3)$ such that $v^0_{\epsilon_n} \rightharpoonup \tilde{v}$ weakly in $H(\operatorname{curl}, \mathbb{R}^3)$ as $n$ goes to $\infty$. It suffices to show that $\tilde{v}=v^0$. Since $v^0_{\epsilon_n}$ is equal to zero outside of $\Omega_{\epsilon_n}$, it is clear that $\tilde{v}=0$ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^3 \setminus \Omega$. Moreover, since $v_{\epsilon_n}\rvert_\Omega$ weakly converges to both $v, \tilde v$ in $H(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega )$, we have that $v=\tilde v$ a.e. in $\Omega$. Thus the extension
by zero of $v$ to the whole of $\mathbb{R}^3$ is precisely $\tilde v$ and belongs to $ H(\operatorname{curl},{\mathbb{R}^3}) $. Using \Cref{extbyzero} again, we see that $v \in H_0(\operatorname{curl},\Omega)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{limitisthesolution}
Assume that condition \eqref{assumptions} and the uniform Gaffney inequality \eqref{unigaff} hold.
For any $\epsilon >0$ let $f_\epsilon \in L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3$. Suppose that $\sup_{\epsilon > 0}\norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} \ne \infty$ and that the extension-by-zero of the functions $f_\epsilon$ converge weakly in $L^2(\Omega)^3$ to some function $f \in L^2(\Omega)^3$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. For all $\epsilon >0$, let $v_\epsilon := S_\epsilon f_\epsilon$ the (unique) weak solution in $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_\epsilon)$ of \eqref{Poissonprobweak} with datum $f_\epsilon$. Assume \eqref{globalass} and suppose that $v_\epsilon \rightharpoonup v$ weakly in $H(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega) \cap H(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)$ to some $v\in H(\operatorname{curl}, \Omega) \cap H(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)$. Then $v = S_0 f$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all, we note that by \Cref{v:is:XN}, $v\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$.
Define for $u,w \in H(\operatorname{curl},\Omega_\epsilon) \cap H(\operatorname{div},\Omega_\epsilon)$
\begin{equation*}
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon} (u,w):= \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} u \cdot w \, dx + \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \operatorname{curl}u \cdot \operatorname{curl}w \, dx + \tau \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \operatorname{div}u \cdot \operatorname{div}w \, dx,
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent to the scalar product for the space $H(\operatorname{curl},\Omega_\epsilon) \cap H(\operatorname{div},\Omega_\epsilon)$. The square of the induced norm will be denoted with $Q_{\Omega_\epsilon}(\cdot)$.
Note that since $v_\epsilon$ is the solution with datum $f_\epsilon$, then we have that
$$Q_{\Omega_\epsilon}(v_\epsilon, \eta) = \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} f_\epsilon \cdot \eta$$
for all $\eta \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_\epsilon)$.
Let $\varphi$ be any function in $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ and let ${\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi $ the Atlas Piola trasform of $\varphi$. Since
${\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_{\epsilon})$, we deduce tha
\begin{equation}
\label{eqpiola}
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon}(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi )= \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} f_\epsilon \cdot {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi
\end{equation}
for all $\epsilon>0$. We now show that
\begin{equation} \label{limitfeps}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} f_\epsilon \cdot {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi = \int_\Omega f \cdot \varphi
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{limitQeps}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} Q_{\Omega_\epsilon}(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi ) = Q_\Omega(v, \varphi)
\end{equation}
In order to prove the first limit, it suffices to prove that
\begin{equation} \label{fepsj'}
\int_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j} f_\epsilon \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{} \int_{\Omega\cap V_j} f \cdot \varphi_j
\end{equation}
for any $j=1,\dots,s'$, where $\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} $ is defined in \eqref{tildefij} (with $\tilde \Omega $ replaced by $\Omega_{\epsilon}$), since it is obvious that
\begin{equation} \label{fepsj}
\int_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j} f_\epsilon \cdot \varphi_j \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{} \int_{\Omega\cap V_j} f \cdot \varphi_j
\end{equation}
for any $j=s'+1,\dots,s$.
We have that
\begin{equation} \label{splitintegralfeps}
\int_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j} f_\epsilon \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} = \int_{r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} f_\epsilon \cdot \varphi_j + \int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} f_\epsilon \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}.
\end{equation}
Obviously
\begin{equation} \label{fepsonKeps}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} f_\epsilon \cdot \varphi_j = \int_{\Omega \cap V_j} f \cdot \varphi_j
\end{equation}
since the extension-by-zero of $f_\epsilon$ weakly converge to $f$ in $L^2(\Omega)^3$, $\sup_{\epsilon >0} \norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} < \infty$ and $\abs{(\Omega \cap V_j) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})}$ goes to 0 as $\epsilon \to 0$.
Meanwhile
\begin{equation} \label{fepsgoesto0}
\begin{split}
&\left|\int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} f_\epsilon \cdot \tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j} \right|\leq \norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} \left(\int_{(\Omega_\epsilon \cap V_j) \setminus r_j^{-1}(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{\tilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,j}}^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2} \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{}0
\end{split}
\end{equation}
by \eqref{tildephigoesto0} and the hypothesis that $\sup_{\epsilon > 0}\norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} \ne \infty$.
From \eqref{splitintegralfeps}, \eqref{fepsonKeps} and \eqref{fepsgoesto0} we immediately deduce \eqref{fepsj'}.
Hence we have proved \eqref{limitfeps}.
Let us now focus on \eqref{limitQeps}. We write
\begin{eqnarray}\lefteqn{
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon}(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi ) = Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega }(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi )+
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega }(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi ) }\nonumber \\
& &= Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega }(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi -\varphi )+
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega }(v_\epsilon, \varphi ) +
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega }(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi )\nonumber \\
& & = Q_{\Omega }(v_\epsilon, \varphi ) - Q_{\Omega \setminus \Omega_{\epsilon } }(v_\epsilon, \varphi )
+ Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega }(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi -\varphi ) +
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega }(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi )
\end{eqnarray}
By the weak convergence of $v_{\epsilon }$ to $v$ we have that
\begin{equation}\label{limitisthesolution1}
Q_{\Omega }(v_\epsilon, \varphi ) \to Q_{\Omega }(v, \varphi ), \ \ {\rm as}\ \epsilon\to 0 .
\end{equation}
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Theorem~\ref{Piolamain}, (iv) we get that
\begin{equation}\label{limitisthesolution2}
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega }(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi -\varphi ) \le ( Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega }(v_\epsilon ) )^{1/2}(Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \cap \Omega }( {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi -\varphi ) )^{1/2}\to 0,\ \ {\rm as}\ \epsilon \to 0
\end{equation}
Similarly,
\begin{equation}\label{limitisthesolution3}
Q_{\Omega \setminus \Omega_{\epsilon } }(v_\epsilon, \varphi ) \le (Q_{\Omega \setminus \Omega_{\epsilon } }(v_\epsilon) )^{1/2}
(Q_{\Omega \setminus \Omega_{\epsilon } }( \varphi ) )^{1/2}\to 0 \ \ {\rm as}\ \epsilon\to 0 .
\end{equation}
Finally,
\begin{equation}\label{limitisthesolution4}
Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega }(v_\epsilon, {\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi )\le
( Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega }(v_\epsilon))^{1/2}
(Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega }({\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi ))^{1/2} \to 0 \ \ {\rm as}\ \epsilon\to 0
\end{equation}
since by \eqref{tildephigoesto0}, \eqref{curltildephigoesto0} and \eqref{divtildephigoesto0} it follows that $Q_{\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega }({\mathcal{P}}_{\epsilon }\varphi )\to 0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
By combining \eqref{limitisthesolution1}-\eqref{limitisthesolution4}, we deduce that limit \eqref{limitQeps} holds.
In conclusion, by using the limiting relations \eqref{limitfeps} and \eqref{limitQeps} in equation \eqref{eqpiola} we conclude that
$$
Q_{\Omega}(v,\varphi )= \int_{\Omega }f\cdot \varphi
$$
which means that
$v$ is the solution in $X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ of the given problem with datum $f\in L^2(\Omega)$, as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} A careful inspection of the proof of Lemma~\ref{limitisthesolution} reveals that the uniform Gaffney inequality has been used only to prove the limiting relations \eqref{limitisthesolution1}-\eqref{limitisthesolution3} since the functions $v_{\epsilon}$ are required here to be defined on $\Omega$ and to have uniformly bounded norms. This problem does not occur if
$\Omega \subset \Omega_{\epsilon}$ in which case only the Gaffney inequality in $\Omega$ is necessary. However, the uniform Gaffney inequality will be
used in an essential way in the following statements also in the particular case $\Omega \subset \Omega_{\epsilon}$
\end{remark}
In the next lemma we prove that $S_\epsilon $ $E$-converges to $S_0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:EE:convergence}
Assume that condition \eqref{assumptions} and the uniform Gaffney inequality \eqref{unigaff} hold.
Let $f_\epsilon \in L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3, \epsilon >0$ be such that $f_\epsilon \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{E} f \in L^2(\Omega)^3$ for some function $f \in L^2(\Omega)^3$. Set $v_\epsilon := S_\epsilon f_\epsilon$ and $v:=S_0 f$. Then $v_\epsilon \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{E} v$, hence $S_\epsilon \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{EE}S_0.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $f_\epsilon \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{E} f$, then $\norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} \leq C$ for all $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small and consequently $\norm{v_\epsilon}_{X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega_\epsilon)}$ is uniformly bounded with respect to $\epsilon$, as shown in \eqref{normveps}.
By the uniform Gaffney inequality it follows that also $\norm{v_\epsilon}_{H^1(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} $ is uniformly bounded.
In particular
$$\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \norm{v_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega)^3} =0$$
because $\abs{\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \Omega}\to 0$ as $\epsilon$ goes to 0. This can be proved using the same argument used for \eqref{estimateAbis} as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \quad \int_{(\Omega_{\epsilon} \cap V_j) \setminus r^{-1}_j(K_{\epsilon,j})} \abs{v_{\epsilon}(x) }^2 dx
= \int_{r_j(\Omega_{\epsilon} \cap V_j) \setminus K_{\epsilon,j}} \abs{ v_{\epsilon}\circ r_j^{-1} (z) }^2 dz \\
& \quad = \int_{W_j} \left( \int_ {{\hat g}_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{z})} ^{{g}_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{z})} \abs{ v_{\epsilon}\circ r_j^{-1}(\bar{z},z_3) }^2 dz_3 \right) d\bar{z} \\
&\quad \leq \int_{W_j} \abs { {g}_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{z}) - {\hat g}_{\epsilon,j}(\bar{z}) } \norm{ v_{\epsilon}\circ r_j^{-1} ( \bar{z}, \cdot)}^2_{L^\infty(a_{3j}, g_{\epsilon , j}(\bar{z}))^3} d\bar{z} \\
&\quad \leq \norm{g_{\epsilon ,j }- {\hat g}_{\epsilon,j}}_{L^\infty(W_j)} \int_{W_j} \norm{ v_{\epsilon}\circ r_j^{-1} (\bar{z}, \cdot)}^2_{H^1(a_{3j}, g_{\epsilon , j}(\bar{z}))^3} d\bar{z} \\
&\quad \leq \kappa_\epsilon \norm{ v_{\epsilon}\circ r_j^{-1} }_{H^1(r_j(\Omega_{\epsilon } \cap V_j))^3}^2 \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{} 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Hence to prove that $v_\epsilon \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{E} v$ we just have to show that
\begin{equation} \label{Econvergenceofveps}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\norm{v_\epsilon\rvert_\Omega - v}_{L^2(\Omega)^3}=0.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\{v_\epsilon\rvert_\Omega \}\subset H^1(\Omega)^3$ is bounded in $H^1$-norm. Select now a sequence $\{v_{\epsilon_n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ from the family. By the compact embedding of $H^1(\Omega)^3$ into $L^2(\Omega)^3$ we have that, up to choosing a subsequence, $v_{\epsilon_n}\rvert_\Omega \to v^*$ strongly in $L^2(\Omega)^3$ and $v_{\epsilon_n}\rvert_\Omega \rightharpoonup v^*$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)^3$ for some $v^* \in H^1(\Omega)^3$. By \Cref{limitisthesolution} we have that $v^*=S_0 f = v \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$. This shows that for any extracted sequence of the family $\{v_\epsilon\rvert_\Omega - v\}_{\epsilon>0}$, there exist a subsequence such that $\norm{v_{\epsilon_{n_k}}\rvert_\Omega - v}_{L^2(\Omega)^3} \xrightarrow[k \to \infty]{}0$. Thus we can conclude that $\norm{v_\epsilon\rvert_\Omega - v}_{L^2(\Omega)^3} \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{}0$, which is exactly \eqref{Econvergenceofveps}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{lemma:EE:remark}
The hypothesis of \Cref{lemma:EE:convergence} can be weakened to only require that $\norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3}$ are uniformly bounded and that the extenstion-by-zero of $f_\epsilon$ (restricted to $\Omega$) weakly converges to $f$ in $L^2(\Omega)^3$ as $\epsilon$ goes to 0, which is a weaker assumption than $f_\epsilon \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{E}f$.
\end{remark}
Finally we can state and prove the main theorem
\begin{theorem} \label{principale}
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an atlas in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\{\Omega_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon>0}$ be a family of bounded domains of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$ converging to a bounded domain $\Omega$ of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$ as $\epsilon\to 0$, in the sense that condition \eqref{assumptions} holds. Suppose that the uniform Gaffney inequality \eqref{unigaff} holds.
Then $S_\epsilon \xrightarrow[]{C}S_0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. In particular, spectral stability occurs: the eigenvalues of the operator $S_{\epsilon}$ converge to the eigenvalues of the operator $S_0$, and the eigenfunctions of the operator $S_{\epsilon}$ $E$-converge to the eigenfunctions of the operator $S_{0}$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By \Cref{lemma:EE:convergence} we have that $S_\epsilon \xrightarrow[\epsilon \to 0]{EE}S$.
Now, suppose that we are given a family of data $\{f_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon >0}$ such that $\norm{f_\epsilon}_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)^3} \leq 1$ for all $\epsilon>0$, and extract a sequence $\{f_{\epsilon_n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ from it. We have to show that we can always find a subsequence $\epsilon_{n_k}\to 0$ and a function $v \in L^2(\Omega)^3$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{subseq:E:converges}
S_{\epsilon_{n_k}} f_{\epsilon_{n_k}} \xrightarrow[k \to \infty]{E}v.
\end{equation}
Possibly passing to a subsequence, we can find a function $f$ to which the restriction to $\Omega$ of the extension-by-zero of $\{f_{\epsilon_n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ weakly converge in $L^2(\Omega)^3$. Setting $v:= S_0f$, we can apply \Cref{lemma:EE:convergence} and Remark~\ref{lemma:EE:remark} to find out that \eqref{subseq:E:converges} holds.
Finally, the spectral stability is a consequence of the compact convergence of compact operators as stated in Theorem~\ref{vainikko}.
\end{proof}
\section{Uniform Gaffney Inequalities and applications to fa\-mi\-lies of oscillating boundaries}\label{unifsec}
In this section we give sufficient conditions that guarantee the validity of a uniform Gaffney inequality of the type \eqref{unigaff} for a family of Lipschitz domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$, $\epsilon >0$, belonging to the same class $C^{0,1}_M({\mathcal{A}})$. To do so, we exploit a known relation between Gaffney inequalities and a priori estimates for the Dirichlet Laplacian that we formulate in our setting. We note that one of the two implications (namely, the validity of the Gaffney inequality implies the validity of the a priori estimate) is quite standard. The other one is a bit more involved, hence, for the sake of completeness, we include a proof.
\begin{theorem}\label{mainequi} Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ of class $C^{0,1}_M({\mathcal{A}})$. Then the Gaffney inequality \eqref{gaff}
holds for all $u \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ and a constant $C>0$ independent of $u $ if and only if (the weak, variational) solutions $\varphi \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ to the Poisson problem
\begin{equation}\label{mainequi0}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\Delta \varphi =f,& \ {\rm in}\ \Omega,\\
\varphi =0,&\ {\rm on }\ \partial \Omega ,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
satisfy the a priori estimate
\begin{equation}\label{apriori}
\| \varphi \|_{H^2(\Omega)}\le \tilde C \| f\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\end{equation}
for all $f\in L^2(\Omega)$ and a constant $\tilde C>0$ independent of $f$. In particular, the constants $C$ and $\tilde{C}$ depend on each other, $M$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that the a priori estimate \eqref{apriori} holds. We set $H^1_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega):=X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)\cap H^1(\Omega)^3$ and $E(\Omega)=\{ \nabla \varphi:\ \varphi \in H^1_0(\Omega),\ \Delta \varphi \in L^2(\Omega )\} $. By \cite[Thm.~4.1]{birsol} there exists two linear operators $P:X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)\to H^1_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ and
$Q :X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)\to E(\Omega)$ such that $u=Pu+Qu$ for all $u\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$ and such that
$$
\| Pu \|_{H^1(\Omega)^3}+\| Qu \|_{L^2(\Omega)^3}+\| \operatorname{div} Qu\|_{L^2(\Omega)^3}\le C_{BS} \| u\|_{X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)}
$$
for all $u\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$, for some positive constant $C_{BS}$. A careful inspection of the proof of \cite[Thm.~4.1]{birsol} reveals that $C_{BS}$ depends only on
$M$, ${\mathcal{A}}$. By definition, $Qu=\nabla \varphi $ with $\varphi\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $\Delta \varphi\in L^2(\Omega)$. Since we have assumed that \eqref{apriori} holds, then
$$
\| \varphi\|_{H^2(\Omega)} \le \tilde C\|\Delta\varphi \|_{L^2(\Omega)} =\tilde C \| \operatorname{div} Qu \|_{L^2(\Omega )}\le \tilde C C_{BS}\| u\|_{X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)}
$$
Thus, since $ \| Qu \|_{H^1(\Omega)^3}$ is obviously controlled by $\| \varphi\|_{H^2(\Omega)}$ we deduce that
$$
\| u \|_{H^1(\Omega)^3}\le \| Pu\|_{H^1(\Omega)^3}+ \| Qu \|_{H^1(\Omega)^3} \le C\| u\|_{X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)},
$$
for all $u\in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$, and \eqref{gaff} is proved.
Viceversa, assume that \eqref{gaff} holds and let $\varphi $ be a solution to \eqref{mainequi0}. Since $\nabla \varphi \in X_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle N}(\Omega)$, by \eqref{gaff}
it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\| \nabla \varphi \|_{H^1(\Omega)^3} &\le C( \|\nabla \varphi \|_{L^2(\Omega)^3} + \| \operatorname{curl} \nabla \varphi \|_{L^2(\Omega)^3} + \| \operatorname{div} \nabla \varphi \|_{L^2(\Omega)^3} ) \\
& = C ( \| \nabla \varphi \|_{L^2(\Omega)^3} + \|\Delta \varphi \|_{L^2(\Omega)}) \\
& \leq C (c_{\mathcal{P}} \|\Delta \varphi \|_{L^2(\Omega)} +\|\Delta \varphi \|_{L^2(\Omega)}) \\
& \leq C (c_{\mathcal{P}} +1) \| f\|_{L^2(\Omega)},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where we have used \cite[Lemma 1]{ferlam} and $c_{\mathcal{P}}$ denotes the usual Poincar\'{e} constant.
This, combined with the Poincar\'{e}'s inequality, immediately implies \eqref{apriori}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{counter}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ of class $C^1$ such that around a boundary point (identified here with the origin) is described by the subgraph
$x_N< g(\bar x)$
of the $C^1$ function defined by
$$
g(x_1, \dots , x_{N-1})= |x_1|/\log |x_1|
$$
It is proved in \cite[~14.6.1]{Mazya} that for this domain the a priori estimate
\eqref{apriori} does not hold. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{mainequi} it follows that not even the Gaffney inequality holds for this domain for $N=3$.
\end{example}
Theorem~\ref{mainequi} highlights the importance of proving the a priori estimate \eqref{apriori} and getting information on the constant $\tilde C$. We do this by following the approach of
Maz'ya and Shaposhnikova~\cite{Mazya} and using the notion of domains $\Omega$ with boundaries $\partial \Omega$ of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 (\delta )$. We re-formulate the definition in Maz'ya and Shaposhnikova~\cite[\S~14.3.1]{Mazya} by using the atlas classes. Here we can treat the general case of domains in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ with $N\geq 2$.
Note that in this section, following \cite{Mazya} we find it convenient to assume directly that the functions $g_j$ describing the boundary of $\Omega$ as in Definition~\ref{atlas} are extended to the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^{N-1}$ and belong to the corresponding function spaces defined on ${\mathbb{R}}^{N-1}$.
\begin{defn}\label{multiplier} Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be an atlas in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ and $\delta >0$. We say that a bounded domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ is of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 ( \delta , {\mathcal{A}} )$ if $\Omega$ is of class $C^{0,1}({\mathcal{A}}) $ and the gradients $\nabla g_j$ of the functions $g_j$ describing the boundary of $\Omega$ as in Definition~\ref{atlas}
belong to the space $MW^{1/2 }_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} )$ of Sobolev multipliers with
\begin{equation}\label{multiplier00}
\| \nabla g_j\|_{MW^{1/2}_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} ) }\le \delta \,
\end{equation}
for all $j=1,\dots s'$. We say that a bounded domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ is of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 ( \delta )$ if it is of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 (\delta , {\mathcal{A}} )$ for some atlas ${\mathcal{A}} $.
\end{defn}
Recall that $MW^{1/2 }_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} )=\{f\in W^{1/2}_{2, loc}({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} ):\ f\varphi \in W^{1/2}_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} )\ {\rm for\ all}\ \varphi \in W^{1/2}_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} )\} $ and that
$\| f\|_{MW^{1/2}_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} ) }= \sup \{ \| f\varphi \|_{ W^{1/2}_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} ) }:\| \varphi \|_{ W^{1/2}_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} ) }=1\}$, where $W^{1/2}_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} )$ denotes the standard Sobolev space with fractional order of smoothness $1/2$ and index of summability $2$ (for simplicity, in \eqref{multiplier00} we use the the same symbol for the norm of a vector field).
\begin{remark}
Note that by \cite[Thm.~4.1.1]{Mazya} there exists $c>0$ depending only on $N$ such that the functions $g_j$ in Definition~\ref{multiplier} satisfy the estimate $\| \nabla g_j \|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^{N-1})} \le c \| \nabla g_j\|_{MW^{1/2}_2({\mathbb{R}}^{N-1} ) }\le c\delta $, see also \cite[Thm.~14.6.4]{Mazya}. Thus, if $\Omega$ is of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 (\delta , {\mathcal{A}} )$ then it is also of class $C^{0,1}_M({\mathcal{A}}) $ with $M=c\delta$.
\end{remark}
The following theorem is a reformulation of \cite[Thm.~14.5.1]{Mazya}
\begin{theorem}\label{Mazyaapriori} Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be an atlas in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$. If $\Omega $ is a bounded domain of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 (\delta , {\mathcal{A}} )$ for some $\delta $ sufficiently small (depending only on $N$) then the a priori estimate \eqref{apriori} holds for some constant $\tilde C$ depending only on $N$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$.
\end{theorem}
By \cite[Corollaries.~14.6.1,~14.6.2]{Mazya} it is possible to prove the following theorem based on the condition (\ref{dini}) from \cite[(14.6.9)]{Mazya} . Here, given an atlas $\mathcal{A}=(\rho,s,s',\{V_j\}_{j=1}^s, \{r_j\}^s_{j=1} )$, by a refinement of $\mathcal{A}$ we mean an atlas
of the type $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}=(\tilde \rho,\tilde s,\tilde s',\{\tilde V_j\}_{j=1}^{\tilde s}, \{\tilde r_j\}^{\tilde s}_{j=1} )$ where $\tilde \rho \le \rho$, $s\le \tilde s$, $s'\le \tilde s'$, $\cup_{j=1}^{\tilde s}{\tilde V_j}= \cup_{j=1}^{\ s}V_j$, $\{\tilde r_j\}^{\tilde s}_{j=1}\subset \{ r_j\}^{ s}_{j=1}$, which can be thought as an atlas constructed from $\mathcal{A}$ by replacing each cuboid $V_{j}=r_j( W_{j}\times ]a_{N,j}, b_{N,j}[ ) $ by a finite number of cuboids of the form $\widetilde V_{j,l}=r_j( \widetilde W_{j,l}\times ]a_{N,j}, b_{N,j}[ ) $, $l=1,\dots m_j$, where $W_j=\cup_{l=1}^{m_j} \widetilde W_{j,l}$.
\begin{theorem} \label{localmazya} Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be an atlas in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ and let $\Omega $ be a bounded domain of class $C^{0,1}_M({\mathcal{A}}) $.
Let $\omega $ be a (non-decreasing) modulus of continuity for the gradients $\nabla g_{j}$ of the functions $g_j$ describing the boundary of $\Omega$, that is
\begin{equation}\label{modulus}
|\nabla g_j(\bar x)-\nabla g_j(\bar y)|\le \omega (|\bar x-\bar y |)
\end{equation}
for all $\bar x,\bar y\in {\mathbb{R}}^{N-1}$.
Assume that there exists $D>0$ such that the function $\omega$ satisfies the following condition\footnote{Here only the integrability at zero really matters and one could consider integrals defined in a neigborhhood of zero.}
\begin{equation}\label{dini}
\int_{0}^{\infty }\left(\frac{\omega (t)}{t}\right)^2dt \le D\, .
\end{equation}
Then there exists $C>0$ depending only on $N$, ${\mathcal{A}}$, $D$ such that if $M\le C\delta $ then, possibly replacing the atlas ${\mathcal{A}}$ with
a refinement of ${\mathcal{A}}$, $\Omega$ is of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 (\delta, {\mathcal{A}} )$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We begin with the case $N\geq 3$. By \cite[Cor.~14.6.1]{Mazya} there exists $c>0$ depending only on $N$ such that if $x=(\bar x, g_j(\bar x))\in \partial \Omega$ is any point of the boundary represented in local charts by a profile function $g_j$ and
the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{localmazya0}
\lim_{\rho \to 0}\biggl(\sup_{E\subset B_{\rho}(\bar x) } \frac{ \| D_{3/2}(g_j , B_{\rho} ) \|_{L^2(E)} }{ |E|^{ \frac{N-2}{2(N-1)} } } + \| \nabla g_j\|_{L^{\infty }(B_{\rho}(\bar x) ) }\biggr)\le c\delta
\end{equation}
is satisfied, then, possibly replacing the atlas ${\mathcal{A}}$ with
a refinement of its, $\Omega$ is of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 (\delta , {\mathcal{A}} )$.
Here $|E|$ denotes the $N-1$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of $E$,
$$
D_{3/2}(g_j , B_{\rho} )(\bar x) =\biggl( \int_{B_{\rho} (\bar x)} | \nabla g_j(\bar x) -\nabla g_j(\bar y ) |^2|\bar x-\bar y|^{-N}d\bar y \biggr)^{1/2},
$$
and $B_{\rho}(\bar x)$ the ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^{N-1}$ of radius $\rho$ and centre $\bar x$.
We refer to \cite[\S 14.7.2]{Mazya} for the local characterization
of the boundaries of domains of class $\mathcal{M}^{3/2}_2 (\delta , {\mathcal{A}} )$.
We have
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_E\int_{B_{\rho}(\bar x)} | \nabla g_j(\bar x) -\nabla g_j(\bar y ) |^2|\bar x-\bar y|^{-N}d\bar y d\bar x \le \int_E\int_{B_{\rho}(\bar x) } \frac{\omega ^2(|\bar x-\bar y|)}{|\bar x-\bar y|^N}d\bar y d\bar x\nonumber \\
= \int_E\int_{B_{\rho}(0) } \frac{\omega^2 (|\bar h|)}{|\bar h|^N} d\bar hd\bar x
= \sigma_{N-2} |E| \int_0^{\rho }\left|\frac{\omega(t)}{t}\right|^2dt\le \sigma_{N-2} D|E| \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\sigma_m$ denotes the $m$-dimensional measure of the $m$-dimensional unit sphere. Thus
$$
\frac{ \| D_{3/2}(g_j , B_{\rho} ) \|_{L^2(E)} }{ |E|^{ \frac{N-2}{2(N-1)} } } \le (\sigma_{N-2} D)^{1/2}|E|^{\frac{1}{2(N-1)}}=O(\rho ^{1/2}),
$$
hence
\begin{equation}\label{localmazya1}
\frac{ \| D_{3/2}(g_j , B_{\rho} ) \|_{L^2(E)} }{ |E|^{ \frac{N-2}{2(N-1)} } } \le c\delta ,
\end{equation}
provided $\rho$ is sufficiently small. Thus, inequality \eqref{localmazya0} follows if we assume directly that
$\| \nabla g_j\|_{L^{\infty }(B_{\rho} ) } \le c\delta$.
In the case $N=2$, by \cite[Cor.~14.6.1]{Mazya} it suffices to replace \eqref{localmazya0} by the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{localmazyalog}
\lim_{\rho \to 0}\biggl(\sup_{E\subset B_{\rho}(\bar x) } \| D_{3/2}(g_j , B_{\rho} ) \|_{L^2(E)} |\log |E||^{1/2} + \| \nabla g_j\|_{L^{\infty }(B_{\rho} (\bar x) ) }\biggr)\le c\delta
\end{equation}
and use the same argument as above.
\end{proof}
By combining Theorems~\ref{Mazyaapriori} and \ref{localmazya}, we deduce the validity of the following result
\begin{cor} \label{aprioricorol} Under the same assumptions of Theorem~\ref{localmazya}, there exists $\tilde C>0$ depending only on $N$, ${\mathcal{A}}$, $D$ such that if $M< \tilde C^{-1} $ then the a priori estimate \eqref{apriori} holds.
\end{cor}
Finally, by Theorem~\ref{mainequi} and Corollary~\ref{aprioricorol} we deduce the following result ensuring the validity of uniform Gaffney inequality that can be used in our spectral stability results.
\begin{cor} \label{aprioricorol2} Under the same assumptions of Theorem~\ref{localmazya} with $N=3$, there exists $ C>0$ depending only on ${\mathcal{A}}$ and $D$ such that if $M< C^{-1} $ then the Gaffney inequality \eqref{gaff}.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Applications to families of oscillating boundaries}
It is clear that in order to apply Theorem~\ref{localmazya} and Corollaries~\ref{aprioricorol}, \ref{aprioricorol2}, it suffices to assume that the gradients $\nabla g_j$ of the functions $g_j$ describing the boundary of a domain $\Omega$ as in Definition~\ref{atlas} are of class $C^{0,\beta}$ with $\beta \in ]1/2, 1]$, that is
\begin{equation} \label{holdernablag}
|\nabla g_j(\bar x)-\nabla g_j(\bar y)|\le K |\bar x-\bar y |^{\beta}
\end{equation}
for some positive constant $K$ and all $\bar x, \bar y\in W_j$, and that the functions $g_j$ have sufficiently small Lipschitz constants. As we have already mentioned, in principle, the second condition is not a big
obstruction to the application of these results, since for a domain of class $C^1$ one can find a sufficiently refined atlas, adapted to the tangent planes of a finite number of boundary points, such that the $C^1$ norms, hence the Lipschitz constants, of the profile functions $g_j$ are arbitrarily close to zero.
Thus, we can apply our results to uniform classes of domains of class $C^{1,\beta}$ since condition \eqref{dini} would be satisfied exactly because $\beta >1/2$ (as we have said, here what matters is the behaviour of the modulus of continuity $\omega (t)$ for $t$ close to zero and one can assume directly that $\omega(t)$ is constant for $t$ big enough).
Thus, we can prove the following result.
Note that here the domains $\Omega_\epsilon$ are assumed to be of class $C^{1,1}$ and that they belong to the uniform class $C^{1,\beta}_K(\mathcal{A})$ with $K>0$ fixed, which in particular implies the validity of \eqref{holdernablag} for all functions $g_{\epsilon,j}$ and all $\epsilon>0$. (Recall that the operators $S_{\epsilon}$ are defined in the beginning of Section~\ref{sezione4}.)
\begin{theorem} \label{principaleholder}
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an atlas in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\{\Omega_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon >0}$ be a family of bounded domains of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$ converging to a bounded domain $\Omega$ of class $C^{1,1}(\mathcal{A})$ as $\epsilon\to 0$, in the sense that condition \eqref{assumptions} holds. Suppose that $ \Omega $ is of class $C^{0,1}_M(\mathcal{A})$ with $M$ small enough as in Corollary~\ref{aprioricorol2}. Suppose also that all domains $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ are of class $C^{1,\beta}_K(\mathcal{A})$ with the same parameters $\beta \in ]1/2,1]$ and $K>0$. Then the uniform Gaffney inequality \eqref{unigaff} holds provided $\epsilon$ is small enough. Moreover,
$S_\epsilon \xrightarrow[]{C}S$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. In particular, spectral stability occurs: the eigenvalues of the operator $S_{\epsilon}$ converge to the eigenvalues of the operator $S_{0}$, and the eigenfunctions of the operator $S_{\epsilon}$ $E$-converge to the eigenfunctions of the operator $S_{0}$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\Omega_\epsilon$ converges to $\Omega$ as $\epsilon \to 0$ in the sense that condition \eqref{assumptions} holds, it follows that the gradients of the functions $g_{\epsilon , j}$ describing the boundary of $\Omega_{\epsilon }$ converge uniformly to the gradients of the functions $g_{ j}$ describing the boundary of $\Omega$. Thus, $ \Omega_{\epsilon} $ is of class $C^{0,1}_M(\mathcal{A})$ provided $\epsilon $ is small enough. By the discussion above, Corollary~\ref{aprioricorol2} is applicable and the uniform Gaffney inequality \eqref{unigaff} holds provided $\epsilon$ is small enough.
Then the last part of the statement follows by Theorem \ref{principale}.
\end{proof}
A prototype for the classes of domains under discussion is given by domains designed by profile functions
often used in homogenization theory, in particular in the study of thin domains. Namely, assume that one of the profile functions $g_{\epsilon,j}$, call it $g_\epsilon$, is
of the form
\begin{equation}
g_\epsilon(\bar x )=\epsilon^{\alpha}b(\bar x/\epsilon )
\end{equation}
for some function $b$ of class $C^{1,1}(\mathbb{R}^2 )$ and $\alpha >0$, and assume that the gradient of $b$ is bounded. If $\omega_{\nabla b}$ is a (non-decreasing) modulus of continuity of $\nabla b$, then we have
$$
|\nabla g_\epsilon(\bar x )-\nabla g_\epsilon(\bar y)| = \epsilon^{\alpha-1}| \nabla b(\bar x/\epsilon )- \nabla b(\bar y/\epsilon )|\le \epsilon^{\alpha-1}\omega_{\nabla b}
\biggl(\frac{\bar x-\bar y }{\epsilon} \biggr)\, ,
$$
hence the function $\omega $ to be considered in \eqref{modulus} is given by $\omega(t)= \epsilon^{\alpha-1}\omega_{\nabla b}(t/\epsilon )$. Observe that
\begin{equation}\label{lastint}
\int_0^{\infty} \biggl(\frac{\omega(t)}{t}\biggr)^2dt=\epsilon^{2\alpha -2}\int_0^{\infty } \left( \frac{\omega_{\nabla b}(t/\epsilon ) }{t} \right)^2 dt=
\epsilon^{2\alpha -3}\int_0^{\infty } \left( \frac{\omega_{\nabla b}(s ) }{s} \right)^2 ds\, .
\end{equation}
Moreover, since $b$ is assumed to be of class $C^{1,1}$, we have that $\omega_{\nabla b}(t)\le ct $ for $t$ in a neighborhhood of zero. Thus, if $\alpha \geq 3/2$ and $\epsilon_0$ is any fixed positive constant, it follows that
that
\begin{equation}\label{lastint00}
\sup_{\epsilon\in ]0, \epsilon_0]}
\epsilon^{2\alpha -3}\int_0^{\infty } \left( \frac{\omega_{\nabla b}(s ) }{s} \right)^2 ds \ne \infty \, .
\end{equation}
Since the gradient of $g_\epsilon$ is arbitrarily close to zero for $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, we have that Theorem~\ref{localmazya} and Corollaries~\ref{aprioricorol}, \ref{aprioricorol2} are applicable and the Gaffney inequality \eqref{unigaff} holds for all $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, with a constant $C>0$ independent of $\epsilon$. The same arguments can be applied to families of profile functions of the type
$$
g_\epsilon(\bar x )=\epsilon^{\alpha}b(\bar x/\epsilon )\psi(\bar x)
$$
where $b$ is as above and $\psi $ is a fixed $C^{1,1}$ function with bounded gradient. Thus, we can state the following stability result concerning a local perturbation of a domain $\Omega$.
\begin{theorem}\label{mainhomo} Let $W$ be a bounded open rectangle in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, $b\in C^{1,1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ with bounded gradient, $b\ge 0$, and $\psi \in C^{1,1}_c(W)$, $\alpha > 3/2$. Assume that $\Omega $ and $\Omega_{\epsilon}$, $\epsilon > 0$ are domains of class $C^{1,1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ satisfying the following condition:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Omega \cap (W\times ]-1,1[)=\{(\bar x, x_3)\in {\mathbb{R}}^3:\ \bar x\in W,\ -1<x_3<0 \} $;
\item[(ii)] $\Omega_{\epsilon} \cap (W\times ]-1,1[ )=\{(\bar x, x_3)\in {\mathbb{R}}^3:\ \bar x\in W,\ -1<x_3<\epsilon^{\alpha}b(\bar x/\epsilon )\psi(\bar x) \} $
where $b\in C^{1,1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ has bounded gradient, and $\psi \in C^{1,1}_c(W)$;
\item[(iii)] $\Omega \setminus (W \times ]-1,1[) = \Omega_{\epsilon } \setminus (W \times ]-1,1[) $;
\end{itemize}
Then the family $\{\Omega_{\epsilon} \}_{\epsilon >0}$ converges to $\Omega $ in the sense that condition \eqref{assumptions} holds. Moreover, the uniform Gaffney inequality \eqref{unigaff} holds and $S_\epsilon \xrightarrow[]{C}S$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. In particular, spectral stability occurs: the eigenvalues of the operator $S_{\epsilon}$ converge to the eigenvalues of the operator $S_0$, and the eigenfunctions of the operator $S_{\epsilon}$ $E$-converge to the eigenfunctions of the operator $S_{0}$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By assumptions, the domains $\Omega$ and $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ belong to the same atlas class $C^{1,1}({\mathcal{A}})$ for a suitable atlas ${\mathcal{A}}$, and $W\times ]-1,1[$ is one of the local charts of ${\mathcal{A}}$. In particular, the profile functions describing the boundaries of $\Omega$ and $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ in that chart are given by $g(\bar x)= 0$ and $g_{\epsilon}= \epsilon^{\alpha}b(\bar x/\epsilon )\psi(\bar x)$ for all $\bar x\in W$.
As in the proof of \cite[Thm.~7.4]{arrlam}, if $\tilde \alpha \in ]3/2, \alpha[$ is fixed then one can easily check that conditions \eqref{assumptions} are satisfied with
$k_{\epsilon}=\epsilon^{2\tilde \alpha /3}$. By \eqref{apriori} and the discussion above, it follows that the Gaffney inequality \eqref{gaff} holds with a constant $C$ independent of $\epsilon$, provided $\epsilon$ is sufficiently small. To complete the proof it suffices to apply Theorem~\ref{principale}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{finalremark} It is clear that condition \eqref{lastint00} is satisfied also in the case $\alpha =3/2$. Thus the uniform Gaffney inequality \eqref{unigaff} holds also in the case $\alpha =3/2$ in Theorem~\ref{mainhomo}. However, in this case the convergence of $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ to $\Omega$ in the sense of \eqref{assumptions} is not guaranteed hence we cannot directly deduce that we have spectral stability. Thus, another method has to be used in the analysis of the stability problem for $\alpha =3/2$. For example, in the case of non-constant periodic functions $b$ one could use the unfolding method as in \cite{casado}, adopted also in \cite{arrferlam, arrlam, ferralamb, ferlam}: in those papers, for $\alpha =3/2$ we have spectral instability in the sense that the limiting problem differs from the given problem in $\Omega$ by a strange term appearing in the boundary conditions (as often happens in homogenization problems). We plan to discuss the details of this problem for the $curl curl $ operator in a forthcoming paper, but we can already mention that a preliminary formal analysis would indicate that no strange limit appears in the limiting problem for $\alpha =3/2$.
On the other hand, at the moment we are not able to formulate any conjecture for the case $\alpha <3/2$ although, on the base of the results of \cite{casado} concerning the Navier-Stokes system, a
degeneration phenomenon (to
Dirichlet boundary conditions)
could not be excluded.
\end{remark}
{\bf Acknowledgments:} The authors are also very thankful to Dr. Francesco Ferraresso and Prof. Ioannis G. Stratis for useful discussions and references.
The authors acknowledge financial support from the research project BIRD191739/19 ``Sensitivity analysis of partial differential equations in the mathematical theory of electromagnetism'' of the University of Padova.
The authors are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l'Analisi Matematica, la Probabilit\`a e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
|
\section{Introduction}
In this article, we show existence and regularity of global attractors
as well as convergence results for the Cahn-Hilliard equation considered
on {\em manifolds with conical singularities}. We model such a manifold
as a $(n+1)$-dimensional compact manifold $\mathcal{B}$ with closed
boundary $\partial\mathcal{B}$, $n\ge1$, which is endowed with a
degenerated Riemannian metric $g$ that, in local coordinates $(x,y)\in[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$
on a collar neighborhood of the boundary, has the following expression
$$
g=dx^{2}+x^{2}h(x),
$$
where $[0,1)\ni x\mapsto h(x)$
is a smooth family of Riemannian metrics on $\partial\mathcal{B}$.
We denote $\mathbb{B}=(\mathcal{B},g)$ and $\partial\mathbb{B}=(\partial\mathcal{B},h(0))$.
The Laplacian on $\mathbb{B}$, in local coordinates $(x,y)\in[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$
on the collar part, admits the following degenerate expression
$$
\Delta=\frac{1}{x^{2}}\Big((x\partial_{x})^{2}+(n-1+\frac{x\partial_{x}\det(h(x))}{2\det(h(x))})(x\partial_{x})+\Delta_{h(x)}\Big),
$$
where $\Delta_{h(x)}$ is the Laplacian on $(\partial\mathcal{B},h(x))$. The operator $\Delta$ belongs to the class of {\em cone differential operators} or {\em Fuchs type operators}, see Section \ref{sec:Realizations} for more details.
On $\mathbb{B}$ we consider the following problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}u'(t)+\Delta^{2}u(t) & =\Delta(u^{3}(t)-u(t)),\quad t\in(0,T),\\
u(0) & =u_{0},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:mainequation}
\end{equation}
which is known as Cahn-Hilliard equation (CH for short); it is a diffusion
interface equation that models phase separation of a binary mixture.
On classical domains, (\ref{eq:mainequation}) has been generalized
and extensively studied in many directions and aspects, such as existence,
regularity and convergence of solutions, existence of global attractors,
etc. A sufficient number of related results can be found in \cite{Miranville}.
However, on singular domains much less is known. Using the theory
of cone differential operators, in \cite{RS1} it was first shown
short-time existence of CH on $\mathbb{B}$ for the case where $h(\cdot)$
is constant, by employing $L^{p}$-maximal regularity techniques. Those results
were extended to arbitrary $\mathbb{B}$ and improved to higher regularity
in \cite{RS2}. Finally, global solutions and smoothing results were
proved in \cite{LopesRoidos}. Summarizing those results, let us assume that $\dim(\mathbb{B})=n+1\in\{2,3\}$, choose $s\ge0$ and let the weight $\gamma$ be as follows
\begin{gather}
\frac{\dim(\mathbb{B})-4}{2}<\gamma<\min\Big\{-1+\sqrt{\Big(\frac{\dim(\mathbb{B})-2}{2}\Big)^{2}-\lambda_{1}},\frac{\text{dim}(\mathbb{B})-4}{4}\Big\},\label{gamma}
\end{gather}
where $0=\lambda_{0}>\lambda_{1}>\cdots$ are the eigenvalues of the boundary
Laplacian $\Delta_{h(0)}$ on $\partial\mathbb{B}$. Denote by $\mathcal{H}^{\eta,\rho}(\mathbb{B})$, $\eta, \rho\in\mathbb{R}$, the {\em Mellin-Sobolev space}, see Definition \ref{def:mellinsobolevspaces}. Moreover, let $\mathbb{R}_{\omega}$ and $\mathbb{C}_{\omega}$ be spaces of
smooth functions on $\mathbb{B}$ that are locally constant close
to the singularities, with values in $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$
respectively, see Section \ref{sec:Realizations} for details. Then, for any
real-valued $u_{0}\in\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_{\omega}$,
there exists a unique global solution in the following sense: for
any $T>0$ there exists a unique $u\in H^{1}(0,T;\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}))\cap L^{2}(0,T;\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2}))$
solving (\ref{eq:mainequation}) on $[0,T]\times\mathbb{B}$. Furthermore, the solution $u$ satisfies the regularity
\begin{gather}
u\in\bigcap_{s\ge0}C^{\infty}((0,\infty);\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2}))\label{extrareg}
\end{gather}
and
\begin{equation}
u\in C([0,\infty);\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_{\omega})\hookrightarrow C([0,\infty);C(\mathbb{B})).\label{contsolu}
\end{equation}
The bi-Laplacian domain we choose is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defbilap}
\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2})=\{u\in\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}:\Delta u\in\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\},\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is always as \eqref{gamma}. It satisfies
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2})=\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s,\min}^{2})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\oplus\mathcal{E}_{\Delta^{2},\gamma}.\label{bilapintro1}
\end{gather}
Here $\mathcal{E}_{\Delta^{2},\gamma}$ is an $s$-independent finite dimensional space consisting of $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$-functions, that in
local coordinates $(x,y)\in[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$,
take the form $\omega(x)c(y)x^{\rho}\ln^{k}(x)$, $\rho\in\mathbb{C}$, $k\in\{0,1,2,3\}$, where $c\in C^{\infty}(\partial\mathbb{B})$. More precisely, there exists a discrete set of points $Z_{\Delta^2}$ in $\mathbb{C}$, determined only by the family of metrics $h(\cdot)$, such that the exponents $\rho$ coincide with the set $Z_{\Delta^2}\cap \{z\in\mathbb{C} : \mathrm{Re}(z)\in[\frac{n-7}{2}-\gamma,\frac{n-3}{2}-\gamma)\}$. The exponents $k$ are also determined by $h(\cdot)$. In particular, when $h(\cdot)=h$ is constant, the set $Z_{\Delta^2}$ and the exponents $k$ associated to each $\rho\in Z_{\Delta^2}$, are determined by $n$ and the spectrum of $\Delta_{h}$. The minimal domain $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s,\min}^{2})$ stands for the domain of the closure of $\Delta^2: C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})\rightarrow \mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$, and satisfies
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{H}^{s+4,\gamma+4}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s,\min}^{2})\hookrightarrow\bigcap_{\varepsilon>0}\mathcal{H}^{s+4,\gamma+4-\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B}),\label{bilapintro2}
\end{gather}
while
\begin{gather}\label{bilapintro3}
\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s,\min}^{2})=\mathcal{H}^{s+4,\gamma+4}(\mathbb{B})
\end{gather}
provided that
\begin{gather}\label{bilapintro4}
\{\gamma+1,\gamma+3\}\cap\bigcup_{\lambda_{j}\in \sigma(\Delta_{h(0)})}\Big\{\pm\sqrt{\Big(\frac{\mathrm{dim}(\mathbb{B})-2}{2}\Big)^{2}-\lambda_{j}}\Big\}=\emptyset.
\end{gather}
Consequently, both spaces $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2})$ and $\mathcal{E}_{\Delta^{2},\gamma}$ are determined explicitly by $h(\cdot)$ and $\gamma$, see Corollary \ref{cor:(Bi-Laplacian)} for details.
These results allow us to define for any $s\ge0$ a {\em semiflow} $T:[0,\infty)\times \mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_{\omega}\to \mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_{\omega}$
on real valued-functions by $T(t)u_{0}:=T(t,u_0)=u(t)$, see e.g. \cite[Chapter 1, Section 1.1]{Temam} for more details
on semiflows, also known as {\em semigroups}. Let $X_{1,0}^{s}$ be the space of all real-valued functions $u\in\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_{\omega}$
such that $\int_{\mathbb{B}}ud\mu_{g}=0$, where $d\mu_{g}$ is the
measure associated with the metric $g$. Then $T$ can be restricted
to $X_{1,0}^{s}$, see Section \ref{sec:Existence-and-regularity-1}. Our main results are the
following.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:MainTheorem} Let $s\ge0$, $\gamma$ be as \eqref{gamma} and $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2})$ be the bi-Laplacian domain described in \eqref{eq:defbilap}-\eqref{bilapintro4}.\\
\emph{(i) (Global attractor)} The semiflow $T:[0,\infty)\times X_{1,0}^{s}\to X_{1,0}^{s}$ has
an $s$-independent global attractor
$\mathcal{A}\subset\cap_{r>0}\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$. Moreover, if $B$ is a bounded set of $X_{1,0}^{s}$, then for any $r>0$, $T(t)B$ is, for sufficiently large $t$, a bounded set of $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$ and
$$
\lim_{t\to\infty}(\sup_{b\in B}\inf_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\left\Vert T(t)b-a\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})})=0.
$$
\emph{(ii) (Convergence to equilibrium)} If $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$, then there exists a $u_{\infty}\in\cap_{r>0}\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$ such that $\lim_{t\to\infty}T(t)u_{0}=u_{\infty}$, where the convergence occurs in $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$ for each $r\ge0$.
\end{thm}
The definition of global attractor is recalled in Section \ref{sec:Existence-and-regularity-1}.
For proving part (i) of Theorem \ref{eq:mainequation}, we follow
the strategy of Temam \cite{Temam} to obtain estimates in a lower regularity space
$H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$, see Definition \ref{def:H-10}, and of \cite{Song}
for obtaining higher regularity. For convergence to equilibrium, we first
obtain the Lojasiewicz-Simon inequality due to \cite{Simon}, and proceed
as \cite{Chill}, \cite{HJ} and \cite{Piotr}.
Though the strategies are mostly well established, the technical results
that allow us to use them in the context of conical singularities
are not, and, therefore, the strategies have to be adapted to this
situation. For this reason new results on interpolation and embedding
of Mellin-Sobolev spaces are developed in this article.
In Section 2, we define suitable function spaces to work on conic
manifolds and study their interpolation and embedding. Section 3
is devoted to the domain description and the properties of the Laplacian
and bi-Laplacian. Part (i) of Theorem \ref{thm:MainTheorem} is
proved in Section 4 and part (ii) in Section 5.
\section{Function spaces\label{sec:Function-spaces}}
Fix a smooth non-negative
function $\omega\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{B})$ supported on the collar
neighborhood $(x,y)\in[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$ such that $\omega$
depends only on $x$ and $\omega=1$ near $\{0\}\times\partial\mathcal{B}$.
Moreover denote by $C_{c}^{\infty}$ the space of smooth compactly
supported functions and by $H^{s}$, $s\in\mathbb{R}$, the usual
Bessel potential spaces defined using the $L^{2}$-norm.
\begin{defn}
[Mellin-Sobolev spaces] \label{def:mellinsobolevspaces} Let $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$
and consider the map
$$
M_{\gamma}:C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}^{n})\rightarrow C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})\quad\mbox{defined by}\quad u(x,y)\mapsto e^{(\gamma-\frac{n+1}{2})x}u(e^{-x},y).
$$
Let $\kappa_{j}:U_{j}\subseteq\partial\mathcal{B}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
$j\in\{1,...,N\}$, $N\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\{0\}$, $\mathbb{N}:=\{0,1,2,...\}$, be a covering
of $\partial\mathcal{B}$ by coordinate charts and let $\{\phi_{j}\}_{j\in\{1,...,N\}}$
be a subordinated partition of unity. For any $s,\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$,
the Mellin Sobolev space $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$ is
defined to be the space of all distributions $u$ on the interior $\mathbb{B}^{\circ}$
such that the norm
\begin{equation}
\|u\|_{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\|M_{\gamma}(1\otimes\kappa_{j})_{\ast}(\omega\phi_{j}u)\|_{H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})}+\|(1-\omega)u\|_{H^{s}(2\mathbb{B})}\label{mellinsobolev}
\end{equation}
is defined and finite, where $2\mathbb{B}$ is the double of $\mathbb{B}$
and $\ast$ refers to the push-forward of distributions. Different
choices of $\omega$, covering and partition of unity give us the
same spaces with equivalent norms. The space $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$ is a Banach algebra, up to an equivalent norm, whenever $s>(n+1)/2$ and $\gamma\ge(n+1)/2$, see \cite[Lemma 3.2]{RS3}.
If $s\in\mathbb{N}$, then $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$
coincides with the space of all functions $u$ in $H_{\text{loc}}^{s}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$
that satisfy
\begin{equation}
x^{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}(x\partial_{x})^{k}\partial_{y}^{\alpha}(\omega(x)u(x,y))\in L^{2}([0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B},\sqrt{\det(h(x))}\frac{dx}{x}dy),\quad k+|\alpha|\le s.\label{mellinsobolevinteger}
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
In Section \ref{sec:Realizations}, we will associate the Mellin-Sobolev spaces with the Laplacian and bi-Laplacian.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:xmellinL2weight}Let $\mathsf{x}:\mathbb{B}\to[0,1]$ be
a smooth positive function on $\mathbb{B}^{\circ}$ that is equal
to $\mathsf{x}(x,y)=x$ on the collar neighborhood $[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$.
Then $u\in\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$ iff $\mathsf{x}^{-\gamma}u\in L^{2}(\mathbb{B})$,
where $L^{2}(\mathbb{B})=\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})$. We define
the spaces $L^{p}(\mathbb{B})$ using the measure $d\mu_{g}$ induced
by the metric $g$. Note that $d\mu_{g}=\sqrt{\det(h(x))}x^{n}dxdy$
on the collar neighborhood. Finally, recall that the inner product in $\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})$ induces an identification of the dual space of $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$ with $\mathcal{H}^{-s,-\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$, see e.g. \cite[Lemma 3.2 (ii)]{LopesRoidos}.
\end{rem}
Besides the Mellin-Sobolev spaces, we define the following space.
\begin{defn}
Let $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ be the completion of $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$
with respect to the inner product
$$
(u,v)_{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=\int_{\mathbb{B}}u\overline{v}d\mu_{g}+\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla u,\overline{\nabla v}\right\rangle d\mu_{g},
$$
where $\nabla$ and $\left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle $ are defined
by the conical metric $g$.
\end{defn}
We investigate now certain properties of the space $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$
and its connection with $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$.
\begin{rem}
For the following computations, we note that\\
(1) The boundedness of $\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left|u\right|^{2}d\mu_{g}$
is equivalent to
$$
u\in L_{\text{loc}}^{2}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})\,\text{and}\,(x,y)\mapsto x^{\frac{n+1}{2}}\omega(x)u(x,y)\in L^{2}([0,1]\times\partial\mathcal{B},\sqrt{\det(h(x))}\frac{dx}{x}dy).
$$
(2) If $\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left|u\right|^{2}d\mu_{g}<\infty$, then the boundedness of $\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla u,\nabla\overline{u}\right\rangle d\mu_{g}$ is equivalent to
$$
u\in H_{\text{loc}}^{1}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})\,\text{and}\,(x,y)\mapsto x^{\frac{n-1}{2}}(x\partial_{x})^{k}\partial_{y}^{\alpha}(\omega(x)u(x,y))\in L^{2}([0,1]\times\partial\mathcal{B},\sqrt{\det(h(x))}\frac{dx}{x}dy),\,k+\left|\alpha\right|=1.
$$
The last statement can be easily proved once we recall that in local
coordinates of $[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$ we have
$$
\left\langle \nabla u,\nabla\overline{v}\right\rangle =x^{-2}(x\partial_{x}u)(x\partial_{x}\overline{v})+x^{-2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}h^{ij}(x,y)(\partial_{y_{i}}u)(\partial_{y_{j}}\overline{v}).
$$
\end{rem}
Along this paper, we use $\hookrightarrow$ and $\overset{c}{\hookrightarrow}$ to denote continuous and compact embedding, respectively. We recall that $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{s',\gamma'}(\mathbb{B})$, when $s\ge s'$ and $\gamma\ge\gamma'$, and $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\overset{c}{\hookrightarrow}\mathcal{H}^{s',\gamma'}(\mathbb{B})$, when $s>s'$ and $\gamma>\gamma'$, see \cite[Theorem 2.1.53]{Schu2}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:inclusionH1mellin} For
any $\beta<1$, the following inclusions hold
$$
\mathcal{H}^{1,1}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\hookrightarrow H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B}).
$$
In particular, $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\overset{c}{\hookrightarrow}{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We proceed in several steps. Let us denote by $C$ positive
constants that can change along the proof. For simplicity we ignore the term $\sqrt{\text{\ensuremath{\det}}(h(x))}$ in the proof, as it is uniformly bounded from above and below, and we abuse the notation $\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}$ since the computations are made in local coordinates. We also note that it suffices to check the inclusion on the collar neighborhood and for functions $u\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{B}^\circ)$.\\
\emph{Step 1:} $\mathcal{H}^{1,1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$. We have
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\omega(x)u(x,y)\right|^{2}x^{n}dxdy\le\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x^{\frac{n+1}{2}-1}\omega(x)u(x,y)\right|^{2}\frac{dx}{x}dy.
$$
Hence it is clear that
$$
\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left|u\right|^{2}d\mu_{g}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{1,1}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}.
$$
Moreover
\begin{eqnarray*}\lefteqn{\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\frac{1}{x^{2}}\left(\left|x\partial_{x}(\omega u)\right|^{2}+\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}h^{ij}(x,y)\partial_{y_{i}}(\omega u)\partial_{y_{j}}(\omega\overline{u})\right)x^{n}dxdy}\\
& \le& C\sum_{k+\left|\alpha\right|=1}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x^{\frac{n-1}{2}}(x\partial_{x})^{k}\partial_{y}^{\alpha}(\omega(x)u(x,y))\right|^{2}\frac{dx}{x}dy,
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies that
$$
\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla u,\overline{\nabla u}\right\rangle d\mu_{g}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{1,1}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}.
$$
We conclude that
$$
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{1,1}(\mathbb{B})}.
$$
\emph{Step 2}: For each $\varepsilon>0$, we have $\mathsf{x}^{\varepsilon}\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$. Let $0<r<1$ and $\chi_{r}:\mathbb{B}^{\circ}\to[0,1]$ be such that $\chi_{r}(x,y)=1-\omega(x/r)$, for $(x,y)\in[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$
and $\chi_{r}$ be equal to 1 outside the collar neighborhood. It
is enough to prove that $\lim_{r\to0}\chi_{r}\mathsf{x}^{\varepsilon}=\mathsf{x}^{\varepsilon}$
in $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, as $\chi_{r}\mathsf{x}^{\varepsilon}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$.
For this, we must prove that
$$
\begin{aligned}\text{(i)}\quad & \lim_{r\to0}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\omega(\chi_{r}x^{\varepsilon}-x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n}dxdy =0,\\
\text{(ii)}\quad & \lim_{r\to0}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\partial_{y_{j}}(\omega\chi_{r}x^{\varepsilon})-\partial_{y_{j}}(\omega x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dxdy =0,\\
\text{(iii)} \quad & \lim_{r\to0}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x\partial_{x}(\omega\chi_{r}x^{\varepsilon})-x\partial_{x}(\omega x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dxdy =0.
\end{aligned}
$$
Note that (i) follows directly from the dominated convergence
theorem and (ii) is identically zero. For (iii), we have that the integral is smaller or equal to two times
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\chi_{r}x\partial_{x}(\omega x^{\varepsilon})-x\partial_{x}(\omega x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dxdy+\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\omega(x)x^{\varepsilon}\partial_{x}\chi_{r}\right|^{2}x^{n}dxdy.
$$
Only the last term is important, as we can handle the first one directly with dominated convergence theorem. Note that $\left|\omega(x)x^{\varepsilon}\partial_{x}\chi_{r}\right|^{2}x^{n}=\left|\omega(x)x/r(\partial_{x}\omega)(x/r)\right|^{2}x^{2\varepsilon+n-2}$
and that, for $n\ge1$, the integrand is smaller than the integrable function $\left\Vert x\partial_{x}\omega\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}([0,\infty))}^{2}x^{2\varepsilon+n-2}$.
Moreover
$$
\lim_{r\to0}\left|\omega(x)x/r(\partial_{x}\omega)(x/r)\right|^{2}x^{2\varepsilon+n-2}=0.
$$
The result now follows again
by the dominated convergence theorem.\\
\emph{Step 3}: $\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\hookrightarrow H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$. It suffices to show that the constant function equal to one belongs to $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$
by showing that $\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\mathsf{x}^{\varepsilon}=1$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$. To this end, it is enough to show that
$$
\begin{aligned}\text{(i)} \quad & \lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\omega(1-x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n}dxdy =0,\\
\text{(ii)}\quad & \int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\partial_{y_{j}}(\omega)-\partial_{y_{j}}(\omega x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dxdy =0,\\
\text{(iii)}\quad & \lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x\partial_{x}(\omega)-x\partial_{x}(\omega x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dxdy =0.
\end{aligned}
$$
Again (i) follows directly from the dominated convergence theorem, (ii) is identically zero as the functions do not depend on $y$, and the integral in (iii) is smaller than two times
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x\partial_{x}(\omega)-x^{\varepsilon}x\partial_{x}(\omega)\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dxdy+\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\omega x\partial_{x}(x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dxdy.
$$
The first term can be dealt again by
dominated convergence. For the second one, note that
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\left|\omega x\partial_{x}(x^{\varepsilon})\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dx\le\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2\varepsilon+n-1},
$$
and the last term goes to zero, as $\varepsilon$ goes to zero.\\
\emph{Step 4}: If $\beta<1$, then $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B})$. By density, it is enough to show that there is a constant $C>0$ such
that $\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B})}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}$,
for all $u\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$.\\
If $k+|\alpha|=1$, then, in local coordinates on $[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$,
we have
$$
\left|x^{\frac{n+1}{2}-\beta}(x\partial_{x})^{k}\partial_{y}^{\alpha}(\omega(x)u(x,y))\right|\le\left|x^{\frac{n-1}{2}}(x\partial_{x})^{k}\partial_{y}^{\alpha}(\omega(x)u(x,y))\right|.
$$
If $k+|\alpha|=0$, then as
$$
\omega(x)u(x,y)=-\int_{x}^{1}\frac{\partial}{\partial s}(\omega(s)u(s,y))ds,
$$
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}\lefteqn{\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|x^{\frac{n+1}{2}-\beta}\omega(x)u(x,y)\right|^{2}\frac{dx}{x}dy}\\
& =&\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}x^{n-2\beta}\left|\int_{x}^{1}s^{-\frac{n}{2}}s^{\frac{n}{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\left(\omega(s)u(s,y)\right)ds\right|^{2}dxdy\\
& \le &\int_{0}^{1}x^{n-2\beta}\left(\int_{x}^{1}s^{-n}ds\right)\left(\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{x}^{1}\left|s^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\left(s\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\right)\left(\omega(s)u(s,y)\right)\right|^{2}\frac{ds}{s}dy\right)dx\\
& \le &\int_{0}^{1}x^{n-2\beta}\left(\int_{x}^{1}s^{-n}ds\right)dx\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The last integral is finite for $n\ge1$ and $\beta<1$.
\end{proof}
For functions in $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, we define
$$
(u,v)_{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla u,\nabla\overline{v}\right\rangle d\mu_{g}\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\,\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}}^2=\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla u,\nabla\overline{u}\right\rangle d\mu_{g}.
$$
In particular,
\begin{equation}
(u,v)_{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}:=(u,v)_{\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})}+(u,v)_{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}\label{eq:NormWzeroandW}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=\sqrt{\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}+\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}}.\label{eq:equivH11}
\end{equation}
Moreover, whenever $u\in L^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, we define $(u)_{\mathbb{B}}:=\fint_{\mathbb{B}}udx=|\mathbb{B}|^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{B}}ud\mu_{g}$,
where $|\mathbb{B}|=\int_{\mathbb{B}}d\mu_{g}$ is the area of $\mathbb{B}$.
\begin{lem}[Poincar\'e-Wirtinger inequality]
\label{lem:Poincar=0000E9-Wirtinger}
There is a constant $C>0$ such that
$$
\left\Vert u-(u)_{\mathbb{B}}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})},\quad \forall u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B}).
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the same argument as in the proof of \cite[Theorem 1 of Section 5.8]{Evans}, using the fact that $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$
is compactly embedded in $\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{defn}
Denote by $H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ the space of all $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$
such that $(u)_{\mathbb{B}}=0$.
\end{defn}
It is clear that $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})=H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}$,
where $\mathbb{C}$ is identified with the set of constant functions.
Moreover, applying Lemma \ref{lem:Poincar=0000E9-Wirtinger} with $(u)_\mathbb{B}=0$, we see that the map
$H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\ni u\mapsto\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}\in\mathbb{R}$
is equivalent to the $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ norm.
\begin{defn}
\label{def:H-10} We denote by $H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ the dual space of $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$
and by $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})\subset H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ its subspace
defined by
$$
H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B}):=\{ u\in H^{-1}(\mathbb{B}):\,\left\langle u,1\right\rangle _{H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=0\} .
$$
\end{defn}
Using the fact that $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})=H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}$,
we can see that the map $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})\ni u\mapsto\left.u\right|_{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}\in\mathcal{L}(H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B}),\mathbb{C})$
is bijective, that is, $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ can be identified
with the dual of $H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:HzerobetadualH1}Let $u\in\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})$,
for some $\beta>-1$. Then $T_{u}:H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathbb{C}$ and $\widetilde{T}_{u}:H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathbb{C}$
defined by
$$
\begin{aligned}T_{u}(v) & =\int_{\mathbb{B}}uvd\mu_{g},\\
\widetilde{T}_{u}(v) & =\int_{\mathbb{B}}(u-(u)_{\mathbb{B}})vd\mu_{g}
\end{aligned}
$$
are continuous. Moreover the functional $\widetilde{T}_{u}$ belongs
to $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ and $\widetilde{T}_{u}|_{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=\left.T_{u}\right|_{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $\beta>-1$, we have the inclusion $\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{1}(\mathbb{B})$.
In fact,
$$
\begin{aligned}\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left|u\right|d\mu_{g} & =\int_{\mathbb{B}}\mathsf{x}^{-\beta}\left|u\right|\mathsf{x}^{\beta}d\mu_{g}\le\left(\int_{\mathbb{B}}\mathsf{x}^{2\beta}d\mu_{g}\right)^{1/2}\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})},\end{aligned}
$$
due to Remark \ref{rem:xmellinL2weight}. Note that $\int_{\mathbb{B}}\mathsf{x}^{2\beta}d\mu_{g}$
is finite, as $\int_{0}^{1}x^{n+2\beta}dx<\infty$. The fact that
$\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ ensures
that $(u)_{\mathbb{B}}$ is well defined.
In order to prove that $T_{u}$ is continuous, let us assume, without
loss of generality, that $-1<\beta\le0$. We denote by $\mathcal{I}_{-\beta}:H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathcal{H}^{0,-\beta}(\mathbb{B})$
the continuous inclusion from Proposition \ref{prop:inclusionH1mellin}.
Then, we have that
$$
T_{u}(v)=\int_{\mathbb{B}}uvd\mu_{g}=\left\langle u,\mathcal{I}_{-\beta}(v)\right\rangle _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\times\mathcal{H}^{0,-\beta}(\mathbb{B})}.
$$
Therefore $T_{u}$ is continuous as it is the composition of continuous functions.
The continuity of $\widetilde{T}_{u}$ follows similarly. The fact
that $\widetilde{T}_{u}|_{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=\left.T_{u}\right|_{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}$
follows from the fact that the integral of $v$ is equal to zero if $v\in H^{1}_{0}(\mathbb{B})$.
\end{proof}
A version of Gauss theorem can also be proved for $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$. It simplifies and improves \cite[Lemma 4.3]{LopesRoidos}.
\begin{thm}
[Gauss theorem] \label{thm:Gauss-Theorem} Let $u$ and $v$ belong
to $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ and $\Delta v\in\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$,
for some $\gamma>-1$. Then
$$
\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla u,\nabla v\right\rangle d\mu_{g}=-\int_{\mathbb{B}}u\Delta vd\mu_{g}.
$$
In particular, if
$u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ is such that $\Delta u\in\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$,
for some $\gamma>-1$, then $\int_{\mathbb{B}}\Delta u\,d\mu_{g}=0.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we assume that $-1<\gamma\le0$. First
we note that for $v$ and $u$ in $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$,
we have
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla u,\nabla v\right\rangle d\mu_{g}=-\int_{\mathbb{B}}u\Delta vd\mu_{g}=-\left\langle \Delta v,u\right\rangle _{\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})\times C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})},\label{eq:forthegreen}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$ stands for the dual space
of $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$.
For $v\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, we can choose a sequence of functions
in $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$ that converge to $v$ in
$H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ and, therefore, also in $\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$.
Hence the equality between the first and the third term of
\eqref{eq:forthegreen} still holds for all $v\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$
and $u\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$.
Moreover if $v\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ and $\Delta v\in\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\subset L_{\text{loc}}^{2}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})\subset L_{\text{loc}}^{1}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$,
we have again
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \Delta v,u\right\rangle _{\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})\times C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})}=\int_{\mathbb{B}}u\Delta vd\mu_{g},
\label{eq:forthegreen2}\end{equation}
for all $u\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$.
Finally, if $v\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, $\Delta v\in\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$
and $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, we take a sequence in $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$
that converges to $u$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$. As $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{0,-\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$,
the sequence will also converge to $u$ in $\mathcal{H}^{0,-\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$.
Using the duality of $\mathcal{H}^{0,-\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$ and $\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$, \eqref{eq:forthegreen} and \eqref{eq:forthegreen2},
we obtain our result.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:deltaisomorphism}The operator $\Delta:H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$
is well-defined, continuous and bijective.
\end{prop}
Note that $\Delta u\in\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$ is always
well defined. As $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$ is dense in
$H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ can be easily identified,
by restricting to $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$, with a subset
of $\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$.
\begin{proof}
By Riesz theorem, there is a bijective map $\mathcal{R}:H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$
such that
$$
\left\langle \mathcal{R}u,\overline{v}\right\rangle _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})\times H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=(u,v)_{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla u,\nabla\overline{v}\right\rangle d\mu_{g}.
$$
Then, the operator $\Delta$ can be easily identified with $-\mathcal{R}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{lem:EquivalenceofnormDeltauandu-1} There is a constant $C>0$
such that
$$
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le C\left\Vert \Delta u\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})},\quad \forall u\in H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B}).
$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the continuous inclusion $H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$, provided by Propositions
\ref{prop:inclusionH1mellin} and \ref{prop:HzerobetadualH1},
and Proposition \ref{prop:deltaisomorphism}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Sobolev immersions}
In this section, we prove some embeddings concerning Mellin-Sobolev
spaces.
\begin{prop}
Suppose that $p\in[2,\infty)$, if $n=1$, and $p\in[2,(2n+2)/(n-1)]$,
if $n\ge2$. Then, for each $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$, we have $\mathcal{H}^{1,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathsf{x}^{\gamma-(n+1)(1/2-1/p)}L^{p}(\mathbb{B})$.
In particular, if $\gamma\ge(n+1)(1/2-1/p)$, then
$\mathcal{H}^{1,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{p}(\mathbb{B})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First, we note that
$$
\mathcal{H}^{1,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\subset H_{\text{loc}}^{1}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})\subset L_{\text{loc}}^{p}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ}).
$$
Therefore, it is enough to understand the behavior of elements of
$\mathcal{H}^{1,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$ in the neighborhood of the conical
tip. We have $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})\hookrightarrow L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})$.
Hence
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\lefteqn{ \left\Vert (x,y)\mapsto e^{(\gamma-\frac{n+1}{2})x}\omega(e^{-x})\phi_{j}(y)u(e^{-x},y)\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})}}\\\label{eq:Im1}
&& \le C\left\Vert (x,y)\mapsto e^{(\gamma-\frac{n+1}{2})x}\omega(e^{-x})\phi_{j}(y)u(e^{-x},y)\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{1,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})},
\end{eqnarray}
where we recall that $\{\phi_{j}\}_{j\in J}$ is a partition of unity
of $\partial\mathcal{B}$ and $\omega$ is as Definition \ref{def:mellinsobolevspaces}. A change of variables $e^{-x}\mapsto x$ in \eqref{eq:Im1} implies
$$
\left\Vert \mathsf{x}^{(n+1)(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})-\gamma}u\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\mathbb{B})}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{1,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})},
$$
which shows the claim.
\end{proof}
\textcolor{green}{}%
\begin{comment}
\textcolor{green}{Note that if $n\ge2$ and $p=\frac{2(n+1)}{n-1}$,
then $\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{p}(\mathbb{B})$
if
$$
\begin{aligned}\beta & \ge(n+1)(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})=\frac{(n+1)}{2}(1-\frac{n-1}{(n+1)})\\
& =\frac{(n+1)}{2}(\frac{n+1}{n+1}+\frac{1-n}{(n+1)})=\frac{(n+1)}{2}(\frac{n+1+1-n}{n+1})\\
& =\frac{(n+1)}{2}(\frac{2}{n+1})=1.
\end{aligned}
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Very probably $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\subset L^{6}(\mathbb{B})$?}
\end{comment}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:Mellinsobolevembedding}The following continuous inclusions
hold:\\
\emph{(i)} If $\dim(\mathbb{B})\in\{2,3\}$, then $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{4}(\mathbb{B})$.\\
\emph{(ii)} If $\dim(\mathbb{B})=2$, then $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{6}(\mathbb{B})$.\\
\emph{(iii)} If $\dim(\mathbb{B})=3$ and $\alpha>0$, then $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathsf{x}^{-\alpha}L^{6}(\mathbb{B})$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We have seen that $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B})$,
for all $\beta<1$. For $\dim(\mathbb{B})=2$, if we choose $1/2\le\beta<1$,
we have $\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{4}(\mathbb{B})$.
For $\dim(\mathbb{B})=3$, if we choose $3/4\le\beta<1$, we have
$\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{4}(\mathbb{B})$.
For $\dim(\mathbb{B})=2$, if we choose if $2/3\le\beta<1$, then
$\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{6}(\mathbb{B})$.
Finally, for $\dim(\mathbb{B})=3$ and $\alpha>0$, then choose $1-\alpha\le\beta<1$
so that $\mathcal{H}^{1,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathsf{x}^{-\alpha}L^{6}(\mathbb{B})$.
\end{proof}
\textcolor{green}{}%
\begin{comment}
\textcolor{green}{Attempt to prove that $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ is not
contained in $L^{6}(\mathbb{B})$. I did not suceed!}
\textcolor{green}{In order to belong to $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, we needNote
that for $\dim(\mathbb{B})=3$, then
$$
x^{-2\alpha}x^{2}<\infty\,\,if\,\,-2\alpha+2>-1\iff\alpha<\frac{3}{2}
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Para $\mathcal{H}^{1,1}$, temos
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x^{\frac{n+1}{2}-1}u(x,y)\right|^{2}\frac{dx}{x}dy=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}x^{n+1-2-1}\left|u(x,y)\right|^{2}dxdy=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|u(x,y)\right|^{2}x^{n-2}dxdy<\infty
$$
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x^{\frac{n+1}{2}-1}x\partial_{x}u(x,y)\right|^{2}\frac{dx}{x}dy=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}x^{n+1-1}\left|\partial_{x}u(x,y)\right|^{2}dxdy=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\partial_{x}u(x,y)\right|^{2}x^{n}dxdy<\infty
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Quando $n=2$, temos
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|u(x,y)\right|^{2}dxdy<\infty
$$
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|\partial_{x}u(x,y)\right|^{2}x^{2}dxdy<\infty
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Para $H^{1}$, temos}
\textcolor{green}{
$$
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|x^{\frac{n+1}{2}}u(x,y)\right|^{2}\frac{dx}{x}dy=\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|u(x,y)\right|^{2}x^{n}dxdy
$$
$$
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|x^{\frac{n-1}{2}}x\partial_{x}u(x,y)\right|^{2}\frac{dx}{x}dy=\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}x^{n-1+2-1}\left|\partial_{x}u(x,y)\right|^{2}dxdy=\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|\partial_{x}u(x,y)\right|^{2}x^{n}dxdy
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Para $n=2$, temos
$$
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|u(x,y)\right|^{2}x^{2}dxdy<\infty
$$
$$
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|\partial_{x}u(x,y)\right|^{2}x^{2}dxdy<\infty
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Pelo que se acima, temos $\mathcal{H}^{1,1}\hookrightarrow H^{1}$.
Além disso, se $u(x,y)=x^{\alpha}$, temos}
\textcolor{green}{Para $\mathcal{H}^{1,1}$, vemos
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}x^{2\alpha}dxdy<\infty
$$
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x^{\alpha-1}\right|^{2}x^{2}dxdy=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}x^{2\alpha}dxdy<\infty
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Assim, precisamos $2\alpha>-1\iff\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$.}
\textcolor{green}{Para $H^{1}$, vemos
$$
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|x^{\alpha}\right|^{2}x^{2}dxdy=\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}x^{2+2\alpha}dxdy<\infty
$$
$$
\alpha^{2}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}x^{2\alpha}dxdy<\infty
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Assim, precisamos $2+2\alpha>-1\iff2\alpha>-3\iff\alpha>-\frac{3}{2}$
e $2\alpha>-1\iff\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$.}
\textcolor{green}{Para $L^{6}$, vemos
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\left|x^{\alpha}\right|^{6}x^{2}dxdy=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}x^{6\alpha+2}dxdy<\infty
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Assim, precisamos $6\alpha+2>-1\iff\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$.}
\textcolor{green}{Se acharmos $u$ tal que $u\sim x^{\alpha}$ com
$-\frac{3}{2}<\alpha<-\frac{1}{2}$, mas $\partial_{x}u\sim x^{\beta}$,
com $2\beta+2>-1\iff\beta>-\frac{3}{2}$, teremos que $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$,
mas $u\notin L^{6}(\mathbb{B})$.}
\textcolor{green}{Algo como $u(x)=\frac{x^{\alpha}}{1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}}$.
Note que $u(x)=\sin(x^{\beta})^{\alpha}\sim x^{\beta\alpha}$, then
$\partial_{x}u(x)=\alpha\left(\sin(x^{\beta})\right)^{\alpha-1}\cos(x^{\beta})x^{\beta-1}\sim x^{\beta\alpha-\beta+\beta-1}=x^{\beta\alpha-1}$.
$$
\partial_{x}u(x)=\partial_{x}\left(\frac{x^{\alpha}}{1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)=\alpha\frac{x^{\alpha-1}}{1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}}{(1+x^{\frac{1}{2}})^{2}}
$$
$$
\frac{x^{\beta-1}}{(1+x^{\beta})^{2}}
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{De novo...}
\textcolor{green}{Algo como $u(x)=\frac{x^{-1}}{1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}}$.
Note que
$$
\int_{0}^{1}\left|u(x)\right|^{6}x^{2}dx=\int_{0}^{1}\frac{x^{-6}}{(1+x^{\frac{1}{2}})^{6}}x^{2}dx=\int_{0}^{1}\frac{x^{-4}}{(1+x^{\frac{1}{2}})^{6}}dx=\infty.
$$
}
\textcolor{green}{Mas
$$
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|\frac{x^{-1}}{1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right|^{2}x^{2}dxdy=\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{x^{-2}}{(1+x^{\frac{1}{2}})^{2}}x^{2}dxdy=\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{1}{(1+x^{\frac{1}{2}})^{2}}dxdy<\infty
$$
$$
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}}\int_{0}^{1}\left|-\frac{x^{-2}}{1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^{-\frac{3}{2}}}{(1+x^{\frac{1}{2}})^{2}}\right|^{2}x^{2}dxdy=<\infty
$$
$$
\partial_{x}u(x)=\partial_{x}\left(\frac{x^{\alpha}}{1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)=\alpha\frac{x^{\alpha-1}}{1+x^{\frac{1}{2}}}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}}{(1+x^{\frac{1}{2}})^{2}}
$$
$$
\frac{x^{\beta-1}}{(1+x^{\beta})^{2}}
$$
}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Interpolation for sums of Banach spaces.}
In this section, we show an abstract result on interpolation of
sums of Banach spaces. Later on we will apply it to provide a complete
description of the domains of the fractional powers of the Laplacian.
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces continuously embedded in a Hausdorff
topological vector space $V$. Denote by $\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ the set of all functions $f:\left\{ z\in\mathbb{C}:\text{Re}(z)\in[0,1]\right\} \to X+Y$
that are continuous, bounded and whose restriction $f:\left\{ z\in\mathbb{C}:\text{Re}(z)\in(0,1)\right\} \to X+Y$
is holomorphic. In addiction, if $f\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$, then we
assume that the functions $t\in\mathbb{R}\mapsto f(it)\in X$, $t\in\mathbb{R}\mapsto f(1+it)\in Y$
are continuous and bounded. By the Hadamard three-lines theorem, any $f\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ that
satisfies either $f(it)=0$, $\forall t\in\mathbb{R}$, or $f(1+it)=0$,
$\forall t\in\mathbb{R}$, must be identically zero.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Lemma}Let $V$ be a Hausdorff topological vector space
and $X$, $Y$, $F$ be Banach spaces continuously embedded in $V$.
If $Y\hookrightarrow X$ and $F\cap X=\{0\}$, then $[X,Y\oplus F]_{\theta}=[X,Y]_{\theta}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Clearly $[X,Y]_{\theta}\hookrightarrow[X,Y\oplus F]_{\theta}$, see \cite[Chapter 2]{Lunardi} for definition and basic properties of complex interpolation. For the other
direction, let $x\in[X,Y\oplus F]_{\theta}$. Then $x=f(\theta)$
for some $f\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y\oplus F)$. We remark that $X+(Y\oplus F)=X\oplus F$,
also topologically. Let $P:X\oplus F\to F$ be the continuous projection
on $F$. The projection when restricted to $Y\oplus F$ is also continuous.
If $f\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y\oplus F)$, then $f(z)=P\circ f(z)+(I-P)\circ f(z)$.
As $P\circ f\in\mathcal{F}(F,F)$ and $P\circ f(it)=0$ for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$,
we conclude that $P\circ f=0$. Therefore $f(z)=(I-P)\circ f(z)\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$
and hence $x=f(\theta)\in[X,Y]_{\theta}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Interpolation} Let $Y\hookrightarrow X$ be Banach spaces.
Suppose that $X=Z\oplus F$, where $Z$ and $F$ are closed subspaces
of $X$, and $Y\cap F=\{0\}$. Then $[X,Y\oplus F]_{\theta}=[X,Y]_{\theta}+F$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
As $F\hookrightarrow X$ and $F\hookrightarrow Y\oplus F$, then clearly
$F\hookrightarrow[X,Y\oplus F]_{\theta}.$ Moreover as $Y\hookrightarrow Y\oplus F$,
we have $[X,Y]_{\theta}\hookrightarrow[X,Y\oplus F]_{\theta}$. Therefore
we conclude that $[X,Y]_{\theta}+F\hookrightarrow[X,Y\oplus F]_{\theta}$.
Concerning the other direction, let $x\in[X,Y\oplus F]_{\theta}$.
Then $x=f(\theta)$, for some $f\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y\oplus F)$.
Let $P:X=Z\oplus F\to F$ be the continuous projection. We note that
$P:Y\oplus F\to Y\oplus F$ is continuous by the closed graph theorem.
We write $f(z)=f_{1}(z)+f_{2}(z)$, where $f_{1}(z):=(I-P)\circ f(z)$ and
$f_{2}(z)=Pf(z)$.
Note that the maps $I-P:X\to X$, $I-P:Y\oplus F\to Y\oplus F$
are continuous and that $X+(Y\oplus F)=Z+(Y\oplus F)=X$. Therefore
$f_{1}\in\mathcal{F}(Z,Y\oplus F)$. By the definition of complex
interpolation, we have
$$
f_{1}(\theta)\in[Z,Y+F]_{\theta}\overset{(1)}{=}[Z,Y]_{\theta}\overset{(2)}{\hookrightarrow}[X,Y]_{\theta}.
$$
In $(1)$ we have used the Lemma \ref{lem:Lemma} and in $(2)$ the
embedding $Z\hookrightarrow X$.
On the other hand, $f_{2}(\theta)=P\circ f(\theta)\in F$. Hence $x=f_{1}(\theta)+f_{2}(\theta)\in[X,Y]_{\theta}+F$,
which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
For the rest of the paper, we will use the above theorem when $F\hookrightarrow X$ is a finite dimensional space.
In this case, it is well known that there exists a closed subspace
$Z$ of $X$ such that $X=Z\oplus F$. For a real interpolation analogue of Theorem \ref{thm:Interpolation}, we refer to \cite[Lemma 7.2]{RSS}.
\end{rem}
\section{Realizations of the Laplacian and bi-Laplacian\label{sec:Realizations}}
We start with some basic concepts on analytic semigroup theory.
\begin{defn}
Let $X$ be a complex Banach space and $A:\mathcal{D}(A)\to X$ be
a densely defined closed operator in $X$. We say that $A$ is a
\emph{negative generator of an analytic semigroup} if for some $\delta,C>0$
we have
$$
\{\lambda\in\mathbb{C}:\,\text{Re}(\lambda)>-\delta\}\subset\rho(A)\quad\text{and}\quad\left\Vert (\lambda-A)^{-1}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}(X)}\le C/|\lambda|,\,\,\,\text{Re}(\lambda)>-\delta.
$$
\end{defn}
The semigroup associated to a negative generator $A$ is denoted
$e^{tA}\in\mathcal{L}(X)$, see e.g. \cite[Chapter I.1.2]{Am}. Both semigroup and the complex powers
$(-A)^{z}:\mathcal{D}((-A)^{z})\to X$, $z\in\mathbb{C}$, can be
defined by Cauchy's integral formula, see e.g. \cite[Theorem III.4.6.5]{Am}. In the case of $(-A)^{it}\in\mathcal{L}(X)$ for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\left\Vert (-A)^{it}\right\Vert \le Me^{\phi|t|}$, for some $M>0$ and $\phi\ge 0$,
we say that $-A$ has \emph{bounded imaginary powers} and denote by
$-A\in\mathcal{BIP}(\phi)$, see e.g. \cite[Chapter III.4.7]{Am}. Recall that if $-A\in\mathcal{BIP}$, then $[X,\mathcal{D}(A)]_{\theta}=\mathcal{D}((-A)^{\theta})$, see e.g. \cite[Theorem 4.17.]{Lunardi}.
Next we recall some basic facts from the {\em cone calculus}, for more details we refer to \cite{CSS1,GilMendoza,Le,GKM,SS1,SS,Schu}. The Laplacian $\Delta$, as a cone differential operator, acts naturally on scales of Mellin-Sobolev spaces. Let us consider it as an unbounded operator
in $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$, $s,\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$,
with domain $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$. Denote by $\Delta_{s,\min}$
the minimal extension (i.e. the closure) of $\Delta$ and by $\Delta_{s,\max}$
the maximal extension, defined as usual by
$$
\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s,\max})=\Big\{ u\in\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\,|\,\Delta u\in\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\Big\}.
$$
An important result in the field of cone differential operators tells
us that those two domains differ in general, unlike the case of closed
manifolds. In particular, there exists an $s$-independent finite-dimensional
space $\mathcal{E}_{\Delta,\gamma}$, that is called \emph{asymptotics
space}, such that
$$
\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s,\max})=\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s,\min})\oplus\mathcal{E}_{\Delta,\gamma}.
$$
More precisely, $\mathcal{E}_{\Delta,\gamma}$ consists of linear
combinations of smooth functions in $\mathbb{B}^{\circ}$. Those functions
vanish outside the collar neighborhood and, in local coordinates $(x,y)\in[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$,
can be written as $\omega(x)c(y)x^{-\rho}\log^{k}(x)$. The function
$\omega$ is the cut-off function defined on Section \ref{sec:Function-spaces},
$c\in C^{\infty}(\partial\mathbb{B})$, $\rho\in\{z\in\mathbb{C}\,|\,\mathrm{Re}(z)\in[\frac{n-3}{2}-\gamma,\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma)\}$
and $k\in\{0,1\}$. Here, the metric $h(\cdot)$ determines explicitly
the exponents $\rho$. As for the minimal domain, it can be proved that $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s,\min})=\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})$,
whenever
$$
\frac{n-3}{2}-\gamma\notin\Big\{\frac{n-1}{2}\pm\sqrt{\Big(\frac{n-1}{2}\Big)^{2}-\lambda_{j}}:\,j\in\mathbb{N}\Big\}.
$$
A suitable choice of the domain of the Laplacian is given below. For
this, we denote by $\mathbb{C}_{\omega}$ the finite dimensional
space of functions that are equal to zero outside the collar neighborhood and that close to the singularities are expressed by $\sum_{j=1}^{N}c_{j}\omega_{j}$, where $N$ is the
number of connected components of $\partial\mathcal{B}$ and $\omega_{j}$
are the restrictions of $\omega$ to these components. Also denote by $\mathbb{R}_\omega$ the subspace of $\mathbb{C}_\omega$ such that $c_j\in\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Laplacian} \cite[Theorem 6.7]{SS1} Let
$$
\frac{n-3}{2}<\gamma<\min\Big\{-1+\sqrt{\Big(\frac{n-1}{2}\Big)^{2}-\lambda_{1}},\frac{n+1}{2}\Big\}
$$
where $\lambda_{1}$ is the greatest non-zero eigenvalue of the boundary
Laplacian $\Delta_{h(0)}$ on $(\partial\mathcal{B},h(0))$. Then
for every $c,\phi>0$, the operator $\Delta-c:\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\to\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$
is a negative generator of an analytic semigroup such that $-\Delta+c\in\mathcal{BIP}(\phi)$. The Laplacian $\Delta:\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\to\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$ will be denoted by $\Delta_s$.
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}
[bi-Laplacian] \label{cor:(Bi-Laplacian)} Consider the bi-Laplacian
$\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2})=\{u\in\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}):\Delta_{s}u\in\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s})\}$,
where $\Delta_{s}$ is as in Theorem \ref{thm:Laplacian}. Then, there exists an $s$-independent finite dimensional space $\mathcal{E}_{\Delta^{2},\gamma}$
contained in $\mathcal{H}^{\infty,\gamma+2+2\alpha_0}(\mathbb{B})$,
for some $\alpha_0>0$, such that $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{s+4.\gamma+4-\varepsilon}\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\oplus\mathcal{E}_{\Delta^{2},\gamma}$,
for all $\varepsilon>0$. The space $\mathcal{E}_{\Delta^{2},\gamma}$
consists of $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{B}^{\circ})$-functions, which in
local coordinates $(x,y)\in[0,1)\times\partial\mathcal{B}$, are of
the form $\omega(x)c(y)x^{\rho}\ln^{k}(x)$, where $c\in C^{\infty}(\partial\mathbb{B})$,
$\rho\in\{z\in\mathbb{C} : \mathrm{Re}(z)\in[\frac{n-7}{2}-\gamma,\frac{n-3}{2}-\gamma)\}$
and $k\in\{0,1,2,3\}$; for more details we refer to \cite[Section 3.2]{LopesRoidos}.
Moreover, for every $\phi>0$, the operator $A_{s}:=-(1-\Delta_{s})^{2}:\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2})\to\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$
is a negative generator of an analytic semigroup such that $(1-\Delta_{s})^{2}\in\mathcal{BIP}(\phi)$, see \cite[Proposition 3.6]{LopesRoidos}.
\end{cor}
For $\alpha\in[0,2]$, we define $X_{\alpha}^{s}:=\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{\alpha/2})=[\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s}^{2})]_{\alpha/2}$.
If $\alpha\in[0,1]$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:X=00005Calphasasinterpolation}
X_{\alpha}^{s}\overset{(1)}{=}[\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{s})]_{\alpha}\overset{(2)}{=}\mathcal{H}^{s+2\alpha,\gamma+2\alpha}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega},
\end{equation}
where in $(1)$ we have used reiteration and the $\mathcal{BIP}$ property of $-A_{s}$ and in $(2)$ we have used Theorem \ref{thm:Interpolation}.
We also denote $X_{1}^{\infty}:=\cap_{s\ge0}X_{1}^{s}$ and $X_{2}^{\infty}:=\cap_{s\ge0}X_{2}^{s}$.
\section{\label{sec:Existence-and-regularity-1}Existence
and regularity of the global attractors}
For the rest of the paper $\gamma$ is fixed and satisfies \eqref{gamma}. The constants $C>0$ may change along the computations.
In this section we prove part (i) of Theorem \ref{thm:MainTheorem}. In the sequel all the spaces we use are the real parts of the ones defined previously.
Recall that a global attractor for a semiflow
$T:[0,\infty)\times X\to X$ defined on a Hilbert $X$ is a compact
set $\mathcal{A}\subset X$ such that $T(t)\mathcal{A}:=\{T(t)x:x\in\mathcal{A}\}=\mathcal{A}$,
for all $t\ge0$, which, moreover, attracts all bounded sets $B\subset X$
in the following sense:
$$
\lim_{t\to\infty}(\sup_{b\in B}\inf_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\left\Vert T(t)b-a\right\Vert _{X})=0.
$$
If it exists, then it is unique.
As mentioned in the introduction, for any $s\ge0$, we can define a
semiflow $T$ in $X_{1}^{s}$. It is convenient, however, to restrict
$T$ to a smaller space. For this reason, we first prove the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:avaragedoesnotchange}Let $u_{0}\in X_{1}^{s}$, then
the function $(u)_{\mathbb{B}}:(0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}$, defined
by
$$
(u)_{\mathbb{B}}(t):=\frac{1}{|\mathbb{B}|}\int_{\mathbb{B}}T(t)u_{0}d\mu_{g},\,\,t>0,
$$
is constant. Here $|\mathbb{B}|=\int_{\mathbb{B}}d\mu_{g}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to \cite[Equation (4.61)]{Temam}, where we have
to take into account \eqref{extrareg} and Theorem \ref{thm:Gauss-Theorem}.
\end{proof}
Consider the Hilbert space
$$
X_{1,0}^{s}=\{u\in\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_{\omega}:\,(u)_{\mathbb{B}}=0\}.
$$
By Proposition \ref{prop:avaragedoesnotchange}, $T(t)X_{1,0}^{s}\subset X_{1,0}^{s}$.
Therefore, $T$ restricts to a semiflow on $X_{1,0}^{s}$. Concerning
the existence of global attractors, we recall the following result.
For two Hilbert spaces $X$ and $Y$ such that $Y\hookrightarrow X$
and a semiflow $T:[0,\infty)\times X\to X$, we define the $\omega$-limit
set $\omega_{Z}(B)$ of $B\subset X$, where $Z=X$ or $Y$, by
\begin{equation}
\omega_{Z}(B)=\Big\{ z\in Z\, :\, \exists\quad t_{n}\to\infty\quad\text{and}\quad\{x_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset B\quad\text{such that}\quad\lim_{n\to\infty}\left\Vert T(t_{n})x_{n}-z\right\Vert _{Z}=0\Big\} .\label{eq:omegalimit}
\end{equation}
If $Z=Y$, then the above definition requires that $T(t_{n})x_{n}\in Y$
for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. In order to show existence and regularity
of global attractors, we prove the following variation of
\cite[Theorem 10.5]{Robinson}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Globalattractor}Let $Y\hookrightarrow X$ be Hilbert spaces,
$T:[0,\infty)\times X\to X$ be a semiflow and $\mathcal{K}\subset Y$
be a compact set in $Y$. Assume that for all bounded sets $B\subset X$
there exists a constant $t_{B}>0$ such that, if $t>t_{B}$, then
$T(t)B\subset\mathcal{K}$. Under these conditions there exists a
(unique) global connected attractor $\mathcal{A}$ for the semiflows
$T$. Moreover, $\mathcal{A}=\omega_{X}(\mathcal{K})=\omega_{Y}(\mathcal{K})$
is contained in $Y$ and attracts bounded sets of $X$ in $Y$ in
the following sense: for any bounded set $B\subset X$, the set $T(t)B$
is bounded in $Y$ for large $t$ and $\lim_{t\to\infty}\sup_{b\in B}\inf_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\left\Vert T(t)b-a\right\Vert _{Y}=0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
First we show that $\omega_{X}(\mathcal{K})=\omega_{Y}(\mathcal{K})$.
Since $Y\hookrightarrow X$, the definition given by (\ref{eq:omegalimit})
implies that $\omega_{Y}(\mathcal{K})\subset\omega_{X}(\mathcal{K})$.
On the other hand, if $x\in\omega_{X}(\mathcal{K})$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}\left\Vert T(t_{n})x_{n}-x\right\Vert _{X}=0$
for some $t_{n}\to\infty$ and $\{x_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset\mathcal{K}$, then $T(t_{n})x_{n}\in\mathcal{K}$
for all $t_{n}>t_{\mathcal{K}}$. By the compactness of $\mathcal{K}$
in $Y$, some subsequence $\{T(t_{n_{j}})x_{n_{j}}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges
in $Y$, which implies that $x\in\omega_{Y}(\mathcal{K})$.
Let $\mathcal{A}:=\omega_{X}(\mathcal{K})=\omega_{Y}(\mathcal{K})$.
Using the notation $\overline{\mathcal{C}}^{Y}$ for the closure of
$\mathcal{C}$ in $Y$, (\ref{eq:omegalimit}) says that
$$
\omega_{Y}(\mathcal{K})=\cap_{t>0}\overline{\cup_{s>t}(T(s)\mathcal{K}\cap Y)}^{Y}=\cap_{t>t_{\mathcal{K}}}\overline{\cup_{s>t}T(s)\mathcal{K}}^{Y},
$$
which implies that $\mathcal{A}$ is a non-empty compact set of $Y$
- and also of $X$ - since it is the intersection of decreasing non-empty compact
sets. The invariance of $\mathcal{A}$ follows easily from (\ref{eq:omegalimit}),
see also \cite[Proposition 1.1.1]{CD}.
Finally, the fact that $\mathcal{A}$ attracts bounded sets of $X$ in $Y$
- and in $X$ as well - follows from the arguments of \cite[Theorem
10.5]{Robinson}, which we provide for completeness. Let us suppose that $\lim_{t\to\infty}\sup_{b\in B}\inf_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\left\Vert T(t)b-a\right\Vert _{Y}=0$
does not hold for some bounded set $B\subset X$. Then, we
can find sequences $t_{n}\to\infty$, $\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset B$ and
$\varepsilon_{0}>0$ such that $\inf_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\left\Vert T(t_{n})b_{n}-a\right\Vert_Y >\varepsilon_{0}$
for all $n$. But for $t_{n}>t_{B}$ and $b\in B$, then $T(t_{n})b\in\mathcal{K}$
which is a compact set in $Y$. Hence a subsequence $\{T(t_{n_{j}})b_{n_{j}}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$
converges in $Y$. As $T(t_{n_{j}})b_{n_{j}}=T(t_{n_{j}}-t_{n})T(t_{n})b_{n_{j}}$ and $T(t_{n})b_{n_{j}}\in\mathcal{K}$, we conclude that the subsequence $\{T(t_{n_{j}})b_{n_{j}}\}$ converges to an element of $\omega_{Y}(\mathcal{K})=\mathcal{A}$, which gives us a contradiction. Connectness follows
exactly as in \cite{Robinson}.
\end{proof}
For our purposes we use the following consequence.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:Tofiindattractors}Let $X$ be a Hilbert space, $A:\mathcal{D}(A)\subset X\to X$
be a negative generator of an analytic semigroup with compact resolvent
and $F:X_{\alpha}=\mathcal{D}((-A)^{\alpha})\to X$, $0\le\alpha<1$,
be a locally Lipschitz function. Consider the following problem
$$
\begin{aligned}u'(t) & =Au(t)+F(u(t)),\\
u(0) & =u_{0},
\end{aligned}
$$
where $u_{0}\in X_{\alpha}$. Assume that\\
{\em(i)} There is a closed subspace $\widetilde{X}_{\alpha}\subset X_{\alpha}$ such that for all $u_{0}\in\widetilde{X}_{\alpha}$, a global solution $u\in C^{1}((0,\infty),X)\cap C((0,\infty),\mathcal{D}(A))\cap C([0,\infty),\widetilde{X}_{\alpha})$
is defined. \\
{\em(ii)} There are Hilbert spaces $Y$ and $W$ such that $Y\overset{c}{\hookrightarrow}W\hookrightarrow X_{\alpha}$
and a constant $C_{Y}>0$ with the following property: for every $R>0$,
there exists $t_{R}>0$ such that if $u_{0}\in \widetilde{X}_{\alpha}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert_{X_{\alpha}} \le R$,
then $u(t,u_{0})\in Y$ and $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{Y}\le C_{Y}$,
for all $t>t_{R}$.
Then the semiflow $T:[0,\infty)\times \widetilde{X}_{\alpha}\to \widetilde{X}_{\alpha}$ defined
by $T(t)u_{0}=u(t)$ has a global connected attractor $\mathcal{A}$
that is contained in $W$ and attracts bounded sets of $\widetilde{X}_{\alpha}$
in $W$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We have to show that the conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:Globalattractor}
are satisfied. As $Y\overset{c}{\hookrightarrow}W$, the bounded set $\mathcal{K}_{0}:=\left\{ x\in Y:\,\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{Y}\le C_{Y}\right\} $
is a relative compact subset of $W$. We define $\mathcal{K}$ to
be the closure of $\mathcal{K}_{0}$ in $W$. Let $B\subset \widetilde{X}_{\alpha}$
be a bounded set, i.e. there exists $R>0$ such that $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{X_{\alpha}}\le R$,
for all $u_{0}\in B$. By our assumptions, there exists $t_{R}>0$
such that if $t\ge t_{R}$, then $\left\Vert T(t)u_{0}\right\Vert _{Y}\le C_{Y}$.
Therefore $T(t)B\subset\mathcal{K}_{0}\subset\mathcal{K}$, if $t\ge t_{R}$.
\end{proof}
The above corollary will now be applied to the proof of the following theorem,
from which part (i) of Theorem \ref{thm:MainTheorem} will follow. Below in this section
$0<\alpha_{0}<1$ will be always as in Corollary \ref{cor:(Bi-Laplacian)}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Attractorestimate}Let $0<\varepsilon<\min\{\alpha_{0}/4,(n+1)/16-\gamma/8\}$.
Then, for each $s\ge0$ there is a constant $\varkappa_{s,\varepsilon}>0$
with the following property: for every $R>0$, there exists $\overline{t}_{R,s,\varepsilon}>0$
such that if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
then $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon})}\le\varkappa_{s,\varepsilon}$,
for all $t>\overline{t}_{R,s,\varepsilon}$.
\end{thm}
The theorem will be proved in several steps. The first one follows
directly from Temam \cite{Temam}. We just highlight the necessary results for repeating the arguments.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:alpha1/4}There is a constant $\kappa$ with
the following property: for every $R>0$, there is a constant $t_{R}>0$
such that if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
then $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}\le \kappa$,
for all $t>t_{R}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is obtained by following the arguments in \cite[Section 4.2.2]{Temam}. First we prove the existence of $\kappa>0$ with the following
property: for every $R>0$, there is a constant $t_{R}>0$ such that
if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
then $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le \kappa$,
for all $t>t_{R}$, see deductions of \cite[Equations (4.89)-(4.90)]{Temam}.
For our situation, we only have to take into account the Sobolev immersion
$H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{4}(\mathbb{B})$ from Corollary
\ref{cor:Mellinsobolevembedding} and Theorem \ref{thm:Gauss-Theorem},
which allow the definition of the strict Lyapunov function \cite[Definition 8.4.5]{HJ} $\mathcal{L}:H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathbb{R}$
by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Lyapunov}
\mathcal{L}(v)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla v,\nabla v\right\rangle d\mu_{g}+\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left(\frac{1}{4}v^{4}-\frac{1}{2}v^{2}\right)d\mu_{g},
\end{equation}
see also \cite[Section 4.2]{LopesRoidos}. We also use Proposition \ref{prop:HzerobetadualH1}
to identify elements of $\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})$, $\beta>-1$, with
elements in $H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ for the computations. The rest of
proof follows the deduction of \cite[Equation (4.95)]{Temam}.
\end{proof}
In order to proceed to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Attractorestimate}, we write \eqref{eq:mainequation}
as
\begin{equation}
u'(t)=A_{s}u+F(u),\label{eq:AbstractCH}
\end{equation}
where $A_{s}:X_{2}^{s}\to X_{0}^{s}$ is given by $A_{s}=-(1-\Delta_{s})^{2}$
and $F:X_{1}^{s}\to X_0^{s}$ is given by $F(u)=\Delta_{s}(u^{3}-3u)+u$.
\textcolor{red}{}
It is well know, see \cite[Theorem 6.13]{Pazy}, that for some $\delta>0$ depending on $A_s$, the fractional powers
satisfy
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha}e^{tA_{s}}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{B}\left(\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}\left(\mathbb{B}\right)\right)}\le c_{\alpha,s}t^{-\alpha}e^{-\delta t}, \quad t>0,\label{eq:calphas-1}
\end{equation}
where $c_{\alpha,s}>0$ only depends on $\alpha,s\ge 0$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:induction}
Let $0\le\sigma\le\alpha\le\beta<1$, $0<\tilde{t}<t$, $\delta>0$
be as in \eqref{eq:calphas-1} and $u\in C([\tilde{t},t],\mathcal{D}(A_s))$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha}u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}
& \le& C_{\sigma}e^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-\sigma}\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\sigma}u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+C_{\alpha,\beta}\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{-\delta(t-s)}(t-s)^{-\beta}\\\label{eq:induction}
&&\hspace{-75pt}\times\left(\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta+\frac{1}{2}}u^{3}(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta+\frac{1}{2}}u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta}u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\right)ds,
\end{eqnarray}
for some constants $C_{\sigma}$, $C_{\alpha,\beta}$ only depending on $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\sigma$ and $s$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We apply $(-A_{s})^{\alpha}$ to the variation of constants formula
$$
u(t)=e^{(t-\tilde{t})A_{s}}u(\tilde{t})+\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{(t-s)A_{s}}F(u(s))ds
$$
to obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha}u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}}\\
& \le&\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\sigma}e^{-A_{s}(t-\tilde{t})}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}))}\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\sigma}u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\beta}e^{A_{s}(t-s)}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}))}\\
&& \quad\times\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta}\left(\Delta(u^{3}(s)-3u(s))+u(s)\right)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}ds\\
& \overset{(1)}{\le}&C_{\sigma}e^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-\sigma}\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\sigma}u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+C_{\alpha,\beta}\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{-\delta(t-s)}(t-s)^{-\beta}\\
&& \quad\times\left(\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta+\frac{1}{2}}u^{3}(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta+\frac{1}{2}}u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta}u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\right)ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
In $(1)$ we have used that
$$
\begin{aligned} & \left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta}\Delta v\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})} =\left\Vert (1-\Delta_{s})^{-1}\Delta_{s}(-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta+\frac{1}{2}}v\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\le c_{s}\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\alpha-\beta+\frac{1}{2}}v\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}.
\end{aligned}
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Estimatefor1/2}There is a constant $\kappa_1>0$
with the following property: for every $R>0$, there is a constant
$t_{R,1}>0$ such that if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
then $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{X_{1}^{0}}\le \kappa_1$,
for all $t>t_{R,1}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\emph{Step 1}. Let $\theta\in[1/2,1)$. There exists $\kappa_\theta>0$
with the following property: for every $R>0$, there is a constant
$t_{R,\theta}>0$ such that if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
then $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{X_{\theta}^{0}}\le \kappa_\theta$,
for all $t>t_{R,\theta}$.
Let $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ be such that $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
$u(t)=T(t)u_{0}$ and $t_{R}$, $\kappa$ be as Proposition
\ref{prop:alpha1/4}. If $\mathsf{x}$ is as in Remark \ref{rem:xmellinL2weight}, then we have
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u(s)^{3}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\le C\left(\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left|\mathsf{x}^{-\gamma/3}u(s)\right|^{6}d\mu_{g}\right)^{1/2}=C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\mathsf{x}^{\gamma/3}L^{6}(\mathbb{B})}^{3}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}^{3},\label{eq:u3H0,gamma=00005CleH1}
\end{equation}
where we have used Corollary \ref{cor:Mellinsobolevembedding} and \eqref{gamma}. Also, due to Proposition \ref{prop:inclusionH1mellin} and \eqref{eq:X=00005Calphasasinterpolation},
if $0\le\ell<1$, then $\gamma +\ell<1$ and
$$
H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{\ell,\gamma+\ell}(\mathbb{B})=\mathcal{H}^{\ell,\gamma+\ell}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}=X_{\ell/2}^{0}.
$$
Hence, using \eqref{eq:induction} with $\tilde{t}=t_{R}$, $\alpha=\frac{\theta}{2}$,
$\sigma=\frac{\theta}{2}-\frac{1}{4}+\varepsilon$ for some $\varepsilon>0$,
$\beta=\frac{\theta}{2}+\frac{1}{2}$, \eqref{eq:u3H0,gamma=00005CleH1} and Proposition \ref{prop:alpha1/4},
we obtain for $t>t_R$
\begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\left\Vert (-A_{0})^{\frac{\theta}{2}}u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})} \le Ce^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-(\frac{\theta}{2}-\frac{1}{4}+\varepsilon)}\left\Vert (-A_{0})^{\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon}u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}}\\
&& + C\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{-\delta(t-s)}(t-s)^{-(\frac{\theta}{2}+\frac{1}{2})}\left(\left\Vert u^{3}(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert (-A_{0})^{-\frac{1}{2}}u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\right)ds\\
& \le& Ce^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-(\frac{\theta}{2}-\frac{1}{4}+\varepsilon)}\left\Vert u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}\\
&& +C\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{-\delta(t-s)}(t-s)^{-(\frac{\theta}{2}+\frac{1}{2})}\left(\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}^{3}+\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}\right)ds\\
& \le& Ce^{-\delta(t-t_{R})}(t-t_{R})^{-(\frac{\theta}{2}-\frac{1}{4}+\varepsilon)}+C\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\delta s}s^{-\frac{\theta}{2}-\frac{1}{2}}ds,
\end{eqnarray*}
where the contants $C$ in the last line depend on $\kappa$, since $\Vert u(t)\Vert_{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}\le\kappa$ for $t\ge t_{R}$.
Let us define $\kappa_\theta:=C+C\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\delta s}s^{-\theta/2-1/2}ds$
and choose $t_{R,\theta}>t_{R}$ such that
$$
e^{-\delta(t_{R,\theta}-t_{R})}(t_{R,\theta}-t_{R})^{-(\frac{\theta}{2}-\frac{1}{4}+\varepsilon)}<1.
$$
Then $\Vert (-A_{0})^{\theta/2}u(t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\le \kappa_\theta$,
$\forall t>t_{R,\theta}$.\\
\emph{Step 2}. Choose in \eqref{eq:induction} $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$,
$\sigma=\frac{1}{4}$ and $\beta$, such that $\frac{1}{2}<\beta<1+\frac{\gamma}{4}-\frac{n+1}{8}$.
This is possible as $n\in\{1,2\}$ and $\frac{n-3}{2}<\gamma\le0$.
Hence $\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma<2$, which implies that $\frac{\gamma}{4}-\frac{n+1}{8}>-\frac{1}{2}$.
With this choice of $\beta$, we also have $\frac{1}{2}>1-\beta>\frac{n+1}{8}-\frac{\gamma}{4}$.
Therefore $X_{2(1-\beta)}^{0}=\mathcal{H}^{4(1-\beta),4(1-\beta)+\gamma}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}$ is an algebra as $4(1-\beta)+\gamma>\frac{n+1}{2}$ and $4(1-\beta)>\frac{n+1}{2}$,
as $\gamma\le0$.
Choosing $\tilde{t}=\max\{t_{R,2(1-\beta)},t_{R,1/2}\}$ and using
\eqref{eq:induction} with $t>\tilde{t}$, $\alpha=1/2$, $\sigma=1/4$ and $\beta$ as above, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}\lefteqn{\left\Vert (-A_{0})^{\frac{1}{2}}u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})} \le Ce^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-\frac{1}{4}}\left\Vert (-A_{0})^{\frac{1}{4}}u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+C\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{-\delta(t-s)}(t-s)^{-\beta}}\\
&& \times\left(\left\Vert (-A_{0})^{1-\beta}u^{3}(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert (-A_{0})^{1-\beta}u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert (-A_{0})^{\frac{1}{2}-\beta}u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\right)ds\\
& \le& Ce^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-\frac{1}{4}}\left\Vert u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{X_{1/2}^{0}}+C\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{-\delta(t-s)}(t-s)^{-\beta}\\
& & \times(\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{X_{2(1-\beta)}^{0}}^{3}+\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{X_{2(1-\beta)}^{0}})ds\\
& \le& Ce^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-\frac{1}{4}}\kappa_{1/2}+C\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\delta s}s^{-\beta}ds\left(\kappa_{2(1-\beta)}^{3}+\kappa_{2(1-\beta)}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Let us define
$$
\kappa_{1}:=C\kappa_{1/2}+C\left(\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\delta s}s^{-\beta}ds\right)\left(\kappa_{2(1-\beta)}^{3}+\kappa_{2(1-\beta)}\right)
$$
and we choose $t_{R,1}$ such that $t_{R,1}>\tilde{t}$ and $C\kappa_{1/2}e^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-\frac{1}{4}}<1$,
for $t>t_{R,1}$. Therefore, we conclude that for $t>t_{R,1}$, we
have $\Vert (-A_{0})^{\frac{1}{2}}u(t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\le \kappa_{1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:Attractorestimatetheta}For
every $s\ge0$ and $\theta\in[1/2,1)$, there is a constant
$\kappa_{s,\theta}>0$ with the following property: for every $R>0$,
there is a constant $t_{R,s,\theta}>0$ such that if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
then $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{\theta})}\le\kappa_{s,\theta}$,
for all $t>t_{R,s,\theta}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows by induction in $s$. Assume that for some $s\ge0$,
there is a constant $\kappa_{s}>0$ with the following property: for
every $R>0$, there exists $\tilde{t}_{R,s}>0$ such that if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
then $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}}\le\kappa_{s}$,
for all $t>\tilde{t}_{R,s}$. We have seen that this is true for $s=0$
by Proposition \ref{prop:Estimatefor1/2}.
We will prove that, for each $\theta\in[1/2,1)$ there is a constant
$\kappa_{s,\theta}>0$ with the following property: for every $R>0$,
there exists $t_{R,s,\theta}>0$ such that if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le R$,
then $\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{\theta})}\le\kappa_{s,\theta}$,
for all $t>t_{R,s,\theta}$. Taking $\theta>1/2+\alpha_{0}/4$,
this and Theorem \ref{thm:Interpolation} imply that
\begin{eqnarray*}\lefteqn{\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+\alpha_{0}+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}}\le\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+\alpha_{0}+2,\gamma+\alpha_{0}+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}}}\\
&& =\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{[\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{H}^{s+4,\gamma+4}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\oplus\mathcal{E}_{\Delta^{2},\gamma}]_{1/2+\alpha_{0}/4}}\le\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{[\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{D}(A_{s})]_{1/2+\alpha_{0}/4}}\\
&& =\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1/2+\alpha_{0}/4})}\le\left\Vert u(t,u_{0})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{\theta})}\le\kappa_{s,\theta},
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $t>t_{R,s}$ and the induction will follow. In fact, we increase $s$ by $\alpha_0$ in each step of the induction.
Using \eqref{eq:induction} with $\alpha=\beta=\sigma=\theta$, $\tilde{t}=\tilde{t}_{R,s}$ and $t>\tilde{t}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\theta}u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})} & \le & C_{\sigma}e^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-\theta}\left\Vert u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+C_{\alpha,\beta}\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{-\delta(t-s)}(t-s)^{-\theta}\\
&& \times\left(\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\frac{1}{2}}u^{3}(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{\frac{1}{2}}u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\right)ds\\
& \le & C_{\sigma}e^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t})}(t-\tilde{t})^{-\theta}\left\Vert u(\tilde{t})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}+C_{\alpha,\beta}\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t}e^{-\delta(t-s)}(t-s)^{-\theta}\\
& & \times\left(\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}}^{3}+\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}}+\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\right)ds\\
& \le& C(t-\tilde{t}_{R,s})^{-\theta}e^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t}_{R,s})}\kappa_{s}+C\left(\kappa_{s}^{3}+\kappa_{s}\right)\int_{0}^{\infty}s^{-\theta}e^{-\delta s}ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let us choose
$$
\kappa_{s,\theta}:=C\kappa_{s}+C\left(\kappa_{s}^{3}+\kappa_{s}\right)\int_{0}^{\infty}s^{-\theta}e^{-\delta s}ds
$$
and $t_{R,s,\theta}>\tilde{t}_{R,s}$ such that $(t-\tilde{t}_{R,s})^{-\theta}e^{-\delta(t-\tilde{t}_{R,s})}\le1$,
for $t\ge t_{R,s,\theta}$. Then $\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{\theta})}\le\kappa_{s,\theta}$,
for all $t>t_{R,s,\theta}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}
(of Theorem \ref{thm:Attractorestimate}) First we
note that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{2\varepsilon}) & =[\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{D}(-A_{s})]_{2\varepsilon}=[\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1/2})]_{4\varepsilon}\\
& =[\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}]_{4\varepsilon}\overset{(1)}{=}\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon,\gamma+8\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}=\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon,\gamma+8\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B}),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:varepsilon/2}
\end{equation}
where we have used \eqref{eq:X=00005Calphasasinterpolation}
in (1) and that $\gamma+8\varepsilon<(n+1)/2$ in the last equality.
Moreover for $0<\tilde{\varepsilon}<1/2-2\varepsilon$ and $0<\delta<4\tilde{\varepsilon}/(1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon})$
we have
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon}}) &=&[\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{D}(A_{s})]_{1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon}}\\\nonumber
& \hookrightarrow& [\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}),\mathcal{H}^{s+4,\gamma+4-\delta}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\oplus\mathcal{E}_{\Delta,\gamma}]_{1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon}}\\\nonumber
& \overset{(1)}{=}&\mathcal{H}^{s+2+8\varepsilon+4\tilde{\varepsilon},\gamma+2+8\varepsilon+4\tilde{\varepsilon}-\delta(1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon})}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\oplus\mathcal{E}_{\Delta,\gamma}\\\label{eq:(1+E)2}
& \hookrightarrow&\mathcal{H}^{s+2+8\varepsilon,\gamma+2+8\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\oplus\mathcal{E}_{\Delta,\gamma}
\,\, \overset{(2)}{=}\,\, \mathcal{H}^{s+2+8\varepsilon,\gamma+2+8\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega},
\end{eqnarray}
where Theorem \ref{thm:Interpolation} was used in
(1) and the fact that $8\varepsilon<2\alpha_{0}$ in (2).
Let $t_{R,s,\theta}>0$, $\theta=1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon}$
be as in Proposition \ref{prop:Attractorestimatetheta},
and $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$. Then, applying formally $(-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon}$
to the variation of constants formula give us
\begin{equation}
(-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon}u(t)=(-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon}e^{(t-t_{R,s,\theta})A_{s}}u(t_{R,s,\theta})+\int_{t_{R,s,\theta}}^{t}(-A_{s})^{1-\varepsilon}e^{(t-s)A_{s}}(-A_{s})^{2\varepsilon}F(u(s))ds.\label{eq:variation1+epsilon}
\end{equation}
Notice however that we do not know that $u(t)\in\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon})$
a priori. This will follow by showing that the $\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})$
norm of the integrand of (\ref{eq:variation1+epsilon})
is integrable, see \cite[Proposition 1.1.7]{Arendtetal},
which is a consequence of the following computations, similar to Lemma
\ref{lem:induction}.
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon})} & = & \left\Vert (-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon}u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\nonumber \\
& \le & C\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon}e^{(t-t_{R,s,\theta})A_{s}}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}))}\left\Vert u(t_{R,s,\theta})\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}\nonumber \\
& & +C\int_{t_{R,s,\theta}}^{t}\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{1-\varepsilon}e^{(t-s)A_{s}}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B}))}\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{2\varepsilon}F(u(s))\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})}ds.\label{eq:variaationsinduction-1}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\Vert (-A_{s})^{2\varepsilon}F(u(s))\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}(\mathbb{B})} & \overset{(1)}{=} & \left\Vert \Delta_{s}(u^{3}(s)-3u(s))+u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon,\gamma+8\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B})}\nonumber \\
& \overset{(2)}{\le} & C\left\Vert u^{3}(s)-3u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon+2,\gamma+8\varepsilon+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}}+C\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon,\gamma+8\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B})}\nonumber \\
& \le & C(\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon+2,\gamma+8\varepsilon+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}}^{3}+\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon,\gamma+8\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B})})\nonumber \\
& \overset{(3)}{\le} & C(\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon}})}^{3}+\left\Vert u(s)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon}})})\nonumber \\
& \overset{(4)}{\le} & C(\kappa_{s,1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\kappa_{s,1/2+2\varepsilon+\tilde{\varepsilon}}),\label{eq:variaationsinductionF-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used \eqref{eq:varepsilon/2} in (1),
the continuity of $\Delta:\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon+2,\gamma+8\varepsilon+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\to\mathcal{H}^{s+8\varepsilon,\gamma+8\varepsilon}(\mathbb{B})$
in (2), \eqref{eq:(1+E)2} in (3) and Proposition
\ref{prop:Attractorestimatetheta} in (4). By \eqref{eq:variaationsinduction-1}
and \eqref{eq:variaationsinductionF-1}, we find
$$
\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon})}\le C(t-t_{R,s,\theta})^{-(1+\varepsilon)}e^{-\delta(t-t_{R,s,\theta})}\kappa_{s,\theta}+C\left(\kappa_{s,\theta}^{3}+\kappa_{s,\theta}\right)\int_{0}^{\infty}s^{-(1-\varepsilon)}e^{-\delta s}ds.
$$
Let us choose
$$
\varkappa_{s,\varepsilon}:=C\kappa_{s,\theta}+C\left(\kappa_{s,\theta}^{3}+\kappa_{s,\theta}\right)\int_{0}^{\infty}s^{-(1-\varepsilon)}e^{-\delta s}ds
$$
and $\overline{t}_{R,s,\varepsilon}>t_{R,s,\theta}$ such that $(t-t_{R,s,\theta})^{-(1+\varepsilon)}e^{-\delta(t-t_{R,s,\theta})}\le1$
for $t\ge\overline{t}_{R,s,\varepsilon}$. Then $\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}((-A_{s})^{1+\varepsilon})}\le\varkappa_{s,\varepsilon}$
for all $t>\overline{t}_{R,s,\varepsilon}$.
\end{proof}
We are now finally in position to prove part (i) of Theorem \ref{thm:MainTheorem}.
\begin{proof}
(of part (i) of Theorem \ref{thm:MainTheorem}). We check the conditions
of Corollary \ref{cor:Tofiindattractors} for \eqref{eq:AbstractCH}. Here we
use $\alpha=1/2$, so that $X_{\alpha}=X_{1}^{s}$, and $\widetilde{X}_{\alpha}=X_{1,0}^{s}$. For any $r\ge s$,
we choose $W=\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$ and $Y=\mathcal{D}((-A_{r})^{1+\varepsilon})$, where $\varepsilon$ is as in Theorem \ref{thm:Attractorestimate}.
Condition (i) follows from \eqref{extrareg}-\eqref{contsolu} and Proposition \ref{prop:avaragedoesnotchange}.
For condition (ii), we first note that $\mathcal{D}((-A_{r})^{1+\varepsilon})\overset{c}{\hookrightarrow}\mathcal{D}(-A_{r})=\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{s+2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}$.
Moreover, if $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{s}$ and $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{X_{1}^{s}}\le R$, then,
as $X_{1}^{s}\hookrightarrow H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ and $\int_{\mathbb{B}} u_{0}d\mu_{g}=0$,
we conclude that $\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le \widetilde{R}$.
Theorem \ref{thm:Attractorestimate} gives the necessary estimate of the second condition.
Corollary \ref{cor:Tofiindattractors} implies the existence of a connected global attractor $\mathcal{A}^{s}$
for the semiflow $T:[0,\infty)\times X_{1,0}^{s}\to X_{1,0}^{s}$.
By uniqueness of the global attractor, $\mathcal{A}^{s}$ does not
depend on $r$. Hence $\mathcal{A}^{s}\subset\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$
for all $r>0$ and it attracts bounded sets of $X_{1,0}^{s}$
in $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$.
For the $s$-independence, let $s_{1}>s_{2}\ge0$. As $X_{1}^{s_{1}}\hookrightarrow X_{1}^{s_{2}}$
is continuous and $\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}$ is compact in $X_{1,0}^{s_{1}}$,
we conclude that $\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}$ is also compact in $X_{1,0}^{s_{2}}$.
Consider now a bounded set $B\subset X_{1,0}^{s_{2}}$. Due to Theorem
\ref{thm:Attractorestimate}, there exists $\tilde{t}>0$ such that
the set $T(\tilde{t})B$ is a bounded set of $X_{1,0}^{s_{1}}$. Therefore,
for $t\ge\tilde{t}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}\sup_{b\in B}\inf_{a\in\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}}\left\Vert T(t)b-a\right\Vert _{X_{1}^{s_{2}}} & \le&\sup_{b\in B}\inf_{a\in\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}}\left\Vert T(t)b-a\right\Vert _{X_{1}^{s_{1}}}\\
& =&\sup_{b\in B}\inf_{a\in\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}}\left\Vert T(t-\tilde{t})T(\tilde{t})b-a\right\Vert _{X_{1}^{s_{1}}}\overset{t\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Finally, as $T(t)\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}=\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}$, we conclude
that $\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}$ is a global attractor for the semiflow $T$
in $X_{1,0}^{s_{2}}$. By uniqueness of global attractors $\mathcal{A}^{s_{1}}=\mathcal{A}^{s_{2}}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Convergence to the equilibrium}
In this section, we prove part (ii) of Theorem \ref{thm:MainTheorem}. We first state an abstract result from \cite{HJ}. Let $V$ and $H$ be real Hilbert spaces such that $V$ is densely
and continuously embedded to $H$. We recall that an element $x\in H$
defines a continuous linear functional in $V$ by $y\in V\mapsto(y,x)_{H}\in\mathbb{R}$.
Under this, we have $V\overset{i_{V,H}}{\hookrightarrow}H\overset{i_{H,V^{*}}}{\hookrightarrow}V^{*}$,
where $i_{V,H}$ and $i_{H,V^{*}}$ are continuous embeddings with
dense image.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:HarauxJendoubi} \cite[Section 11.2]{HJ}
Let $E:V\to\mathbb{R}$ be a real analytic function such that $E(0)=0\in\mathbb{R}$,
$DE(0)=0\in V^{*}$ and $A:=D^{2}E(0):V\to V^{*}$ is a Fredholm operator,
where $DE:V\to V^{*}$ and $D^{2}E:V\to\mathcal{B}(V,V^{*})$ are
the first and second Fr\'echet derivatives. Then there exist $\theta\in(0,1/2]$,
$\sigma>0$ and $c>0$ such that
$$
\left|E(v)\right|^{1-\theta}\le c\left\Vert DE(v)\right\Vert _{V^{*}}\quad\text{for all }v\in V\text{ satisfying }\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{V}<\sigma.
$$
\end{thm}
The above inequality is called the Lojasiewicz-Simon inequality at
$0$. In our application, the function $E$ of Theorem \ref{thm:HarauxJendoubi}
will be related to the Lyapunov (energy) functional defined for the
Cahn-Hilliard equation. In this section, we always assume that $\dim(\mathbb{B})\in\left\{ 2,3\right\} $
and work with the subspaces of real functions. In order to apply the Theorem \ref{thm:HarauxJendoubi}, we need the following
technical lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{prop:uemu2v} If $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$, then the linear
operator $T_{u}:H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ defined
by
$$
\left\langle T_{u}(v),h\right\rangle _{H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}=\int_{\mathbb{B}}u^{2}vhd\mu_{g}
$$
is continuous and compact.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\beta>0$ and $\widetilde{T}_{u}:H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathcal{H}^{0,-\beta}(\mathbb{B})$
be defined by $\widetilde{T}_{u}(v)=u^{2}v$. This function is continuous. In fact,
$$
\begin{aligned}\int_{\mathbb{B}}\mathsf{x}^{2\beta}\left|u^{2}v\right|^{2}d\mu_{g} & =\int_{\mathbb{B}}\mathsf{x}^{\beta}u^{4}\mathsf{x}^{\beta}v^{2}d\mu_{g}\overset{(1)}{\le}\Vert \mathsf{x}^{\frac{\beta}{4}}u\Vert _{L^{6}(\mathbb{B})}^{4}\Vert \mathsf{x}^{\frac{\beta}{2}}v\Vert _{L^{6}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}\overset{(2)}{\le}C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}^{4}\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}.\end{aligned}
$$
In $(1)$ we have used H\"older inequality and in $(2)$
Corollary \ref{cor:Mellinsobolevembedding}. Therefore we have $\Vert \widetilde{T}_{u}(v)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{0,-\beta}(\mathbb{B})}\le C\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\mathbb{B})}$.
Let us fix $0<\beta<\alpha<1$. We observe that $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{1,\alpha}(\mathbb{B})\overset{c}{\hookrightarrow}\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})$. Therefore $\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})^{*}\overset{c}{\hookrightarrow}H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$
is also compact. Denote by $i_{\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}}:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$ the inclusion map $\mathcal{A}\hookrightarrow\mathcal{B}$
and by
$I:\mathcal{H}^{0,-\beta}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})^{*}$
the usual identification induced by the inner product in $\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B})$.
The following map
$$
i_{\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})^{*},H^{1}(\mathbb{B})^{*}}\circ I\circ\widetilde{T}_{u}:H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathcal{H}^{0,-\beta}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})^{*}\to H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})
$$
is continuous and compact, as $i_{\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})^{*},H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}$
is a compact operator. The result follows now by the equality $T_{u}=i_{\mathcal{H}^{0,\beta}(\mathbb{B})^{*},H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\circ I\circ\widetilde{T}_{u}$.
\end{proof}
As $H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow L^{4}(\mathbb{B})$, we can
define the Lyapunov function $\mathcal{L}:H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathbb{R}$
by \eqref{eq:Lyapunov}. It is a real analytic
function, as it is the composition of linear and multilinear functions. The following theorem is our main result of this section. Given $u_0\in X^0_{1,0}$, we denote by $\omega(u_0)$ the $\omega$-limit set $\omega_{X^0_{1,0}}(\{u_0\})$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:LSpractical}Let $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$.
If $\varphi\in\omega(u_{0})$, then there exist constants $c, \sigma>0$ and $\theta\in(0,1/2]$ such that the following inequality holds:
$$
\left|\mathcal{L}(v)-\mathcal{L}(\varphi)\right|^{1-\theta}\le c\left\Vert D\mathcal{L}(v)\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})},
$$
whenever $\left\Vert v-\varphi\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})}<\sigma$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The argument is standard and can be found e.g. in \cite{Chill} and \cite{Piotr}. We only stress here the necessary changes for the conical
singularities situation.
We check the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:HarauxJendoubi}. For this, we choose $V=H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})$,
$V^{*}=H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$ and $H=\left\{ u\in\mathcal{H}^{0,0}(\mathbb{B});\int_{\mathbb{B}}ud\mu_{g}=0\right\} $, and define the function $E:H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to\mathbb{R}$ by $E(v)=\mathcal{L}(v+\varphi)-\mathcal{L}(\varphi)$. It is clear
that $E(0)=0$. For the derivatives, for $v,h\in H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ we have that
$$
\begin{aligned}D\mathcal{L}(v) & =-\Delta v+v^{3}-v-\fint_{\mathbb{B}}v^{3}d\mu_{g}\in H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B}),\\
D^{2}\mathcal{L}(v)h & =-\Delta h+(3v^{2}-1)h-3\fint_{\mathbb{B}}v^{2}hd\mu_{g}\in H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B}).
\end{aligned}
$$
The proof of the above expressions uses Theorem \ref{thm:Gauss-Theorem},
the Mellin-Sobolev embeddings from Corollary \ref{cor:Mellinsobolevembedding}
and the identification of Proposition \ref{prop:HzerobetadualH1}.
In order to prove that $DE(0)=0\in V^{*}$, we note that $DE(v)=D\mathcal{L}(v+\varphi)$.
Therefore
$$
DE(0)=-\Delta\varphi+\varphi^{3}-\varphi-(\varphi^{3})_{\mathbb{B}}.
$$
Since $\varphi\in\omega(u)$, we know that $\varphi\in H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ is an
equilibrium point \cite[Theorem 8.4.6]{HJ}. Hence
$-\Delta\varphi+\varphi^{3}-\varphi$ is constant. In fact, as $\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{0}^{2})$ and $\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}=0$, Theorem \ref{thm:Gauss-Theorem} with $u=v=\Delta(\varphi-\varphi^{3}+\varphi)$ and \eqref{eq:mainequation} shows that $\nabla(\Delta(\varphi-\varphi^{3}+\varphi))=0$. This constant must
be equal to $(\varphi^{3})_{\mathbb{B}}$ by Theorem \ref{thm:Gauss-Theorem}
and $\int_{\mathbb{B}}\varphi d\mu_{g}=0$, which implies that $DE(0)=0$.
For showing Fredholm property of $D^{2}E(0)$, we first note that
$$
D^{2}E(0)h=-\Delta h+(3\varphi^{2}-1)h-3\fint_{\mathbb{B}}\varphi^{2}hd\mu_{g}\in H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B}).
$$
The inclusion $H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\hookrightarrow H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$
is compact and by Lemma \ref{prop:uemu2v} the map $h\in H^{1}(\mathbb{B})\mapsto v^{2}h\in H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$
is also compact. In addiction, the map $h\in H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\mapsto-3\fint_{\mathbb{B}}v^{2}hd\mu_{g}$
has finite rank and, therefore, it is also a compact operator from
$H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ to $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$. We conclude
that $D^{2}E(0):H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$
is a compact perturbation of the isomorphism $\Delta:H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$.
\end{proof}
As $\mathcal{L}$ is a Lyapunov function bounded from below and as
$\omega(u_{0})$ is compact in $\mathcal{H}^{2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{C}_{\omega}\hookrightarrow H^{1}(\mathbb{B})$,
we conclude the following:
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:LSappl}Let $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$.
Then\\
\emph{(i)} There is a constant $\mathcal{L}_{\infty}\in\mathbb{R}$ such that
$\mathcal{L}(\varphi)=\mathcal{L}_{\infty}$, for all $\varphi\in\omega(u_{0})$.\\
\emph{(ii)} There is a neighborhood $U\subset H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})$ of $\omega(u_{0})$
and constants $C>0$, $\theta\in(0,1/2]$ such that
$$
\left|\mathcal{L}(v)-\mathcal{L}_{\infty}\right|^{1-\theta}\le C\left\Vert D\mathcal{L}(v)\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})},
$$
for all $v\in U$.
\end{cor}
Having the Lojasiewicz-Simon inequality, we can prove the convergence theorem below.
\begin{prop}
Let $u_{0}\in X_{1,0}^{0}$
and $u$ be the solution of \eqref{eq:mainequation}.
Then there exists a $u_{\infty}\in\omega(u_{0})$ such that $\lim_{t\to\infty}\left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}_0(\mathbb{B})}=0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from the arguments in \cite[Section 3]{Chill}. We sketch here the steps for the
convenience of the reader.
Let $\mathcal{L}_{\infty}=\lim_{t\to\infty}\mathcal{L}(u(t))$. Then
$\mathcal{L}_{\infty}\le\mathcal{L}(u(t))$ for all $t\in[0,\infty)$.
We define the function $H:[0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}$ by
$$
H(t)=(\mathcal{L}(u(t))-\mathcal{L}_{\infty})^{\theta},
$$
where $\theta\in(0,1/2]$ as in Corollary \ref{cor:LSappl}. The function
$H$ is non-negative and non-increasing, as
$$
\frac{d}{dt}H(t)=\theta(\mathcal{L}(u(t))-\mathcal{L}_{\infty})^{\theta-1}\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{L}(u(t))\le0.
$$
Moreover $\lim_{t\to\infty}H(t)=0$. Let $U\subset H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})$
be the open set of Corollary \ref{cor:LSappl}. Due to \cite[Theorem 5.1.8]{HJ}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convomega}
\lim_{t\to\infty}(\inf_{v\in\omega(u_{0})}\left\Vert T(t)u-v\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}^{2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_{\omega}})=0.
\end{equation}
Thus, there exists $t_{0}>0$ such that, for
$t\ge t_{0}$, we have $u(t)\in U$. Hence, for $t\ge t_{0}$, we
estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}-\frac{d}{dt}H(t) &=&\theta(\mathcal{L}(u(t))-\mathcal{L}_{\infty})^{\theta-1}\left(-\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{L}(u(t))\right)\\
&\overset{(1)}{\ge}& C\frac{\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla(-\Delta u+u^{3}-u),\nabla(-\Delta u+u^{3}-u)\right\rangle _{g}d\mu_{g}}{\left\Vert -\Delta u+u^{3}-u-(u^{3})_{\mathbb{B}}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}}\\
& \overset{(2)}{\ge} & C\frac{\int_{\mathbb{B}}\left\langle \nabla(-\Delta u+u^{3}-u),\nabla(-\Delta u+u^{3}-u)\right\rangle d\mu_{g}}{\left\Vert \Delta(\Delta u-u^{3}+u)\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}}\\
& \overset{(3)}{\ge} & C\frac{\left\Vert \Delta(-\Delta u+u^{3}-u)\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}^{2}}{\left\Vert \Delta(\Delta u-u^{3}+u)\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}}=C\left\Vert \Delta(-\Delta u+u^{3}-u)\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
In $(1)$ we have used Theorem \ref{thm:Gauss-Theorem} and Corollary \ref{cor:LSappl}, in $(2)$ Corollary \ref{lem:EquivalenceofnormDeltauandu-1} and in
$(3)$ the definition of $\|\cdot\|_{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}$
and the isomorphism $\Delta:H_{0}^{1}(\mathbb{B})\to H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$.
By \eqref{eq:mainequation}, we infer that
$$
\left\Vert \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}=\left\Vert \Delta(-\Delta u+u^{3}-u)\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}\le-C\frac{d}{dt}H(t).
$$
Hence $\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\in L^{1}(0,\infty;H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B}))$
and $u_{\infty}:=\lim_{t\to\infty}u(t)=u(0)+\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(s)ds$,
where the limit is taken in $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$.
It remains to prove that $u_{\infty}\in\omega(u_{0})$. We know that
$\omega(u_{0})\subset\mathcal{H}^{2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_\omega$
is compact. As $\mathcal{H}^{2,\gamma+2}(\mathbb{B})\oplus\mathbb{R}_\omega\hookrightarrow H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$,
we conclude that $\omega(u_{0})$ is also compact in $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$. Thus it is also closed. Equation \eqref{eq:convomega} implies that
$$
\lim_{t\to\infty}(\inf_{v\in\omega(u_{0})}\left\Vert T(t)u-v\right\Vert _{H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})})=0
$$
and, therefore, that $\inf_{v\in\omega(u_{0})}\left\Vert u_{\infty}-v\right\Vert _{H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})}=0$.
As $\omega(u_{0})$ is closed in $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$, we conclude
that $u_{\infty}\in\omega(u_{0})$.
\end{proof}
Finally, we prove part (ii) of Theorem \ref{thm:MainTheorem}.
\begin{proof} (of part (ii) of Theorem \ref{thm:MainTheorem})
Recall first that $T(t)u_{0}\in\cap_{r\ge0}\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$ due to \eqref{extrareg}.
Therefore the limit in $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$
makes sense.
We know by Theorem \ref{thm:Attractorestimate} that $\left\{T(t)u_{0}\right\} _{t\ge T}$ is precompact
in $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$ for some $T>0$. Let $u_{\infty}\in\omega(u_{0})$
be such that $\lim_{t\to\infty}T(t)u_{0}=u_{\infty}$
in $H_{0}^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$. Note that since $u_{\infty}$ is an equilibrium point \cite[Theorem 8.4.6]{HJ}, $T(t)u_{\infty}=u_{\infty}$ for all $t>0$ and, hence, $u_{\infty}\in\cap_{r\ge0}\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$.
Suppose that this limit does not hold
in $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$.
Then, there exist an $\varepsilon_{0}>0$ and a sequence $t_{k}\to\infty$ such that $\left\Vert T(t_{k})u_{0}-u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})}\ge\varepsilon_{0}.$
By compacteness, there exists a subsequence $t_{k_{j}}\to \infty$
such that $T(t_{k_{j}})u_{0}$ converges to a function $w$ in $\mathcal{D}(\Delta_{r}^{2})$.
This implies that $T(t_{k_{j}})u_{0}$ also converges to $w$ in $H^{-1}(\mathbb{B})$.
Therefore $w=u_{\infty}$ by uniqueness of the limit and we obtain a contradiction.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent advancements in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and sensor technology has created a widespread interest in their ability to solve payload transportation problems in the logistics sector. Collaborative interaction of UAVs can efficiently solve many transportation problems, especially when there are requirements for delivering versatile payloads that vary in size. This is because utilizing multiple UAVs to lift payloads are economically feasible and efficient, as opposed to utilizing a single UAV of a bigger form factor. Industrial missions\cite{9136895}, military expeditions\cite{9274974} and medical search-rescue operations \cite{arnold2018search} demand that the UAVs have to ensure proper delivery of the payload along a set pre-planned global trajectory, while at the same time, preventing collisions with the local dynamic obstacles present around it and maintaining minimal oscillations of the payload throughout the course. However, when there are multiple UAVs interacting with one another to transport a payload, existing path planning algorithms\cite{9517336} fall short, as they don't consider the kinodynamic-maneuverability of the system and it's highly coupled complex dynamics.
Majority of existing literature \cite{villa2020survey}, \cite{klausen2015cooperative}, \cite{liu2021analysis} models the payload suspension as a point mass cable suspension. This results in simplified system dynamics, which is generally unrealistic in situations where there are requirements to transport heavy payloads. In \cite{lee2015collision}, a payload suspension model is used, and formation control of UAVs are considered to negotiate a tight passage. However formation control is not practically possible for rigid link payload suspension with minimal oscillation constraints. Moreover, additional mechanisms like rack-pinion attachment points must be employed during formation control when rigid link suspensions are employed.
In \cite{pizetta2019avoiding}, \cite{pizetta2018control} the payload is modelled as an external disturbance rather than a point mass. The direction of this external disturbance force is along the cable connecting the payload and the UAV. This may lead to suboptimal results, as the control law cannot leverage the benefits of knowing the actual dynamics of the payload. With this approach, it is also hard to ensure bounds on the states of the payload such as keeping the oscillations under certain threshold. Further, Artificial Potential Fields (APFs) are considered for the purpose of obstacle avoidance in \cite{pizetta2019avoiding}. However, APFs can have limitations in certain scenarios like passing between closely spaced obstacles, exhibiting oscillations or being trapped in local minima as discussed in \cite{koren1991potential}. Moreover, Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) are more suited for obstacle avoidance than APFs as discussed in \cite{singletary2020comparative}.
In contrast, \cite{gimenez2018multi} models the cable-payload suspension as a series of mass-spring-damper system, thus taking into account the elastic nature of the cable. A null-space based controller is then designed for the purpose of trajectory tracking and obstacle avoidance. While cable suspension of light, point mass payload may be desirable in some circumstances, they aren't desirable when the payload is heavy, as they may cause undesirable uncontrollable oscillations due to the cable elasticity. Further, with cable suspension there can exist a point in the course of the mission where the cables can become slack, causing the payload to become massless, or even accelerate upwards. Controlling the states of the payload in these situations becomes complicated and may not be feasible in practical situations where the exact states of the payload like its relative position and linear acceleration are not known, but needs to be estimated based on the cable orientation and the tension in it. It can also lead to singularities in the dynamics of the system as discussed in \cite{sreenath2013dynamics}, resulting in extremely complex control laws.
Even though the aforementioned works address the problem of cooperative payload transport, it is evident that there is a need to model heavy payload as a rigid body, with rigid link suspension, that enables easy control over the states of the payload. Moreover, safety-critical payload transport must be ensured in a cluttered environment, with minimum deviation from the preset global trajectory while avoiding the obstacles.
In this paper, the payload-UAV system is modelled end-to-end, keeping in mind the necessity to control the states of the payload throughout the course of the mission. The dynamics of the system is modelled using Lagrangian mechanics as discussed in \cite{lee2017geometric}, and rigid, massless links are used in place of cable suspension, as demonstrated in \cite{wehbeh2020distributed}. This makes it relatively easier to calculate the payload states at all times. Moreover, using rigid links provides complete control authority to the UAVs to handle the payload as required. To ensure accurate tracking of the payload, a centralized Model Predictive Controller (MPC) is employed. As of now, centralized MPC is shown to outperform distributed MPC at a lower sampling rate in \cite{wehbeh2020distributed}. Furthermore, the major advantage of using MPC based controllers is it's inherent ability to take into consideration the state and control input constraints. The concept of receding horizon also ensures that future uncertainties and requirements are taken into consideration while obtaining the control law at the current time step. Inspired by the application of control barrier functions to safety-critical systems, an obstacle avoidance controller is developed for the entire payload-UAV system using Exponential Control Barrier Functions (ECBFs). Barrier functions naturally provide safety-critical constraints that can be leveraged in an optimization framework. The \textit{Integrated Decision Controller} fuses the optimal tracking control law as provided by the MPC into an optimization-based obstacle avoidance decision controller. The IDC is designed in a way that allows any trajectory tracking controller to be used with the obstacle avoidance controller.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section \ref{sec:sysModel} covers the system description and state space formulation. Section \ref{sec:obscon} covers the design and development of the Integrated Decision controller for the payload-UAV system, with brief discussion on Model Predictive Control and Exponential Barrier Functions. In Section \ref{sec:simres}, the proposed controller is evaluated, and the results for numerical simulations as well as a \texttt{Gazebo} simulation are presented along with an ablation study demonstrating the robustness of the IDC. Finally, conclusions and possibilities for future work is discussed in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.0, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop11) at (0,1) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop12) at (1,1) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop13) at (0.2,0.5) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop14) at (1.2,0.5) {};
\draw[line width=0mm] (prop11) -- (prop14);
\draw[line width=0mm] (prop12) -- (prop13);
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop21) at (3+0.5,0.7) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop22) at (3+1.5,0.7) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop23) at (3+0.2,0.2) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop24) at (3+1.2,0.2) {};
\draw[line width=0mm] (prop21) -- (prop24);
\draw[line width=0mm] (prop22) -- (prop23);
\draw[-latex] (3.85, 0.45) -- (4.1, -0.5);
\node at (5.2, -0.4) {$F_j = \mathcal{F}_j\pmb{R}_jb_{j3}$};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop31) at (4+0.,-1.5) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop32) at (4+1.,-1.5) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop33) at (4+0,-1) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop34) at (4+1,-1) {};
\draw[line width=0mm] (prop31) -- (prop34);
\draw[line width=0mm] (prop32) -- (prop33);
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop41) at (-0.5+0.2,-1.9) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop42) at (-0.+0.5,-1.5) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop43) at (-0.7+0,-1.4) {};
\node[ellipse, draw, fill = gray!60, minimum width = 0.55cm, minimum height = 0.08cm] (prop44) at (-0.5+0.6,-1.) {};
\draw[line width=0mm] (prop41) -- (prop44);
\draw[line width=0mm] (prop42) -- (prop43);
\node[trapezium, draw, minimum width=3cm, trapezium left angle=120, trapezium right angle=60, line width=0mm] at (2.5,-3) {};
\draw[line width=0mm] (1.0, -2.3) -- (1.0, -2.9);
\draw[line width=0mm] (1.5+0.3, -4.3+0.6) -- (1.5+0.3, -4.9+0.6);
\draw[line width=0mm] (3.7+0.3, -4.3+0.6) -- (3.7+0.3, -4.9+0.6);
\draw[line width=0mm] (1.0, -2.9) -- (1.8, -4.3) -- (4.0, -4.3);
\draw[line width=0mm] (1.0, -2.3) -- (0.6, 0.75);
\draw[line width=0mm] (3.2, -2.3) -- (3.85, 0.45);
\draw[line width=0mm] (1.8, -3.7) -- (-0.1, -1.45);
\draw[line width=0mm] (4.0, -3.7) -- (4.5, -1.25);
\draw [-latex, thick, shorten >= 2.00cm] (0.6, 0.75) -- (1.0, -2.3);
\draw [-latex, thick, shorten >= 2.00cm] (3.85, 0.45) -- (3.2, -2.3);
\draw [-latex, thick, shorten >= 2.00cm] (-0.1, -1.45) -- (1.8, -3.7);
\draw [-latex, thick, shorten >= 1.50cm] (4.5, -1.25) -- (4.0, -3.7);
\draw[line width=0mm, densely dashed] (2.5,-3.3) -- (4.0, -3.7);
\draw[line width=0mm, densely dashed] (2.5,-3.3) -- (1.8, -3.7);
\draw[line width=0mm, densely dashed] (2.5,-3.3) -- (1.0, -2.3);
\draw[line width=0mm, densely dashed] (2.5,-3.3) -- (3.2, -2.3);
\node at (2.5, -3.3) [circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt]{};
\node at (1.9, -2.6) {$p_i$};
\node at (1.5, 0.0) {$q_i \in S^2$};
\node at (1.1, -1.) {$l_i$};
\node at (-0.6, 0.5) {$m_i, \pmb{J}_i$};
\node at (0.9, -4.0) {$m_0, \pmb{J}_0$};
\node at (0.0, 1.5) {$(r_i, \pmb{R}_i) \in SE(3)$};
\node at (3.0, -4.7) {$(r_0, \pmb{R}_0) \in SE(3)$};
\draw[<-] (-0.7, -5.2) -- (-1.2, -5.0);
\draw[->] (-1.2, -5.0) -- (-1.2, -5.6);
\draw[->] (-1.2, -5.0) -- (-0.8, -4.6);
\node at (-0.6, -4.6) {\tiny x};
\node at (-0.6, -5.2) {\tiny y};
\node at (-1.3, -5.7) {\tiny z};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A Schematic diagram of $N$ UAVs transporting a rigid body, attached via massless rigid links present in the NED coordinate frame is shown. The black dot at the center of the payload denotes its center of mass.}
\label{fig:schDiag}
\end{figure}
\section{System Model}
\label{sec:sysModel}
In this section, a brief description of the equations of motion for the payload-UAV system is provided. The derivation of the system dynamics parallels the discussion presented in \cite{lee2017geometric} except that the equations of motion are resolved in the payload frame of reference \cite{wehbeh2020distributed}.
\subsection{Payload-UAV System Description}
There are $N$ UAVs that are collaboratively transporting a rigid payload, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:schDiag}. The UAVs are attached to the payload via massless rigid links. The rigid links are connected to the payload and the UAVs via spherical joints. This way, the attitude dynamics of the UAVs are decoupled from the dynamics of the rest of the system.
Throughout this paper, the NED (North, East, Down) coordinate system is used, with the positive $z$-axis pointing downward. The direction for positive $x$-, $y$- axis are then chosen on the basis of the right hand rule. The basis vectors for the inertial frame and the body-fixed frames are denoted by $\left\{ e_1, e_2, e_3\right\}$ and $\left\{ b_{i1}, b_{i2}, b_{i3}\right\}$ respectively. The variables that refer to the payload are subscripted by $0$, and the variables that refer to the $i^{th}$-UAV is subscripted by $i$.
The location of the center of mass of the payload in the inertial frame is denoted by $r_0 \in \mathbb{R}^3$, and the location of the center of mass of the $i^{th}$-UAV in the inertial frame is denoted by $r_i \in \mathbb{R}^3$. The position vector of the attachment point of the rigid link of length $l_i$ corresponding to the $i^{th}$-UAV in the payload frame is denoted by $p_i \in \mathbb{R}^3$. The unit vector along the rigid link corresponding to the $i^{th}$-UAV, pointing towards the payload is denoted by $q_i \in \mathbb{S}^2$, where $\mathbb{S}^2 = \left\{ q_i \in \mathbb{R}^3 \ | \ \Vert q_i \Vert_{_2} = 1 \right\}$. The attitude of the payload is characterized by $\pmb{R}_0 \in SO(3)$, the rotation matrix that rotates a vector in the payload-fixed frame to the inertial frame. Similarly, the attitude of the $i^{th}$-UAV is characterized by $\pmb{R}_i \in SO(3)$, the rotation matrix that rotates a vector in the $i^{th}$-UAV fixed frame to the inertial frame. Let $\pmb{J}_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{3 \times 3}$ denote the inertia matrix of the payload with mass $m_0$, and $\pmb{J}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{3 \times 3}$ denote the inertia matrix of the $i^{th}$-UAV with mass $m_i$.
The force vector $F_i \in \mathbb{R}^3$ generated by the $i^{th}$-UAV in the inertial frame is denoted by $F_i = \mathcal{F}_{i}\pmb{R}_i b_{i3}$, where $\mathcal{F}_{i} \in \mathbb{R}$ denotes the thrust value. In addition to this, the torque vector generated by the $i^{th}$-UAV in the body-fixed frame is denoted by $\tau_i \in \mathbb{R}^3$. Thus, the control inputs to the payload-UAV system is given by $\left\{ \mathcal{F}_i, \tau_i \right\}, i \in \{ 1, .. , N \}$.
\subsection{Payload-UAV System Dynamics}
Based on the notations and the system description presented above, the equations of motion are derived in the following section. As the connecting links are rigid and massless, the position vector $r_i$ of the $i^{th}$-UAV can be directly inferred as:
\begin{align}
r_i = r_0 + \pmb{R}_0\left( p_i - l_iq_i \right), \ \ \ i = 1,\ldots,N
\end{align}
The kinematic equations for the payload-UAV system are:
\begin{align}
\Dot{r}_0 &= \pmb{R}_0 v_0 \label{eq:kinBeg}\\
\pmb{\Dot{R}}_0 &= \pmb{R}_0 \omega_0^\times \\
\Dot{r}_i &= \Dot{r}_0 + \pmb{R}_0 \left( \omega_0^\times p_i - l_i\Omega_i^\times q_i \right) \\
\Dot{q}_i &= \left( \Omega_i - \omega_0 \right)^\times q_i \\
\pmb{\Dot{R}}_i &= \pmb{R}_i \omega_i^\times,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i=1,\ldots,N \label{eq:kinEnd}
\end{align}
where the hat map $(\cdot)^\times : \mathbb{R}^3 \rightarrow SO(3)$ denotes the skew-symmetric operator, $v_0 \in \mathbb{R}^3$ denotes the velocity of the payload in the payload-fixed frame, $w_0, w_i \in \mathbb{R}^3$ denotes the angular velocities of the payload and the $i^{th}$ UAV respectively and $\Omega_i \in \mathbb{R}^3$ denotes the angular velocities of the $i^{th}$ link. Note that the orthogonal condition $q_i \cdot \Omega_i = 0$ must be satisfied for all time.
The kinetic energy $\mathcal{T}$ and the potential energy $\mathcal{U}$ of the system are given by:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{T} = {}& \frac{1}{2} m_0 \Vert \Dot{r}_0 \Vert^2_{_2} + \frac{1}{2} \omega_0 \cdot \pmb{J}_0\omega_0 \\
& + \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \frac{1}{2} m_i \Vert \Dot{r}_i \Vert^2_{_2} + \frac{1}{2} \omega_i \cdot \pmb{J}_i \omega_i \right)
\end{split} \\
\begin{split}
\mathcal{U} = {}& -m_0 g \mathbb{k} \cdot r_0 - \sum_{i=1}^N m_ig\mathbb{k} \cdot r_i
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\mathbb{k} = \left[ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \right]^T$. To derive the equations of motion of the payload-UAV system, the \textit{Lagrangian} $\mathcal{L}$ of the system must be obtained:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L} = {}& \mathcal{T} - \mathcal{U}
\end{align}
Once the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ is formulated, the Euler-Lagrange equations can be obtained from the \textit{Lagrange-d’Alembert Principle} as described in the Appendix section of \cite{lee2017geometric} and are given as follows:
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt} \pmb{D}_{\Dot{r}_0} \mathcal{L} &- \pmb{D}_{r_0} \mathcal{L} = \sum_{i=1}^N F_i \\
\frac{d}{dt} \pmb{D}_{\omega_0} \mathcal{L} + \omega_0^\times \pmb{D}_{\omega_0}\mathcal{L} &- \pmb{d}_{\pmb{R}_0} \mathcal{L} = \sum_{i=1}^N p_i^\times \pmb{R}_0^T F_i \\
q_i^\times\frac{d}{dt}\pmb{D}_{\Dot{q}_i}\mathcal{L} &- q_i^\times \pmb{D}_{q_i}\mathcal{L} = -l_i q_i^\times F_i \\
\frac{d}{dt} \pmb{D}_{\omega_i} \mathcal{L} &+ \omega_i^\times \pmb{D}_{\omega_i} \mathcal{L} = \tau_i
\end{align}
where $\pmb{D}_{a} \mathcal{L}$ is the derivative of the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ w.r.t the vector $a$, and $\pmb{d}_{\pmb{R}_0}\mathcal{L}$ are the \textit{left-trivialized derivatives} of the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ \cite{lee2017geometric}. Substituting for the derivatives of the Lagrangian, and simplifying the equations leads to the equations of motion of the payload-UAV system \cite{wehbeh2020distributed}:
\begin{gather}
\begin{split} \shoveleft
m_T \left( \Dot{v}_0 + \omega_0^\times v_0\right) + \sum_{i=1}^N m_i \left( -p_i^\times\Dot{\omega}_0 + l_iq_i^\times\Dot{\Omega}_i + l_iq_i^\times\omega_0^\times\Omega_i \right) \\
+\sum_{i=1}^N\left( m_i \left( \omega_0^\times \right)^2 p_i + m_il_i\Vert \Omega_i \Vert_{_2}^2 q_i \right) = \pmb{R}_0^T\left(m_Tg\mathbb{k} + \sum_{i=1}^N F_i \right) \label{eq:EqBeg}
\end{split} \\
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^N m_ip_i^\times\left( \Dot{v}_0 + \omega_0^\times v_0 + l_iq_i\Dot{\Omega}_i + l_i\Vert \Omega_i \Vert_{_2}^2q_i + l_iq_i^\times\omega_0^\times\Omega_i \right) + \\ \pmb{\Bar{J}}_0\Dot{\omega}_0 + \omega_0^\times \pmb{\Bar{J}}_0\omega_0 = \sum_{i=1}^N p_i^\times\pmb{R}_0^T\left( F_i + m_ig\mathbb{k} \right) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hfill
\end{split} \\
\begin{split}
m_il_i^2\left( \Dot{\Omega}_i + \omega_0^\times\Omega \right) - m_il_iq_i^\times\left( \Dot{v}_0 + \omega_0^\times v_0 \right) + m_il_iq_i^\times p_i^\times\Dot{\omega}_0 \\
-m_il_iq_i^\times\left( \omega_0^\times \right)^2 p_i = -l_iq_i^\times\pmb{R}_0^T\left( F_i + m_ig\mathbb{k} \right) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hfill
\end{split} \\
\begin{split}
\pmb{J}_i\Dot{\omega}_i + \omega_i^\times\pmb{J}_i\omega_i = \tau_i
\label{eq:EqEnd}
\end{split}
\end{gather}
where $m_T = \left(m_0 + \sum_{i=1}^Nm_i\right)$ is the total mass of the UAVs with the payload and $\pmb{\Bar{J}}_0 = \left(\pmb{J}_0 - \sum_{i=1}^Nm_i\left( p_i^\times \right)^2\right)$.
\subsection{State-Space Representation and Model Linearization}
The equations of motion described earlier can be rearranged, and a state-space representation of the payload-UAV system can be obtained. Consider the state vector $x \in \mathbb{R}^{12 + 16N}$ as follows:
\begin{align}
x = \left[\underbrace{r_0^T \ v_0^T \ \Theta_0^T \ \omega_0^T}_\text{payload $\in \mathbb{R}^{12}$} \ \underbrace{q_i^T \ \Omega_i^T \ \Theta_i^T \ \omega_i^T}_\text{$i^{th}$ UAV $\in \mathbb{R}^{16N}$} \right]^T, \ i \in \{1,..., N \}
\label{eq:stateqn}
\end{align}
where $\Theta_0$, $\Theta_i \in \mathbb{R}^3$ are the ZYX Euler angle parametrization of $\pmb{R}_0$ and $\pmb{R}_i$ respectively. The state-space equations for $\Dot{x}_a = \left[\Dot{r}_0^T \ \Dot{\Theta}_0^T \ \Dot{q}_i^T \ \Dot{\Theta}_i^T\right]^T$ can be easily obtained from Eq. (\ref{eq:kinBeg}) - (\ref{eq:kinEnd}). The equations for $\Dot{x}_b = \left[ \Dot{v}_0^T \ \Dot{\omega}_0^T \ \Dot{\Omega}_i^T \ \Dot{\omega}_i^T \right]^T$ can be obtained by rearranging equations Eq. (\ref{eq:EqBeg}) - (\ref{eq:EqEnd}) and is given by:
\begin{align}
\Dot{x}_b = \pmb{P}^{-1}\pmb{Q}
\end{align}
where $\pmb{P} =$
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{.94\hsize}{!}{$
\left[\begin{array}{cc|ccc}
m_{T} \pmb{I}_{3} & -\sum_{i=1}^{N} m_{i} p_{i}^{\times} & m_{1} l_{1} q_{1}^{\times} & \ldots & m_{N} l_{N} q_{N}^{\times} \\
\sum_{i=1}^{N} m_{i} p_{i}^{\times} & \pmb{\Bar{J}}_{0} & m_{1} l_{1} p_{1}^{\times} q_{1}^{\times} & \ldots & m_{N} l_{N} p_{N}^{\times} q_{N}^{\times} \\
\hline m_{1} l_{1} q_{1}^{\times} & m_{1} l_{1} q_{1}^{\times} p_{1}^{\times} & m_{1} l_{1}^{2} \pmb{I}_{3} & \ldots & \pmb{0}_3 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
-m_{N} l_{N} q_{N}^{\times} & m_{N} l_{N} q_{N}^{\times} p_{N}^{\times} & \pmb{0}_3 & \ldots & m_{N} l_{N}^{2} \pmb{I}_{3}
\end{array}\right]$}
\end{equation}
and $\pmb{Q} =$
\begin{equation}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
-m_{T} \omega_{0}^{\times} v_{0}-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\{m_{i}\left(\omega_{0}^{\times}\right)^{2} p_{i}+m_{i} l_{i}\left\Vert\Omega_{i}\right\Vert_{_2}^{2} q_{i}\right. \\
\left.+m_{i} l_{i} q_{i}^{\times} \omega_{0}^{\times} \Omega_{i}\right\}+m_{T} g \pmb{R}_{0}^{T} \mathbb{k}+\sum_{i=1}^{N} \pmb{R}_{0}^{T} F_{i} \\
\hline-\omega_{0}^{\times} \Bar{\pmb{J}}_{0} \omega_{0}-\sum_{i=1}^{N} m_{i}\left\{p_{i}^{\times} \omega_{0}^{\times} v_{0}+l_{i} p_{i}^{\times} q_{i}^{\times} \omega_{0}^{\times} \Omega_{i}\right. \\
\left.+l_{i} p_{i}^{\times}\left\Vert\Omega_{i}\right\Vert_{_2}^{2} q_{i}\right\}+\sum_{i=1}^{N} p_{i}^{\times} \pmb{R}_{0}^{T}\left(F_{i}+m_{i} g \mathbb{k}\right) \\
\hline m_{1} l_{1}\left\{q_{1}^{\times}\left(\omega_{0}^{\times}\right)^{2} p_{1}-l_{1} \omega_{0}^{\times} \Omega_{1}+q_{1}^{\times} \omega_{0}^{\times} v_{0}\right\} \\
-l_{1}q_1^{\times} \pmb{R}_{0}^{T}\left(F_{1}+m_{1} g \mathbb{k}\right) \\
\hline
\vdots \\
\hline \\
m_{N} l_{N}\left\{q_{N}^{\times}\left(\omega_{0}^{\times}\right)^{2} p_{N}-l_{N} \omega_{0}^{\times} \Omega_{N}+q_{N}^{\times} \omega_{0}^{\times} v_{0}\right\} \\
-l_{N} q_{N}^{\times} \pmb{R}_{0}^{T}\left(F_{N}+m_{N} g \mathbb{k}\right)
\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
where $\pmb{0}_n \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is the $n\times n$ zero matrix and $\pmb{I}_n \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is the $n\times n$ identity matrix. The control input to the system is defined by the vector $u = \left[ \mathcal{F}_1 \ \tau_1^T \ .. \ \mathcal{F}_N \ \tau_N^T \right]^T \in \mathbb{R}^{4N}$. The equilibrium points of the system $\left\{x_e, u_e \right\}$ satisfy the condition $f\left(x_e, u_e \right) = 0$. One such equilibrium point ($x_e, u_e$) for the payload-UAV system is given in Eq. \ref{eq:EqPt}, and occurs when all the links are vertical, and the orientation of the payload and all the UAVs are zero, thus producing zero torques. In addition to this, the thrust generated by the UAVs must balance the overall weight they are subjected to, maintaining net zero acceleration:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
x_e = \left[ r_0^T \ \mathbb{0}^T \ \mathbb{0}^T \ \mathbb{0}^T \ \mathbb{k}_i^T \ \mathbb{0}_i^T \ \mathbb{0}_i^T \ \mathbb{0}_i^T \right]^T , i \in \{1, .., N \} \\
u_e = \left[ \mathcal{F}_{e_i} \ \mathbb{0}_i^T \right]^T, i \in \{1, .., N \} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\end{align}
\label{eq:EqPt}
\end{subequations}
where $\mathbb{0} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ is the zero vector and $\mathcal{F}_{e_i} = \left(m_i + m_0/4\right)g$. The non-linear state-space equations can then be linearized about the equilibrium point $\left( x_e, u_e \right)$. The resultant discretized equations of motion at time step $k$ is given by:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\Delta x_{k+1} &= \pmb{A}\Delta x_k + \pmb{B}\Delta u_k \\
\Delta y_k &= \pmb{C}\Delta x_k + \pmb{D}\Delta u_k
\end{align}
\label{eq:disSys}
\end{subequations}
where $\pmb{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is the state matrix\footnoteref{ft:AB}, $\pmb{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ is the input matrix\footnote{\label{ft:AB} Due to their high dimensionality, the matrices are uploaded as .csv files, and can be viewed \href{https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZIwZ4higpC-BZ5isK-Gr1uozPNqTscE7?usp=sharing}{here}.}, $\pmb{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times n}$ is the output matrix and $\pmb{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times m}$ is the input feedforward matrix. The discrete state vector $\Delta x_k \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and the control input vector $\Delta u_k \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is obtained as $\Delta x_k = x_k - x_e$, $\Delta u_k = u_k - u_e$ respectively. Due to the principle of receding horizon, it is assumed implicitly that the input $u_k$ cannot affect the output $y_k$ at the same time. Thus, throughout the discussion that follows, it is assumed that $\pmb{D} = \pmb{0}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.85, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\draw (0, 0.1) rectangle (2, 1.4);
\node at (1, 1.1) {Trajectory};
\node at (1, 0.8) {Tracking};
\node at (1, 0.5) {Controller};
\draw[->] (2, 0.8) -- (2.9, 0.8);
\node at (2.35, 1.0) {$\Bar{u}$};
\draw (2.9, 0.1) rectangle (5.1, 1.4);
\node at (4, 1.1) {Optimization};
\node at (4, 0.8) {Framework};
\node at (4, 0.4) {$u^* = \min_u L$};
\draw[dashed] (-0.2, -2.7) rectangle (5.3, 1.6);
\node at (2.5, 1.9) {Integrated Decision Controller};
\draw (2.9, -2.2) rectangle (5.1, -1.0);
\node at (4, -1.3) {Exponential};
\node at (4, -1.6) {Barrier};
\node at (4, -1.9) {Functions};
\draw [->] (4, -1.0) -- (4, 0.1);
\node at (3.75, -0.65) {\small $\pmb{A}_{obs}u \leq B_{obs}$};
\draw[dashdotted] (2.75, -2.35) rectangle (5.2, 1.5);
\node at (1.9, -1.2) {Obstacle};
\node at (1.9, -1.6) {Avoidance};
\node at (1.9, -2.0) {Controller};
\draw[->] (5.1, 0.8) -- (6.2, 0.8);
\node at (5.75, 1.0) {$u^*$};
\draw (6.2, 0.0) rectangle (8.3, 1.45);
\node at (7.28, 1.2) {Payload};
\node at (7.28, 0.9) {UAV};
\node at (7.28, 0.6) {Dynamics};
\node at (7.28, 0.2) {$\dot{x} = f(x, u)$};
\draw (6.5, -2.0) rectangle (8.0, -1.1);
\node at (7.28, -1.4) {Sensor};
\node at (7.28, -1.7) {Suite};
\draw[->] (6.5, -1.5) -- (5.1, -1.5);
\node at (5.9, -1.3) {$x_{obs}$};
\node at (5.9, -1.7) {$\dot{x}_{obs}$};
\draw[->] (8.3, 0.8) -- (9.1, 0.8);
\node at (8.5, 1.0) {$x$};
\node at (8.7, 0.8)[circle,fill,inner sep=1.pt] {};
\draw[->] (8.7, 0.8) -- (8.7, -3.8) -- (4.8, -3.8);
\draw (3.2, -4.2) rectangle (4.8, -3.4);
\node at (4, -3.8) {$y = \pmb{C}x$};
\draw[->] (3.2, -3.8) -- (-0.7, -3.8) -- (-0.7, 0.5) -- (0.0, 0.5);
\draw[->] (-0.7, 1.0) -- (0.0, 1.0);
\node at (-0.7, 1.3) {$y^{'}$};
\node at (-0.5, 0.3) {$y$};
\node at (8.7, -3.0) [circle, fill, inner sep=1.pt] {};
\draw[->] (8.7, -3.0) -- (4, -3.0) -- (4, -2.2);
\node at (3.8, -2.5) {$x$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Schematic Diagram of the Integrated Decision Controller. The IDC (dashed box) comprises of a trajectory tracking controller and an obstacle avoidance controller (dash-dot box)}
\label{fig:schCont}
\end{figure}
\section{Integrated Decision Controller design for safety-critical navigation}
\label{sec:obscon}
\begin{figure*}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{images/cluttered.eps}
\caption{The payload must track the desired trajectory $y'$ amidst a cluttered environment. The cluttered environment consists of static and dynamic obstacles which are shown by spheres and cylinders. The formation of the convex hull (dashed lines) around the payload-UAV system is shown in (a). The convex hull encloses all the UAVs and the payload completely. In (b), the point $c_i, c_j$ are the points on the convex hull closest to the $i^{th}$ and the $j^{th}$ obstacle respectively.}
\label{fig:cvxHull}
\end{figure*}
In this section, an integrated decision controller (IDC) is designed, that meets the requirements of trajectory tracking and obstacle avoidance. Particularly, the IDC must ensure that the payload oscillations are minimum, while tracking a set trajectory. Moreover, the IDC must be capable of providing safety critical decision control in order to avoid dynamic obstacles in the cluttered environment, while maintaining minimum deviation from the set trajectory. The schematic of the IDC is shown in Fig. (\ref{fig:schCont}).
The structure of IDC ensures powerful versatility in the sense that any tracking controller can be used in conjunction with the obstacle avoidance controller. In this work, a Model Predictive Controller is designed for the linear discretized system (\ref{eq:disSys}), with particular emphasis on the derivation of state and control input constraints. This way, the bounds on payload oscillations and tracking requirements can be automatically ensured in a single framework.
\subsection{Safety critical payload transport in a cluttered environment}
This work focuses on ensuring safety critical transportation of a payload in a cluttered environment. In particular, there must be no collision of the payload with any surrounding obstacles, and the payload oscillations must be restricted under a given limit:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\left\vert \phi_0 \right\vert &\leq \delta_{\phi}, \\
\left\vert \theta_0 \right\vert &\leq \delta_{\theta}, \\
\left\vert \psi_0 \right\vert &\leq \delta_{\psi}\ \ \ \forall t > t_0
\end{align}
\label{eq:consOsc}
\end{subequations}
where $\Theta_0 = \left[\phi_0 \ \theta_0 \ \psi_0 \right]^T$ is the roll-pitch-yaw (rpy) of the payload, and $\delta_\phi, \delta_\theta, \delta_\psi > 0$ are small positive constants. The cluttered environment consists of static and dynamic obstacles, whose position $x_{obs}$ and velocity $\dot{x}_{obs}$ can be estimated by the onboard UAV sensor suite.
\subsection{Trajectory Tracking Controller}
A Linear Model Predictive Controller (LMPC) can be designed for the system (\ref{eq:disSys}), such that the payload tracks a given reference trajectory $y'$ as shown in in Fig. \ref{fig:cvxHull}(a). The LMPC minimizes the cost function $J$ at every time step $k$:
\begin{multline}
J\left( \Delta x_k, \Delta U_k \right) = \left\Vert \pmb{\bar{C}}X_e + \Delta Y_k - Y'_k \right\Vert^2_{\pmb{\bar{Q}}} + \left\Vert \Delta U_k \right\Vert^2_{\pmb{\bar{R}}} \\
+ \left\Vert y_{k + N_p} - y'_{k + N_p} \right\Vert^2_{\pmb{Q}_f}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \label{eq:JMPC}
\end{multline}
where $\bar{\pmb{C}} = \text{diag}(\pmb{C},..,\pmb{C})$, $\bar{\pmb{Q}} = \text{diag}(\pmb{Q},..,\pmb{Q})$, $\bar{\pmb{R}} = \text{diag}(\pmb{R},..,\pmb{R})$, $X_e = \left[x^T_e \ .. \ x^T_e\right]^T$, $\Delta Y_k = \left[ \Delta y^T_k \ .. \ \Delta y^T_{k+N_p - 1} \right]^T$ and $\Delta U_k = \left[ \Delta u^T_k,..,\Delta u^T_{k + N_p - 1} \right]^T$ are defined over the prediction horizon $N_p$. The matrices $\pmb{Q}, \pmb{Q}_f \geq 0$ and $\pmb{R} > 0$ are the cost weighting matrices and $y_k = \pmb{C}\left(x_e + \Delta x_k\right)$. The matrix $\pmb{Q}_f$ is chosen to be equal to the solution of the discrete algebraic Riccati equation for the discrete system in Eq. (\ref{eq:disSys})\cite{ru2017nonlinear}.
The cost function in Eq. \ref{eq:JMPC} is subject to linear state and control input constraints. The nonlinear constraints derived in \cite{wehbeh2020distributed} needs to be linearized about every time step along with the model. This can be computationally demanding in a real time implementation. A much simplified set of constraints can be derived for the discrete linear system in Eq. (\ref{eq:disSys}). Let the upper and lower bounds for the input be $u_{ub}$ and $u_{lb}$ respectively. Thus, $u_{lb} \leq u_e + \Delta u_{k+i} \leq u_{ub}$, which can also be expressed as
\begin{align}
\left[ \begin{array}{l} \pmb{I}_m \\ -\pmb{I}_m \end{array} \right]\Delta u_{k+i} \leq \left[ \begin{array}{l} \left( u_{ub} - u_e \right) \\ \left( u_e - u_{lb} \right) \end{array} \right]
\end{align}
Similarly, let the upper and lower bounds for the state be $x_{ub}$ and $x_{lb}$ respectively, for the set of states described by $\pmb{c}_zx_{k+i}$, where the matrix $\pmb{c}_z$ is a diagonal matrix, with ones for the states that require constraints, and zeros for the states that are free to take any values. The constraint $x_{lb} \leq \pmb{c}_z\left(x_e + \Delta x_{k+i}\right) \leq x_{ub}$ can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\left[ \begin{array}{l} \pmb{c}_z \\ -\pmb{c}_z \end{array} \right]\Delta x_{k+i} \leq \left[ \begin{array}{l} \left( x_{ub} - \pmb{c}_z x_e \right) \\ \left( \pmb{c}_zx_e - x_{lb} \right) \end{array} \right]
\end{align}
The state vector $\Delta x_{k+i}$ can be recursively substituted in Eq. (\ref{eq:disSys}), to obtain $\Delta X_k = \left[ \Delta x^T_k \ ,.., \ \Delta x^T_{k + N_p - 1} \right]^T$ and thus, over the prediction horizon these constraint equations can be compactly written as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:inpCon}
\pmb{M}_U \Delta U_k & \leq \Delta U_b \\
\label{eq:stateCon}
\pmb{M}_x\left( \pmb{F}\Delta x_k + \pmb{H}\Delta U_k \right) & \leq \Delta Z_b
\end{align}
where,
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
\pmb{H} &= \left[ \begin{array}{ccccc} \pmb{0} & & & & \\ \pmb{B} & \pmb{0} & & & \\ \pmb{AB} & \pmb{B} & \pmb{0} & & \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \\ \pmb{A}^{N_p - 2}\pmb{B} & \pmb{A}^{N_p - 3}\pmb{B} & \ldots & \pmb{B} & \pmb{0} \end{array} \right] \\
\pmb{M}_U &= \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \left[\begin{array}{l} \pmb{I}_m \\ -\pmb{I}_m \end{array}\right] & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & \left[\begin{array}{l} \pmb{I}_m \\ -\pmb{I}_m \end{array}\right] \end{array} \right] \\
\pmb{M}_x &= \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \left[\begin{array}{l} \pmb{c}_z \\ -\pmb{c}_z \end{array}\right] & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & \left[\begin{array}{l} \pmb{c}_z \\ -\pmb{c}_z \end{array}\right] \end{array} \right] \\
\Delta U_b &= \left[ \begin{array}{l} \left[ \begin{array}{l} \left( u_{ub} - u_e \right) \\ \left( u_e - u_{lb}\right) \end{array} \right] \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vdots \\ \left[ \begin{array}{l} \left( u_{ub} - u_e \right) \\ \left( u_e - u_{lb} \right) \end{array} \right] \end{array} \right], \ \pmb{F} = \left[ \begin{array}{l} \pmb{I} \\ \pmb{A} \\ \pmb{A}^2 \\ \vdots \\ \pmb{A}^{N_p - 1} \end{array} \right]
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\Delta Z_b &= \left[ \begin{array}{l} \left[ \begin{array}{l} \left( x_{ub} - \pmb{c}_zx_e \right) \\ \left( \pmb{c}_zx_e - x_{lb}\right) \end{array} \right] \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vdots \\ \left[ \begin{array}{l} \left( x_{ub} - \pmb{c}_zx_e \right) \\ \left( \pmb{c}_zx_e - x_{lb} \right) \end{array} \right] \end{array} \right], \ \ \ \ \
\end{align*}
Eq. (\ref{eq:stateCon}) can be rearranged, to obtain the constrain in terms of $\Delta U_k$, as in Eq. (\ref{eq:inpCon}). Once these constraints are obtained, the cost function in Eq. (\ref{eq:JMPC}) can be solved as:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{empheq}[box=\fbox]{align}
\Delta \Bar{U}_k = \argmin_{\Delta U_k} J(\Delta x_k, \Delta U_k) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
\text{s.t} \ \ \left[\begin{array}{l} \pmb{M}_U \\ \pmb{M}_x\pmb{H} \end{array}\right]\Delta U_k \leq \left[\begin{array}{l} \ \ \ \ \ \Delta U_b \\ \Delta Z_b - \pmb{M}_x\pmb{F}\Delta x_k \end{array}\right]
\end{empheq}
\label{eq:J_MPC}
\end{subequations}
and the optimal tracking control input over $N_p$ horizon $\Bar{U}_k$ is given by $\bar{U}_k= U_e + \Delta \Bar{U}_k$, where $U_e = \left[ u_e^T \ldots u_e^T \right]^T$.
The constraints include bounds on the control input $u = \left[ \mathcal{F}_1 \ \tau_1^T \ldots \mathcal{F}_N \ \tau_N^T\right]^T$, and bounds on states such as the $z-$ coordinates of the payload and the UAVs, which cannot be positive (due to the NED convention) and the set of constraints in Eq. (\ref{eq:consOsc}). The reference trajectory $y^{'}$ contains the desired position of the payload, the desired orientation of the payload to be zero ensuring minimal oscillations and the desired orientation of links to be vertical, ensuring that the UAVs don't collide with each other, and the system stays close to the equilibrium point $\left( x_e, u_e\right)$ as described in Eq. (\ref{eq:EqPt}). Thus, the optimal tracking control input $\Bar{u}_k$ at the current step $k$ is obtained as $\bar{u}_k = [\pmb{I} \ \pmb{0} \ \ldots \ \pmb{0} ]\Bar{U}_k$.
\subsection{Obstacle Avoidance Controller}
The obstacles are dynamic in nature, and it is assumed that the position and velocity of the obstacle are available at every time step $k$. Due to the spatial structure of the payload-UAV system, it must be ensured that the rigid links and the propellers of the UAVs do not collide with the surrounding obstacles. This is ensured by constructing a \textit{safe} convex hull around the payload-UAV system such that it fully encloses it, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:cvxHull}(a).
The collision avoidance problem is solved using the Exponential Control Barrier Functions (ECBFs) \cite{nguyen2016exponential}. In general, the control barrier function is defined over the state-space, and provides safety-critical constraints, that can be leveraged in an optimization framework. The ECBF naturally allows extension of control barrier functions to higher relative-degree systems, such as the payload-UAV system described in \ref{sec:sysModel}.
Suppose there exists an r-times continuously differentiable function $h(x):\mathcal{D} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, \ \mathcal{D} \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, that is a function of the state vector $x \in \mathcal{D}$. Define a super level set $\mathcal{C}$ over $h$ as:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C} &= \left\{ x \in D \subset \mathbb{R}^n : h(x) \geq 0\right\} \\
\partial\mathcal{C} &= \left\{ x \in D \subset \mathbb{R}^n : h(x) = 0\right\} \\
\text{Int}\left(\mathcal{C}\right) &= \left\{ x \in D \subset \mathbb{R}^n : h(x) > 0 \right\}
\end{align}
\label{eq:FISC}
\end{subequations}
where $\partial \mathcal{C}$ represents the boundary of the set $\mathcal{C}$ and $\text{Int}(\mathcal{C})$ represents the interior of the set $\mathcal{C}$. The set $\mathcal{C}$ is said to be \textit{forward invariant}, if for every $x(t_0) = x_0 \in \mathcal{C}$, the state trajectory $x(t) \in \mathcal{C}, \ \forall \ t > t_0$, i.e., the trajectory $x(t)$ never leaves $\mathcal{C}$ if it starts in $\mathcal{C}$. For a system whose dynamics can be written as $\dot{x} = f(x) + g(x)u$, the relative degree of $h(x)$ is defined as the number of times $h$ must be differentiated before the control input $u$ appears explicitly. Thus, the function $h$ is said to have a degree $r$ if $\mathfrak{L}_g\mathfrak{L}^{r-1}_fh(x) \neq 0$ and $\mathfrak{L}_g\mathfrak{L}_fh(x)$ = $\mathfrak{L}_g\mathfrak{L}^2_fh(x)$ = $\ldots$ = $\mathfrak{L}_g\mathfrak{L}^{r-2}_fh(x) = 0$, where $\mathfrak{L}_ab(x) = a \cdot \frac{\partial b}{\partial x}$ denotes the lie derivative of the vector field $b$ along the vector field $a$. \medskip
\begin{theorem} (\cite{nguyen2016exponential})
Given a set $\mathcal{C} \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ defined as a superlevel set of a r-times continuously differentiable function $h:\mathcal{D} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, then $h$ is an \textit{Exponential Control Barrier Function (ECBF)} if there exists a row vector $K \in \mathbb{R}^r$ such that
\begin{align}
\inf_{u} \left[ \mathfrak{L}^r_fh(x) + \mathfrak{L}_g\mathfrak{L}^{r-1}_fh(x)u + K\eta(x) \right] \geq 0 \label{eq:cond_hx}
\end{align}
$\forall \ x \in \mathcal{C}$, where $\eta(x) = \left[ h(x) \ \dot{h}(x) \ \ldots \ h^{(r-1)}(x) \right]^T$. The set $\mathcal{C}$ is then a \textit{forward invariant} set.
\end{theorem}
\medskip
Consider the safe set $\mathcal{C} = \mathbb{R}^3 - \mathcal{O}$, where the obstacle set $\mathcal{O}$ is the space occupied by all the $N_{obs}$ obstacles. If it is ensured that the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ is \textit{forward invariant} for all time $t$, i.e., if the trajectory of the payload-UAV system starts in $\mathcal{C}$, and forever be trapped inside $\mathcal{C}$, then obstacle avoidance is guaranteed. To ensure that the set $\mathcal{C}$ is forward invariant, construct the $i^{th}$ Exponential Control Barrier Function $h_i(.):\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as:
\begin{align}
h_i(x_c) = \left\Vert x_c - x_{obs_{i}} \right\Vert^2_{_2} - R_{o_i}^2, \ i = 1, \ldots, N_{obs}
\label{eq:h_x}
\end{align}
where $x_{obs_i}, \ R_{o_i}$ are the position and the radius of the $i^{th}$ obstacle respectively, and $x_c$ is the position of a point $c_i$ on the surface of the convex hull around the payload-UAV system closest to the $i^{th}$ obstacle. It should be noted that the form of $h_i(.)$ is dependent on the $i^{th}$ obstacle shape. Eq. (\ref{eq:h_x}) holds for spherical obstacles only. However, Eq. (\ref{eq:h_x}) can be modified to include cylindrical pole obstacles (see Section \ref{subsec:gazebo}), by extending $z-$axis linearly in both positive and negative axis, and the vectors in the Eq. (\ref{eq:h_x}) only include $x-$, and $y-$ coordinates. It can be easily verified that $h_i(.)$ satisfies the properties described in Eq. (\ref{eq:FISC}). At this point, an assumption is made that the convex hull (and thus all the points on its surface) translates with a velocity equal to the translational velocity of the payload. This assumption is easily justified as long as the payload-UAV system remains close to the equilibrium point of Eq. (\ref{eq:EqPt}). From Eq. (\ref{eq:disSys}), it can be inferred that the dynamics for the payload is actually a double integrator system i.e., the control inputs appear only in the acceleration equations of the payload\footnote{One can substitute the A and B matrices given in the footnote \ref{ft:AB} in Eq. (\ref{eq:disSys}) to obtain the equations for the payload-UAV system.}. This results in the relative degree of $h_i(.)$ to be $2$. Thus, Eq. (\ref{eq:cond_hx}) reduces to:
\begin{align}
\ddot{h}_i \geq -K \left[h_i \ \ \dot{h}_i\right]^T
\label{eq:h_ddot}
\end{align}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\dot{h}_i ={}& 2\left( x_c - x_{obs_i} \right)^T\left( \dot{x}_c - \dot{x}_{obs_i} \right)
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\ddot{h}_i ={}& 2\left( x_c - x_{obs_i} \right)^T\left( \ddot{x}_c - \ddot{x}_{obs_i} \right)\\
& + 2\left\Vert \dot{x}_c - \dot{x}_{obs_i} \right\Vert_{_2}^2
\end{split}
\end{align}
\label{eq:OptCon}
\end{subequations}
and $K \in \mathbb{R}^2$ is a row vector, chosen such that the poles of the system (\ref{eq:h_ddot}) are all negative. Substituting acceleration equations of the payload for $\ddot{x}_c$ and substituting Eqs. (\ref{eq:OptCon}) in Eq. (\ref{eq:h_ddot}) and rearranging the equations results in a set of $N_{obs}$ constraints in $\Delta u_k$, of the form $\pmb{A}_{obs}\Delta u_k \leq B_{obs}$\footnote{The analytical forms of the matrix $\pmb{A}_{obs}$ and $B_{obs}$ can be found \href{https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZIwZ4higpC-BZ5isK-Gr1uozPNqTscE7?usp=sharing}{here}. }.
Thus, the obstacle avoidance controller can be designed as follows:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{empheq}[box=\fbox]{align}
{}& \Delta u_k^{*} = \argmin_{\Delta u_k} \frac{1}{2} \left\Vert\Delta u_k - \Delta \Bar{u}_k \right\Vert^2_{\pmb{Q}_{obs}} \\ \\
\begin{split}\label{eq:con_avoid}
{}& \text{s.t} \ \ \ \ \ \pmb{A}_{obs}\Delta u_k \leq B_{obs} \\
{}& \left[\begin{array}{l} \pmb{I}_m \\ -\pmb{I}_m \end{array}\right]\Delta u_k \leq \left[ \begin{array}{c} \left( u_{ub} - u_e \right) \\ \left( u_e - u_{lb} \right) \end{array}\right]
\end{split}
\end{empheq}
\label{eq:obsAvoid}
\end{subequations}
where $\pmb{Q}_{obs} > 0$ is a diagonal weighting matrix. The bounds on the control input are reapplied, along with the barrier function constraints. The optimal control law $\Delta u_k^*$ produced by the Integrated Decision Controller is thus equal to the optimal tracking control law $\Delta\bar{u}_k$ in the absence of obstacles, but while encountering the obstacles, the optimal control law $\Delta u_k^*$ is different, ensuring that the set of constraints in Eq. (\ref{eq:con_avoid}) is satisfied.
\section{Simulation Results}
\label{sec:simres}
In this section, the implementation details and simulation results are discussed to evaluate the performance of the proposed controller. The Linear Model Predictive Controller is implemented in \texttt{C++} using the \texttt{ACADO} toolkit \cite{Houska2011a} code generator. \textit{Multiple Shooting} discretization technique is employed to obtain a discrete system analogous to Eq. (\ref{eq:disSys}). The prediction horizon for the LMPC is chosen to be $20$ time steps. The optimization problems in both Eq. (\ref{eq:JMPC}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:obsAvoid}) is solved using the \textit{online active set strategy} \cite{Ferreau2008} as implemented in the \texttt{qpOASES} library \cite{Ferreau2014}. To construct the convex hull, and find the point on the surface of the convex hull closest to the obstacle, \textit{polytope distance} algorithms \cite{cgal:hs-ch3-21b} are used as implemented in the \texttt{CGAL} library \cite{cgal:eb-21b}.
The advantage of detaching the obstacle avoidance controller from the MPC is that it enables the user to use pre-existing, state-of-art MPC implementations that are highly optimized for nonlinear systems, and semi-definite hessian matrices that occur in the MPC optimization stage, as discussed in \cite{Houska2011a}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Parameter values for the payload-UAV system }
\label{tab:paramVals}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc} \toprule
& $m$ & $J_{xx}$ & $J_{yy}$ & $J_{zz}$ \\ \midrule
\text{Payload} & 3.1 & 0.29 & 0.29 & 0.55 \\
\text{UAVs} & 0.7 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 \\ \midrule
& & $p_i$ & & $l_i$ \\ \midrule
\text{UAV1} & & $[0.5, \ 0.5, \ \shortminus0.25]^T$ & & 3.2 \\
\text{UAV2} & & $[0.5, \ \shortminus0.5, \ \shortminus0.25]^T$ & & 3.2 \\
\text{UAV3} & & $[\shortminus0.5, \ \shortminus0.5, \ \shortminus0.25]^T$ & & 3.2 \\
\text{UAV4} & & $[\shortminus0.5, \ 0.5, \ \shortminus0.25]^T$ & & 3.2 \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Numerical Results}
For the subsequent discussions, the parameters considered for the payload-UAV system is shown in Table \ref{tab:paramVals}, and the constants $\delta_{\phi}, \delta_{\theta}, \delta_{\psi}$ of Eq. (\ref{eq:consOsc}) are set to $5$ degrees. It is observed that assigning a value lower than 5 degrees to these constants renders the optimization problem of Eq. (\ref{eq:J_MPC}) infeasible, especially during the instants where obstacle avoidance occurs.
\subsubsection{Trajectory Tracking}
For a numerical evaluation of the algorithm, four UAVs are considered that transport a rigid payload, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:schDiag}. The desired trajectory for the payload is chosen as a figure-eight $\infty$ contour, as described by Eq. (\ref{eq:Lissajous}):
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
r_{{0d}_x} &= 6\sin\left( 0.5t \right) \\
r_{{0d}_y} &= -6\sin \left( 0.5t \right) \cos \left( 0.5t \right) \\
r_{{0d}_z} &= -5u(t)
\end{align}
\label{eq:Lissajous}
\end{subequations}
where $u(t)$ is the unit step function. From Fig. \ref{fig:trackxyz} and \ref{fig:attrpy}, it can be seen that the LMPC controller successfully stabilizes the payload, while ensuring that it tracks the desired trajectory. The attitude of the payload is limited to within $5$ degrees during the abrupt take off, but dies down quickly once stabilized. The yaw angles of the payload and UAVs are highly penalized, to ensure that the optimization problem remains strictly convex\cite{wehbeh2020distributed}. A higher cost is placed on the attitude and the position of the payload, and a slightly lower cost is placed on the attitude of the links and UAVs in the weighting matrix $\pmb{Q}$ of Eq. (\ref{eq:JMPC}). This ensures that the system can still make slight deviations from its equilibrium points, making the system less stiff, and slightly more flexible. A snapshot of the 3D simulation\footnote{\label{ft:video} The video demonstrations for both the numerical simulations as well as \texttt{Gazebo} simulations can be found here: \href{https://youtu.be/AMVlMNYQCLw}{https://youtu.be/AMVlMNYQCLw} } is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:anim3d}, where the complete scenario is shown.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{images/trackxyz.eps}
\caption{Position of the payload is shown in solid line, and the desired trajectory is shown in dashed lines (no obstacles)}
\label{fig:trackxyz}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{images/attrpy.eps}
\caption{Attitude of the payload (no obstacles)}
\label{fig:attrpy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{images/anim3d.eps}
\caption{A snapshot of the numerical simulation. The reference trajectory is shown in red dotted lines, and the payload trajectory is shown in black line. For the purpose of demonstration, the coordinates are converted to ENU (east, north, up) from the NED coordinates.}
\label{fig:anim3d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{images/trackObsxyz.eps}
\caption{Trajectory tracking with two surrounding obstacles. The instants of obstacle avoidance is shown in red shaded area.}
\label{fig:trackObsxyz}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{images/attObsrpy.eps}
\caption{Attitude of the payload with two surrounding obstacles. The instants of obstacle avoidance is shown in red shaded area.}
\label{fig:attObsrpy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm, height=6cm]{images/animObs3d.eps}
\caption{A snapshot of the obstacle avoidance simulation. The sphere on the left is a static obstacle and the sphere on the right is a dynamic obstacle.}
\label{fig:animObs3d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{images/gazObs.eps}
\caption{Figure on the left shows the payload-UAV system, and the figure on the right shows the obstacle-avoidance environment course, that consists of walls, poles and spherical obstacles. The goal point for the payload is shown by a small black circle behind the rightmost sphere.}
\label{fig:gazObs}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{images/payloadObsGaz.eps}
\caption{Payload Trajectory for the obstacle environment course in \texttt{Gazebo}.}
\label{fig:payloadObsGaz}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.225]{images/payTrajGaz.eps}
\caption{The purple line shows the trajectory of the payload. The image is darkened to make the purple line more prominent and noticeable.}
\label{fig:payTrajGaz}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Obstacle Avoidance}
The numerical simulation consists of both static and dynamic obstacles. It is assumed that the obstacles can be enclosed in sphere of radius $R_o$. For demonstration purposes, the obstacle radius is considered to be $0.5$m and a safety margin of $0.5$m around the obstacle is taken. Thus, $R_0 = 1$ meter. The dynamic obstacle is modelled as a simple harmonic oscillator, oscillating about its mean position $(6, 0, \shortminus5)$m. The mean position of the dynamic obstacle coincides with a point on the desired trajectory, and the obstacle timing is set in such a way that it directly confronts the payload-UAV system at its mean position. The static obstacle is placed at $(\shortminus6, 0, \shortminus5)$m. Due to the dynamic nature of the obstacle, the constraint matrices $\left(\pmb{A}_{obs}, B_{obs}\right)$ of Eq. (\ref{eq:obsAvoid}b) are time-varying in nature.
It can be observed from Fig. \ref{fig:trackObsxyz} that the trajectory only changes along the $z-$axis, where the payload goes above the obstacle, as this is the most feasible thing to do. As seen in Fig. \ref{fig:attObsrpy}, the payload oscillates while avoiding the obstacles. This oscillation is however bounded under a small deviation of $5$ degrees and occurs due to the fact that the payload-UAV system is avoiding the obstacle while in motion, without slowing down. Due to the high cost placed on the yaw angles of the payload and UAVs, there is almost no change in the yaw configuration of the system throughout the course of motion. A bird's eye snapshot of the 3D obstacle avoidance simulation\footnoteref{ft:video} is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:animObs3d}. The spherical obstacle on the right oscillates along the $x-$axis, and periodically meets the payload-UAV system at the point $(6, 0, \shortminus5)$, while the spherical obstacle on the left remains stationary at the point $(\shortminus6, 0, \shortminus5)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/sigmavsdev.eps}
\caption{Maximum roll and pitch angle vs the noise standard deviation $\sigma$ ($m/s$ for linear velocity) and ($rad/s$ for angular velocity}
\label{fig:sigmavsdev}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Gazebo Simulation}
\label{subsec:gazebo}
The obstacle avoidance control algorithm is validated by testing it inside a high-fidelity simulation environment. The \texttt{Gazebo} simulator \cite{Koenig-2004-394} is used to create an obstacle-avoidance environment course. For spawning the payload-UAV system, the entire model is written in a \texttt{urdf} file, and the \texttt{RotorS} package \cite{Furrer2016} is used for spawning four hummingbird drones. This is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gazObs}. The control algorithm is implemented in a \texttt{C++} script, which communicates with the \texttt{Gazebo} simulator via the \texttt{ROS} library. The inputs to the model in the simulation are rotor rpm values, which can be easily obtained from the thrust force and torques via a linear transformation matrix.
The environment in \texttt{Gazebo} consists of many obstacles including walls and poles that are static and spherical obstacles that are dynamic. The desired trajectory that the payload must track goes in between the walls, and then to the goal point behind the right-most sphere (see Fig. \ref{fig:gazObs}). This ensures that the payload-UAV system doesn't go all the way around the walls and then to the goal point.
The position of the leftmost and rightmost spherical obstacle is at $(22, 13, 5)$ and $(22, 37, 5)$ respectively. The cylindrical poles are placed at $(22, 20, 5)$, $(22, 26, 5)$, $(22, 30, 5)$ from left to right. It must be noted that the coordinate conventions in \texttt{Gazebo} simulator is ENU (East-North-Up). Because of this, there is a coordinate conversion between NED to ENU at the interface of the \texttt{ROS C++} script and the \texttt{Gazebo} APIs.
It can be observed from Fig. \ref{fig:payloadObsGaz} that the payload successfully avoids both the spherical obstacles, as well as the cylindrical pole obstacles. Unlike for spherical obstacles where the payload dodges by going above them, due to the height of the pole obstacles, the payload goes around them by maintaining a safe distance from these poles. This is inferred better\footnoteref{ft:video} from Fig. \ref{fig:payTrajGaz}, where the purple line shows the trajectory history of the payload. The sphere near the walls is a static sphere, where as the sphere towards the end is a dynamic sphere oscillating about its mean position $(22, 37, 5)$. The control algorithm is able to run at a real-time frequency of 20Hz, providing optimal rpm values to the UAVs in the simulation.
\subsection{Ablation Study}
To evaluate the robustness of the proposed IDC, some of the practical uncertainties are explored in the following paragraphs.
\subsubsection{Mass Uncertainty}
In practice, there is some uncertainty between the reported mass of the payload and the actual mass of the payload. A $\pm 10\%$ variation is considered here. From Table \ref{tab:paramVals}, the value for the payload mass is taken as $3kg$ during controller design, but the payload mass in the plant equations is chosen to be either $2.7kg$ or $3.3kg$. It is observed that the performance of the controller doesn't change, however the control effort $\left\Vert u \right\Vert_2$ required varies by $\pm 5\%$. This is justified, as the UAVs need to compensate for the change in the weight, while meeting the tracking requirements.
\subsubsection{Noisy Payload States}
The linear velocity and angular rates of the payload in Eq. (\ref{eq:stateqn}) is subjected to zero mean Gaussian noise $\mathcal{N}(0, \sigma)$. This is done to mimic the actual payload state values obtained from a noisy rate sensor. For now, the UAV states are ignored, due to the presence of onboard estimation algorithms that can accurately infer the UAV states. The goal is to analyze the robustness of the proposed IDC to the noisy state values of the payload i.e., to find the maximum value of the standard deviation $\sigma$ ($m/s$ for linear velocity and $rad/s$ for angular velocity), such that the payload oscillations remain under a certain threshold. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sigmavsdev}. It can be observed that the maximum roll and pitch angles of the payload increase monotonically as the standard deviation $\sigma$ increases. Beyond a standard deviation of $0.012$, the obstacle avoidance controller becomes unstable, while the tracking controller continues to track the trajectory (with a noisy performance) when assessed independently. If the maximum threshold for payload oscillations is set at $10$ degrees, the standard deviation must not be above $0.008$. In practice, most of the IMU's standard deviation falls below or occurs close the nominal value of $0.008$\footnote{A list of parameters for a few commonly used rate sensors are available here: \href{https://github.com/rpng/kalibr_allan}{https://github.com/rpng/kalibr\_allan}}. It is also observed that the maximum roll and pitch angles occur only at the time of avoiding the obstacles.
\subsubsection{Relative Safety Margin}
The IDC ensures that there is minimum deviation from the reference trajectory while avoiding the obstacles. Earlier, a safety margin of $0.5$m was considered. It is observed that by changing the safety margin the controller performance doesn't change; it only determines the relative proximity between the payload-UAV system and the obstacle. In practice, the relative distance to the obstacles may be underestimated or overestimated by some value. Thus, considering the right safety margin is crucial. Setting a higher safety margin may result in a higher deviation from the reference trajectory, which in some cases may render the tracking controller unstable whereas setting a lower safety margin may be undesirable, as the payload-UAV may come too close to the obstacle, which could result in a collision. After various experimentation, a thumb rule of choosing the safety margin equal to the obstacle radius is found to provide best results.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, an integrated decision control-based obstacle avoidance controller is presented to solve the problem of collaborative payload transportation in a cluttered environment. The IDC fuses the optimal tracking control provided by the Model Predictive Controller, with the safety-critical constraints provided by the Exponential Control Barrier Functions in an optimization framework. The structure of the ECBFs depend on the shape of the obstacle, which can be static or dynamic in nature. To ensure that the UAVs or the payload don't collide with the surrounding obstacles, a safe convex hull is computed around the entire system at each time instant, and the point on the convex hull closest to the surrounding obstacle is used to generate the ECBF constraints. Numerical simulations are conducted on the proposed controller to demonstrate its functionality, and eventually the algorithm is deployed in a real time, high fidelity simulation using \texttt{Gazebo}. An ablation study is conducted to demonstrate the robustness of the IDC to handle practical unforeseen situations like payload mass uncertainties, noisy payload states and choosing an optimal relative safety margin around the obstacles.
In the scope of future work, non-linear control laws will be explored that can handle the problem of tracking and obstacle avoidance in a single framework. Moreover, external disturbances and state estimation techniques can be used to make the controller more robust to sensor noise and model uncertainties. Further, with the help of additional supporting mechanisms like rack-pinion joints, formation control of the UAVs for rigid payload can be made possible.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Nokia CSR grant on Network Robotics.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
A \textsl{conjugation} $C$ on a separable complex Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ is an antilinear operator $C:\mathcal H\rightarrow\mathcal H$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(a)] $C$ is \emph{isometric}: $\left\langle Cf,Cg\right\rangle=\left\langle g,f\right\rangle$, $\forall f,g\in\mathcal H$.
\item [(b)] $C$ is \emph{involutive}: $C^{2}=I$.
\end{enumerate}
Conjugations have been widely studied recently and their roots are related to some fields of physics, especially quantum mechanics. The main motivation for the study of conjugations is the study of complex symmetric operators.
A bounded linear operator $T\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})$ is said to be \emph{complex symmetric} is there exists a conjugation $C$ on $\mathcal{H}$ such that $CT=T^{*}C$. In this case we say that $T$ is an operator \emph{$C$-symmetric}. The concept of complex symmetric operators on separable Hilbert spaces is a natural generalization of complex symmetric matrices, and their general study was initiated by Garcia, Putinar, and Wogen \cite{Garcia,Garcia2,Garcia3,Garcia4}. The class of complex symmetric operators includes other basic classes of operators such as normal, Hankel, compressed Toeplitz, and some Volterra operators.
Let $\mathbb{T}$ be the boundary of the open unit disk $\mathbb{D}$ in the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$. We let $L^{2}=L^{2}(\mathbb{T},\sigma)$ be usual Lebesgue space on $\mathbb{T}$ where $\sigma$ is the normalized Haar measure on $\mathbb{T}$. The \emph{Hardy space} $H^{2}$ consists of the all holomorphic functions $f$ on the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$ such that
$$
\sup_{0<r<1}\int_{\mathbb{T}}|f(r\zeta)|^{2}d\sigma(\zeta)<\infty.
$$
As is well known, the Hardy space $H^{2}$ is isometrically identified with a closed subspace of $L^{2}$ via the boundary functions. Indeed, if $f\in H^{2}$, considering the function $f_{r}$ given by $f_{r}(\zeta)=f(r\zeta)$, we have the radial limit
$$
f^{*}(\zeta)=\lim_{r\rightarrow1}f_{r}(\zeta)
$$
there exists for almost every $\zeta\in\mathbb{T}$ and holds
$$
\lim_{r\rightarrow1}\int_{\mathbb{T}}|f_{r}-f^{*}|^{2}d\sigma(\zeta)=0.
$$
Since $\left\{e_{n}(e^{i\theta})=e^{in\theta}: \ n\in\mathbb{Z}\right\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $L^{2}$, we have that $\left\{z^{n}:n=0,1,2,\ldots\right\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $H^{2}$ and therefore $f\in H^{2}$ if and only if
$$
f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n} \ \text{where} \ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|a_{n}|^{2}<\infty.
$$
For each $\phi \in L^{\infty }$, the \textit{Toeplitz operator} $T_{\phi}:H^{2}\rightarrow H^{2}$, with symbol $\phi$, is defined b
\begin{equation*}
T_{\phi }f=P\left( \phi f\right),
\end{equation*
for all $f\in H^{2},$ where $P:L^{2}\rightarrow H^{2}$ is the orthogonal projection.
The concept of Toeplitz operators generalizes the concept of Toeplitz matrices and their general algebraic properties were studied by Brown and Halmos first addressed by \cite{Brown}. One of the first examples of complex symmetric Toeplitz operator is due to Guo and Zhu \cite{Guo}. In this work, Guo and Zhu raised the question of characterizing complex symmetric Toeplitz operators on the Hardy space $H^{2}$.
The most natural conjugation in $H^{2}$ is $\mathcal{J}$ given by
$$
\mathcal{J}f(z)=\overline{f(\overline{z})},
$$
or in general $C_{\lambda}f(z)=\overline{f(\lambda\overline{z})}$, with $\lambda\in\mathbb{T}$ (see \cite[Lemma 2.3]{Ko}). Thus, if we write $f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}\in H^{2}$ we have to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq1}
C_{\lambda}f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\overline{\lambda^{n}}z^{n}.
\end{eqnarray}
Recently, a more general class of conjugations has been introduced in \cite{Li}. Li, Yang and Lu considered sequences $\alpha=\left\{\alpha_{0},\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\cdots\right\}$ where $\alpha_{m}\in\mathbb{T}$ and showed that $C_{\alpha}:H^{2}\rightarrow H^{2}$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2}
C_{\alpha}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\alpha_{n}z^{n}
\end{eqnarray}
is a conjugation on $H^{2}$. Naturally, if $\alpha_{m}=\overline{\lambda^{m}}$ for each $m=0,1,2,\cdots$ then $C_{\alpha}=C_{\lambda}$.
The purpose of this paper is to use the fact that every conjugation $C$ on $H^{2}$ is of type $C=U^{*}\mathcal{J}U$, where $U$ is an unitary operator, and to find other conjugations on $H^{2}$ that generalize \eqref{eq2}. As a consequence, we guarantee a characterization for complex symmetric Toeplitz operators.
\section{Main results}
In \cite{Ferreira} Ferreira showed the important role that conjugation $\mathcal{J}f(z)=\overline{f(\overline{z})}$ plays in the study of conjugations on $H^{2}$, namely:
\begin{theorem}\label{teo1}
C is a conjugation on $H^{2}$ if, and only if, there exists an unitary operator $U:H^{2}\rightarrow H^{2}$ such that $C=U^{*}\mathcal{J}U$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See Theorem 2.1 and Proposition 2.3 in \cite{Ferreira}.
\end{proof}
The previous theorem gives us a method of finding conjugations over $H^{2}$. Some are well known, such as \eqref{eq2}. The proof of the next lemma is left to the reader.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem1}
If $\left\{\zeta_{1},\zeta_{2},\ldots\right\}$ is a sequence where $\zeta_{j}\in\mathbb{T}$, then $\left\{1,\zeta_{1}z,\zeta_{2}^{2}z^{2},\ldots\right\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $H^{2}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{cor1}
If $\zeta=\left\{\zeta_{1},\zeta_{2},\ldots\right\}$ is a sequence where $\zeta_{j}\in\mathbb{T}$, then $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}:H^{2}\rightarrow H^{2}$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3}
\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\overline{\zeta_{n}^{2n}}z^{n}
\end{eqnarray}
is a conjugation on $H^{2}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the unitary operator $U$ on $H^{2}$ given by $Uz^{n}=(\zeta_{n}z)^{n}$, with $n=0,1,2,\ldots$. We have from Theorem \ref{teo1} that $U^{*}\mathcal{J}U$ is a conjugation for $H^{2}$. We claim that $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}=U^{*}\mathcal{J}U$. In fact, if $f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}\in H^{2}$ then
\begin{eqnarray*}
U^{*}\mathcal{J}Uf(z) &=& U^{*}\mathcal{J}(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}\zeta_{n}^{n}z^{n}) \\
&=& U^{*}(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\overline{\zeta_{n}^{n}}z^{n}) \\
&=& U^{*}(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\overline{\zeta_{n}^{2n}}(\zeta_{n}^{n}z^{n})) \\
&=& \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\overline{\zeta_{n}^{2n}}z^{n},
\end{eqnarray*}
as wished.
\end{proof}
Of course we can get \eqref{eq1} and \eqref{eq2} from \eqref{eq3}:
\begin{example}\label{exa1}
Let $e^{i\theta/2}\in\mathbb{T}$ and consider $\zeta=\left\{e^{i\theta/2},e^{i\theta/2},e^{i\theta/2},\ldots\right\}$. By Proposition \ref{cor1} we have $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}$ is a conjugation on $H^{2}$ where
$$
\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\overline{(e^{i\theta/2})^{2n}}z^{n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\overline{(e^{i\theta})^{n}}z^{n}
$$
that is, $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}=C_{e^{i\theta}}$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{exa2}
Let $\zeta=\left\{\overline{e^{i\theta_{1}/2}},\overline{e^{i\theta_{2}/4}},\cdots,\overline{e^{i\theta_{n}/2n}},\cdots\right\}$. By Proposition \ref{cor1} $C_{\zeta}$ is given by
$$
\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}\overline{\overline{(e^{i\theta_{n}/2n})}^{2n}}z^{n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}e^{i\theta_{n}}z^{n}
$$
that is, $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}$ is the conjugation \eqref{eq2}.
\end{example}
The standard in the coefficients of conjugations \eqref{eq1}, \eqref{eq2} and \eqref{eq3} is generally repeated. In fact, by Theorem \ref{teo1} all conjugations on $H^{2}$ are of the type $C=U^{*}\mathcal{J}U$ with $U$ unitary. Thus $C$ can be seen to be $A\mathcal{J}$ where $A=U^{*}\mathcal{J}U\mathcal{J}$ is an $\mathcal{J}$-symmetric unitary operator (see also \cite[Lemma 3.2]{Garcia5}). We have the following:
\begin{proposition}\label{cor2}
If $C$ is a conjugation on $H^{2}$, then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq4}
C\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}b_{m}^{(n)}z^{m},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\left\{b_{m}^{(n)}\right\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$ it is a summable square sequence.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $C=A\mathcal{J}$, where $A$ is an $\mathcal{J}$-symmetric unitary operator. Thus, for all nonnegative integer $n$ we have
$$
A(z^{n})=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}b_{m}^{(n)}z^{m}
$$
therefore
$$
C\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}\right)=A\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}z^{n}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\overline{a_{n}}b_{m}^{(n)}z^{m},
$$
as wished.
\end{proof}
A natural question is: if $C$ is $C_{\lambda}$ or $C_{\alpha}$, which respective $b_{m}^{(n)}$ coefficients satisfy \eqref{eq4} in Proposition \ref{cor2}:
\begin{remark}
Let $C=C_{e^{i\theta}}$. By propositions \ref{cor1} and \ref{cor2} we have to $C_{\lambda}=A\mathcal{J}$, where $A=U^{*}\mathcal{J}U\mathcal{J}$ and $Uz^{n}=(e^{i\theta/2}z)^{n}$ for $n=0,1,2,\ldots$. Thus
$$
Az^{n}=U^{*}\mathcal{J}Uz^{n}=U^{*}\mathcal{J}(e^{i\theta/2}z)^{n}=e^{-in\theta/2}U^{*}z^{n}=\overline{(e^{i\theta})^{n}}z^{n}
$$
since $U^{*}z^{n}=e^{-in\theta/2}z^{n}$ and therefore
$$
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}b_{m}^{(n)}z^{m}=\overline{(e^{i\theta})^{n}}z^{n},
$$
as wished. Analogously if $C=C_{\zeta}$, with $\zeta=\left\{\overline{e^{i\theta_{1}/2}},\overline{e^{i\theta_{2}/4}},\cdots,\overline{e^{i\theta_{n}/2n}},\cdots\right\}$, we have $Uz^{n}=(\overline{e^{i\theta_{n}/2n}}z)^{n}$ for $n=0,1,2,\ldots$ and therefore $Az^{n}=e^{i\theta_{n}}z^{n}$.
\end{remark}
Ko and Lee considered the family of conjugations $C_{\lambda}$ defined in \eqref{eq1} and proved the following:
\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem 2.4]{Ko}
If $\varphi(z)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\widehat{\varphi}(n)z^{n}\in L^{\infty}$, then $T_{\varphi}$ is $C_{\lambda}$-symmetric if and only if $\widehat{\varphi}(n)\lambda^{n}=\widehat{\varphi}(-n)$ for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{theorem}
Analogous arguments made by Ko and Lee lead us to the following.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\zeta=\left\{\zeta_{1},\zeta_{2},\ldots\right\}$ a sequence, where $\zeta_{j}\in\mathbb{T}$, and $\varphi(z)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\widehat{\varphi}(n)z^{n}\in L^{\infty}$. Then $T_{\varphi}$ is $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}$-symmetric if, and only if, $\widehat{\varphi}(n)\zeta_{n}^{2n}=\widehat{\varphi}(-n)$ for all $n=0,1,2\ldots$.
\end{theorem}
In view of the previous theorem, it is natural to ask:
\begin{problem}
Under what conditions a Toeplitz operator $T_{\varphi}$, with $\varphi\in L^{\infty}$, is $C$-symmetric where $C$ is given by \eqref{eq4}?
\end{problem}
|
\section{Introduction}
The design of experiments has long provided tremendous benefits to firms, especially in the technology sector \citep{kohavi2007practical, kohavi2009online, bakshy2014designing, lewis2015unfavorable, kohavi2020trustworthy, li2021interference, wager2021experimenting, johari2021always, johari2022experimental}.
Most large technology firms develop their own tools to run field experiments to improve their software products and services, and a growing number of smaller companies purchase such tools from third-party analysts that offer full-stack integration \citep{thomke2020experimentation}.
These tools typically enable the businesses to run ``A/B tests,'' in which the experimenter compares the standard offering of some policy ``A'' to a new version of the policy ``B,'' by splitting users into the ``control'' and the ``treatment'' groups.
By comparing the outcomes from these two groups, the experimenter discovers how much the new version is better or worse than the standard version, which is referred to as the ``treatment effect.''
Such simple tools have been widely adopted by a variety of online web-facing companies, including ``search engines (e.g., Bing, Google, Yandex), online retailers (e.g., Amazon, eBay, Etsy), media service providers (e.g., Netflix), social networking services (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter), and travel services (e.g., Airbnb, Booking.com, Lyft, Uber)'' \citep{gupta2019top}.
These tools have brought tremendous value to the firms throughout their product development processes \citep{koning2019experimentation}.
Practitioners and academics have widely recognized one challenge in the design of experiments in handling heterogeneity.
Heterogeneity refers to the scenario when the same version of treatment creates different levels of treatment effects across users with different covariates.
For example, a newer version of an online display advertisement might have a different effect on click through rates for younger people compared to older people.
One method to address heterogeneity is via ``blocking,'' which is also referred to as ``stratification'' \citep{fisher1936design, cochran1957experimental, cox1958planning, chase1968efficiency, matts1988properties, imbens2011experimental, athey2017econometrics, imbens2015causal}.
Typically, in a block experiment, all users are characterized into several different blocks, such that within each block, users' covariates are similar.
Then, assuming all the blocks are fixed, the experimenter randomly assigns half of the users from each block to receive control, and the other half from each block to receive treatment.
This simple approach has been considered to be the gold standard in handling heterogeneity in randomized control trials \citep{rubin2008comment}, and has been extensively studied from an optimal experimental design perspective \citep{rosenbaum1989optimal, greevy2004optimal, imai2009essential, lu2011optimal, higgins2016improving, bai2019optimality, harshaw2019balancing}.
For online web-facing firms, however, such a simple block experiment is not always feasible.
In an online field experiment, the covariates of the users are not known in advance.
Instead, the covariates are sequentially revealed as users arrive in an online fashion.
Upon a user's arrival, the experimenter must immediately decide if the user is assigned to the control or the treatment group based on this user's covariate information, without knowing the covariate information of future arriving users.
It is the uncertainty of future users' covariate information that hinders the usage of the well studied designs of block experiments.
In this paper, we study a novel online experimental design problem, which we refer to as the ``Online Blocking Problem.''
To solve this problem, we propose a novel experimental design approach, which we refer to as the ``Pigeonhole Design.''
We analyze the theoretical performance of the pigeonhole design against two well-known benchmark designs of experiments and show the effectiveness of the pigeonhole design.
\subsection{The Online Blocking Problem}
In the online blocking problem, the experimenter is given in advance a fixed budget of experimental units, who are the users to this online platform.
During the experiment, a fixed number of users with unknown covariate information arrive one by one.
Upon the arrival of each user, the experimenter must irrevocably assign each user into either the control or the treatment group, with the objective of minimizing the total discrepancy between the covariates of these two groups, which is defined as the size of a minimum weight perfect matching \citep[Chapter 7.8]{bertsimas1997introduction} between these two groups.
To the best of our knowledge, the online blocking problem is similar but distinct to a few problems in the literature.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Online Vector Balancing}.
This line of literature follows the work of \citet{spencer1977balancing}.
Recent works have studied a variant of this problem under the stochastic arrival model \citep{bansal2020online, alweiss2021discrepancy, bansal2021online}.
In an online vector balancing problem, users with unknown vector information arrive one by one.
Upon arrival, the vector information is revealed, and the decision maker must irrevocably assign a positive or negative sign $\pm$.
The objective is to minimize the $L_\infty$ norm of the total signed prefix-sum.
Our problem is closely related to the online vector balancing problem, but with the following two distinctions.
First, the online vector balancing problem allows the number of users who receive the negative sign to be different from the number of users who receive the positive sign.
In contrast, our problem requires the control and treatment groups to have equal size, which is an omnipresent assumption in the experimental design literature \citep{rosenbaum1989optimal, greevy2004optimal, lu2011optimal, harshaw2019balancing}.
Note that the online vector balancing problem can be adapted via augmenting the covariate space, such that the number of users in two groups are equal.
So this is a minor distinction.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{center.JPG}
\caption{An illustrator of the difference between the online vector balancing objective and the online blocking objective.}
\label{fig:DifferentObjectives}
\end{figure}
Second, the objective functions are different.
The online vector balancing problem minimizes the total signed prefix-sum, whereas our online blocking problem minimizes the size of the minimum weight perfect matching.
See Figure~\ref{fig:DifferentObjectives} for an illustrator.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:DifferentObjectives}, there are $8$ users ($A_1$, $A_2$, $B_1$, $B_2$, $C_1$, $C_2$, $D_1$, $D_2$) whose covariates are in a 2-dimensional space.
Under our online blocking objective, one optimal design could be matching $(A_1, A_2)$ into a pair, ..., $(D_1, D_2)$ into a pair.
Thus, the optimal design selects exactly one from each pair into the control group, and exactly the other from each pair into the treatment group.
On the other hand, under the online vector balancing objective, one optimal design (not necessarily unique) could be assigning negative signs to $A_1, A_2, C_1, C_2$, i.e., into the control group, and positive signs to $B_1, B_2, D_1, D_2$, i.e., into the treatment group.
Such a design could possibly lead to imbalance between the two groups, as the geometric center may not fully capture the locations of all users.
\item \textit{Online Experimental Design under $D_A$-Optimality}.
This line of literature follows the work of \citet{atkinson1982optimum, atkinson1999optimum}.
Recently, \citet{bhat2020near} revisits this problem by articulating the tension between online algorithms and experimental design, which has greatly motivated our work.
In this problem, there are several prognostic factors that are assumed to impact the potential outcomes through a linear model, including the treatment status.
We refer to such prognostic factors as covariate information, and treatment status is one of them.
Users with unknown covariate information arrive one by one, and the covariate information is revealed upon the arrival of one user.
The experimenter must irrevocably administer control or treatment to this user, which determines the value of a single binary indicator among the covariates.
The objective is the $D_A$-optimality, which refers to minimizing the variance of the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimator on some certain covariates.
Our problem is closely related to the online $D_A$-optimal experimental design problem as well, with the following three distinctions.
First, the online $D_A$-optimal experimental design problem allows the number of users in the control and treatment groups to be different whereas our online blocking problem requires the numbers to be the same.
Second, the objective functions are different.
The online $D_A$-optimal experimental design problem uses an OLS estimator to estimate the effects of treatment by postulating a linear dependence of the potential outcomes on the covariates. The objective is to minimize the variance of the OLS estimator on some certain covariates, \emph{e.g.}, on the treatment indicator.
In contrast, our objective is the size of the minimum weight perfect matching.
Third, the models of the arrival sequence are different.
The model in \citet{atkinson1982optimum} assumes that the covariate information is part of the decision making.
The model in \citet{bhat2020near} assumes a stochastic arrival sequence drawn from an elliptical distribution with finite second order moment.
An implication of choosing this model is that the optimal design will be deterministic, and there is no randomization in the optimal design.
In contrast, we model the arrival sequence to be adversarial.
Our model has the flexibility to extend to the stochastic arrival setting, which potentially improves our results.
\item \textit{Online Bipartite Matching}.
This line of literature follows the works of \citet{karp1990optimal, mehta2007adwords}, and has been summarized in the textbook of \citet{mehta2013online}.
In an online bipartite matching problem, one side of the bipartite graph, usually referred to as the resources, is known in advance and endowed with fixed capacities.
The other side of the bipartite graph, usually referred to as the users, arrives in a sequential fashion.
Upon arrival, one user must be immediately matched to one of the adjacent resources, and earns an immediate reward that is equal to the weight of the created edge.
The objective is to maximize the total sum of rewards accumulated over the horizon.
While the online bipartite matching problem typically has a maximization objective, some works have discussed finding the minimum weight matching \citep{kalyanasundaram1993online}.
Recent works have extensively studied a number of other variants, \emph{e.g.}, under the stochastic IID model \citep{feldman2009online, devanur2013randomized, alaei2012online, jaillet2014online}, under the random order model \citep{goel2008online}, and allowing for delays \citep{ashlagi2019edge}.
Our problem is intrinsically different from the online bipartite matching problem in the following two aspects.
First, in an online bipartite matching problem, one side of the graph (the resource side) is given in advance.
But in the online blocking problem, both sides are the users and arrive one by one.
Second, the rewards in an online bipartite matching problem are generated immediately when users are matched to resources.
The core trade-off lies in balancing immediate rewards and potential future rewards, and an assignment executed in a previous period only makes an impact on the future rewards through the remaining resources.
But in the online blocking problem, while we make an assignment decision immediately upon the arrival of a user, the discrepancy is calculated at the end of the horizon.
As a result, the impact of an assignment executed in an early period will not be fully understood until the end of the horizon.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{The Pigeonhole Design}
To solve the online blocking problem, we propose a pigeonhole design that works in the following two stages.
In the first stage, the pigeonhole design partitions the covariate space into smaller spaces, which we refer to as pigeonholes.
We administer assignments based on the covariates.
When arriving users are routed to pigeonholes, we make the number of treatment and control users as balanced as possible by sequentially matching the arrived users in pairs.
In the second stage, we ignore the covariate information and only administer assignments based on the overall imbalance across the control and treatment groups.
To the best of our knowledge, the pigeonhole design is similar but distinct to a few experimental design methods in the literature.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Matched-Pair Design}.
The idea of the matched-pair design, or more generally, blocking, has been well studied from the beginning of the experimental design literature \citep{fisher1936design}.
The matched-pair design is a limiting case in which each block only has two experimental users \citep{chase1968efficiency, athey2017econometrics, imbens2015causal}.
In a matched-pair design, there is an even number of users, and all the users are grouped into size-two pairs according to some criterion.
From each pair of the two users, one is randomly administered control and the other is administered treatment.
Other than the criterion considered in this work of finding the minimum weight perfect matching, there are many other criteria in deciding how to pair the users, including minimizing the maximum within-pair distance \citep{higgins2016improving}, minimizing the (generalized) Mahalanobis distance \citep{diamond2013genetic}, and minimizing the risk function \citep{bai2019optimality}.
Since the matched-pair design requires information about all the users, this design has not been well adapted to the online setting when users arrive one by one.
\item \textit{Completely Randomized Design}.
The idea of completely randomized design has been well studied from the beginning of the experimental design literature \citep{fisher1936design}.
It is one of the most basic sources of randomness in a randomized experiment.
In a completely randomized design, a fixed number (usually half of total population) of users are randomly selected to administer control while the remaining users are assigned to treatment.
Since randomization can be determined and fixed before running the experiment, this design can be easily implemented in the online setting \citep{efron1971forcing}.
\item \textit{Biased Coin Design}. This line of literature is pioneered by the work of \citet{efron1971forcing}, and has been subsequently generalized to covariate-adaptive versions as in \citet{pocock1975sequential, atkinson1982optimum, atkinson1999optimum}.
In a biased coin design, each time the next user arrives, the experimenter flips a biased coin to administer control (if tails) and treatment (if heads).
The head-up probability of the coin can depend on the heads and tails in the observations collected so far.
One remarkable special case of the biased coin design is the completely randomized design, where the biased coin flipping always tends to balance the number of control and treatment assignments.
In the generalization to covariate-adaptive versions, there are a fixed number of prognostic factors and the experimenter suggests head-up probabilities that depend on a generic cost function of the covariate imbalance.
As commented in \citet{bhat2020near}, the biased coin designs and their covariate-adaptive versions ``can be regarded as myopic policies ... that only consider the immediate impact of an allocation decision but not the impact on future decisions.''
Specifically for the covariate-adaptive versions, as commented in \citet{rosenberger2008handling, rosenberger2015randomization}, ``very little is known about their theoretical properties.''
\item \textit{Matching-On-The-Fly}.
Recently, \citet{kapelner2014matching} proposes the idea of maintaining a reservoir to match units.
Whenever the next user arrives, if there is no good match with the reservoired users, measured in the Mahalanobis distance, then flip a fair coin to determine the assignment.
If there is a good match with one of the reservoired users, then both of them are determined to be a pair and removed from the reservoir.
Such a heuristic idea is creative, yet there is no mathematical formulation of the objective, and no theoretical analysis of this method's quality.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Performance Guarantees and Analytical Techniques}
\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
\TABLE{Summary of our results measured in discrepancies.
\label{tbl:Summary}}
{
\tabulinesep=1mm
\begin{tabu}{|l|cl|cl|}
\hline
Dimension of Covariates & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$p=1$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$p \geq 2$} \\ \hline
Matched-Pair Design & $\Theta(1)$ & \textbf{Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p=1}} & $\Theta\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right)$ & \textbf{Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2}} \\ \hline
Completely Randomized Design & $\Theta\left(T^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)$ & \textbf{Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1}} & $\Omega\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right)$ & \textbf{Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomized:p>=2}} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Pigeonhole Design} & \multirow{2}{*}{$O\left(T^{\frac{1}{3}}(\log{T})^\frac{1}{2}\right)$} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p=1}}} & $O\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}} (\log{T})^\frac{3}{2}\right), p = 2$ & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2}}} \\
& & & $O\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right), \quad \quad \quad \ \ p \geq 3$ & \\ \hline
\end{tabu}
}
{In this table, $T$ stands for the total number of experimental population; $p$ stands for the dimension of covariate information.}
\end{table}
In this paper, we analyze the performance of the matched-pair design, the completely randomized design, and the pigeonhole design whose discrepancies are summarized in Table~\ref{tbl:Summary}.
First, the matched-pair design serves as a benchmark that any online design of experiments cannot achieve.
This is because the matched-pair design uses all the covariate information which would not be available to the online designs, as it is sequentially revealed over time.
Second, the completely randomized design serves as a naive benchmark by not using any covariate information at all.
The resulting expected discrepancy is larger.
Third, and most importantly, the pigeonhole design as we propose in this paper has a performance in between the matched-pair design and the completely randomized design.
Table~\ref{tbl:Summary} also summarizes the discrepancies of the three designs under two cases: the single-dimensional case and the multi-dimensional cases.
Our analysis suggests that the discrepancy will increase as the dimension increases, which coincides with the recognition that finding matching estimators becomes more challenging when the dimensions grow larger.
As outlined in Table~\ref{tbl:Summary}, in the single-dimensional case, the matched-pair design has the smallest discrepancy in the order of $\Theta(1)$, which serves as a benchmark for all online designs.
The completely randomized design has a much larger expected discrepancy in the order of $\Theta(T^\frac{1}{2})$.
The pigeonhole design achieves an expected discrepancy in the order of $O(T^\frac{1}{3}(\log{T})^\frac{1}{2})$, which improves upon the benchmark of the completely randomized design.
The simulation results that we will show in Section~\ref{sec:Simulations} verify the theoretical analyses.
The pigeonhole design significantly outperforms the completely randomized design in the single-dimensional case.
Moving to the multi-dimensional case, the matched-pair design has the smallest discrepancy, in the order of $\Theta(T^\frac{p-1}{p})$.
This discrepancy increases as the dimension increases, showing the hardness of this problem.
The completely randomized design has an expected discrepancy in the order of $\Omega(T^\frac{p-1}{p})$, as it cannot perform better than the matched-pair design.
The pigeonhole design, surprisingly, achieves an expected discrepancy in the order of $\tilde{O}(T^\frac{p-1}{p})$, which closely matches the performance of the matched-pair design.
This suggests that the pigeonhole design is near optimal with only up to logarithmic factors.
Even though not depicted in the theoretical gaps, the simulation results that we will show in Section~\ref{sec:Simulations} suggests that the pigeonhole design significantly outperforms the completely randomized design again in the multi-dimensional case.
Next, we highlight our analytical techniques.
\subsubsection{Coupling Arguments in the Single-Dimensional Case.}
In the single-dimensional case, the matched-pair design, which is an offline policy, always achieves a discrepancy less than $1$.
To show that the completely randomized design achieves an expected discrepancy in the order of $\Theta(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$, it only suffices to create an arrival sequence to show the $\Omega(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ part.
In order to show the $O(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ part, we introduce a counting idea to write the discrepancy as an algebraic expression that explicitly depends on the covariates of all the users.
Then we identify the worst-case arrival sequence and find the associated discrepancy.
The pigeonhole design that we propose achieves a smaller discrepancy, in the order of $O\left(T^{\frac{1}{3}} (\log{T})^\frac{1}{2}\right)$.
The pigeonhole design works by matching in pairs as many users as possible that arrive at one pigeonhole.
For those unmatched users at each pigeonhole, we introduce a coupling method that shows the assignment of these users can be viewed as coming from a coupling stochastic process that mimics the completely randomized design.
The pigeonhole design strikes a balance between the discrepancies generated from the matched users and the unmatched users.
There is a balancing parameter that can be tuned in practice to reflect the balance (or imbalance).
\subsubsection{Challenges in the Multi-Dimensional Case.}
Performing matching in the multi-dimensional case is more challenging than in the single-dimensional case.
For the matched-pair design, unlike in the single-dimensional case where there exists a much simplified structure, we have to solve a combinatorial optimization problem to find the discrepancy.
Instead of explicitly calculating the discrepancy, we instead characterize the order of the discrepancy.
We first find an arrival sequence in which the matched-pair design has at least $\Omega(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}})$ discrepancy.
Then we introduce a new method to first find the average discrepancy along each pair of users, and then show that we are unable to pack more users into the unit hypercube, thus finishing the proof by contradiction.
For the completely randomized design, since it is challenging to find the minimum weight perfect matching in the multi-dimensional case, it is challenging then to provide an upper bound for its expected discrepancy.
Instead, we show that for a special family of arrival sequences, we can calculate the order of its discrepancy by applying a novel induction method.
Our pigeonhole design in the multi-dimensional case follows the same intuition as in the single-dimensional case.
It is a surprising result that the discrepancy of the pigeonhole design in the multi-dimensional case achieves the optimal order, i.e. it has the same order as the matched-pair design does, even though the matched-pair design is endowed with full knowledge of all the covariate information of the arrival sequence.
Our pigeonhole design in the multi-dimensional case relies on the same coupling technique, which uses the analysis of the completely randomized design under the family of instances we have defined earlier.
\subsection{Roadmap}
The paper is structured as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:Definitions} we introduce the online blocking problem which we study in this paper.
In Section~\ref{sec:MatchedPair} we first introduce the matched-pair design, then distinguish the single-dimensional and multi-dimensional cases, and finally show the performance of the matched-pair design in the single-dimensional case as in Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p=1}.
In Section~\ref{sec:CompeltelyRandomzied} we introduce the completely randomized design and show the performance of the completely randomized design in the single-dimensional case as in Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1}.
In Section~\ref{sec:PigeonholeDesign} we introduce the pigeonhole design, outline the intuitions of how to design pigeonholes, and show the performance of one pigeonhole design in the single-dimensional case as in Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p=1}.
In Section~\ref{sec:MultiDimension} we show the performances of the three designs in the multi-dimensional cases as in Theorems~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2}--~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2}.
In Section~\ref{sec:Simulations} we run numerical simulations to show strong numerical performance of the pigeonhole design.
Finally we conclude the paper by providing practical suggestions for firms to run online experiments using the pigeonhole design, and by pointing out three limitations that could lead to future research directions.
\section{The Online Blocking Problem}
\label{sec:Definitions}
Consider the following experimental design problem for an online platform.
Let there be a discrete, finite time horizon of $T$ periods, where we assume $T$ to be an even number.
In practice, $T$ is typically known and given in advance, which reflects the size of the experimental budget.
For example, at online search engines, online retailers, and travel service providers, $T$ is typically determined in advance by the product managers who are testing their new products.
At any point in time, $t \in [T] := \{1,2,...,T\}$, one user arrives at the platform.
Each arriving user is associated with a covariate, $\bm{x}_t$, from some $p$-dimensional space $\mathcal{S}$.
In this paper, we normalize the covariate space to be $\mathcal{S} = [0,1]^p$ by properly re-scaling the support of each dimension to $[0,1]$, because such a re-scaling does not change our results with respect to the dependence on $T$.
Each dimension reflects a unit of important covariate information that the experimenter needs to consider.
For example, at Yahoo! Front Page \citep{lewis2010s}, the covariate(s) could either be one important Key Performance Index (KPI) such as the ``browsing type,'' or a combination of several user demographics.
In this paper, we model the covariates to be adversarially chosen from the covariate space $[0,1]^p$, which is often referred to as an adversarial arrival model.
Such an adversarial arrival typically reflects the non-predictable nature of the future arriving users, and has been widely adopted in the online algorithms literature \citep{mehta2013online, buchbinder2009design}.
Upon the arrival of one user $t$, the experimenter observes the covariate information of the user, $\bm{x}_t$, and then must immediately and irrevocably administer an intervention $W_t \in \{0,1\}$ to this user $t$, without knowing the covariates from the future arriving users.
For example, at Yahoo! Front Page \citep{lewis2010s}, the assignment of control or treatment must be determined within $0.01$ seconds when one user arrives.
Following convention, we say that user $t$ is assigned to the control group when $W_t=0$; user $t$ is assigned to the treatment group when $W_t=1$.
We adopt the convention that $W_t$ stands for a random assignment, and that $w_t$ stands for a realization.
Out of a total of $T$ users, there must be half of them that are assigned to the control group, and the other half assigned to the treatment group.
As commented by \citet{pocock1975sequential}, ``it is desirable to have the treatment groups\footnote{In the original paper they refer to``control" as one version of treatment. So ``two treatment groups" refers to the control and treatment groups in our paper.} of equal size.''
This half-half assignment typically reflects the ignorance of magnitudes of the control and the treatment groups, and has been widely assumed in the experimental design literature \citep{wu1981robustness, li1983minimaxity, rosenbaum1989optimal, greevy2004optimal, lu2011optimal, abadie2012martingale, bai2019optimality, basse2019minimax, harshaw2019balancing, xiong2019optimal, bojinov2020design, candogan2021near}.
In A/B testing terminology, we denote $A$ to be the set of users in the control group, and $B$ to be the set of users in the treatment group.
The two groups must form a partition of all the users, $A,B \subseteq [T], A \cup B = [T], A \cap B = \emptyset$, and each group must have half of the total users $\left|A\right| = \left|B\right| = T/2$.
Denote $\mathcal{M}$ to be the set of all possible partitions.
In an online blocking problem, the experimenter aims at finding a (possibly randomized) sequential assignment policy such that the total discrepancy between the users in the control group and the users in the treatment group is minimized.
We define the discrepancy as follows.
For any pair of users $t \in A$ and $t' \in B$, the discrepancy between users $i$ and $j$ is
\begin{align*}
d_{t, t'} = \left\| \bm{x}_{t} - \bm{x}_{t'} \right\|_2.
\end{align*}
For two fixed groups of users $A$ and $B$, the discrepancy between $A$ and $B$ is the minimum weight perfect matching \citep[Chapter 7.8]{bertsimas1997introduction} between groups $A$ and $B$, formally defined as
\begin{align}
d_{A, B} = \min_{\bm{y}} & \ \sum_{t \in A} \sum_{t' \in B} d_{t,t'} y_{t,t'} \label{eqn:Matching} \\
s.t. \ & \ \sum_{t' \in B} y_{t,t'} = 1, \forall \ t \in A, \nonumber \\
& \ \sum_{t \in A} y_{t,t'} = 1, \forall \ t' \in B, \nonumber \\
& \ y_{t,t'} \in \{0,1\}, \forall \ t \in A, \ t' \in B, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $y_{t,t'}$ is a binary variable that takes value $1$ if users $t$ and $t'$ are matched.
For any random assignment policy, if the policy induces a distribution of the two groups of users $(A,B)$, then we define the expected discrepancy to be the expectation of $d_{A,B}$ where randomness is coming from the distribution induced by the policy.
The minimum weight perfect matching has been extensively studied in the operations research literature \citep{ahuja1988network, bertsimas1997introduction, schrijver2003combinatorial}, and has been well recognized in the statistics literature to serve as a viable objective function for matching estimators without replacement \citep{rosenbaum1989optimal, greevy2004optimal, lu2011optimal, dehejia2002propensity, abadie2012martingale}.
We analyze the online blocking problem when $T$ is relatively large.
As $T$ is larger, the discrepancy usually gets larger as well.
So we primarily focus on the dependence of the discrepancies with respect to $T$ as the performance metric of this paper.
For example, at online search engines, online retailers, and travel service providers, a typical sample size is at the scale of $100K \sim 1M$.
We distinguish between an online design and an offline design.
We define an online design $\bm{\mu}$ to be a collection of functions, $\bm{\mu} = (\mu_1,\mu_2,...,\mu_T)$, such that
$\mu_1(x_1): \mathcal{S} \to [0,1]$ for $t=1$, and $\mu_t(x_1,x_2,...,x_t,w_1,w_2,...,w_{t-1}): \mathcal{S}^t \times \{0,1\}^{t-1} \to [0,1]$ for $t \geq 2$.
In words, an online design only takes as input the covariate information of the users arrived up to the current period, as well as the treatment assignments to the users up to the previous period.
Each function $\mu_t$ maps the information space to a treatment probability.
The treatment assignment is then determined by $\Pr(W_t = 1) = \mu_t$, and $\Pr(W_t = 0) = 1 - \mu_t$.
In contrast to an online design, we define an offline design $\bm{\nu}$ to be a collection of functions, $\bm{\nu} = (\nu_1,\nu_2,...,\nu_T)$, such that $\nu_t(x_1,x_2,...,x_T): \mathcal{S}^T \to [0,1]$.
In words, an offline design takes as input the covariate information of all users, as if there were a clairvoyant oracle that revealed all the future information.
Though our primary focus is on the online designs of experiments, the optimal offline design, which we refer to as the matched-pair design in Section~\ref{sec:MatchedPair}, will serve as a benchmark for comparison.
\section{The Matched-Pair Design}
\label{sec:MatchedPair}
If there were a clairvoyant oracle that revealed all the user covariates to the experimenter before users arrived, the experimenter could leverage all such information to design the following experiment, which is one version of the well-known matched-pair design \citep{rosenbaum1989optimal, greevy2004optimal, lu2011optimal}.
\begin{definition}[Matched-Pair Design]
\label{defn:MatchedPairDesign}
In a matched-pair design, the experimenter first solves the following problem,
\begin{align}
(A^*, B^*) = \argmin_{(A, B) \in \mathcal{M}} d_{A,B}, \label{eqn:SmallestDiscrepancy}
\end{align}
and finds the solution $\bm{y}^*$ to the minimum weight perfect matching between $A^*$ and $B^*$ as in \eqref{eqn:Matching}.
Second, recall that $y^*_{t,t'}$ is a binary variable that takes value $1$ if users $t$ and $t'$ are matched.
For each pair of users $t, t' \in [T]$ such that $y^*_{t,t'} = 1$, randomly administer control to one user and treatment to the other, with probability $1/2$ each.
\end{definition}
By definition, the above matched-pair design has the smallest discrepancy among any possible offline designs.
As an online design is contained in the offline design family, the matched-pair design also serves as a benchmark for the online designs, i.e., no online design can achieve a smaller discrepancy than the matched-pair design.
To solve \eqref{eqn:SmallestDiscrepancy} and find the matched-pair design, we distinguish two cases in the covariate space: the single-dimensional case, $p=1$, and the multi-dimensional case, $p\geq2$.
When $p=1$, it is easy to see that the matched-pair design has a discrepancy of no more than $1$.
The matched-pair design easily solves \eqref{eqn:SmallestDiscrepancy} and proceeds in the following way: first, rearrange all users from the smallest to the largest in the covariate space and group them in size-two pairs; second, for the two users in each pair, randomly administer control to one user and treatment to the other, with probability $1/2$ each.
This design has a provable guarantee as stated in Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p=1}.
See Figure~\ref{fig:MatchedPairDesign} for an illustration.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:MatchedPair:p=1}
When $p=1$, the matched-pair design has a discrepancy less than or equal to $1$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p=1} is essentially following the rearrangement argument that we made above. The complete proof is deferred to Section~\ref{sec:Proof:MatchedPair:p=1} in the Appendix.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Matched_Pairs.png}
\caption{An illustrator of the matched-pairs in a single dimension. The $A$ stands for users in the control group; whereas $B$ stands for users in the treatment group.}
\label{fig:MatchedPairDesign}
\end{figure}
While the discrepancy of a matched-pair design is very small in the single-dimensional case, it is not the same in the multi-dimensional case.
When $p \geq 2$, there does not exist such a small-to-large ordering in the covariate space so the procedure in the single-dimensional case does not work when it comes to multiple dimensions.
In fact, there is an intrinsic difference between the single and multi-dimensional cases.
In the multi-dimensional case, the discrepancy will usually increase as the total number of users increases, which is different from the result we see in Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p=1}.
Moreover, even finding an optimal solution to \eqref{eqn:SmallestDiscrepancy} will be computationally more challenging, though still polynomial time solvable \citep{derigs1988solving, lu2011optimal, oncan2013minimum}.
Since the single and multi-dimensional cases are different, we first focus on the single-dimensional case in this section as well as in Sections~\ref{sec:CompeltelyRandomzied} and~\ref{sec:PigeonholeDesign}.
We will discuss the multi-dimensional case in Section~\ref{sec:MultiDimension} after we build enough intuition.
\section{The Completely Randomized Design}
\label{sec:CompeltelyRandomzied}
In Section~\ref{sec:MatchedPair} we have learned that the matched-pair design achieves the smallest discrepancy, by using the knowledge of all users' covariates.
In the online blocking problem, however, this is not feasible.
Nonetheless, there is another well-known design of experiments, the completely randomized design, that is feasible for the online setting.
\begin{definition}[Completely Randomized Design]
\label{defn:CompeltelyRandomizedDesign}
Out of a total of $T$ users, a completely randomized design randomly selects $T/2$ users as the control group $A$, and the other $T/2$ users as the treatment group $B$.
Upon the arrival of a user $t$, administer control if $t \in A$, and treatment if $t \in B$, regardless of user $t$'s covariate information.
\end{definition}
Since a completely randomized design does not use any covariate information in administering control and treatment assignments, it is a feasible online design.
As expected, it has a larger discrepancy compared to the matched-pair design.
We illustrate using the following example.
\begin{example}
\label{exa:p=1}
Let there be $4$ users, with single-dimensional covariates $x_1 = 0.1, x_2 = 0.7, x_3 = 0.4, x_4 = 0.9$.
Under a matched-pair design, we rearrange the four users from the smallest to the largest in the covariate space, $x_1 \leq x_3 \leq x_2 \leq x_4$.
Then we match users $\{1,3\}$ in one pair and $\{2,4\}$ in one pair.
Within each pair, we randomly administer control and treatment.
The above matched-pair design has a discrepancy of $0.5$.
Under a completely randomized experiment: with probability $1/6$, $A = \{1,2\}, B = \{3,4\}, d_{A,B} = 0.5$;
with probability $1/6$, $A = \{1,3\}, B = \{2,4\}, d_{A,B} = 1.1$;
with probability $1/6$, $A = \{1,4\}, B = \{2,3\}, d_{A,B} = 0.5$;
with probability $1/6$, $A = \{2,3\}, B = \{1,4\}, d_{A,B} = 0.5$;
with probability $1/6$, $A = \{2,4\}, B = \{1,3\}, d_{A,B} = 1.1$;
with probability $1/6$, $A = \{3,4\}, B = \{1,2\}, d_{A,B} = 0.5$.
So in expectation, the discrepancy is equal to $0.7$, which is larger than the discrepancy from a matched-pair design.
\end{example}
Next, we formally show in Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1} that the expected discrepancy of a completely randomized design is indeed larger than that of a matched-pair design when $p=1$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1}
When $p=1$, the completely randomized design has an expected discrepancy in the order of $\Theta(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$.
\end{theorem}
We explain the main idea of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1} here in an unrigorous way, and defer the detailed proof to Section \ref{sec:Proof:CompeltelyRandomzied:p=1} in the Appendix.
\proof{Sketch Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1}.}
We first show the $\Omega(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ part in the $p=1$ case by constructing an instance $\bm{x}^*$ of the arrival sequence.
Let the covariates of the first $\frac{T}{2}$ users be equal to $0$, i.e., $x^*_t = 0, \forall \ 1 \leq t \leq \frac{T}{2}$;
let the covariates of the last $\frac{T}{2}$ users be equal to $1$, i.e., $x^*_t = 1, \forall \ \frac{T}{2}+1 \leq t \leq T$.
In Lemma~\ref{lem:lowerfluid}, we show that in this instance $\bm{x}^*$, the completely randomized design has an expected discrepancy of $\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\sqrt{T}$.
Next, we turn to the $O(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ part.
We introduce Lemma~\ref{lem:permutation} to show that the completely randomized design in the $p=1$ case is invariant to permutations of the arrival sequence.
For any two sequences $\bm{x}', \bm{x}''$, if there exists a one-to-one correspondence $\sigma: [T] \to [T]$, such that $\forall \ t \in [T]$, $x'_t = x''_{\sigma(t)}$, then the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design will be the same for these two arrival sequences $\bm{x}'$ and $\bm{x}''$.
Intuitively, this is because the completely randomized design, when determining the assignment of each user, completely randomizes the indices of the users without using any covariate information of the other users.
With this permutation-invariant observation, and given that we focus on the $p=1$ case, we are able to focus only on the arrival sequences that are ordered from the smallest to the largest.
Finally, to conclude the $O(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ part, we introduce Lemma~\ref{lem:upperfluid} to show that, among all possible arriving sequences, the sequence $\bm{x}^*$, with the first half users equal to zero and the second half users equal to one, is the one that has the largest expected discrepancy.
This shows that the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design is in the order of $O(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$.
\Halmos
\endproof
We emphasize here that Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1} suggests an expected discrepancy exactly in the order of $\Theta(T ^{\frac{1}{2}})$.
This is both an upper bound and a lower bound.
This result suggests that, while the completely randomized experiment leads to an expected discrepancy that does not increase linearly as the total number of users increases, it is still unavoidable that the expected discrepancy is of the square root order.
By comparing the matched-pair design to the completely randomized design, we make the following two observations.
On one hand, the matched-pair design, though infeasible to the online setting, fully uses all the knowledge of users' covariates.
As a result, the discrepancy is very small.
On the other hand, the completely randomized design, feasible for the online setting, does not use any covariate information at all.
These two observations motivate the following question: is there an adaptive design of the experiment whose performance is in between?
We will provide an affirmative answer in Section~\ref{sec:PigeonholeDesign}.
\section{The Pigeonhole Design}
\label{sec:PigeonholeDesign}
In this section we introduce the Pigeonhole Design, a new experimental design method, that adaptively administers control and treatment assignments to the online users.
We will first introduce what a pigeonhole design is and how to design the pigeonholes.
Then we will provide intuitions regarding why and how it improves the completely randomized design.
We conclude this section by analyzing the discrepancy of the pigeonhole design.
First, we start with the intuition of the pigeonhole design.
The pigeonhole design partitions the covariate space.
We refer to the smaller, partitioned spaces as pigeonholes.
In each pigeonhole, we wish to make the number of control and treatment users as balanced as possible, by sequentially matching the users who arrive at the same pigeonhole in pairs.
The discrepancy of each pair of users will be no larger than the diameter of this pigeonhole.
However, under the adversarial arrival setting, it is impossible to guarantee that the number of control and treatment users are exactly equal in each pigeonhole.
A simple example is that the adversary chooses an odd number of users to arrive at each pigeonhole.
As there can exist only one extra user in each pigeonhole, we have to match these extra users across different pigeonholes.
This would require some extra balancing efforts in the last few periods, which we refer to as the balancing periods.
Now we are ready to formally describe the pigeonhole design.
Let the covariate space be $\mathcal{S}$.
Define a $K$-partition of $\mathcal{S}$ to be $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) = \{\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2, ..., \mathcal{S}_K\}$, such that $\cup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{S}_k = \mathcal{S}$ and that $\mathcal{S}_k \cap \mathcal{S}_{k'} = \emptyset, \forall k, k' \in [K]$.
These sets $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k \in [K]}$ are referred to as the \textit{pigeonholes}.
Since a pigeonhole design adaptively administers control and treatment assignments, we use the following notations, $n^0_{k,t}$ and $n^1_{k,t}$, to denote the number of control and treatment users in the $k$-th pigeonhole after the arrival of user $t$.
Denote $n^0_{k,0} = n^1_{k,0} = 0, \forall k \in [K]$, to reflect that no users have arrived yet at the beginning of the entire horizon.
Let a balancing parameter be $\beta \in [0,1]$, and we refer to the last $\lceil \beta T \rceil$ periods as the \textit{balancing periods}.
For any partition $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$ and any balancing parameter $\beta$, define the pigeonhole design as follows.
\begin{definition}[Pigeonhole Design]
\label{defn:PigeonholeDesign}
A pigeonhole design takes as input a partition of the covariate space $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$ and a balancing parameter $\beta$.
Upon the arrival of user $t$, if user t is among the first $T - \lceil \beta T \rceil$ users, i.e., $t \leq T - \beta T$, find the associated pigeonhole $k$ such that $x_t \in \mathcal{S}_k$.
If there are fewer control users in this pigeonhole than treatment users, i.e., $n^0_{k,t-1} < n^1_{k,t-1}$, administer control to user $t$;
if there are fewer treatment users than control users, i.e., $n^0_{k,t-1} > n^1_{k,t-1}$, administer treatment to user $t$;
if there are equal numbers of control and treatment users, i.e., $n^0_{k,t-1} = n^1_{k,t-1}$, administer control or treatment with probability $1/2$ each.
If user $t$ is among the last $\lceil \beta T \rceil$ users, i.e., $t > T - \beta T$, ignore the covariate information of user $t$ and purely balance the control and treatment users.
If the absolute difference between the total number of control and treatment users is smaller than the remaining periods, i.e., $\left| \sum_{k \in K} (n^0_{k,t-1} - n^1_{k,t-1}) \right| < T-t+1$, then administer control or treatment with probability $1/2$ each; otherwise, administer control or treatment that reduces the absolute difference.
\end{definition}
Example~\ref{exa:p=1:continued} shows how a pigeonhole design sequentially administers control and treatment assignments.
\begin{example}[Example~\ref{exa:p=1} Continued]
\label{exa:p=1:continued}
Let there be $4$ users, $x_1 = 0.1, x_2 = 0.7, x_3 = 0.4, x_4 = 0.9$.
In a pigeonhole design, suppose we choose the pigeonholes to be $\mathcal{S}_1 = [0, 0.5), \mathcal{S}_2 = [0.5, 1]$, and the balancing parameter to be $\beta = 1/4$.
This pigeonhole design works as follows.
In the first three periods, we sequentially match users in pairs.
When $x_1 = 0.1 \in \mathcal{S}_1$ arrives, there is no user in $\mathcal{S}_1$. So we randomly administer control or treatment. Suppose $w_1 = 1$, then we administer treatment.
When $x_2 = 0.7 \in \mathcal{S}_2$ arrives, there is no user in $\mathcal{S}_2$. So we randomly administer control or treatment. Suppose $w_2 = 0$, then we administer control.
When $x_3 = 0.4$ arrives, there is one more user in the treatment group (1 in treatment, 0 in control) in $\mathcal{S}_1$. So $w_3 = 0$ means we administer control.
The last period belongs to the balancing period.
Note that, in total, there are more users in the control group than in the treatment group (1 in treatment, 2 in control).
So $w_4 = 1$ means we administer treatment to the last user.
Under this trajectory of randomness, this pigeonhole design turns out to have a small discrepancy equal to $0.5$.
\end{example}
The performance of a pigeonhole design critically depends on how the pigeonhole is devised, in the following two aspects.
First, since the arrival sequence is adversarially chosen, the pigeonholes should be uniformly split.
Otherwise, the adversary could control the arrival sequence to all go into the largest pigeonhole, thus increasing the discrepancy of the design.
Second, the number of pigeonholes should be neither too small nor too big.
If there is only one single pigeonhole that is the entire covariate space, i.e., $K=1$ and $\mathcal{S}_1 = \mathcal{S}$, then this is the \textit{biased coin design} with parameter equal to $1$ as proposed in \citet{efron1971forcing}.
However,
when there is only one pigeonhole, the pigeonhole design does not consider covariate information at all, so it will lead to a large discrepancy.
On the other hand, when there are too many pigeonholes, the adversary can make every pigeonhole have an odd number of users.
So each pigeonhole will have one unpaired user.
These unpaired users will have to be paired across different pigeonholes, thus causing a large discrepancy.
In order to choose the correct number of pigeonholes, we first illustrate by the following very simple design in the $p=1$ single-dimensional case that achieves $O(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ expected discrepancy.
In this design, we equally divide the covariate space $[0,1]$ into $T^{\frac{1}{2}}$ pigeonholes with the length of each pigeonhole being $T^{-\frac{1}{2}}$.
Consider the first $T-T^{\frac{1}{2}}$ arriving users.
For every two users that arrive at the same pigeonhole, we match them in pairs.
For each pair of users matched in each pigeonhole, the discrepancy is no more than the length of the pigeonhole $T^{-\frac{1}{2}}$.
Therefore, the total discrepancy for the first $(T-T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ users that are matched in this way is no more than $T^{-\frac{1}{2}}(T-T^{\frac{1}{2}})=T^{\frac{1}{2}}-1$.
However, among the first $(T-T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ users, there are at most $T^{\frac{1}{2}}$ of them that remain unpaired.
This is because there are $T^{\frac{1}{2}}$ pigeonholes and there is at most one user in each pigeonhole that remains unpaired.
Next, observe that there are $T^{\frac{1}{2}}$ users to arrive in the balancing periods.
No matter what their covariates are, we match them in pairs with the $T^{\frac{1}{2}}$ unpaired users, each pair generating at most $1$ discrepancy.
The total discrepancy generated during such balancing periods is at most $T^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Therefore, the total discrepancy is at most
\[
T^{\frac{1}{2}}-1+T^{\frac{1}{2}}=2T^{\frac{1}{2}}-1.
\]
By the pigeonhole design outlined above, we can achieve a $\Theta(\sqrt{T})$ discrepancy.
Can we improve the above pigeonhole design to achieve some smaller discrepancy?
The answer is affirmative.
Before diving into details, we introduce what to improve in the above pigeonhole design.
Observe that after first $T-T^{\frac{1}{2}}$ arriving users, there will be at most $T^{\frac{1}{2}}$ users that remain unpaired, one from each pigeonhole.
If we take a closer look at these users, we actually randomly assign them into either the control or the treatment group with half probability each.
Therefore, there exist certain probabilities that two adjacent users are assigned to different groups, and we can match them in a pair.
In Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p=1} and the discussions below, we describe in detail how to leverage the randomness in the assignment of users to suggest a better pigeonhole design.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Pigeonhole:p=1}
Fix any $\eta \in (0,1)$.
When $p=1$, the pigeonhole design using a uniform pigeonhole $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) = \left\{[0, T^{-\eta}), [T^{-\eta},2T^{-\eta}), \ldots, [1-T^{-\eta},1] \right\}$ combined with a balancing parameter $\beta = T^{\frac{\eta}{2} - 1}$ has an expected discrepancy in the order of $O\left( T^{1-\eta} + T^{\frac{\eta}{2}} (\log{T})^\frac{1}{2}\right)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
\label{coro:Pigeonhole:p=1}
When $\eta = \frac{2}{3}$, the pigeonhole design using a uniform pigeonhole and an associated balancing parameter has an expected discrepancy in the order of $O\left(T^{\frac{1}{3}}(\log{T})^\frac{1}{2}\right)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{algorithm}[!tb]
\caption{The Pigeonhole Design when $p=1$}
\label{alg:Pigeonhole:p=1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} $\eta \gets -\frac{2}{3}$. $\beta \gets T^{\frac{\eta}{2} - 1}$. $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) \gets \left\{[0, T^{-\eta}), [T^{-\eta},2T^{-\eta}), \ldots, [1-T^{-\eta},1] \right\}$
\FOR{$t =1, 2, \ldots, T-\lceil \beta T \rceil$}
\IF{One of the control or treatment group has $\frac{T}{2}$ units}
\STATE{Assign $x_t$ to the other group.}
\ELSE
\STATE{Observe $x_t$ and find $I_k \in \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$ such that $x_t \in I_k$.}
\IF{There is even number of units in $I_k$}
\STATE{Assign $x_t$ to control or treatment group with half probability each.}
\ELSE
\STATE{Assign $x_t$ to the group which has less units in interval $I_k$.}
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\FOR{$t = T-\lceil \beta T \rceil+1, \ldots, T$}
\IF{One of the control or treatment group has $\frac{T}{2}$ units}
\STATE{Assign $x_t$ to the other group.}
\ELSE
\STATE{Assign $x_t$ to control or treatment group with half probability each.}
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
To make it precise, the pigeonhole design as in Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p=1} can be described using Algorithm~\ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p=1}.
We explain the main idea of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p=1} here in an unrigorous way, and defer the detailed proof to Section~\ref{sec:Proof:Pigeonhole:p=1} in the Appendix.
\proof{Sketch Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p=1}.}
Now that we have built the intuition that uniform pigeonholes are preferable in hedging against adversarial arrival sequences, the most important decision is how many pigeonholes we should split.
Suppose the length of each pigeonhole is $T^{-\eta}$; then the number of pigeonholes is $T^\eta$.
We analyze the discrepancy generated from using $T^\eta$ many pigeonholes, by considering the following two perspectives.
On one hand, consider the first $(1-\beta)T$ arriving users. We match every pair of users that arrive at the same pigeonhole.
If the adversary makes an even number of users arrive at each pigeonhole and there are no unpaired users, the discrepancy of the first $(1-\beta)T$ arriving users is at least $T^{-\eta}(1-\beta)T$, which is in the order of $O(T^{1-\eta})$.
This shows that the length of each pigeonhole should be as small as possible to reduce the discrepancy generated from the first phase.
On the other hand, however, the adversary could make an odd number of users arrive at each pigeonhole, leaving a total number of $T^\eta$ unpaired users.
If all such unpaired users are in one group, they will result in large imbalance between the two groups.
In order not to leave such unpaired users all in one group, we use randomization to balance the users.
Due to concentration of probability, with high probability the difference between the two groups of users will be upper bounded by $2 T^\frac{\eta}{2} (\log{T})^\frac{1}{2}$.
Using a coupling technique, we show that these many unmatched users will create discrepancy in the order of $O(T^\frac{\eta}{2} (\log{T})^\frac{1}{2})$.
Therefore, the number of pigeonholes should be small, which is equivalent to saying that the length of each pigeonhole should be large.
The above two perspectives suggest a trade-off between having small and large pigeonholes, and we balance these two aspects by selecting $\eta=\frac{2}{3}$, which leads to $O(T^{\frac{1}{3}}(\log{T})^\frac{1}{2})$ discrepancy.
\Halmos
\endproof
Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p=1} and Corollary~\ref{coro:Pigeonhole:p=1} suggest that, through properly splitting the pigeonholes, the pigeonhole design can achieve an expected discrepancy in the order of $O(T^\frac{1}{3} (\log{T})^\frac{1}{2})$.
This is a reduction from the $\Theta(T^{\frac{1}{2}})$ expected discrepancy obtained by the completely randomized design.
\section{Analyzing Different Designs in the Multi-Dimensional Case}
\label{sec:MultiDimension}
So far we have seen that, in the single-dimensional case, the pigeonhole design has a smaller discrepancy than the completely randomized design.
Yet the pigeonhole design still has a larger discrepancy than the matched-pair design, which has a small, negligible discrepancy.
In this section, we will analyze the discrepancies of the three aforementioned designs in the multi-dimensional case.
Note that Definitions~\ref{defn:MatchedPairDesign} --~\ref{defn:PigeonholeDesign} of the three designs are general.
Our definitions of three designs all hold in the multi-dimensional case.
It is their theoretical performances and the associated analyses that will be different in the multi-dimensional case.
In the multi-dimensional case, the discrepancies generated from the three designs are much different from the single-dimensional case.
As shown in Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2}, even the matched-pair design has a non-negligible discrepancy in the order of $\Theta(T^\frac{p-1}{p})$.
As shown in Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomized:p>=2}, the completely randomized design has an expected discrepancy in the order of $\Omega(T^\frac{p-1}{p})$, as it cannot perform better than the matched-pair design.
Surprisingly, as shown in Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2}, the pigeonhole design achieves an expected discrepancy in the order of $O(T^\frac{p-1}{p} (\log{T})^\frac{3}{2})$ when $p=2$; and in the order of $O(T^\frac{p-1}{p})$ when $p\geq 3$.
The performance of the pigeonhole design closely matches that of the matched-pair design.
\subsection{The Matched-Pair Design in the Multi-Dimensional Case}
Unlike in the single-dimensional case, where the minimum weight perfect matching can be easily found by matching the closest users in pairs, the matched-pair design in the multi-dimensional case needs to solve problem \eqref{eqn:SmallestDiscrepancy}.
In fact, in the multi-dimensional case, not only is the matched-pair design more challenging to find, but the discrepancy of the design is also much larger.
We first describe Theorem~4.2 in \citet{bai2021inference}, which suggests an upper bound on the discrepancy of the matched-pair design,
\begin{lemma}
[Theorem~4.2, \citep{bai2021inference}]
\label{lem:MatchedPair:p>=2:UB}
When $p \geq 2$, the matched-pair design has a discrepancy in the order of $O\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right)$.
\end{lemma}
Next, we introduce Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2} below to for a lower bound on the discrepancy, which illustrates the hardness of matched-pair designs in the multi-dimensional case.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2}
When $p \geq 2$, the matched-pair design has a discrepancy in the order of $\Theta\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right)$.
\end{theorem}
We explain the main idea of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2} here in an unrigorous way, and defer the detailed proof to Section~\ref{sec:Proof:MatchedPair:p>=2} in the Appendix.
\proof{Sketch proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2}.}
We essentially prove the $\Omega(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}})$ part.
We construct an arrival sequence such that the discrepancy on this sequence is $\Omega(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}})$.
First, evenly split the covariate space $[0,1]^p$ into $T$ smaller hypercubes, such that each hypercube has edge length $T^{-\frac{1}{p}}$.
Then, let the covariate of each user be at the center of each smaller hypercube, respectively.
In this sequence, the distance between the covariates of any two users is at least $T^{-\frac{1}{p}}$.
There is a total of $T/2$ pairs of users.
Therefore, the discrepancy is at least $T^{-\frac{1}{p}} \cdot T = T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}$.
Combining with Lemma~\ref{lem:MatchedPair:p>=2:UB} we finish the proof.
\Halmos
\endproof
This discrepancy increases with respect to $T$, and increases as the dimension $p$ increases.
This coincides with the intuition from the statistics literature, that the dimension of the covariate information ``plays an important role in the properties of matching estimators'' \citep{abadie2006large}.
Theorem~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2} suggests that the discrepancy in the multi-dimensional case is intrinsically different from, and larger than, in the single-dimensional case.
\subsection{The Completely Randomized Design in the Multi-Dimensional Case}
In the multi-dimensional case, the performance of the completely randomized design is challenging to analyze.
We only know that the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design is at least in the order of $\Omega\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right)$, as it cannot be smaller than that of the matched-pair design.
We introduce the following Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomized:p>=2} but the proof is simply omitted.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:CompletelyRandomized:p>=2}
When $p \geq 2$, the completely randomized design has an expected discrepancy in the order of $\Omega\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right)$.
\end{theorem}
Even though we are unable to clearly derive the upper bound of the expected discrepancy for the completely randomized design, we can still calculate the expected discrepancy under a special family of arrival sequences.
This result will be helpful in analyzing the expected discrepancy of the pigeonhole design.
We construct the family of arrival sequences as follows.
First, we split the p-dimensional unit hypercube into $T$ smaller hypercubes, each with edge-length $T^{-\frac{1}{p}}$.
With all the smaller hypercubes given, let there be exactly one user in each smaller hypercube.
Mathematically, the family of arrival sequences can be defined as follows.
First, for any set $X$, denote ${\displaystyle X^{p}}$ to be the $p$-ary Cartesian power of $X$, i.e., ${\displaystyle X^{p}=\underbrace {X\times X\times \cdots \times X} _{p}=\left\{(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{p})\ |\ x_{i}\in X\ {\text{for every}}\ i\in \{1,\ldots ,p\}\right\}.}$
Then, the family of arrival sequences is defined to be
\begin{multline*}
\mathcal{X}^{(T)} = \left\{ (\bm{x}_1, \bm{x}_2, ..., \bm{x}_T) \big| \forall \mathbb{X} \in \left\{[0, T^{-\frac{1}{p}}), [T^{-\frac{1}{p}},2T^{-\frac{1}{p}}), \ldots, [1-T^{-\frac{1}{p}},1] \right\}^p,\right. \\
\left.\exists t, s.t. \ \bm{x}_t \in \mathbb{X}, \text{ and } \forall t' \ne t, \bm{x}_t' \notin \mathbb{X} \right\}.
\end{multline*}
Under such a family of arrival sequences, the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design can be upper bounded.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:CompletelyRandomized:p>=2}
For any $\bm{x} \in \mathcal{X}$, the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design under arrival sequence $\bm{x}$ is:
\begin{itemize}
\item in the order of $O\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}} \log{T}\right)$ when $p = 2$;
\item in the order of $O\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right)$ when $p \geq 3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:CompletelyRandomized:p>=2} is by induction, and is deferred to Section~\ref{sec:Proof:lem:CompletelyRandomized:p>=2} in the Appendix.
Again, note that Lemma~\ref{lem:CompletelyRandomized:p>=2} is only for a special family of arrival sequences, but not for all the arrival sequences.
An upper bound for any arrival sequences still remains unclear.
\subsection{The Pigeonhole Design in the Multi-Dimensional Case}
In the multi-dimensional case, the performance of the pigeonhole design closely matches that of the matched-pair design.
When $p=2$, the gap is up to logarithmic factors; when $p\geq 3$, there is no gap in the order.
Recall that for any set $X$, $X^p$ is the $p$-ary Cartesian power of $X$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2}
Fix any $\phi \in (0,1)$, and any $c > 1$. The pigeonhole design using a uniform pigeonhole $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) = \left\{[0, c^{\frac{1}{p}}T^{-\phi}), [c^{\frac{1}{p}}T^{-\phi},2c^{\frac{1}{p}}T^{-\phi}), \ldots, [1-c^{\frac{1}{p}}T^{-\phi},1] \right\}^p$ combined with a balancing parameter $\beta = T^{\frac{p \phi}{2} - 1}$ has an expected discrepancy:
\begin{itemize}
\item in the order of $O\left(T^{1-\phi} + T^{(p-1)\phi}(\log{T})^\frac{3}{2} + T^{\frac{p\phi}{2}} (\log{T})^\frac{1}{2}\right)$ when $p=2$;
\item in the order of $O\left(T^{1-\phi} + T^{(p-1)\phi} + T^{\frac{p\phi}{2}} (\log{T})^\frac{1}{2}\right)$ when $p\geq 3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
\label{coro:Pigeonhole:p>=2}
When $\phi = \frac{1}{p}$, the pigeonhole design using a uniform pigeonhole and an associated balancing parameter has an expected discrepancy:
\begin{itemize}
\item in the order of $O\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}(\log{T})^\frac{3}{2}\right)$ when $p=2$;
\item in the order of $O\left(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\right)$ when $p\geq 3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{The Pigeonhole Design when $p \geq 2$}
\label{alg:Pigeonhole:p>=2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input:} $c>1$.
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} $\phi \gets \frac{1}{p}$. $\beta = T^{\frac{p \phi}{2} - 1}$. $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) = \left\{[0, c^{\frac{1}{p}}T^{-\phi}), [c^{\frac{1}{p}}T^{-\phi},2c^{\frac{1}{p}}T^{-\phi}), \ldots, [1-c^{\frac{1}{p}}T^{-\phi},1] \right\}^p$.
\FOR{$t =1, 2, \ldots, T-\lceil \beta T \rceil$}
\IF{One of the control or treatment group has $\frac{T}{2}$ units}
\STATE{Assign $\bm{x}_t$ to the other group.}
\ELSE
\STATE{Observe $\bm{x}_t$ and find the unique $\mathbb{X}_k \in \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$ such that $\bm{x}_t \in \mathbb{X}_k$.}
\IF{There is even number of units in $\mathbb{X}_k$}
\STATE{Assign $\bm{x}_t$ to control or treatment group with half probability each.}
\ELSE
\STATE{Assign $\bm{x}_t$ to the group that has less units in $\mathbb{X}_k$.}
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\FOR{$t = T- \lceil \beta T \rceil+1, \ldots, T$}
\IF{One of the control or treatment group has $\frac{T}{2}$ units}
\STATE{Assign $\bm{x}_t$ to the other group.}
\ELSE
\STATE{Assign $\bm{x}_t$ to control or treatment group with half probability each.}
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
To make it precise, the pigeonhole design as in Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2} can be described using Algorithm~\ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p>=2}.
We explain the main idea of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2} here in an unrigorous way, and defer the detailed proof to Section~\ref{sec:Proof:Pigeonhole:p>=2} in the Appendix.
\proof{Sketch proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2}.}
We consider the following three perspectives.
First, consider the first $T-\beta T$ arriving users.
We match every pair of users that arrive at the same pigeonhole, with at most one user unmatched from each pigeonhole.
For the matched users, we show that the discrepancy is in the order of $O(T^{1-\phi})$.
Second, there are $T^{p\phi}$ many unmatched users.
For all the unmatched users, they are randomly assigned to either the control or the treatment group.
If there are exactly the same number of users that are assigned into the control group as into the treatment group, we use a coupling technique to show that these $T^{p\phi}$ many unmatched users will have an expected discrepancy in the order of $\tilde{O}(T^{(p-1)\phi})$.
Third, there might not be exactly the same number of users that are assigned into the control group as into the treatment group.
But due to concentration of probability, with high probability the difference between the two groups of users will be upper bounded by $2T^\frac{p\phi}{2} (\log{T})^\frac{1}{2}$.
Together with the last $\beta T$ users, they have a discrepancy that can be upper bounded by $\tilde{O}\left(T^\frac{p\phi}{2}\right)$.
The above three perspectives suggest a trade-off between having small and large pigeonholes, and we strike a balance by selecting $\phi=\frac{1}{p}$, which leads to $\tilde{O}(T^{\frac{p-1}{p}})$ discrepancy.
\Halmos
\endproof
It is worth noting that, with low probability, the following event happens before period $T - \beta T$: that one of the control or treatment group reaches $T/2$ in size, and the algorithm starts to assign all the other users into the opposite group.
See steps $4$ and $5$ in Algorithm \ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p>=2}.
When this happens, the difference between the two groups of users is $\beta T = \sqrt{T} = T^\frac{p\phi}{2}$ when $\phi = \frac{1}{p}$.
So this happens with probability $O(\frac{1}{T})$.
When it happens, the discrepancy can be upper bounded by $\frac{T}{2}\sqrt{p}$.
Therefore, the contribution to the expectation of discrepancy conditional on this low-probability event is $O(1)$, which does not increase the order of the discrepancy.
The details of discrepancy analysis given on low probability can also be found in appendix \ref{sec:Proof:Pigeonhole:p>=2}.
\section{Simulation Study}
\label{sec:Simulations}
In Sections~\ref{sec:MatchedPair}--~\ref{sec:MultiDimension}, we have analyzed the performance of the matched-pair design, the completely randomized design, and the pigeonhole design.
We have shown theoretically that the pigeonhole design outperforms the completely randomized design.
In this section, we run simulations to show numerically that the pigeonhole design outperforms the completely randomized design as a benchmark.
We show the simulation results under $p=1$ and $p \geq 2$ separately.
\subsection{Simulation Results in the Single-Dimensional Case}
\label{sec:simu:p=1}
\subsubsection{Simulation Setup.}
\label{sec:simu:p=1:setup}
In the single-dimensional case, we consider three setups.
The first setup is when the arrival sequence consists of $T/2$ many zeros and $T/2$ many ones.
We generate one instance of the arrival sequence by randomly permuting $T/2$ many zeros and ones, such that it is not necessary that all zeros arrive before all ones.
The second setup is when the arrival sequence is deterministically generated according to $x_t=(t-1)/(T-1), \forall t \in [T]$.
All the user covariates are equally located along the single-dimensional unit interval.
The third setup is when the arrival sequence is randomly generated.
All the user covariates are independently and identically generated from a uniform distribution, i.e., $x_t \sim U[0,1], \forall t \in [T]$.
We generate one instance of the arrival sequence from the uniform distribution.
In all the three setups, we find the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design and the pigeonhole design by repeating each of them $1000$ times.
Note that, even though the pigeonhole parameters as suggested by Algorithm~\ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p=1} are designed for the adversarial arrival sequence, they still perform well for the arrival sequences described in the above three setups.
As we will show in the subsequent section, the pigeonhole design parameterized in this way still significantly outperforms the completely randomized design in all three setups.
\subsubsection{Simulation Results.}
The simulation results in the three setups described in Section~\ref{sec:simu:p=1:setup} are given in Figures~\ref{fig:V_p=1} -- \ref{fig:U_p=1}.
In these figures, the solid black curve stands for the discrepancy of the matched-pair design;
the solid red curve stands for the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design;
the solid green curve stands for the expected discrepancy of the pigeonhole design as described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p=1}, using a balancing parameter;
the dashed green curve stands for the expected discrepancy of the pigeonhole design without a balancing parameter, i.e., $\beta = 0$ (this is a valid pigeonhole design as lines~3--~4 in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p=1} ensure feasibility).
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{V_p=1.png}
\caption{(Expected) discrepancy in the single-dimensional case, when the arrival sequence consists of half zeros and half ones.}
\label{fig:V_p=1}
\end{figure}
We first focus on Figure~\ref{fig:V_p=1}, the simulation results in the first setup.
The discrepancy of the matched-pair design is always $0$.
This is because the matched-pair design can always match every two zeros in pairs, and every two ones in pairs.
The expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design increases with respect to $T$, which is consistent with the results in Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1}.
In particular, as suggested by Lemma~\ref{lem:lowerfluid}, this first setup is the worst-case arrival sequence for the completely randomized design.
So the expected discrepancy in Figure~\ref{fig:V_p=1} is larger than the expected discrepancy in Figures~\ref{fig:E_p=1} and~\ref{fig:U_p=1}.
The expected discrepancies of the pigeonhole designs are much smaller than the completely randomized design.
The performance of the pigeonhole design without using a balancing parameter even outperforms that using a balancing parameter, and has almost zero expected discrepancy.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{E_p=1.png}
\caption{(Expected) discrepancy in the single-dimensional case, when the arrival sequence is equally located along the unit interval.}
\label{fig:E_p=1}
\end{figure}
Next, we focus on Figure~\ref{fig:E_p=1}, the simulation results in the second setup.
The discrepancy of the matched-pair design is always close to a constant $0.5$.
This is because the matched-pair design always matches two adjacent users into one pair, and there are $T/2$ many such pairs, each with a length of $1/(T-1)$.
The expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design increases with respect to $T$, which is consistent with the results in Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1}.
Similar to the first setup, the expected discrepancies of the pigeonhole designs are much smaller than the completely randomized design.
But the performance of the pigeonhole design fluctuates as $T$ increases.
This is because the parity (odd or even) of the number of users that fall into the same pigeonhole changes due to rounding.
When odd, it generates cross-pigeonhole discrepancies.
Note also that although the arrival sequence in this setup is not the worst case for the pigeonhole design (because of the randomness of pigeonhole design, it is hard to exactly find one worst case), this arrival sequence does make the expected discrepancy of the pigeonhole design larger than in the first setup.
This is because the pigeonhole design performs much better if there are many users whose covariates are close to each other and belong to the same pigeonhole.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{U_p=1.png}
\caption{(Expected) discrepancy in the single-dimensional case, when the arrival sequence is uniformly and randomly generated.}
\label{fig:U_p=1}
\end{figure}
Finally, we focus on Figure~\ref{fig:U_p=1}, the simulation results in the third setup.
The discrepancy of the matched-pair design does not increase as $T$ increases, and is close to a constant $0.5$.
Since a uniformly random arrival sequence (as in the third setup) is similar to a sequence that is deterministically equally located (as in the second setup), the performance of the matched-pair design in the third setup is similar to the performance in the second setup, especially when $T$ is large.
The expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design increases with respect to $T$, which is consistent with the results in Theorem~\ref{thm:CompletelyRandomzied:p=1}.
For similar reasons, the performance of the completely randomized design in the third setup is similar to the performance in the second setup.
Moving on to the pigeonhole design, the expected discrepancies of the pigeonhole designs are much smaller than in the completely randomized design.
But unlike in the second setup, the expected discrepancy smoothly increases with respect to $T$.
This is because the sequence is random, so the parity (odd or even) of the number of users that fall into the same pigeonhole is less affected by rounding issues.
\subsection{Simulation Results in the Multi-Dimensional Case}
\label{sec:simu:p>=2}
\subsubsection{Simulation Setup.}
\label{sec:simu:p>=2:setup}
In the multi-dimensional case, we consider only one setup when the arrival sequence is randomly generated.
All the user covariates are uniformly, independently and identically generated from the unit hypercube, i.e., $x_t \sim U[0,1]^p, \forall t \in [T]$.
We generate one instance of the arrival sequence from the uniform distribution.
We run multiple simulations under different values of $p \in \{2, 5, 20\}$ to test the performance when the dimension increases.
Similar to Section~\ref{sec:simu:p=1}, we find the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design and the pigeonhole design by repeating each of them $1000$ times.
Note that, even though the pigeonhole parameters as suggested by Algorithm~\ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p>=2} are designed for the adversarial arrival sequence, they still perform well when the arrival sequence is randomly generated.
As we will show in the subsequent section, the pigeonhole design parameterized in this way still outperforms the completely randomized design.
However, the performance gaps become smaller as the dimension $p$ increases.
\subsubsection{Simulation Results.}
The simulation results under different dimensions are given in Figures~\ref{fig:U_p=2} --~\ref{fig:U_p=20}.
In these figures, the solid black curve stands for the discrepancy of the matched-pair design;
the solid red curve stands for the expected discrepancy of the completely randomized design;
the solid green curve stands for the expected discrepancy of the pigeonhole design as described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p>=2}, using a balancing parameter;
the dashed green curve stands for the expected discrepancy of the pigeonhole design without a balancing parameter, i.e., $\beta = 0$.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{2022-01-13U_p=2.png}
\caption{(Expected) discrepancy in the multi-dimensional case $p=2$, when the arrival sequence is uniformly and randomly generated.}
\label{fig:U_p=2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{2022-01-13U_p=5.png}
\caption{(Expected) discrepancy in the multi-dimensional case $p=5$, when the arrival sequence is uniformly and randomly generated.}
\label{fig:U_p=5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{2022-01-14U_p=20.png}
\caption{(Expected) discrepancy in the multi-dimensional case $p=20$, when the arrival sequence is uniformly and randomly generated.}
\label{fig:U_p=20}
\end{figure}
In the multi-dimensional case, in order to find the minimum weight perfect matching for the matched-pair design, we solve problem \eqref{eqn:SmallestDiscrepancy} in Gurobi 9.1. by implementing the formulation of \eqref{eqn:OptimalNonBipartiteMatching}.
This formulation has been discussed by \citet{derigs1988solving}, where the author proposed shortest path based heuristics to solve the problem.
For any two distinct indices $t < t' \in [T]$, let $y_{t,t'}$ be a binary decision variable that takes value $1$ if users $t$ and $t'$ are matched.
There are a total of $\frac{T(T-1)}{2}$ many decision variables.
Recall that $d_{t, t'} = \left\| \bm{x}_{t} - \bm{x}_{t'} \right\|_2$ is the discrepancy between users $t$ and $t'$.
Then we solve
\begin{align}
\min_{\bm{y}} \ & \ \sum_{t = 1}^{T-1} \sum_{t' = t+1}^T d_{t,t'} y_{t,t'} \label{eqn:OptimalNonBipartiteMatching} \\
s.t. \ & \ \sum_{t' < t} y_{t',t} + \sum_{t' > t} y_{t,t'} = 1, \forall \ t \in [T], \nonumber \\
& \ y_{t,t'} \in \{0,1\}, \forall \ t < t' \in [T]. \nonumber
\end{align}
The completely randomized design and the pigeonhole design can be evaluated easily using the formulation in \eqref{eqn:Matching}.
From Figures~\ref{fig:U_p=2} --~\ref{fig:U_p=20}, we see that the matched-pair design, the completely randomized design, and the two pigeonhole designs all increase as $T$ increases.
The pigeonhole designs outperform the completely randomized design.
It seems that the performance of the matched-pair design and the pigeonhole designs increase in the same order, which is consistent with Theorems~\ref{thm:MatchedPair:p>=2} and~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2}.
By comparing across Figures~\ref{fig:U_p=2} --~\ref{fig:U_p=20}, we see that as $p$ increases, the performance gaps decrease.
When $p = 20$, the gap between the completely randomized design and the pigeonhole design becomes negligible.
This suggests that matching in the dimension is challenging.
However, in cases when there are many binary covariates, the discrepancy is significantly reduced, and the pigeonhole design significantly outperforms the completely randomized design when there are many such binary covariates.
We will discuss this issue in Section~\ref{sec:PracticalSuggestions}.
\section{Practical Suggestions, Limitations, and Future Research Directions}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
In this paper, we have considered the problem of designing online experiments, when experimental units with heterogeneous covariate information arrive sequentially and must be immediately assigned into either the control or the treatment group, with an objective of minimizing the total discrepancy.
To solve this problem, we have proposed the use of the pigeonhole design.
In a pigeonhole design, we first partition the covariate space into smaller spaces, and then balance the number of control and treatment units when they arrive at the same pigeonhole.
In both single-dimensional and multi-dimensional cases, we have shown strong theoretical performance of the pigeonhole design, compared to the completely randomized design as a benchmark.
In the multi-dimensional case, the theoretical performance of the pigeonhole design even closely matches that of the match-pair design.
We have run simulation results to demonstrate the strength of the pigeonhole design.
Below we conclude by providing practical suggestions for using a pigeonhole design, and by pointing out three limitations of our paper that suggest further research directions.
\subsection{Practical Suggestions}
\label{sec:PracticalSuggestions}
When a firm decides to use a pigeonhole design, they have to make multiple decisions to ensure that the results are reliable.
First, the firm must determine the possible user covariates using substantive domain knowledge, which adequately captures the impact on the objective of evaluation; see \cite{kohavi2020trustworthy} for a discussion of metric definition strategies.
Second, after the covariates are determined, the firm must use in-depth knowledge of the covariate information to describe the covariates as binary, categorical, or continuous.
Categorical covariates can be represented using multiple binary covariates when the number of categories is small; can be treated as continuous covariates when the categories are granular enough.
For the binary covariates, the pigeonhole design partitions the pigeonholes differently on these dimensions.
Suppose among the $p$ dimensions, there are $q < p$ dimensions whose covariates are binary.
Then, on the binary dimensions, we partition the covariate space to be $[0,\frac{1}{2}] \cup (\frac{1}{2},1]$.
Recall that $c>1$.
For the remaining $(p-q)$ dimensions, we uniformly partition the covariate space into smaller (hyper)cubes with edge length $(c\cdot 2^{q})^{\frac{1}{p-q}}T^{-\frac{1}{p-q}}$.
Under such a partition, the expected discrepancy of the pigeonhole design is $T^{\frac{p-q-1}{p-q}}$, which corresponds to the results in Theorem~\ref{thm:Pigeonhole:p>=2} when $(p-q)$ is the number of continuous covariates.
In other words, the existence of a number of binary covariates does not hurt the performance of the pigeonhole design.
We recommend that whenever possible, the firm distinguishes binary covariates and continuous covariates.
\subsection{Limitations and Future Research Directions}
\label{sec:Limitations}
We point out three limitations of our paper.
First, we make the control group and treatment group to have the same number of users.
Although this is a widely adopted assumption to make, especially in the literature of matching without replacement, this is not desirable in many applications when treatment assignments are costly.
It would require a new objective function, e.g., minimizing the total discrepancy plus variance \citep{bertsimas2015power}, or some more modeling assumptions on the user covariate information \citep{bhat2020near}.
We defer this to future research.
Second, it remains unknown if the balancing parameter $\beta$ is necessary in the pigeonhole design.
In the numerical simulations, we find that even if we delete line $15-20$ in Algorithm \ref{alg:Pigeonhole:p>=2} and change line $3$ to run a for loop from $t=1$ to $T$, the discrepancy is also in the same order, and in many cases even slightly improving the performance when there is a balancing parameter.
In other words, if we do not leverage the balancing periods but instead balance the experiment whenever the control or the treatment group reaches a size of $T/2$, the pigeonhole design still achieves a comparable performance.
Therefore, whether a balancing parameter is necessary remains to be answered.
Third, this paper considers the user covariates to be adversarially chosen.
It remains unknown if there will be better designs of experiments when user covariates are drawn from a known random distribution that can be estimated from historical data.
The associated pigeonholes would be different under such an user arrival model.
\bibliographystyle{informs2014}
|
\section{Alternative proof for EXPTIME-completeness of reachability in Boolean programs}
\label{part:exptime_complete}
\citet{DBLP:conf/tacas/GodefroidY13} claim EXPTIME-hardness for reachability in Boolean programs (\autoref{thm:exptime_complete}), but they refer the reader to a full version of their article, which is available only by request to the authors. We thus provide, in the next subsections, an independent proof of EXPTIME-hardness for Boolean programs.
Note that EXPTIME membership is easily established. A Boolean register machine with procedure calls may be expanded into an equivalent pushdown system,
at the cost of exponential blowup: just consider one control location in the pushdown automaton for each control location in the Boolean register machine and each of the (exponentially many) vector of values of the registers;
then apply \autoref{th:reachability_pushdown_polynomial}.
\subsection{Succinctly represented problems}
We have seen how a reachability problem involving Boolean registers can be expanded into a reachability problem not involving registers, that is, a reachability problem in an oriented graph at the cost of exponential blowup.
This is an instance of a more general pattern relating the complexity of problems when they are represented as explicit lists of transitions versus ``implicit'' list of transitions, for instance involving registers, in the same way that a small Boolean formula is a succinct representation for a much larger explicit truth table.
\citet{DBLP:journals/iandc/GalperinW83} studied the complexity of various problems on graphs when these graphs are \emph{succinctly} represented, by which they mean that graph vertices are labeled by a vector of bits, and the adjacency relation is defined by a Boolean circuit taking as inputs two vectors of bits and answering one bit: whether the vertices labeled by these two vectors are connected.
\citet{DBLP:journals/iandc/PapadimitriouY86} generalized their results:
a NP-complete problem (respectively, P-complete; NLOGSPACE-complete) problem on explicitly represented graphs,
under some fairly permissive condition on the reduction used for showing this completeness property,
becomes NEXPTIME-complete (respectively, EXPTIME-complete; PSPACE-complete) on succinctly represented graphs.
A well-known example of this phenomenon is the reachability problem: given two vertices in a directed graph, say whether one is reachable from another---it is NLOGSPACE-complete on explicitly represented graphs, and becomes PSPACE-complete on succinctly represented graphs, where it is also known as the reachability problem in implicit-state model checking.
The reachability problem for explicitly represented pushdown systems, which are very close to Boolean register machines with procedure calls but no registers, is known to be P-complete.
We can thus hope that it becomes EXPTIME-complete for succinctly represented pushdown systems; however we cannot use \citeauthor{DBLP:journals/iandc/PapadimitriouY86}' results because they pertain solely to graph problems.
We can however follow the same general approach as their hardness proof: analyze the reduction from the acceptance problem for polynomial-time Turing machines to the problem for explicitly represented pushdown systems, which are close to Boolean programs without registers, and construct a reduction from the acceptance problem for exponential-time Turing machines to the problem for succinctly represented pushdown systems, which are close to Boolean programs with registers.
It takes four reduction steps to show that the reachability problem for Boolean register machines with procedure calls and $0$ registers is P-hard:
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item from the acceptance problem for polynomial-time Turing machines to the circuit value problem (CVP) \cite[4.2]{Greenlaw_Hoover_Ruzzo_P_completeness}
\item from the CVP to the monotone circuit value problem \cite[A.1.3]{Greenlaw_Hoover_Ruzzo_P_completeness}
\item from the monotone CVP to the emptiness problem for context-free grammars \cite[A.7.2]{Greenlaw_Hoover_Ruzzo_P_completeness}
\item from emptiness in context-free grammars to reachability in Boolean programs with local variables.
\end{inparaenum}
\subsection{Reductions for explicit descriptions}
The circuit value problem (CVP) is: given a Boolean circuit, using logical gates $\land$, $\lor$, $\neg$, with known inputs, compute its output.
The first reduction step \citep{10.1145/990518.990519} \citep[Th.~4.2.2]{Greenlaw_Hoover_Ruzzo_P_completeness} encodes the bounded deterministic execution of a Turing machine into a circuit in much the same way that one encodes the bounded nondeterministic execution of a Turing machine into a Boolean satisfiability problem: the value $c_{i,j}$ of each cell at each position $j$ in the tape at each point in time $i > 0$ is defined as a function of $c_{i-1,j-1}$, $c_{i-1,j}$ and $c_{i+1,j}$, with a different value whether the read/write head is on the cell; then these values $c_{i,j}$ are encoded into a vector of bits (of size logarithmic in the size of the tape alphabet and the number of control states), and one then obtains a circuit.
It then suffices to add initialization for values $c_{0,j}$ of the cells at time $0$, and a test for a reachability condition.
The monotone CVP is: given a Boolean circuit, using logical gates $\land$ and $\lor$ with known inputs, compute its output.
Obviously it is a subset of the general CVP.
A general CVP can be encoded into a monotone CVP by using ``dual rail encoding'' \citep{10.1145/1008354.1008356} \citep[Th.~6.2.2]{Greenlaw_Hoover_Ruzzo_P_completeness}: each wire $b$ in the original circuit is encoded into two wires $b_0$ and $b_1$, where $b_0$ is $1$ if $b$ is $0$, $0$ if $b$ is $1$, and
$b_1$ is $1$ if $b$ is $1$, $0$ if $b$ is $0$.
It is possible to simulate each $\land$ or $\lor$ gate of the original circuit by two monotone gates; $\neg$ gates map to swapping of two wires.
Let us now encode the monotone CVP into the context-free grammar emptiness problem \citep[A.7.2, crediting Martin Tompa]{Greenlaw_Hoover_Ruzzo_P_completeness}.
To each wire $w_i$ in the circuit one associates a nonterminal $\nu_i$.
If $w_i$ is initialized to $1$, then we add a rule $\nu_i \rightarrow \varepsilon$ (meaning that $\nu_i$ accepts the empty word; equivalently one may introduce a nonterminal $a$ and have a rule $\nu_i \rightarrow a$).
We add no rule if $w_i$ is initialized to $0$.
If $w_i$ is defined as $w_j \lor w_k$, then we add two rules $\nu_i \rightarrow \nu_j$ and $\nu_i \rightarrow \nu_k$.
If $w_i$ is defined as $w_j \land w_k$, then we add a rule $\nu_i \rightarrow \nu_j \nu_k$.
The nonterminal $\nu_1$ to test for emptiness is the one that corresponds to the output wire of the monotone circuit.
Finally, let us encode the context-free grammar emptiness problem into the reachability problem for a Boolean program without registers.
This is the well-known relationship between context-free grammars and procedure calls in structured programs.
Each nonterminal in the grammar becomes a procedure.
A derivation rule $L \rightarrow R_1 \dots R_n$ becomes a sequence of calls to th procedures corresponding to nonterminals $R_1$ to $R_n$, starting in the initial control location of the procedure associated with nonterminal $L$ and ending in the final location of that procedure.
\subsection{Lifting reductions to implicitly represented problems}
In the above reductions, circuits are described as a list of gates.
The first reduction step, from Turing machines to CVP, is however highly repetitive: the same construction is applied for all $i > 0$ and $j$.
We thus use the notion of \emph{succinctly described circuit} \cite[ch.~20]{Papadimitriou_complexity}:
wires $w_i$ are identified by their index $i$ written in binary,
and gates in the succinctly represented circuits are introduced by rules of the form
$C(i,j,k): w_i = w_j \land w_k$,
$C(i,j,k): w_i = w_j \lor w_k$,
$C(i,j): w_i = \neg w_j$,
where $C$ is a condition over the binary encodings of indices $i,j,k$, itself expressed as a Boolean circuit, that constrains for which indices the gate is created.
The notion of \emph{succinctly described monotone circuit} is defined similarly.
The encodings described above for turning a reachability problem on the execution of a polynomially bounded Turing machine into an explicitly described CVP of polynomial size, then into an explicitly described monotone CVP of polynomial size, can be applied to turn a reachability problem on the execution of an exponentially bounded Turing machine into a succinctly described CVP of polynomial size, then into a succinctly described monotone CVP of polynomial size.%
\footnote{Succinctly described circuits, and the EXPTIME-completeness of their value problem, have long been known~\cite[Ch.~20]{Papadimitriou_complexity}. We however recall how to establish this result for the sake of completeness and easier understanding of how we turn successive reductions for P-completeness for explicitly described problems into successive reductions for EXPTIME-completeness on succinctly described problems.}
We define similarly the notion of a succinctly represented context-free grammar.
A succinct rule $C(i,j,k): \nu_i \rightarrow \nu_j \nu_k$ (for arity $2$; other arities are similarly defined), where $C$ is a Boolean circuit over the binary encodings of $i$, $j$ and $k$, encodes a family of rules $\nu_i \rightarrow \nu_j \nu_k$ for all $i,j,k$ such that $C(i,j,k)$ returns $1$.
As with explicitly described monotone CVPs, a succinctly described monotone CVP can be transformed into a succinctly represented context-free grammar emptiness problem.
The variables $i$, $j$ etc. are binary encodings. For the final reduction to Boolean register machines with procedures, we put these Boolean encodings into the local variables of the Boolean programs.
\section{Introduction}
Most processors, except the smallest ones, implement some form of \emph{caching}: fast memory close to the CPU core retains frequently accessed code and data, to avoid slow access to external memory.
A hardware cache is split into \emph{cache sets}, and a given memory block may be stored only in a certain cache set, depending on its address.
A cache set contains $K$ blocks, where $K$ is known as the \emph{associativity} or \emph{number of ways}.
When a new block is loaded into a cache set, a \emph{cache replacement policy} determines which block is to be evicted to make room for it.
The most intuitive cache replacement policy is to evict the \emph{least recently used} (LRU) block. However, due to difficulties in implementing that policy efficiently in hardware, other policies with supposedly ``close'' behavior (PLRU, NMRU) are often used instead; sometimes the simple \emph{first-in first-out} (FIFO) policy is used.
Loading data from main memory, or from a more distant level of cache, may take $6$ to $100$ times the time taken for loading it from a close cache.
Not only does it directly affect execution time, it also results, especially in processors with out-of-order execution, in different microarchitectural execution patterns, themselves having an impact on execution time.
Static analysis tools used to compute bounds on worst-case execution time%
\footnote{Absint's aiT is one such tool, used in industries such as avionics, automotive, energy and space. \url{https://www.absint.com/ait/}
Non-commercial tools include OTAWA. \url{http://www.otawa.fr/}}
thus include a static analysis for caches, meant to predict which accesses are always cache \emph{hits} (data in cache) and which are always \emph{misses} (data not in cache).%
\footnote{Static analysis tools may perform more refined analyses, such as persistence analysis, refinements according to execution paths or loop indices, etc. We do not cover these here. Our goal is to study difficulty even in the simplest, most easily understood analysis.}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=4em,->,auto]
\node (start) [diamond,draw] { };
\node (q0) [right of=start] { $v_0$ };
\node (q1) [above right of=q0] { $v_1$ };
\node (q3) [below right of=q1] { $v_3$ };
\node (q2) [below right of=q0] { $v_2$ };
\path (start) edge node {$a$} (q0);
\path (q0) edge node { $a$ } (q1);
\path (q2) edge node { $c$ } (q0);
\path (q1) edge node { $b$ } (q2);
\path (q1) edge node { $d$} (q3);
\path (q3) edge node { $e$} (q2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Original control-flow graph for two cache sets:
$\{a,e\}$ and $\{b,c,d\}$.}
\label{fig:CFG}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=4em,->,auto]
\node (start) [draw,diamond] { };
\node (q0) [right of=start] { $v_0$ };
\node (q1) [above right of=q0] { $v_1$ };
\node (q3) [below right of=q1] { $v_3$ };
\node (q2) [below right of=q0] { $v_2$ };
\path (start) edge node {$a$} (q0);
\path (q0) edge node { $a$ } (q1);
\path (q2) edge node { $\varepsilon$ } (q0);
\path (q1) edge node { $\varepsilon$ } (q2);
\path (q1) edge node { $\varepsilon$} (q3);
\path (q3) edge node { $e$} (q2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The same control-flow graph sliced for cache set $\{a,e\}$.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Slicing of a control-flow graph according to a cache set, from \citep{Touzeau:2019:FEA:3302515.3290367}. $a,b,c,d,e$ are identifiers of memory blocks. $\varepsilon$ means that no cache access takes place along that edge.}
\label{fig:CFG-slicing}
\end{figure}
For almost all policies (including LRU, FIFO, PLRU and NMRU) found in processors, analysis for exist-hit and exist-miss properties may be performed on each cache set separately, by slicing the program according to the cache set (\autoref{fig:CFG-slicing}), without loss of precision (the only policy for which this is false is pseudo-round-robin, which we do not consider here)~\citep{Touzeau:2019:FEA:3302515.3290367}.%
\footnote{This could be incorrect if we were considering complex microarchitectures with cache prefetching etc., since the availability of data in a cache set may result in loads being made or not made to other cache sets. Again, we consider a simple setting here. Separate analysis may however be used for safe overapproximations of the behavior of the system.}
We shall thus consider in this paper, without loss of generality, that the cache consists of a single cache set.
Consider the simple setting where a program is defined by a control-flow graph with edges adorned by identifiers of memory blocks ($a$, $b$\dots) meaning that that block is read on that edge (\autoref{fig:CFG-slicing})---we consider the simple case of read-only caches; caches with writes add some complications.
Equivalently, we can see it as a finite automaton that accepts a sequence of block accesses.
Two interesting decision problems are: at one control vertex, is block $x$ always in the cache (\emph{always hit}), whatever the path taken from the entry point of the graph, assuming an initially empty cache? Is it always not in cache (\emph{always miss})?
These two problems are often grouped into one: classify blocks into ``always hit'', ``always miss'', and ``unknown''.
Equivalently, by negating the problems, one may consider \emph{exist hit}: ``does there exist a path so that the block is in the cache?''; \emph{exist miss}: ``does there exist a path so that the block is not in the cache?''.
Similar problems exist for an initially unknown cache, with quantification over all paths and over all initial cache contents.
All these problems are decidable, if only by enumerating all reachable cache states (there is a finite number of cache blocks in the problem).
Approximate static analyses affix the ``unknown'' classification to blocks that may actually be ``always hit'' or ``always miss'', but the analysis is too coarse to notice it.
In contrast, an exact static analysis affixes the ``unknown'' classification only to blocks whose cache status is \emph{definitely unknown}: there exist different paths (or, if applicable, different initial cache contents) such that the block is in the cache for one and out of the cache for another.
For complexity-theoretic results, we only consider exact analyses.%
\footnote{A safe, constant-time, approximate static analysis is to answer ``unknown'' to any request. In order to study complexity, some form of minimal precision must be imposed. It is unclear what metric should be used for this; thus our choice to require exactness.}
By encoding the behavior of the cache into the program itself, seeing memory accesses as actions on the cache contents seen as a vector of bits, one turns the exact analysis ``exist hit'' and ``exist miss'' problems into model-checking reachability problems, solvable in PSPACE. If the control-flow graph is acyclic, similar reasoning leads to membership in NP.
{\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}}, considering the LRU, PLRU, NMRU and FIFO policies, showed, in addition, that:
\begin{itemize}
\item for all these policies (for NMRU, only with an initially empty cache), the analysis problems for acyclic control-flow graphs are NP-hard;
\item for all these policies except LRU (for NMRU, only with an initially empty cache), the analysis problems for general control-flow graphs are PSPACE-hard;
\item for LRU, all analysis problems (regardless of initial state or acyclicity) are NP-complete.
\end{itemize}
To summarize, for all policies, the analysis problems are NP-complete for acyclic control-flow graphs, but there is a gap between LRU (NP-complete) and the others (PSPACE-complete) for general control-flow graphs.
{\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}} however left to future work the question of adding procedure calls (pushdown control) to the setting.
\begin{figure}\hfil
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=4em,->,auto]
\node (A0) { $A_0$ };
\node (A1) [below of=A0] { $A_1$ };
\node (A2) [below left of=A1] { $A_2$ };
\node (A3) [below right of=A1] { $A_3$ };
\node (A4) [below right of=A2] { $A_4$ };
\node (A5) [below of=A4] { $A_5$ };
\path (A0) edge node { $a$ } (A1);
\path (A1) edge node [above left] { $b$ } (A2);
\path (A1) edge node { $c$ } (A3);
\path (A2) edge node [below left] { $d$ } (A4);
\path (A3) edge node { call~$B$ } (A4);
\path (A4) edge node { $e$ } (A5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Procedure $A$}
\end{subfigure}\hfil
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=4em,->,auto]
\node (B0) { $B_0$ };
\node (B1) [below of=A0] { $B_1$ };
\node (B2) [below left of=A1] { $B_2$ };
\node (B3) [below right of=A1] { $B_3$ };
\node (B4) [below right of=A2] { $B_4$ };
\node (B5) [below of=A4] { $B_5$ };
\path (B0) edge node { $c$ } (B1);
\path (B1) edge node [above left] { $d$ } (B2);
\path (B1) edge node { $e$ } (B3);
\path (B2) edge node [below left] { $a$ } (B4);
\path (B3) edge node { call~$B$ } (B4);
\path (B4) edge node { $b$ } (B5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Procedure $B$}
\end{subfigure}\hfil
\caption{Two procedures, including a recursive one. Running procedure $A$ may yield traces $abde$, $accdabe$, $accecdabbe$\dots}
\label{fig:procedures}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we show that \emph{the gap widens when procedure calls are added}: the decision problems remain NP-complete for LRU for programs with procedure calls (\autoref{fig:procedures}), but become EXPTIME-complete for other policies (for NMRU, EXPTIME hardness is proved only with an initially empty cache).%
\footnote{For complexity theoretical purposes, we assume that the input is the program to be analyzed, as a set of procedures consisting of explicitly represented control-flow graphs labeled with array accesses, preceded by the associativity $K$ of the cache written in unary notation.}
For the LRU policy, we derive backtracking algorithms that solve the exist-miss and exist-hit problems from the arguments of the proof of membership in NP.
These algorithms may be costly, but we give an approach for using them only when some cheaper analyses have failed to conclude on whether an access is always a hit, always a miss, or has ``definitely unknown'' status.
As a secondary contribution, we provide an alternate proof (\autoref{part:exptime_complete}) that reachability in Boolean programs with procedure calls is EXPTIME-complete, a fact already shown by \citet{DBLP:conf/tacas/GodefroidY13}.
\section{Pushdown systems}
At several points, we shall use classical results on reachability in pushdown systems, which are used to model programs without variables (only control locations) but with procedure calls. The set of cache blocks will be the alphabet.
A \emph{pushdown system} is a quadruple $(Q,\Sigma,\Gamma,\Delta)$ where $Q$ is a finite set of \emph{control locations}, $\Sigma$ is a finite \emph{word alphabet}, $\Gamma$ is a finite \emph{stack alphabet},
$\Delta \subseteq (Q \times \Gamma) \times \big(\Sigma \cup \{ \varepsilon \}\big) \times (Q \times \Gamma^*)$ is a finite set of \emph{transition rules}.
A pair $(q,w) \in Q \times \Gamma$ is a \emph{configuration} of the automaton.
If $\big((q,\gamma),\sigma,(q',w)\big) \in \Delta$, then we write
$\pushtrans{(q,\gamma)}{\sigma}{(q',w)}$.%
\footnote{This is the same definition as \cite{DBLP:conf/cav/EsparzaHRS00} except we keep a word alphabet.}
We write $\pushtransstar{c_0}{\sigma_1 \dots \sigma_n}{c_n}$ for
$\exists c_1,\dots,c_{n-1}~\pushtrans{c_0}{\sigma_1}{c_1} \land \dots \land
\pushtrans{c_{n-1}}{\sigma_n}{c_n}$.
To define what it means for a word to be \emph{accepted} by a pushdown system, we add to the quadruple two more items: $q_0$ an \emph{initial state}, $Q_f \subseteq Q$ a set of \emph{final states}.
A word $w=w_1\dots w_n$ is \emph{accepted with arbitrary final stack} if there is a final state $q_f \in Q_f$, a final stack $\gamma_f$, a sequence of configurations $c_0,\dots,c_n$ and transitions $\pushtrans{c_0}{w_1}{c_1}$, \dots, $\pushtrans{c_{n-1}}{w_n}{c_n}$ such that $c_0=(q_0,\varepsilon)$ and $c_f=(q_f,\gamma_f)$.
A configuration $(q,w)$ is a word (over $Q \cup \Gamma$) thus we talk of sets of configurations recognized by finite automata.
\cite{DBLP:conf/concur/BouajjaniEM97}, \citet[Th.~3 (respectively, 1)]{DBLP:conf/cav/EsparzaHRS00} proposed algorithms that compute, in polynomial time, finite automata that recognize the set of reachable (respectively, co-reachable) configurations from a set of configurations defined by a finite automaton.
The following classical result ensues:
\begin{theorem}\label{th:reachability_pushdown_polynomial}
There is a polynomial-time algorithm that,
given an explicitly represented pushdown system and
two regular sets $I$ and $F$ of configurations
(represented using finite automata),
checks whether there are configurations $i \in I$ and $f \in F$ and a word
$w \in \Sigma^*$ such that $\pushtransstar{i}{w}{f}$.
\end{theorem}
By ``explicitly represented'' we mean that the states and the transitions are explicitly enumerated in the input.
\section{Least recently used policy}
The least recently used policy operates as follows: a $K$-way cache ($K$ is the \emph{number of ways} or \emph{associativity}) is a list of at most $K$ distinct cache blocks. Blocks are taken from the finite set of blocks accessed by the program under analysis.
The \emph{age} of a block is its position in the list: $0$ for the most recently used block, $K-1$ for the least recently used block, and, by convention, $\infty$ for blocks not in the cache.
Depending on the situation being modeled, this list may be taken initially empty (empty initial cache) or may take any initial value (arbitrary initial cache).
When a block $x$ is accessed, if it belongs to the current cache state then it is moved to the foremost position in the list, and other blocks keep their relative order; if it does not, then it is put at the foremost position and the block of age $K-1$ is evicted (if there is such a block).
The block of age $K-1$ is the least recently used in the cache, thus the name of the policy.
For instance, for a 4-way cache containing initially $abcd$, after an access to $b$ the cache contains $bacd$, and if instead $e$ is accessed the cache then contains $eabc$.
\subsection{NP membership of the analysis problem}
\label{sec:LRU_in_NP}
The simple observation at the basis of all methods for static analysis of LRU caches \citep{Ferdinand99,Touzeau:2019:FEA:3302515.3290367,Touzeau_et_al_CAV2017} is that
on a $K$-way LRU cache, a block $a$ may be in the cache after a finite execution $e$ if and only if one of these conditions is met:
\begin{itemize}
\item if starting from an arbitrary cache state: if fewer than $K$ distinct cache blocks have been accessed along $e$;
\item regardless of the initial cache state, if fewer than $K$ distinct cache blocks have been accessed along $e$ since the last access to $a$.
\end{itemize}
In {\cite{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}}, the proofs that the exist-hit and exist-miss problems for control-flow graphs adorned with cache accesses under the LRU policy could be solved in NP relied on path compression: if there exists an execution of arbitrary length that reaches a control location $l$ with $a$ in the cache (respectively, not in the cache), then there exists one of polynomial length with the same property, which is the NP witness.
More specifically, the proof relied on the possibility to ``compress'' an execution path between two control locations into a path of polynomial length with the same set of control edges along the two paths, using classical arguments such as ``if the length of an execution exceeds the number of states, then it encounters the same state twice''.
Adding procedure calls to a finite automaton classically turns it into a pushdown system.
Unfortunately, we cannot expect the same kind of compression results with pushdown systems.
Indeed, if a finite automaton accepts a word then it accepts a word of length bounded by its number of states, but the same does not apply to pushdown systems:
consider a program composed of $n$ procedures $f_0,\dots,f_n$, with $f_i$ just making two successive calls to $f_{i+1}$ for $i < n$, and $f_n$ executing an instruction $a$, then the shortest (and only) execution of $f_0$ executes $2^n$ instructions~$a$, with an exponential number of different configurations (recall that a configuration consists in a control location and a call stack).
Instead, we will use a weaker property. The witness for the existence of an execution path of arbitrary length is the sequence of first occurrences of block accesses along that path.
The crux of the argument is that it is possible, given such a sequence, to check in polynomial time for the existence of an execution path matching that sequence.
\begin{definition}
Let $w$ be a word over an alphabet $\Sigma$, let $F(w)$ denote the sequence of first occurrences of letters in $w$.
For instance, $F(dadaaabbaaabcbbaa) = dabc$.
\end{definition}
Let us first recall the following classical result, obtained through an automaton product construct:
\begin{theorem}\label{th:pushdown_regular}
Let $A$ be a pushdown system over alphabet $\Sigma$ and let $A'$ be a finite automaton (deterministic or not) over~$\Sigma$.
Then the intersection of the languages recognized by $A$ and $A'$ is recognized by a pushdown system with control locations in the Cartesian product of the control locations of $A$ and $A'$.
\end{theorem}
We shall use variants of the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{th:pushdown_sequence_nonempty}
Let $A$ be a pushdown system over alphabet $\Sigma$.
Let $s$ be a sequence of pairwise distinct letters in $\Sigma$.
Then it is possible to check in polynomial time for the existence of a word $w$ accepted (with arbitrary final stack) by $A$ such that $F(w)=s$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This problem is equivalent to testing for the nonemptiness of the intersection of the language recognized by $A$ and the language recognized by the regular expression $Z(s) = s_1 s_1^* s_2 (s_1 | s_2)^* \dots s_n (s_1 | s_2 | \dots | s_n)^*$.
That latter language is recognized by the automaton\vspace{-2em}
\begin{equation}\label{equ:automaton}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=8em,->,auto]
\node(q0) [state,diamond] {$q_0$};
\node(q1) [state,right of=q0] { $q_1$ };
\node(q2) [state,right of=q1] { $q_2$ };
\node(qnm1) [state,right of=q2] { $q_{n-1}$ };
\node(qn) [state,accepting,right of=qnm1] { $q_n$};
\path(q0) edge node {$s_1$} (q1);
\path(q1) edge node {$s_2$} (q2);
\path(q2) edge [dotted] (qnm1);
\path(qnm1) edge node {$s_n$} (qn);
\path(q1) edge[loop] node[above] {$s_1$} (q1);
\path(q2) edge[loop] node[above] {$s_1|s_2$} (q2);
\path(qnm1) edge[loop] node [above]{$s_1|s_2|\dots|s_{n-1}$} (qnm1);
\path(qn) edge[loop] node[above] {$s_1|s_2|\dots|s_n$} (qn);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
By \autoref{th:pushdown_regular} the intersection is recognized by a pushdown system with $(n+1)|A|$ control locations where $|A|$ is the number of control locations in~$A$.
Its emptiness can be checked in polynomial time (\autoref{th:reachability_pushdown_polynomial}).
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The exist-hit and exist-miss problems can be solved in NP for both an empty initial cache and an arbitrary initial cache.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be the pushdown system defining the program to be analyzed.
A block $a$ is in the cache at a control location $q$ during an execution starting from the empty cache if and only if during this execution there is a transition over letter $a$ followed by transitions over $n < K$ pairwise distinct letters;
in other words, if there exists $s$, $|s| < K$ such that $q$ is reached by an execution of $A$ for a word matching the regular expression $?^* a Z(s)$ where $Z(s)$ is as in the proof of \autoref{th:pushdown_sequence_nonempty}, and $?$ matches any block.
This is solvable in NP by guessing $s$ and then similarly as in the proof of~\autoref{th:pushdown_sequence_nonempty}.
A block $a$ is outside the cache at a control location $q$ during an execution starting from the empty cache if and only if either this execution reaches $q$ after using only labels different from $a$, or it reaches $q$ after at least one occurrence of $a$ followed by at least $n \geq K$ pairwise distinct letters distinct from~$a$.
The first case is obtained by checking the reachability of $q$ in the restriction of $A$ to letters different from~$a$, in polynomial time (\autoref{th:reachability_pushdown_polynomial}).
The second case is obtained by guessing a sequence $s_1,\dots,s_n$ of pairwise different accesses distinct from $a$ and again using a variant of the proof of~\autoref{th:pushdown_sequence_nonempty}, where the final state of the finite automaton loops onto itself with any letter (allowing for more letters than $s_1,\dots,s_n$).
There exists an initial cache state and an execution such that $a$ is in the cache at control location $q$ if and only if there exists a sequence $s=s_1,\dots,s_n$ of distinct letters with $n < K$ such that one reaches $q$ after reading a word $w$ such that $F(w)=s$, or there exists a sequence $s=s_1,\dots,s_n$, $n < K$, and words $w_1,w_2$ such that $w_1 w_2$ leads to $q$ and $F(w_2) = a,s_1,\dots,s_n$. Both cases can be checked in NP, as in previous paragraphs.
There exists an initial cache state and an execution such that $a$ is not in the cache at control location $q$ if and only if there exists a sequence reaching $q$ by going only through letters distinct from $a$, which can be checked in polynomial time, or there exists a sequence of pairwise distinct letters also distinct from $a$ $s=s_1,\dots,s_n$, $n \geq K$, and words $w_1,w_2$ such that $w_1 w_2$ leads to $q$ and $F(w_2) = a,s_1,\dots,s_n$, which can be checked in NP, as in previous paragraphs.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The exist-hit and exist-miss problems are NP-complete for both an empty initial cache and any initial cache.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
These problems subsume the corresponding problems for finite (non pushdown) automata, which were proved to be NP-hard by~{\cite{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Backtracking algorithm}
\label{sec:backtracking}
We shall now see how to exploit the NP structure of the LRU analysis decision problem to build backtracking algorithms. The question we address is: given a program possibly consisting of multiple procedures, and a control edge $q_1 \xrightarrow{a} q_2$ labelled with an access to block $a$ within that program, answer whether this access is unreachable, always-hit, always-miss, or has ``definitely unknown'' status, for the LRU policy.
This problem has two variants depending on whether the initial cache is assumed to be empty or arbitrary.
We have seen that membership in NP is established by ``guessing'' a sequence of newly seen blocks in their order of appearance, whence a reachability problem for a pushdown system is created and checked in polynomial time.
The backtracking algorithm will explore possible sequences, and chronologically backtrack when it notices it has entered a search branch that cannot lead to reachability.
Let us begin with the ``exist-hit'' from the initial empty cache subproblem: for an access $q_1 \xrightarrow{a} q_2$ in the pushdown program, find if there is an execution such that this access is in the cache starting from an empty cache; in other words, if there is an execution from the program start to a first access to $a$, then accesses to fewer than $K$ distinct blocks, then $q_1 \xrightarrow{a} q_2$.
This is equivalent to computing the set of all configurations occurring just after accessing $a$ and reachable from the initial state, then checking if there is an execution with accesses to fewer than $K$ distinct blocks from one such configuration to control location~$q_1$.
The reachable configurations, a regular set, can be computed in polynomial time \cite{DBLP:conf/concur/BouajjaniEM97};
the question is to find the remainder of the execution, accessing a sequence $s=s_1 \dots s_n$ of fewer than $K$ distinct blocks.
For this, we conduct a backtracking search over $s$.
Similarly, the problem with arbitrary initial cache reduces to that backtracking search.
Let us now cast the results of Section~\ref{sec:LRU_in_NP} in a more effective light in order to derive a backtracking algorithm.
Consider Theorem~\ref{th:pushdown_sequence_nonempty} and its proof, which, given a sequence of letters $s$, constructs the product $P(s)$ of the finite automaton (\ref{equ:automaton}) with the pushdown system.
Remark that this product can be constructed iteratively as $s$ is extended: when a new letter is added to $s$, new states are added to the product.
Then, we compute the regular set of configurations reachable by this automaton, using the algorithm from \citet{DBLP:conf/concur/BouajjaniEM97}.
Again, if a new letter $l$ is added to $s$, and we need to compute the reachable states for the product automaton $P(sl)$ then we can retain the reachable configurations pertaining to the states already in $P(s)$ and just compute the ones for the new states.
If no reachable configurations are found in these new states, the search stops exploring $sl$ and backtracks.
If a ``winning'' state (a state with control location $q_1$ in the pushdown system) is found with those states, the search terminates.
All letters $l$ are tried, except for~$a$; the search goes recursively with prefix~$sl$.
Sequences of length greater than or equal to $K$ are not explored.
The backtracking algorithm may be modified to look for sequences that lead to the eviction of~$a$, to solve the ``exist-miss'' problem.
Let $B$ be the original pushdown system from which edges labeled $a$ are removed; we pre-compute the configurations co-reachable from $q_1$ in that pushdown system.
We then look for a block sequence $s$ such that $|s| = K$. A winning state $(p,f)$ in the product pushdown system, where $p$ is a control state in the original pushdown system and $f$ is a state of the finite automaton, is one where the set of its reachable configurations intersects with the set of configurations at $p$ co-reachable from $q_1$ in~$B$.
In other words, there is at least one configuration reachable by a sequence of distinct letters of length at least $K$, and co-reachable using transitions labeled by letters other than $a$ from $q_1$, which establishes the existence of a sequence of at least $K$ distinct letters, distinct from $a$, reaching~$q_1$.
Sequences of length greater than $K$ need not be explored.
A further improvement to both algorithms is to systematically intersect the sets of reachable configurations with the co-reachable sets of configurations from $B$, since we are interested only in configurations that can ultimately lead to~$a_1$.
\subsection{Combination with other algorithms}
\citet{Touzeau:2019:FEA:3302515.3290367} proposed using their exact analysis as a last resort when other, cheaper analyses, could not resolve the analysis problem, focusing it on the unresolved accesses. In this section, we take this approach one step further.
They proposed using as a first step an analysis tracking the possible ages of the blocks \citep{Touzeau_et_al_CAV2017}, improving upon the well-known age interval analysis proposed by~\citet{Ferdinand99}.
That age interval analysis computes, at every location and for every block $a$, an upper bound $h_a$ and a lower bound $l_a$ on the age of that block in the cache ($+\infty$ denoting a block outside the cache), whatever the execution.
This analysis can prove that some blocks are always in the cache, or outside of the cache, at a given location.
\citet{Touzeau_et_al_CAV2017} improve upon that analysis by considering, for every block $a$ and every reachable location, the set $S$ of ages for $a$ reachable by all executions at that location, and computing four bounds $l_a$, $l'_a$, $h'_a$, $h_a$ such that $l_a \leq \min S \leq l'_a$ and $h'_a \leq \max S \leq h_a$;
in other words, there is at least one execution that reaches that location with the age for $a$ at most $l'_a$ and one execution that reaches it with that age at least $h'_a$.
This may establish cheaply that the status of some blocks is ``definitely unknown'' at some locations, meaning that there exist executions for which they are in the cache and some in which they are not.
The more expensive exact analysis is called only when the age-based analyses cannot conclude that a block must be in the cache at that location, must be outside of the cache, or has cache status ``definitely unknown''.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1em and 4em, ->,auto]
\node(a0) {};
\node(a1) [right= of a0] {$a_1$};
\node(a2) [right= of a1] {$a_2$};
\node(a3) [right= of a2] {};
\node(b0) [right= 4em of a3] {};
\node(b1) [right= of b0] {$b_1$};
\node(b2) [right= of b1] {$b_2$};
\node(b3) [right= of b2] {};
\node(Pstart) [below= 3em of a3] {$P_{\mathrm{start}}$};
\node(Pend) [right= 4em of Pstart] {$P_{\mathrm{end}}$};
\path(a0) edge[very thick] (a1);
\path(a1) edge node[above]{call $P$} (a2);
\path(a2) edge (a3);
\path(b0) edge (b1);
\path(b1) edge node[above]{call $P$} (b2);
\path(b2) edge[very thick] (b3);
\path(Pstart) edge[dotted,very thick] (Pend);
\path(a1) edge[dashed,very thick] (Pstart);
\path(Pend) edge[dashed] (a2);
\path(b1) edge[dashed] (Pstart);
\path(Pend) edge[dashed,very thick] (b2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{``Flattened'' control-flow includes paths that cannot be executed in the real system. The two ``call $P$'' edges are replaced by call and return edges (dashed). The path (thick lines)
$a_1 \rightarrow P_{\mathrm{start}} \dots P_{\mathrm{end}} \rightarrow b_2$
cannot be executed on the real system, because the call and return sites do not match, but exists in the ``flattened'' system.
The ``flattened'' system thus strictly over-approximates the original behaviors.}
\label{fig:flattened}
\end{figure}
It is possible to run these analyses on programs with procedures calls by ``flattening'' the structure, abstracting these calls by replacing each edge from $l$ to $l'$ labeled with a call by one \emph{call edge} going from $l$ to the start of the called procedure, and a \emph{return edge} going from the end of that procedure back to~$l'$.
If a procedure is called only from one location, this amounts to inlining that procedure at the point of call, and does not introduce any extra abstraction.
However, if a procedure is called from multiple locations, this introduces spurious execution traces. Suppose $P$ is called from two places $a_1 \xrightarrow{\text{call~}P} a_2$ and $b_1 \xrightarrow{\text{call~}P} b_2$.
The flattened control structure allows executions $a_1 \xrightarrow{\text{call~}P} b_2$ and $b_1 \xrightarrow{\text{call~}P} a_2$, which are impossible in the original program (Fig.~\ref{fig:flattened}).
Upper and lower bounds on ages $l_a$ and $h_a$ computed on the flattened structure are sound, meaning that are valid for the original pushdown structure, but the $l'_a$ and $h'_a$ bounds, as well as the exact analysis, are not necessarily valid because they may reflect executions that exist in the flattened structure but not in the pushdown structure.
For instance, if, in the above example, a block $a$ is always in the cache when reaching $a_1$, but never in the cache when reaching $b_1$, and $P$ is such that it it neither evicts $a$ nor accesses it in both calls, then $a$ is always in the cache when reaching $a_2$ and never in the cache when reaching $b_2$.
However, in the flattened control structure, the spurious execution $a_1 \xrightarrow{\text{call~}P} b_2$ leads to $a$ in the cache at position $b_2$, and the spurious execution $b_1 \xrightarrow{\text{call~}P} a_2$ leads to $a$ out of the cache at position~$a_2$.
If a small procedure is used only a few times, it makes sense to treat it as inlined at the point of call for the purpose of analysis---either inlining it for real into the control-flow graph of the caller procedure, or descending into the call during analysis in a way that simulates inlining.
We however need to really deal with the pushdown structure when there are (possibly recursive) procedures.
We propose running first the analyses of \citet{Touzeau:2019:FEA:3302515.3290367} on the flattened structure, disregarding the results of return edges when they would be used to establish the existence of an execution.
For the interval analysis, this means taking $l'_a=+\infty$ and $h'_a=0$ when going through a return edge;
for the exact analysis on the flattened structure, this means that diagnoses ``$a$ is always in the cache at this location'' and ``$a$ is never in the cache at this location'' can be retained, but not diagnoses ``$a$ is definitely unknown as this location''.
We thus propose using the backtracking algorithm of Section~\ref{sec:backtracking} only on the cases that still have not been classified by the above approach.
\section{Presentation of other policies}
\emph{In this section, for completeness, we recall facts from {\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}}. The details of the policies are not important in our proof, since we will reuse many of their reduction arguments.}
The FIFO policy, also known as ``round-robin'', stores block according to their age, but a crucial difference is that the age is not that of the most recent access to the block, but of its entrance to the cache: in contrast to LRU, a block is not rejuvenated if it is accessed when it is already in the cache.
This allows implementing it simply using an index into a circular buffer.
For instance, if a $K$-way cache contains $abcd$ in ascending age and $b$ is accessed, the cache remains $abcd$; if $e$ is accessed, it then contains $eabc$.
FIFO however has worse practical performance than LRU \citep{Al-Zoubi:2004:PEC:986537.986601}. ``Pseudo LRU'' replacement policies, meant to do in practice what LRU does (evict blocks that were not used recently), were thus proposed, in particular \citep{Al-Zoubi:2004:PEC:986537.986601,Reineke_PhD}:
\begin{itemize}
\item one based on a tree of direction bits leading to cache lines, named ``Tree PLRU'', ``PLRU-t'', or simply, as in this paper, ``PLRU'';
\item one based of ``most recently used'' bits, named ``PLRU-m'', ``MRU'' or, as in this paper, ``NMRU'' \citep{MRU_patent}.
\end{itemize}
Pseudo-LRU policies yield comparable practical performance to LRU \citep{Al-Zoubi:2004:PEC:986537.986601}, but they are very different from the point of view of static analysis.
For instance, a PLRU cache may, with a specifically concocted cache access pattern, indefinitely retain some data that was used only once at the beginning of execution and is never accessed again \citep{DBLP:journals/pieee/HeckmannLTW03}, which of course cannot happen with LRU.
This results in domino effects: the cache behavior of a loop body may be indefinitely affected by the cache contents before the loop~\citep{berg:OASIcs:2006:672}.
All of this makes the static analysis of programs over PLRU caches difficult; there are no known precise and fast analyses for this policy and for NMRU.
\paragraph{PLRU}
The cache lines of a PLRU cache, which may contain cached blocks, are arranged as the leaves of a full binary tree --- thus the number of ways $K$ is a power of $2$, often $4$ or~$8$.
Two lines may not contain the same block.
Each internal node of the tree has a tag bit, which is represented as an arrow pointing to the left or right branch.
The state of the cache is thus the content of the lines and the $K-1$ tag bits.
There is always a unique line such that there is a sequence of arrows from the root of the tree to the line; this is the line \emph{pointed at by the tags}.
Tags are said to be \emph{adjusted away} from a line as follows: on the path from the root of the tree to the line, tag bits are adjusted so that the arrows all point away from that path.
When a block $a$ is accessed:
\begin{itemize}
\item If the block is already in the cache, tags are adjusted away from this line.
\item If the block is not already in the cache and one or more cache lines are empty, the leftmost empty line is filled with $a$, and tags are adjusted away from this block.
\item If the block is not already in the cache and no cache line is empty, the block pointed at by the tags is evicted and replaced with $a$, and tags are adjusted away from this block.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{NMRU}
The state of an $K$-way NMRU cache is a sequence of at most $K$ memory blocks $\alpha_i$, each tagged by a $0/1$ ``MRU-bit'' $r_i$ saying whether the associated block is to be considered not recently used ($0$) or recently used ($1$),
denoted by $\alpha_1^{r_1} \dots \alpha_{K}^{r_K}$.
An access to a block in the cache, a \emph{hit}, results in the associated MRU-bit being set to~$1$. If there were already $K-1$ MRU-bits equal to $1$, then all the other MRU-bits are set to~$0$.
An access to a block $a$ not in the cache, a \emph{miss}, results in:
\begin{itemize}
\item if the cache is not full (number of blocks less than $K$), then $a^1$ is appended to the sequence
\item if the cache is full (number of blocks equal to $K$), then the leftmost (least index~$i$) block with associated MRU-bit $0$ is replaced by~$a^1$.
If there were already $K-1$ MRU-bits equal to $1$, then all the other MRU-bits are set to~$0$.
\end{itemize}
\section{EXPTIME-completeness for Boolean register machines with procedure calls}
\citet{Touzeau:2019:FEA:3302515.3290367} showed PSPACE-hardness for PLRU, NMRU and FIFO analysis problems by providing, for each policy, a way to simulate a ``Boolean register machine''.
We extend this definition with procedure calls and prove EXPTIME-completeness.
\subsection{Extension to procedure calls}\label{part:procedure_calls}
\begin{definition}
A \emph{Boolean register machine} \citep{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018} is defined by a number $r$ of registers and a directed (multi)graph with an initial node and a final node, with edges adorned by instructions of the form:
\begin{description}
\item[Guard] $v_i=b$ where $1 \leq i \leq r$ and $b \in \{\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{1}\}$,
\item[Assignment] $v_i:=b$ where $1 \leq i \leq r$ and $b \in \{\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{1}\}$.
\end{description}
The \emph{register state} is a vector of $r$ Booleans.
An edge with a guard $v_i=b$ may be taken only if the $i$-th register contains~$b$; the register state is unchanged.
The register state after the execution of an edge with an assignment $v_i:=b$ is the same as the preceding register state except that the $i$-th register now contains~$b$.
The \emph{reachability problem} for such a system is the existence of a valid execution starting in the initial node with all registers equal to $\mathbf{0}$, and leading to the final node.
\end{definition}
\citet[Lemma~20]{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018} show:
\begin{lemma}
The reachability problem for Boolean register machines is PSPACE-complete.
\end{lemma}
\citet{DBLP:conf/tacas/GodefroidY13} introduced \emph{Boolean programs} or \emph{extended recursive state machines}, which are essentially Boolean register machines except that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item they allow procedure calls
\item they have local variables
\item they allow arbitrary transition relations with arbitrary guard predicates and arbitrary commands assigning new values to registers using arbitrary Boolean functions of the current values of registers.
\end{enumerate}
They prove the following theorem, for which we give an alternative proof in \autoref{part:exptime_complete}:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:exptime_complete}
The reachability problem in Boolean programs is EXPTIME-complete.
\end{theorem}
Their result, however, establishes hardness in too generic a class of programs for our purposes: we want neither local variables nor arbitrary transitions. The following two lemmas get rid of them.
\begin{lemma}\label{rmk:no_complex_transitions}
Reachability in a Boolean program using arbitrary transitions reduces, in polynomial time, to reachability in a Boolean program only using constant guards and assignments.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
{\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}} remark that arbitrary transitions defined by Boolean functions can be simulated only using ``guard'' and ``assignment'' elementary operations, with only linear blowup.
To each subterm $s$ of the expressions in the transition we associate a register variable:
\begin{itemize}
\item variables $b_i$ or $b'_i$ are retained;
\item for the result $r$ of each operator, a fresh variable is created.
\end{itemize}
Then, the truth table of each operator is encoded: for an operator $r=\textit{op}(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ ($n \leq 2$ for conventional Boolean operators), for each of the $2^n$ possible choices of the inputs, a sequence of guards on $x_1,\dots,x_n$ keeps only that choice, followed by an assignment to $r$ of the correct value; a nondeterministic choice is made between all these inputs.
(Several choices of inputs can be collapsed into the same sequence, if possible.)
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{ex:encoding_gates}
Consider a transition from $(b_1,b_2)$ to $(b'_1,b'_2)$ defined as $(b'_1=b_1) \land (b'_2=b_1 \land \neg b_2)$.
Create a fresh variable $r$ standing for the result of $\neg b_2$.
The $b'_1:=b_1$, $r := \neg b_2$ and $b'_2 := b_1 \land r$ operations are encoded into:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1em and 4em, ->,auto]
\node(qs) {};
\node(qs0) [above right= of qs] {};
\node(qs1) [below right= of qs] {};
\node(qsr) [above right= of qs1] {};
\path(qs) edge node[above=1ex] {$b_1 = 0$} (qs0);
\path(qs0) edge node[above=1ex] {$b'_1 := 0$} (qsr);
\path(qs) edge node[below=1ex] {$b_1 = 1$} (qs1);
\path(qs1) edge node[below=1ex] {$b'_1 := 1$} (qsr);
\node(q0) [above right= of qsr] {};
\node(qfr) [below right= of q0] {};
\node(q1) [below right= of qsr] {};
\path(qsr) edge node[above=1ex] {$b_2 = 0$} (q0);
\path(q0) edge node[above=1ex] {$r := 1$} (qfr);
\path(qsr) edge node[below=1ex] {$b_2 = 1$} (q1);
\path(q1) edge node[below=1ex] {$r := 0$} (qfr);
\node(qa1) [above right= of qfr] {};
\node(qa2) [right= of qa1] {};
\node(qf) [below right= of qa2] {};
\node(qa0) [below right= 1em and 6em of qfr] {};
\path(qfr) edge node[above=1ex] {$b_1=1$} (qa1);
\path(qa1) edge node[above] {$r=1$} (qa2);
\path(qa2) edge node[above=1ex] {$b'_2:=1$} (qf);
\path(qfr) edge[bend left] node[right=2ex] {$b_1=0$} (qa0);
\path(qfr) edge node[below left] {$r=0$} (qa0);
\path(qa0) edge node[below right] {$b'_2:=0$} (qf);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation*}
\end{example}
\begin{lemma}\label{rmk:no_local_variables}
Reachability in a Boolean program using local variables and only constant guards and assignments reduces, in polynomial time, to reachability in a Boolean program only using constant guards and assignments but no local variables.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We essentially need a mechanism for saving registers on the stack at function entry and restoring them at function exit.
A procedure $P$ is turned into $R+1$ procedures $P_0, \dots, P_R$ where $R$ is the number of registers $r_{i_1},\dots,r_{i_R}$ to save.
$P_0$ is just $P$.
Calls to $P$ are replaced by calls to $P_R$.
Each procedure $P_j$ ($1 \leq j \leq R$) consists of two sequences, with nondeterministic choice between them:
\begin{itemize}
\item guard $r_{i_j} = 0$; call $P_{j-1}$; assignment $r_{i_j} := 0$;
\item guard $r_{i_j} = 1$; call $P_{j-1}$; assignment $r_{i_j} := 1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Procedure $P$ has local variables $r_5$ and $r_7$.
We create procedures $P_1$ and $P_2$ as follows:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
$P_2$ &
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)},node distance=1em and 4em, ->,auto]
\node(qs) { start };
\node(q0s) [above right=of qs] { };
\node(q0c) [right=of q0s] { $q_2^0$ };
\node(q1s) [below right=of qs] { };
\node(q1c) [right=of q1s] { $q_2^1$ };
\node(qf) [above right=of q1c] { return };
\path(qs) edge node [above left] {$r_5 = 0$ } (q0s);
\path(q0s) edge node [above] {call $P_1$} (q0c);
\path(q0c) edge node [above right] {$r_5 := 0$ } (qf);
\path(qs) edge node [below left] {$r_5 = 1$ } (q1s);
\path(q1s) edge node [above] {call $P_1$} (q1c);
\path(q1c) edge node [below right] {$r_5 := 1$ } (qf);
\end{tikzpicture} \\
\hline
$P_1$ &
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)},node distance=1em and 4em, ->,auto]
\node(qs) { start };
\node(q0s) [above right=of qs] { };
\node(q0c) [right=of q0s] { $q_1^0$ };
\node(q1s) [below right=of qs] { };
\node(q1c) [right=of q1s] { $q_1^1$ };
\node(qf) [above right=of q1c] { return };
\path(qs) edge node [above left] {$r_7 = 0$ } (q0s);
\path(q0s) edge node [above] {call $P$} (q0c);
\path(q0c) edge node [above right] {$r_7 := 0$ } (qf);
\path(qs) edge node [below left] {$r_7 = 1$ } (q1s);
\path(q1s) edge node [above] {call $P$} (q1c);
\path(q1c) edge node [below right] {$r_7 := 1$ } (qf);
\end{tikzpicture} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Essentially, we use the call stack to store the value of $r_5$ (encoded into a return control location $q_2^0$ or $q_2^1$ depending on its value), then the value of $r_7$ (encoded into a return control location $q_1^0$ or $q_1^1$ depending on its value).
\end{example}
We have gotten rid of the arbitrary transitions and the local variables.
Let us now proceed with the rest of the reductions.
{\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}} prove the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item The reachability problem on Boolean register machines with acyclic control flow graph is NP-complete.
\item The reachability problem on Boolean register machines is PSPACE-complete.
\end{itemize}
and we will similarly prove that
the reachability problem on Boolean programs where the only transitions are constant guards and constant assignments and without local variables is EXPTIME-complete.
Boolean programs where the only transitions are constant guards and constant assignments and without local variables are, equivalently, Boolean register machines with procedure calls:
\begin{definition}
A \emph{Boolean register machine with procedure calls} is defined by a number $r$ of registers, a number $P \geq 1$ of procedures, and $P$ directed (multi)graphs, called \emph{procedures}, with an initial node and a final node, with edges adorned by instructions of the form:
\begin{description}
\item[Guard] $v_i=b$ where $1 \leq i \leq r$ and $b \in \{\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{1}\}$,
\item[Assignment] $v_i:=b$ where $1 \leq i \leq r$ and $b \in \{\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{1}\}$,
\item[Call] $\textit{call}(i)$ where $1 \leq i \leq P$.
\end{description}
A \emph{control location} in such a machine is a pair $(i,j)$ where $1 \leq i \leq P$ is the index of a procedure and $j$ is a control vertex inside procedure~$i$.
The \emph{configuration} of a Boolean register machine with procedure calls consists of a control location, the state of the $r$ registers, and a call stack, a (possibly empty) sequence of control locations.
The execution starts at vertex $1$ of procedure $1$ with an empty stack and zeroes in the registers.
When a procedure $i$ with $N_i$ control locations is called, its execution starts at location $(i,1)$ and stops at location $(i,N_i)$; a location is then popped from the stack and control is transferred to it.
A \emph{reachability problem} in such a machine is whether a given control location is reachable.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
The reachability problem for Boolean register machines with procedure calls lies in EXPTIME.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\autoref{thm:exptime_complete} states membership in EXPTIME for the more general case with local variables and arbitrary transitions.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The reachability problem for Boolean register machines with procedure calls is EXPTIME-complete.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Compose the reductions of \autoref{rmk:no_complex_transitions}, \autoref{rmk:no_local_variables} and \autoref{thm:exptime_complete} to establish hardness.
\end{proof}
\section{EXPTIME-completeness for non-LRU policies}
We show EXPTIME-hardness by reducing arbitrary reachability problems on Boolean register machines with procedure calls to ``exist-hit'' and ``exist-miss'' problems.
We reuse {\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}}'s encoding of the Boolean registers into the cache state, and their transformation of Boolean register machines into control-flow graphs adorned with cache blocks, suitable for cache analysis.
This transformation retains the structure of the control-flow, replacing each instruction edge from the Boolean register machine by a ``gadget'' making cache accesses.
To deal with multiple procedures in our problems, we translate each procedure independently and retain call instructions.
\subsection{Encoding for programs without procedures}
{\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}} considered programs without procedures.
For each replacement policy, they have
\begin{itemize}
\item a notion of \emph{well-phased} cache state: the initial cache state is well-phased and all gadgets preserve well-phasedness (that is, at their boundary: they use not well-phased states inside the gadget);
\item
a notion of a \emph{well-formed} cache state \emph{corresponding} to a register state, meaning it encodes that state; only well-formed cache states are meaningful for the transformation of the reachability problems;
\item well-phased but not well-formed cache states may only lead to further well-phased but not well-formed cache states;
well-phased but not well-formed cache states appear in valid execution traces of the cache analysis problems that are not meaningful for the reduction.
\end{itemize}
Their reductions turn a Boolean register machine into a control flow graph with edges adorned with cache blocks, and thus a reachability problem into a cache analysis problem, as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item A prologue, set at the entry point of the control flow graph, suitably initializes the cache contents;
\item the main part of the control-flow graph is identical to the Boolean register machine where each instruction (guard or assignment) is replaced by a ``gadget'': a piece of control-flow graph adorned with cache accesses;
the gadget simulates on the cache state what happens to the Boolean registers;
if a guard fails, the gadget stops execution or leads to well-phased but not well-formed cache content;
\item an epilogue, leading to the exit point of the control-flow graph, filters out well-phased but not well-formed cache content and prepares the cache so that the exist-miss or exist-hit problem at the control-flow graph exit points exactly answers the reachability problem for the Boolean register machine.
\end{itemize}
The prologue is different if the initial cache is empty or has arbitrary content, and the epilogue is different for exist-miss and exist-hit problems.
Their results can be summarized as: the execution traces of the Boolean register machine reaching the final state of that machine are in a one-to-one correspondence with the execution traces of the control-flow graph that reach the exist-hit (respectively, exist-miss) condition at the end:
the execution sequence of edges in the Boolean register machine maps to a sequence of ``gadgets'' (prologue, then one gadget per edge of the Boolean register machine, then epilogue).
The control-flow graph labeled with cache blocks may have other executions, but they create not well-formed cache content and thus are ignored by the condition in the epilogue.
The encoding, the notions of well-phasedness and well-formedness, and the gadgets used, are completely different for each policy.
We refer readers to {\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}} for more details, and shall here just sketch how they encode the reachability problem for a Boolean register machine to the exist-hit problem for the FIFO cache.
The associativity of the cache is chosen as $K = 2r-1$.
The alphabet of cache blocks is
$\{ (a_{i,b})_{1 \leq i \leq r,b \in \{\mathbf{0},\mathbf{1}\}} \} \cup
\{ (e_i)_{1 \leq i \leq r} \} \cup
\{ (f_i)_{1 \leq i \leq r-1} \} \cup
\{ (g_i)_{1 \leq i \leq r-1} \}$.
The main idea is to encode the value of registers by loading the blocks $a_{i,b}$ into the cache ($a_{i,\mathbf{1}}$ is used when the register $i$ contains $1$, and $a_{i,\mathbf{0}}$ is used for~$0$).
The blocks $e_{i}$ are used to distinguished valid Boolean machine executions from executions where the machine should have halted.
Finally, blocks $f_i$ and $g_i$ are used in epilogue to turn valid states into cache hits and invalid states into cache misses.
The register state $v_1,\dots,v_{r}$ of the register machine is to be encoded as the FIFO state, acting essentially as a delay-line memory:
\begin{equation}
a_{1,v_1} e_2 a_{2,v_2} \dots e_{r} a_{r,v_{r}}.
\end{equation}
FIFO states that are not of this form are considered not well-formed.
The register machine graph is turned into a cache analysis graph as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item From the cache analysis initial node $I_f$ to the register machine former initial node $I_r$ there is a prologue, a sequence of accesses $a_{1,\mathbf{0}} e_2 \dots a_{r-1,\mathbf{0}} e_{r} a_{r,\mathbf{0}}$.
\item Each guard edge $v_i = b$ is replaced by the gadget
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=4em,->]
\node (q0) {start};
\node (q1) [right of=q0] {};
\node (qim2) [right of=q1] {};
\node (qim1) [right of=qim2] {};
\node (qi) [right of=qim1] {};
\node (qip1) [right of=qi] {};
\node (qRm1) [right of=qip1] {};
\node (qR) [right of=qRm1] {end};
\path (q0) edge [bend left] node[above] {$\phi_{1,\mathbf{0}}$} (q1);
\path (q0) edge [bend right] node[below] {$\phi_{1,\mathbf{1}}$} (q1);
\path (q1) edge [dotted, bend left] (qim2);
\path (q1) edge [dotted, bend right] (qim2);
\path (qim2) edge [bend left] node[above] {$\phi_{i-1,\mathbf{0}}$} (qim1);
\path (qim2) edge [bend right] node[below] {$\phi_{i-1,\mathbf{1}}$} (qim1);
\path (qim1) edge node[above] {$\phi_{i,b}$} (qi);
\path (qi) edge [bend left] node[above] {$\phi_{i+1,\mathbf{0}}$} (qip1);
\path (qi) edge [bend right] node[below] {$\phi_{i+1,\mathbf{1}}$} (qip1);
\path (qip1) edge [dotted, bend left] (qRm1);
\path (qip1) edge [dotted, bend right] (qRm1);
\path (qRm1) edge [bend left] node[above] {$\phi_{r,\mathbf{0}}$} (qR);
\path (qRm1) edge [bend right] node[below] {$\phi_{r,\mathbf{1}}$} (qR);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
where $\phi_{i,b}$ denotes the sequence of accesses
$a_{i,b} e_i a_{i,b}$.
\item Each assignment edge $v_i := b$ is replaced by the gadget
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=4em,->]
\node (q0) {start};
\node (q1) [right of=q0] {};
\node (qim2) [right of=q1] {};
\node (qim1) [right of=qim2] {};
\node (qi) [right of=qim1] {};
\node (qip1) [right of=qi] {};
\node (qRm1) [right of=qip1] {};
\node (qR) [right of=qRm1] {end};
\path (q0) edge [bend left] node[above] {$\phi_{1,\mathbf{0}}$} (q1);
\path (q0) edge [bend right] node[below] {$\phi_{1,\mathbf{1}}$} (q1);
\path (q1) edge [dotted, bend left] (qim2);
\path (q1) edge [dotted, bend right] (qim2);
\path (qim2) edge [bend left] node[above] {$\phi_{i-1,\mathbf{0}}$} (qim1);
\path (qim2) edge [bend right] node[below] {$\phi_{i-1,\mathbf{1}}$} (qim1);
\path (qim1) edge node[above] {$\psi_{i,b}$} (qi);
\path (qi) edge [bend left] node[above] {$\phi_{i+1,\mathbf{0}}$} (qip1);
\path (qi) edge [bend right] node[below] {$\phi_{i+1,\mathbf{1}}$} (qip1);
\path (qip1) edge [dotted, bend left] (qRm1);
\path (qip1) edge [dotted, bend right] (qRm1);
\path (qRm1) edge [bend left] node[above] {$\phi_{r,\mathbf{0}}$} (qR);
\path (qRm1) edge [bend right] node[below] {$\phi_{r,\mathbf{1}}$} (qR);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
where $\psi_{i,b}$ denotes the sequence of accesses $e_i a_{i,b} e_i$.
\item From the register machine former final node $F_r$ to a node $F_a$ there is a sequence of accesses
$\psi_{1,\mathbf{0}} \dots \psi_{r,\mathbf{0}}$,
constituting the first part of the epilogue.
\item From $F_a$ to a node $F_h$ there is a sequence of accesses
\begin{equation*}
a_{1,\mathbf{0}} g_1 e_2 f_2 a_{2,\mathbf{0}} g_2 \dots e_{r-1} f_{r-1} a_{r-1,\mathbf{0}} g_{r-1} e_{r} f_{r},
\end{equation*}
constituting the second part of the epilogue.
\item The final node is $F_f = F_h$.
\end{itemize}
The main difficulty in this reduction is that the Boolean register machines may terminate traces if a guard is not satisfied, whereas the cache problem has no guards and no way to terminate traces.
The workaround is that cache states that do not correspond to traces from the Boolean machine are irremediably marked as not well-formed: they may lead only to more not well-formed states.
The encoding is chosen such that:
\begin{lemma}
Assume starting in a well-formed FIFO state, corresponding to state $\sigma$, then any path through the gadget encoding an assignment or a guard
\begin{itemize}
\item either leads to a well-formed FIFO state, corresponding to the state $\sigma'$ obtained by executing the assignment, or $\sigma'=\sigma$ for a valid guard;
\item or leads to a not well-formed state.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
Assume starting in a not well-formed state, then any path through the gadget encoding an assignment or a guard leads to a not well-formed state.
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
Any path from a well-formed FIFO state in $I_r$ to $F_r$ in the FIFO graph
\begin{itemize}
\item either corresponds to a valid sequence of assignments and guards from the register machine from $I_r$ to $F_r$, and leads to a well-formed FIFO state corresponding to the final state of that sequence
\item or corresponds to an invalid sequence of assignments and guards from the register machine (some guards were no satisfied), and leads to a not well-formed FIFO state.
\end{itemize}
Conversely, any valid sequence of assignments and guards from the register machine maps from $I_r$ to $F_r$ transforms a well-formed FIFO state into a well-formed FIFO state, corresponding respectively to the initial and final states of that sequence.
\end{corollary}
The epilogue is chosen so that it recognizes only correct states, whose encodings produce a cache hit, while not well-formed states lead to a cache miss:
\begin{theorem}
There is an execution of the FIFO cache from $I_f$ to $F_f$ such that $a_{r,\mathbf{0}}$ is in the final cache state if and only if there is an execution of the Boolean register machine from $I_r$ to $F_r$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Extension to programs with procedure calls}
We extend our control flow graphs labeled with cache blocks with procedure calls, mimicking the procedure calls on the Boolean register machines, and we apply the same reduction: guards and assignments are replaced by gadgets, prologue and epilogue are added;
the difference is that we deal with procedure calls, which are kept intact.
The execution traces of the Boolean register machine with procedure calls reaching the final state of that machine are in a one-to-one correspondence with the execution traces of the control-flow graph with procedure calls, with control edges adorned by cache accesses, that reach the exist-miss (or exist-miss) condition at the end.
This reduction proves EXPTIME-hardness of the exist-miss and exist-hit problems for control-flow graphs with cache block accesses and procedure calls for the same cases as {\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}} proves PSPACE-hardness without procedure calls.
Membership in EXPTIME is easy to establish by reduction to Boolean programs, for which reachability properties are known to be in EXPTIME.
Indeed, a cache has an internal state, which can be encoded as a vector of bits (as in hardware): for FIFO, it consists of $K$ block labels (if there are $n$ blocks in the system, each label takes $\lceil \log_1(K-1) \rceil +1$ bits); for PLRU it consists of the block labels and the direction of the arrows in the PLRU tree; for NMRU it consists of the block labels and MRU bits.
For each of these policies, the effect of an access on the cache is implemented by a simple program using comparisons, assignments, etc.: if the block is in the cache, refresh it, if it is not, evict a block from the cache according to the policy and load the block.
This simple program can be expanded (as in the real hardware caches) into logical gates operating on the cache state, taking as input also the binary encoding of the label of the block being accessed.
The number of these logical gates is polynomial in $K$ and in the number $n$ of distinct blocks in the cache analysis problem.
Logical gates can be encoded into Boolean program guards and assignments, as in Example~\ref{ex:encoding_gates}.
Putting all together, we prove:
\begin{theorem}
The exist-miss and exist-hit problems are EXPTIME-complete for PLRU and FIFO caches for both empty cache and arbitrary cache initialization and control-flow graphs with procedure calls.
The exist-miss and exist-hit problems are EXPTIME-complete for NMRU caches for empty cache initialization and control-flow graphs with procedure calls.
\end{theorem}
\section{Conclusion and perspectives}
Our work is yet another indication that LRU caches are easier to analyze statically and thus more suitable for applications where it is important to have static cache analysis---those requiring justifiable bounds on worst-case execution time, and possibly in security and cryptography where one must not leak information through a cache side channel.
One may object that our work, as that of {\citet{Monniaux:2019:CCA:3368192.3366018}}, establishes the hardness of unrealistic cases, with unbounded associativity and convoluted access patterns.
They already addressed this objection: with bounded associativity, the problems can be polynomially expanded and solved (the exponential is in the associativity), so they cannot be distinguished using the usual complexity classes; and attempting to establish asymptotic differences in polynomial degrees also leads to difficulties.
We have proposed a backtracking algorithm, based on the NP structure, for solving the analysis problems in the case of the LRU policy, as well as an approach for using this algorithm only as a last resort when some approximations have failed to resolve certain cases.
Are there practically efficient algorithms for solving analysis problems for the other policies, for which we proved the analysis to be EXPTIME-complete? Our proof of EXPTIME membership is basically ``expand exponentially the problem into one we know how to solve in polynomial time'', which is obviously explosive. Would there be lazy approaches to this expansion, leading to tolerable execution time and space on practical instances?
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Graphons, introduced in~\cite{lovasz2006limits, borgs2008convergent} to study very large graphs, are increasingly relied upon as models for large networks.
Roughly speaking, a graphon is a symmetric, measurable function $W: [0,1]^2\to [0,1]$ which can be thought of as an infinite-dimensional adjacency matrix.
Graphons have been put to use in the statistical analysis of random graphs, where the problem of graphon identification from sample networks~\cite{wolfe2013nonparametric} and the problem of detection of clusters in networks~\cite{choi2017co}, among others, have been explored.
In parallel, graphons have appeared as models in control and game theory.
For example, in~\cite{gao2019graphon},
the authors considered infinite-dimensional linear control systems where the system ``matrices'' (more precisely, operators on $\mathrm{L}^2([0,1],\mathbb{R})$) are derived from graphons, and investigated the associated controllability properties and finite-dimensional approximations.
We also mention~\cite{gao2021linear,parise2021analysis} where the authors introduced different types of graphon games; broadly speaking, these are the games that comprise a continuum of agents and for which the relations between these agents are described by a graphon. They then proceeded to investigate, among others, the existence of Nash equilibria and properties of finite-dimensional approximations.
In the above mentioned works~\cite{gao2019graphon,gao2021linear,parise2021analysis}, graphons were treated as infinite-dimensional extensions of finite dimensional adjacency matrices. We take a different point of view in this paper: we treat graphons as stochastic models for sampling large graphs.
We follow the research line initiated in our earlier work~\cite{bcb2021h} and investigate the so-called $H$-property (see Definition~\ref{def:Hproperty} below) for graphons. More specifically, in the earlier work, we provided a set of necessary conditions for the $H$-property to hold. In the same paper, it was claimed that these necessary conditions were also essentially sufficient. In this paper, we elaborate on this sufficiency claim and prove it for the class of line-graphons, introduced formally in Subsection~\ref{ssec:linegraphon}.
The reason for the choice of the class of line graphons is twofold: firstly, graphs sampled from line graphons are common in practical situation, as they encode a simple line topology.
Secondly, the calculations for this class of graphons can be made rather explicit. Indeed, relying on the form of the necessary conditions, checking for their sufficiency in these cases will only require elementary results from the theory of Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graphs. This relative simplicity makes an intuitive understanding of these conditions easier to attain.
In an upcoming paper, we will prove the sufficiency of these two conditions in the general case, which will then rely on a more abstract approach.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: In Section~\ref{sec:Hproperty}, we review the procedure to sample random graphs from graphons and reproduce from~\cite{bcb2021h} the definition of $H$-property. Next, in Section~\ref{sec:stepgrafonobjects}, we will first introduce step-graphons and the associated key objects, namely, concentration vector, skeleton graph, and the edge polytope derived from the skeleton graph. In the same section, we will also state the conditions that are necessary or sufficient for a step-graphon to have the $H$-property.
Then, in Section~\ref{sec:casestudies}, we will establish the sufficiency claim for the class of line graphons and investigate a borderline case where neither the necessary nor the sufficient conditions are met. The paper ends with conclusions.
\section{The $H$-property}\label{sec:Hproperty}
We start this section by describing how to sample graphs from a graphon.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
{\bf Sampling procedure}: Let $\mathrm{Uni}[0,1]$ be the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. Given a graphon $W:[0,1]^2 \to [0,1]$, we sample an {\em undirected} graph $G_n=(V,E) \sim W$ on $n$ nodes from $W$ according to the following the procedure:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample $y_1,\ldots,y_n\sim \mathrm{Uni}[0,1]$ independently.
We call $y_i$ the {\em coordinate of node} $v_i\in V$.
\item For any two distinct nodes $v_i$ and $v_j$, place an edge $(v_i,v_j) \in E$ with probability $W(y_i,y_j)$.
\end{enumerate}
According to the model, the probability of having an edge between nodes $v_i$ and $v_j$ in $G_n$ is thus a Bernoulli random variable with {\em coordinate dependent} parameter $W(y_i,y_j)$. If the graphon is constant, say $W(s,t)=p$ for all $(s,t)\in [0,1]^2$, then $G_n \sim W$ is an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph with parameter~$p$; see Subsection~\ref{ssec:er} for a definition of this class of graphs.
One can thus think, in this context, of graphons as a means to allow for an inhomogeneous probability of existence of an edge.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
{\bf $H$-property:}
We next recall the $H$-property introduced in~\cite{bcb2021h}. To do so, we let $W$ be a graphon and $G_n \sim W$. We then define the so-called {\em directed} version $\vec G_n=(V,\vec E)$ of an undirected graph $G_n=(V,E)$, which is obtained by replacing every undirected edge of $G_n$ with two directed edges.
More precisely, the node set of $\vec G_n$ is the same as the one of $G_n$, and the edge set is given by
$$\vec E :=\{v_iv_j, v_jv_i \mid (v_i,v_j) \in E \},$$ where, by convention, an undirected edge between $v_i$ and $v_j$ is written as $(v_i,v_j)$ and a directed edge from node $v_i$ to node $v_j$ as $v_iv_j$.
A {\em Hamiltonian decomposition} in $\vec G_n$ is a subgraph $\vec H = (V, \vec E')$, with the same node set of $\vec G_n$ such that $\vec H$ is a disjoint union of directed cycles.
Hamiltonian decompositions appear in various guises in control problems. We just mention here that they arise in the study of structural stability of linear systems~\cite{belabbas_algorithmsparse_2013,belabbas2013sparse} and structural controllability of linear ensemble systems~\cite{chen2021sparse}. We refer to~\cite{bcb2021h} for more details.
We now define the $H$-property:
\begin{definition}[$H$-property~\cite{bcb2021h}]\label{def:Hproperty}
Let $W$ be a graphon and $G_n\sim W$.
Then, $W$ has the {\bf $H$-property} if
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}(\vec G_n \mbox{ has a Hamiltonian decomposition}) = 1.
$$
\end{definition}
It turns out that the $H$-property is essentially a ``zero-one'' property: for {\em almost all} graphons $W$, the probability of having a Hamiltonian decomposition is either $0$ or $1$ in the limit. This property is, however, not true for {\em all} graphons; we provide in Subsection~\ref{ssec:notonezero} an example showcasing this fact. We will elaborate on this property later in the next section.
\section{Step-graphons and associated objects}\label{sec:stepgrafonobjects}
\subsection{Step-graphons}\label{ssec:stepgraphons}
Following~\cite{bcb2021h}, we restrict our attention to the so-called {\em step-graphons}, defined as follows:
\begin{definition}[Step-graphon and its partition]\label{def:stepgraphon}
We call a graphon $W$ a {\bf step-graphon} if there exists an increasing sequence $0 = \sigma_0 < \sigma_1< \cdots < \sigma_q = 1$ such that $W$ is constant over each rectangle $[\sigma_{i}, \sigma_{i + 1})\times [\sigma_{j}, \sigma_{j + 1})$ for all $0\leq i, j\leq q-1$ (there are $q^2$ rectangles in total). The sequence $ \sigma = (\sigma_0,\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_q)$ is a {\bf partition for $W$}.
\end{definition}
In words, $W$ is a step-graphon if the interval $[0,1]$ can be split into subintervals $\mathcal{R}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{R}_q$ with the property that $W$ is constant over their products $\mathcal{R}_i\times \mathcal{R}_j$, which are rectangles in the plane.
Given a graph $G_n$ sampled from a step-graphon $W$ with partition sequence $\sigma$, we let $n_i(G_n)$ be the number of nodes $v_j$ of $G_n$ whose coordinates $y_j \in [\sigma_{i-1},\sigma_i)$ (see item~1 of the sampling procedure). When $G_n$ is clear from the context, we simply write $n_i$.
\subsection{Concentration vectors and skeleton graphs}\label{ssec:concenandskel}
We now present the key objects associated with a step-graphon that are needed to decide whether it has the $H$-property, namely, its concentration vector, skeleton graph, and the so-called edge polytope of the skeleton graph. These objects were introduced in~\cite{bcb2021h}.
We first have the following definition:
\begin{definition}[Concentration vector]
Let $W$ be a {step-graphon} with partition $\sigma = (\sigma_0,\ldots,\sigma_q)$.
The associated {\bf concentration vector} $x^* = (x^*_1,\ldots, x^*_q)$ has entries defined as follows:
$x^*_i := \sigma_i - \sigma_{i-1}$, for all $i = 1,\ldots, q$.
The {\bf empirical concentration vector} of a graph $G_n \sim W$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defecv}x(G_n):= \frac{1}{n}(n_1(G_n),\ldots, n_q(G_n)).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
When $G_n$ is clear from the context, we will simply use $x$ to denote the empirical concentration vector.
Observe that for $n$ fixed, $nx = (n_1,\ldots, n_q)$ is a multinomial random variable with $n$ trials and $q$ outcomes with probabilities $x^*_i$, for $1 \leq i \leq q$. From Chebyshev's inequality, we have that for any $\epsilon>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:oldlemma1}\mathbb{P}(\|x(G_n)-x^*\| > \epsilon)\leq \frac{c}{n^2\epsilon^2},
\end{equation}
where $c$ is a constant independent of~$\epsilon$ and~$n$.
We next have the following definition:
\begin{definition}[Skeleton graph]\label{def:skeleton}
Let $W$ be a step-graphon with a partition $\sigma = (\sigma_0,\ldots, \sigma_q)$. We define the undirected graph $S = (U, F)$ on $q$ nodes, called the {\bf skeleton graph} of $W$ for the partition~$\sigma$, with $U =\{u_1,\ldots, u_q\}$ and edge set $F$ as follows: there is an edge between $u_i$ and $u_j$ if and only if $W$ is non-zero over $[\sigma_{i-1},\sigma_i)\times [\sigma_{j - 1}, \sigma_j)$.
\end{definition}
Note that there is a graph homomorphism which assigns the nodes of an arbitrary $G_n = (V, E)\sim W$ to their corresponding nodes in the skeleton graph $S$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defpi}
\pi: v_j\in V \mapsto \pi(v_j) = u_i\in U,
\end{equation}
where $u_i$ is such that $\sigma_{i-1} \leq y_j < \sigma_{i}$, with $y_j$ the coordinate of $v_j$.
Let $S=(U,F)$ be a skeleton graph.
We decompose the edge set of $S$ as $F=F_0 \cup F_1$, where elements of $F_0$ are self-loops, and elements of $F_1$ are edges between distinct nodes.
Given an arbitrary ordering of its edges and self-loops, we let $Z =[z_{ij}]$ be the associated {\em incidence matrix}, defined as the $|U| \times |F|$ matrix with entries:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defZS}
z_{ij} := \frac{1}{2}
\begin{cases}
2, & \text{if } f_j\in F_0 \text{ is a loop on node } u_i, \\
1, & \text{if node } u_i \text{ is incident to } f_j\in F_1, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note that the columns of $Z$ are probability vectors. We now introduce the edge polytope:
\begin{definition}[Edge polytope~\cite{ohsugi1998normal}]\label{def:edgepolytope}
Let $S = (U,F)$ be a skeleton graph and $Z$ be the associated incidence matrix. Let $z_j$, for $1\leq j \leq |F|$, be the columns of $Z$.
The {\em edge polytope} of $S$, denoted by $\mathcal{X}(S)$, is the finitely generated convex hull:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defXS}
\mathcal{X}(S):= \operatorname{conv}\{z_j \mid j = 1,\ldots, |F|\}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
It is known~\cite{ohsugi1998normal} that if a connected $S$ has an odd cycle (i.e., a cycle of odd length including a self-loop), then the rank of $\mathcal{X}(S)$ is full, i.e., $(q-1)$. Otherwise, the rank of $\mathcal{X}(S)$ is $(q-2)$.
\subsection{Conditions for the $H$-property}\label{ssec:condHprop}
We start by introducing a set of conditions which will be critical for deciding whether or not a step-graphon $W$ has the $H$-property.
Let $\sigma$ be a partition for $W$, and let $S$ and $x^*$ be the associated skeleton graph and concentration vector.
For simplicity, we assume in the sequel that $S$ is connected (in general, one needs to apply the conditions below for each connected component of $S$). We state here without a proof that if $S$ is connected, then $G_n\sim W$ is also connected almost surely as $ n \to \infty$.
We now state the conditions:
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Condition 1:} The graph $S$ has an odd cycle.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Condition 2A:} The vector $x^*$ belongs to the edge polytope of $S$, i.e., $x^* \in \mathcal{X}(S)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Condition 2B:} The vector $x^*$ belongs to the {\em relative interior} of the edge polytope of $S$, i.e., $x^* \in \operatorname{int} \mathcal{X}(S)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
The following result has been established in~\cite{bcb2021h}:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Let $W$ be a step-graphon with $\sigma$ a partition.
Let $S$ and $x^*$ be the associated (connected) skeleton graph and concentration vector, respectively.
Let $G_n\sim W$ and $\vec G_n$ be the directed version of $G_n$. If {\em either} Condition 1 {\em or} Condition 2A is {\em not} satisfied, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonHproperty}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}(\vec G_n \mbox{ has a Hamiltonian decomposition}) = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
We also claimed in~\cite{bcb2021h} that if both Condition 1 and Condition 2B are satisfied, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hproperty}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}(\vec G_n \mbox{ has a Hamiltonian decomposition}) = 1.
\end{equation}
A proof of this fact will be provided in a future publication, but we illustrate it in Section~\ref{sec:casestudies} for the special case where $W$ is a line graphon. We also point out that the borderline case between Condition 2A and Condition 2B, i.e. when $x^* \in \mathcal{X}(S)$ but $x^* \notin \operatorname{int} \mathcal{X}(S)$, is precisely the one for which the $H$-property is {\em not} a zero-one property.
\section{The $H$-property for line graphons}\label{sec:casestudies}
In this section, we will focus on a special case, namely, step-graphons whose skeleton graphs are line graphs (with a self-loop at one of the ending nodes). To carry out analysis, we need some preliminaries about Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graphs.
\subsection{On Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi graphs}\label{ssec:er}
An Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph $R(n,p)=(V,E)$ on $n$ nodes $V = \{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ with parameter $p\in [0,1]$ is a random graph obtained as follows:
The existences of edges between pairs of distinct nodes are independent, identically distributed Bernoulli random variables with parameter $p$, i.e., $$\mathbb{P}((v_i,v_j) \in E) = p \mbox{ for all } 1 \leq i<j\leq n.$$
We first have the following elementary result:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:almostsuretriangle}
Let $R(n,p)$ be an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph with $p>0$. Then, $R(n,p)$ contains a triangle (which is a complete graph on three nodes without self-loops) almost surely as $n \to \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Denote by ${\cal K}$ the event that $R(n,p)$ contains at least one triangle, and by $\bar {\cal K}$ the complementary event that it contains {\em no} triangles; clearly, $\mathbb{P}(\bar {\cal K}) = 1 - \mathbb{P}( {\cal K})$.
Furthermore, denote by $\bar {\cal F}$ the event that $R(n,p)$ is such {\em no} triple of consecutive nodes $(v_{3i+1},v_{3i+2},v_{3i+3})$, for $0\leq i \leq \lfloor n/3 \rfloor -1$, is a triangle. Observe that if $R(n,p)$ contains no triangle, then obviously consecutive triples of nodes cannot be triangles, i.e., $\bar {\cal K} \subseteq \bar {\cal F}$.
Now, since the presence of each individual edge in $R(n,p)$ is an independent event, the probability that $(v_{3i+1},v_{3i+2},v_{3i+3})$ does not form a triangle is $(1-p^3)$. Relying again on the independence, we see that this probability is the same for every triple $(v_{3i+1},v_{3i+2},v_{3i+3})$.
Since these triples are pairwise disjoint, the events that they form triangles are also independent of each other. Thus, the probability of the event $\bar {\cal F}$ is $(1-p^3)^{\lfloor n/3 \rfloor}$. Since $p>0$, this probability vanishes as $n \to \infty$. Consequently, $\mathbb{P}(\bar {\cal K}) \leq \mathbb{P}(\bar {\cal F}) \to 0$ and $\mathbb{P}({\cal K}) \to 1$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We next recall that a {\em bipartite graph}~\cite{diestel2012graph} $B = (V, E)$ is an undirected graph whose node set $V$ admits a partition into two disjoint subsets $V_L$ and $V_R$ such that nodes in $V_L$ (resp. $V_R$) have no edge between them.
A {\em perfect matching} $P$ in a bipartite graph is a subset of its edge set so that each node is incident to {\em exactly one} edge in the subset $P$ (if a perfect matching exists, then it is necessary that $|V_L|=|V_R| = |P|$).
When $|V_L|\leq |V_R|$, we define a {\em left-perfect matching} as a subset of $|V_L|$ edges that are incident to all nodes in $V_L$ and so that each node in $V_R$ is incident to {\em at most} one edge.
Note that a perfect matching $P$ in a bipartite graph $B$ with $|V_L| = |V_R| = n$ gives rise to a Hamiltonian decomposition in $\vec B$, the directed version of $B$. Indeed, the two oppositely directed edges that replace an edge in $P$ form a two-cycle in $\vec B$. Since $P$ is a perfect matching, these two-cycles are pairwise disjoint and, moreover, cover all of the nodes in $\vec B$.
We can easily adapt the notion of Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graphs to the class of bipartite graphs. Specifically, an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random bipartite graph, denoted by $B(n,m,p)$, with $|V_L|=n$ and $|V_R|=m$, has an edge set obtained as follows:
The probability of having an edge between any node in $V_L$ and any node in $V_R$ is $p$, and the events of having such edges are independent.
We have the following fact as a corollary of Erd\H{o}s and R\'enyi~\cite[Theorem~2]{erdos1964random} and its proof is omitted due to space limitation.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:erdosperfectmatching} Let $p \in (0,1]$ be a constant and $B(n,m,p)$ be a random bipartite graph, with $n\leq m$. Then, the probability that $B(n,m,p)$ contains a left-perfect matching is one as $n \to \infty$.
\end{lemma}
The following result is then a corollary of Lemmas~\ref{lem:almostsuretriangle} and~\ref{lem:erdosperfectmatching}:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:erhamiltoniandec}
Let $R(n,p) = (V, E)$ be an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph with $p>0$. Then, $\vec R(n,p)$ contains a Hamiltonian decomposition almost surely as $n \to \infty$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Consider the following two cases for the parity of $n$:
\vspace{.1cm}
\noindent
{\em Case 1: $n$ is even.} In this case, splitting the node set of $R(n,p)$ arbitrarily into two subsets of cardinality $n/2$, we see that $R(n,p)$ contains an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random bipartite graph $B(n/2, n/2, p)$ as a subgraph on the same node set $V$. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem:erdosperfectmatching}, $R(n,p)$ contains a perfect matching $P$ almost surely as $n\to\infty$. Replacing every edge in $P$ with two oppositely directed edges, we obtain a Hamiltonian decomposition $\vec P$ in $\vec R(n,p)$.
\vspace{.1cm}
\noindent
{\em Case 2: $n$ is odd.} This case is slightly more complicated as there does not exist a perfect matching that covers all the nodes of $R(n,p)$.
To resolve the issue, we take a two-step approach: (1) By Lemma~\ref{lem:almostsuretriangle}, we know that $R(n,p)$ contains a triangle~$K_3$ as a subgraph almost surely as $n\to\infty$; (2) The subgraph $R'$ of $R(n,p)$ induced by the nodes that are {\em not} in the triangle thus has an even number $(n - 3)$ of nodes.
Using the same arguments as for Case 1, we have that $R'$ has a perfect matching $P'$ almost surely as $n\to\infty$. In this way, the triangle $K_3$ and the matching $P'$ are disjoint and, together, they cover all the nodes of $R(n,p)$. Moving from undirected to pairs of oppositely directed edges as done in case~1, we have that $\vec R(n,p)$ admits a Hamiltonian decomposition, formed by a directed triangle in $\vec K_3$ and all the two cycles in $\vec P'$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[\label{sfig1:stepgraphon}]{
\includegraphics{mainarkfig-figure0}
}
\qquad
\subfloat[\label{sfig1:skeleton}]{
\includegraphics{mainarkfig-figure1}
}
\caption{ {\em Left:} A step-graphon $W$ with the partition $\sigma=(0,0.2,0.5,0.75,1)$. {\em Right:} The associated skeleton graph $S$.}
\label{fig:linegraphon}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Line Graphons}\label{ssec:linegraphon}
We consider graphons $W$ whose skeleton graphs $S$ are line graphs with a single self-loop attached on one of the ending nodes (note that if there is no self-loop, then by Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, $W$ does not have the $H$-property). See Fig.~\ref{fig:linegraphon} for illustration. For convenience, we call such graphons {\em line graphons}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:hproplineG}
Let $W$ be a line graphon (so Condition~1 is satisfied). If Condition~2B is satisfied, then $W$ has the $H$-property.
\end{proposition}
To establish Proposition~\ref{prop:hproplineG}, we first express the incidence matrix $Z$ of the skeleton graph $S$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Zline}
Z=\frac{1}{2} \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 &\cdots & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \ddots & &\vdots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & 2\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
We need the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:xiinequalities}
If $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_q) \in \operatorname{int} \mathcal{X}(S)$, then the entries of $x$ satisfy the following inequalities:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ineqline}
\sum_{\ell = 0}^{k-1} (-1)^\ell x_{k - \ell} > 0, \quad \forall k = 1,\ldots, q.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $x\in \operatorname{int} \mathcal{X}(S)$, one can write $x = \sum^q_{\ell = 1} \alpha_\ell z_\ell$ where $z_\ell$ is the $\ell$th column of the matrix $Z$ in~\eqref{eq:Zline}, and $ 0 < \alpha_\ell < 1$, for all $\ell = 1, \ldots, q$. In particular,
$$
x_\ell = \frac{1}{2}
\begin{cases}
\alpha_1 & \mbox{if } \ell = 1, \\
\alpha_{\ell - 1} + \alpha_\ell & \mbox{if } 1 < \ell < q, \\
\alpha_{q-1} + 2\alpha_q & \mbox{if } \ell = q.
\end{cases}
$$
It then follows that for any $k = 1,\ldots, q$,
$$
\sum_{\ell = 0}^{k-1} (-1)^\ell x_{k - \ell} =
\frac{1}{2}
\begin{cases}
\alpha_k & \mbox{if } 1\leq k < q, \\
2\alpha_q & \mbox{if } k = q,
\end{cases}
$$
which is positive.
This establishes~\eqref{eq:ineqline}.
\end{proof}
We can now prove Proposition~\ref{prop:hproplineG}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:hproplineG}]
Recall that for a given $G_n\sim W$, $n_i = |\pi^{-1}(u_i)|$, where $\pi$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:defpi}. On the one hand, using~\eqref{eq:oldlemma1}, we have that $n_i/n$ converges to $x_i$ as $n \to \infty$. On the other hand, from Lemma~\ref{lem:xiinequalities}, we have the inequalities~\eqref{eq:ineqline}. These two facts imply that almost surely as $n\to \infty$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ninequalities}
\sum_{\ell = 0}^{k-1} (-1)^\ell n_{k - \ell} > 0, \quad \forall k = 1,\ldots, q.
\end{equation}
Thus, in the sequel, we can assume that the above inequalities are satisfied.
We claim that $\vec G_n$ admits a Hamiltonian decomposition almost surely as $n\to \infty$.
If the claim is true, then $W$ has the $H$-property.
We now proceed with the proof of the claim.
For convenience, let $V_i:= \pi^{-1}(u_i)$ for $i = 1,\ldots, q$.
To this end, consider the subgraph $G^{1,2}_n$ of $G_n$ induced by $V_1 \cup V_2$. Let $\sigma = (\sigma_0,\ldots,\sigma_q)$ be the partition for $W$ and $p^{1,2}$ be the value of $W$ over the rectangle $[\sigma_0,\sigma_1)\times [\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$. Note that $p^{1,2}$ is strictly positive (because otherwise there will be no edge $(u_1,u_2)$ in the skeleton graph).
By construction, it should be clear that $G^{1,2}_n$ is an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random bipartite graph $B(n_1,n_2,p^{1,2})$.
Denote by ${\cal E}^{1,2}_n$ the event that $G^{1,2}_n$ admits a left-perfect matching.
Because $n_1 < n_2$ by~\eqref{eq:ninequalities} and because $n_1\to \infty$ as $n\to \infty$ (since $n_1/n$ converges to $x_1 > 0$), we know from Lemma~\ref{lem:erdosperfectmatching} that ${\cal E}^{1,2}_n$ is true almost surely as $n\to \infty$. In the sequel, we condition on the event ${\cal E}^{1,2}_n$ and fix a left-perfect matching $P^{1,2}_n$ in $G^{1,2}_n$.
Let $G'^{1,2}_n$ be the subgraph of $G^{1,2}_n$ induced by $P^{1,2}_n$ (more precisely, induced by the nodes incident to edges in $P^{1,2}_n$). Then, by construction, $P^{1,2}_n$ is a {\em perfect matching} of $G'^{1,2}_n$.
As argued in Subsection~\ref{ssec:er}, if we let $\vec P^{1,2}_n$ be the subset of edges in $\vec G'^{1,2}_n$ obtained by replacing every undirected edge in $P^{1,2}_n$ with two oppositely directed edges, then $\vec P^{1,2}_n$ gives rise to a Hamiltonian decomposition of $\vec G'^{1,2}_n$ which is comprised only of two-cycles.
Denote by $V'_2$ the set of nodes in $V_2$ that are {\em not} incident to edges in $P^{1,2}_n$. Let $n_2':= |V'_2| = n_2 - n_1 > 0$.
Similarly, define the subgraph $G^{2,3}_n$ of $G_n$ induced by $V'_2\cup V_3$. It is an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random bipartite graph $B(n'_2,n_3,p^{2,3})$ where $p^{2,3}> 0$ is the value of $W$ over the rectangle $[\sigma_1,\sigma_2)\times [\sigma_2,\sigma_3)$. By~\eqref{eq:ninequalities}, we have that $n_3 - n'_2 = n_3 - n_2 + n_1 > 0$. Let ${\cal E}^{2,3}_n$ be the event that $G^{2,3}_n$ admits a left-perfect matching. Using the same arguments as above, we know that ${\cal E}^{2,3}_n$ is true almost surely as $n\to \infty$. Fix a left-perfect matching $P^{2,3}_n$ of $G^{2,3}_n$.
Let $G'^{2,3}_n$ be the subgraph of $G^{2,3}_n$ induced by $P^{2,3}_n$, which admits $P^{2,3}_n$ as a {\em perfect matching}. Consequently, $\vec P^{2,3}_n$ yields a Hamiltonian decomposition of $\vec G'^{2,3}_n$.
One can repeat the above arguments as follows: Given a left-perfect matching $P^{k-1,k}_n$, for $1\leq k \leq q-1$, we let $V'_k$ be the subset of $V_k$ such that nodes in $V'_k$ are {\em not} incident to the edges in the left-perfect matching $P^{k-1,k}$.
We have that $n'_k :=|V'_k|= \sum_{\ell = 0}^{k-1} (-1)^\ell n_{k - \ell} > 0$ and it follows from~\eqref{eq:ninequalities} that $n'_k < n_{k+1}$.
We then consider the subgraph $G^{k,k+1}_n$ of $G_n$ induced by $V'_k\cup V_{k+1}$, which is a random bipartite graph\footnote{For the case $k = q-1$, the subgraph $G^{q-1,q}_n$ {\em contains} a random bipartite graph, and additional edges are added randomly between nodes of $V_q$ following an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi procedure. Note that edges that can appear in the bipartite graph and the ones that can appear between nodes of $V_q$ are distinct and, hence, their appearances are independent.} $B(n'_k,n_{k+1},p^{k,k+1})$ with $p^{k,k+1}$ strictly positive.
Then, the event ${\cal E}^{k,k+1}_n$ that $G^{k,k+1}_n$ admits a left-perfect matching $P^{k,k+1}_n$ is true almost surely.
Conditioning upon this, we fix a left-perfect matching $P^{k,k+1}_n$ of $G^{k,k+1}_n$ and let $G'^{k,k+1}_n$ be the subgraph of $G^{k,k+1}_n$ induced by $P^{k,k+1}_n$. It admits $P^{k,k+1}_n$ as a {\em perfect matching}. Then, $\vec P^{k,k+1}_n$ yields a Hamiltonian decomposition of $\vec G'^{k,k+1}_n$.
Now, let $V'_q$ be the subset of $V_q$ whose nodes are {\em not} incident to the edges in the left-perfect matching $P^{q-1,q}$ and denote by $G^{q}_n$ of the subgraph $G_n$ induced by $V'_q$.
First, note that $n'_q:=|V'_q| = \sum^{q-1}_{\ell = 0} (-1)^\ell n_{q - \ell}$, which is strictly positive by~\eqref{eq:ninequalities}. In fact, since $n_i/n\to x_i$ as $n\to\infty$,
we have that $n'_q/n \to \sum^{q-1}_{\ell = 0} (-1)^\ell x_{q - \ell} > 0$.
In particular, it holds that $n'_q \to \infty$ almost surely as $n\to \infty$.
Next, note that $G^q_n$ is an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph $R(n'_q,p^{q,q})$, with $p^{q,q}>0$, where $p^{q,q}$ is the value of $W$ over the square $[\sigma_{q-1},\sigma_q]^2$.
It then follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:erhamiltoniandec} that $G^q_n$ admits a Hamiltonian decomposition almost surely as $n'_q\to \infty$.
Finally, we conclude this proof by noting that the subgraphs $\vec G'^{1,2}_n,\ldots,\vec G'^{q-1,q}_n$ and $\vec G^q_{n}$ of $\vec G_n$ are disjoint and cover all nodes of $\vec G_n$. Moreover, each subgraph admits a Hamiltonian decomposition. The cycles in these decompositions are thus all disjoint and cover every node of $\vec G_n$. Together, they form a Hamiltonian decomposition of $\vec G_n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}\label{fig:fish}
\centering
\includegraphics{mainarkfig-figure2}
\caption{Illustration of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:hproplineG}: The graph $G_n$ is sampled from the line graphon $W$ illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:linegraphon}. The nodes in each $\pi^{-1}(u_i)$, for $1\leq i\leq 4$, are placed in the correspondingly labelled columns. The subgraph in brown corresponds to $G'^{1,2}_n$ in the proof which admits a perfect matching. The subgraphs in blue, red, and green correspond to $G'^{2,3}_n$, $G'^{3,4}_n$, and $G^{4}_n$, respectively.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{When is the $H$-property not a zero-one property?}\label{ssec:notonezero}
In this subsection, we study a ``borderline'' case illustrating that the $H$-property is not zero-one for {\em all} step-graphons. To this end, consider the following step-graphon:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Wborderline}
W(s,t) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \mbox{if } 0 \leq s, t < 0.5, \\
p & \mbox{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $p\in (0,1]$.
See Fig.~\ref{sfig1:stepgraphonborder} for illustration.
This graphon satisfies Conditions~1 and 2A, but does {\em not} satisfy Condition 2B. Indeed, the incidence matrix of its skeleton graph is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zborderline}
Z=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 1 & 2
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
so the edge polytope $\mathcal{X}(S)$ is a line segment in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with the ending points $(0.5.0.5)$ and $(0,1)$. However, the associated concentration vector $x^*$ is given by $(0.5,0.5)$, which is not in the interior of $\mathcal{X}(S)$. We now have the following result:
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[\label{sfig1:stepgraphonborder}]{
\includegraphics{mainarkfig-figure3}
}
\qquad
\subfloat[\label{sfig1:skeletonborder}]{
\includegraphics{mainarkfig-figure4}
}
\caption{ {\em Left:} The step-graphon $W$ given in~\eqref{eq:Wborderline}, which has the partition $\sigma=(0,0.5,1)$. The step-graphon takes the values $0$ (in white) and $0 < p \leq 1$ (in grey). {\em Right:} Its associated skeleton graph.}
\label{fig:borderlinecase}
\end{figure}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:borderline}
Let $G_n \sim W$ for the step-graphon $W$ given in~\eqref{eq:Wborderline}. Then,
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}(\vec G_n \mbox{ has a Hamiltonian decomposition}) = 0.5.
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that for $G_n \sim W$, we have set $n_i=|\pi^{-1}(u_i)|$, for $i = 1,2$.
Now, consider two cases:
\vspace{.1cm}
\noindent
{\em Case 1: $n_1 - n_2 > 0$.} First, note that the probability of occurrence of such a case is $\frac{1}{2}$. We next show that in this case, $\vec G_n$ cannot admit a Hamiltonian decomposition. Suppose, to the contrary, that $\vec H$ is a Hamiltonian decomposition in $\vec G_n$.
Let $v_1$ be an arbitrary node in $\pi^{-1}(u_1)$. Consider the cycle $\vec C \in \vec H$ to which $v_1$ belongs. We express $\vec C$ as a sequence of nodes $\vec C=v_1\cdots v_kv_1$. Because the $n_1$ nodes in $\pi^{-1}(u_1)$ do not have any edge between them, it is clear that no two adjacent nodes in $\vec C$ can belong to $\pi^{-1}(u_1)$. It then follows that the number of nodes of $\vec C$ belonging to $\pi^{-1}(u_1)$ is less than or equal to $|\vec C|/2$. In particular, it implies that $$|\pi^{-1}(u_1) \cap \vec C | \leq |\pi^{-1}(u_2) \cap \vec C |.$$
This holds for all cycles in $\vec H$. But since these cycles are disjoint and cover all the nodes of $\vec G_n$, we have to conclude that $n_1\leq n_2$, which is a contradiction.
\vspace{.1cm}
\noindent
{\em Case 2: $n_1 - n_2 < 0$.} The probability of the occurrence of this case is also $\frac{1}{2}$.
Consider the subgraph $B$ of $G_n$ obtained by removing the edges between nodes of $\pi^{-1}(u_2)$. By construction, it is a random bipartite graph $B(n_1,n_2,p)$ with $n_1 < n_2$. Moreover, since $n_1/n \to 1/2$ as $n\to\infty$, it is almost sure that $n_1\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. We can then apply Lemma~\ref{lem:erdosperfectmatching} to $B$ and conclude that it contains a left-perfect matching $P$ almost surely.
Similarly, as done in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:hproplineG}, we consider the subgraph $G'_n$ of $G_n$ induced by $P$; the edges in $\vec P$ form a Hamiltonian decomposition of $\vec G'_n$ which is comprised of all two-cycles.
We next consider the subgraph $G''_n$ of $G_n$ induced by the nodes in $\pi^{-1}(u_2)$ that are {\em not} incident to $P$.
Then, clearly, $G'_n$ and $G''_n$ are disjoint and they together cover all the nodes of $G_n$. It thus suffices to show that $\vec G''_n$ admits a Hamiltonian decomposition almost surely to complete the proof of case 2.
To establish this fact, note that $G''_n$ is an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph on $(n_2-n_1)$ nodes with parameter $p$. We now claim that $(n_2-n_1) \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$.
To see this, let $X_i$ be the random variable defined as follows: $X_i=1$ if node $i$ belongs to $\pi^{-1}(u_1)$ and $X_i=-1$ if node $i$ belongs to $\pi^{-1}(u_2)$. Following the sampling procedure given in Section~\ref{sec:Hproperty}, it should be clear that for the $W$ as in~\eqref{eq:Wborderline}, the $X_i$'s are independent, identically distributed and follow a Bernoulli distribution with parameter $\frac{1}{2}$.
We now define their normalized cumulative sum $$\tau_n := \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i = \frac{n_1 - n_2}{\sqrt{n}};$$ by the central limit theorem~\cite{durrett2019probability}, $\tau_n$ converges in law to a normal random variable $\tau \sim N(0,1)$ as $n\to\infty$. Consequently, it is almost sure that as $n \to \infty$,
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:largediff}
|n_1 - n_2| > \log n,
\end{equation*}
which proves the claim.
Finally, by combining the claim with Corollary~\ref{cor:erhamiltoniandec}, we conclude that $\vec G''_n$ admits a Hamiltonian decomposition almost surely as $n\to\infty$.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
We have established in this paper the sufficiency of conditions 1 and 2B given in Subsection~\ref{ssec:condHprop} for line graphons to have the $H$-property. We have also illustrated the importance of the distinction between conditions 2A---which requires the concentration vector to belong to the edge polytope $\mathcal{X}(S)$ of the skeleton graph $S$--- and condition 2B---which requires the concentration vector to belong to the {\em relative interior} of $\mathcal{X}(S)$. While condition $2A$ is necessary, it is condition 2B which is sufficient. We have illustrated this fact by exhibiting a graphon which satisfied conditions~1 and~2A, but not~2B, and shown that graphs sampled from these graphons admitted Hamiltonian decompositions with probability $1/2$ asymptotically for $n \to \infty$.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is estimated that several exabytes of data are created everyday \citep{domo2018data}. This data is comprised of a wide variety of data modalities, each of which could benefit from compression. However, the vast majority of work in neural compression has focused only on image and video data \citep{ma2019image}. In this paper, we introduce a new approach for neural compression, called \textsc{COIN++}{}, which is applicable to a wide range of data modalities, from images and audio to medical and climate data (see Figure \ref{fig-intro}).
Most neural compression algorithms are based on autoencoders \citep{theis2017lossy,balle2018variational,minnen2018joint,lee2019contextadaptive}. An encoder maps an image to a latent representation which is quantized and entropy coded into a bitstream. The bitstream is then transmitted to a decoder that reconstructs the image. The parameters of the encoder and decoder are trained to jointly minimize reconstruction error, or \textit{distortion}, and the length of the compressed code, or \textit{rate}. To achieve good performance, these algorithms heavily rely on encoder and decoder architectures that are specialized to images \citep{cheng2020learned, xie2021enhanced, zou2022devil, wang2022neural}.
Applying these models to new data modalities then requires designing new encoders and decoders which is usually challenging.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/fig1-tmlr.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-12pt}
\caption{\textsc{COIN++}{} converts a wide range of data modalities to neural networks via optimization and then stores the parameters of these neural networks as compressed codes for the data. Different data modalities can be compressed by simply changing the input and output dimensions of the neural networks.}
\label{fig-intro}
\end{figure}
Recently, a new framework for neural compression, called \textsc{COIN}{} (COmpression with Implicit Neural representations), was proposed which bypasses the need for specialized encoders and decoders \citep{dupont2021coin}. Instead of compressing images directly, \textsc{COIN}{} fits a neural network mapping pixel locations to RGB values to an image and stores the quantized weights of this network as a compressed code for the image. While \citet{dupont2021coin} only apply \textsc{COIN}{} to images, it holds promise for storing other data modalities. Indeed, neural networks mapping coordinates (such as pixel locations) to features (such as RGB values), typically called \textit{implicit neural representations} (INR), have been used to represent signed distance functions \citep{park2019deepsdf}, voxel grids \citep{mescheder2019occupancy}, 3D scenes \citep{sitzmann2019scene, mildenhall2020nerf}, temperature fields \citep{dupont2021generative}, videos \citep{li2021neural}, audio \citep{sitzmann2020implicit} and many more. \textsc{COIN}{}-like approaches that convert data to INRs and compress these are therefore promising for building flexible neural codecs applicable to a range of modalities.
In this paper, we identify and address several key problems with \textsc{COIN}{} and propose a compression algorithm applicable to multiple modalities, which we call \textsc{COIN++}{}. More specifically, we identify the following issues with \textsc{COIN}{}: \textit{1.} Encoding is slow: compressing a single image can take up to an hour, \textit{2.} Lack of shared structure: as each image is compressed independently, there is no shared information between networks, \textit{3.} Performance is well below state of the art (SOTA) image codecs. We address these issues by: \textit{1.} Using meta-learning to reduce encoding time by more than two orders of magnitude to less than a second, compared to minutes or hours for \textsc{COIN}{}, \textit{2.} Learning a base network that encodes shared structure and applying modulations to this network to encode instance specific information, \textit{3.} Quantizing and entropy coding the modulations. While our method significantly exceeds \textsc{COIN}{} both in terms of compression and speed, it only partially closes the gap to SOTA codecs on well-studied modalities such as images. However, \textsc{COIN++}{} is applicable to a wide range of data modalities where traditional methods are difficult to use, making it a promising tool for neural compression in non-standard domains.
\section{Method}
In this paper, we consider compressing data that can be expressed in terms of sets of coordinates $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}$ and features $\mathbf{y} \in \mathcal{Y}$. An image for example can be described by a set of pixel locations $\mathbf{x} = (x, y)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and their corresponding RGB values $\mathbf{y} = (r, g, b)$ in $\{0, 1, ..., 255\}^3$. Similarly, an MRI scan can be described by a set of positions in 3D space $\mathbf{x} = (x, y, z)$ and an intensity value $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$. Given a single datapoint as a collection of coordinate and feature pairs $\mathbf{d} = \{(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{y}_i) \}_{i=1}^{n}$ (for example an image as a collection of $n$ pixel locations and RGB values), the \textsc{COIN}{} approach consists in fitting a neural network $f_\theta: \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$ with parameters $\theta$ to the datapoint by minimizin
\begin{equation} \label{eq-coin-opt}
\mathcal{L}(\theta, \mathbf{d}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| f_\theta(\mathbf{x}_i) - \mathbf{y}_i \|_2.
\end{equation}
The weights $\theta$ are then quantized and stored as a compressed representation of the datapoint $\mathbf{d}$. The neural network $f_\theta$ is parameterized by a SIREN \citep{sitzmann2020implicit}, i.e. an MLP with sine activation functions, which is necessary to fit high frequency data such as natural images \citep{mildenhall2020nerf, tancik2020fourier, sitzmann2020implicit}. More specifically, a SIREN layer is defined by an elementwise $\sin$ applied to a hidden feature vector $\mathbf{h} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ as
\begin{equation}
\text{SIREN}(\mathbf{h}) = \sin(\omega_0 (W \mathbf{h} + \mathbf{b}))
\end{equation}
where $W \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ is a weight matrix, $\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ a bias vector and $\omega_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ a positive scaling factor.
While this approach is very general, there are several key issues. Firstly, as compression involves minimizing equation \ref{eq-coin-opt}, encoding is extremely slow. For example, compressing a single image from the Kodak dataset \citep{kodakdataset} takes nearly an hour on a 1080Ti GPU \citep{dupont2021coin}. Secondly, as each datapoint $\mathbf{d}$ is fitted with a separate neural network $f_{\theta}$, there is no information shared across datapoints. This is clearly suboptimal when several datapoints are available:
natural images for example
share a lot of common structure that does not need to be repeatedly stored for each individual image. In the following sections, we show how our proposed approach, \textsc{COIN++}{}, addresses these problems while maintaining the generality of \textsc{COIN}{}.
\subsection{Storing modulations} \label{sec-storing-modulations}
While \textsc{COIN}{} stores each image as a separate neural network, we instead train a base network shared across datapoints and apply \textit{modulations} to this network to parameterize individual datapoints. Given a base network, such as a multi-layer perceptron (MLP), we use FiLM layers \citep{perez2018film}, to modulate the hidden features $\mathbf{h} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ of the network by applying elementwise scales $\bm{\gamma} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and shifts $\bm{\beta} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ as
\begin{equation}
\text{FiLM}(\mathbf{h}) = \bm{\gamma} \odot \mathbf{h} + \bm{\beta}.
\end{equation}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.38\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-8pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{figs/latent-architecture-figure.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-8pt}
\caption{\textsc{COIN++}{} architecture. Latent modulations $\phi$ (in green) are mapped through a hypernetwork to modulations (in blue) which are added to activations of the base network $f_\theta$ (in white) to parameterize a single function that can be evaluated at coordinates $\mathbf{x}$ to obtain features $\mathbf{y}$.}
\label{fig-latent-to-modulations}
\end{wrapfigure}
Given a fixed base MLP, we can therefore parameterize families of neural networks by applying different scales and shifts at each layer. Each neural network function is therefore specified by a set of scales and shifts, which are collectively referred to as modulations \citep{perez2018film}.
Recently, the FiLM approach has also been applied in the context of INRs. \citet{chan2021pi} parameterize the generator in a generative adversarial network by a SIREN network and generate samples by applying modulations to this network as $\sin(\bm{\gamma} \odot (W \mathbf{h} + \mathbf{b}) + \bm{\beta})$. Similarly, \citet{mehta2021modulated} parameterize families of INRs using a scale factor via $\bm{\alpha} \odot \sin(W \mathbf{h} + \mathbf{b})$.
Both of these approaches can be modified to use a low dimensional latent vector mapped to a set of modulations instead of directly applying modulations. \citet{chan2021pi} map a latent vector to scales and shifts with an MLP, while \citet{mehta2021modulated} map the latent vector through an MLP of the same shape as the base network and use the hidden activations of this network as modulations. However, we found that both of these approaches performed poorly in terms of compressibility, requiring a large number of modulations to achieve satisfying reconstructions.
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\vspace{-18pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{figs/modulation-figure.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-12pt}
\caption{By applying modulations $\phi^{(1)}$, $\phi^{(2)}$, $\phi^{(3)}$ to a base network $f_\theta$, we obtain different functions that can be decoded into datapoints $\mathbf{d}^{(1)}$, $\mathbf{d}^{(2)}$, $\mathbf{d}^{(3)}$ by evaluating the functions at various coordinates. While we show images in this figure, the same principle can be applied to a range of data modalities.}
\label{fig-applying-modulations}
\end{wrapfigure}
Instead, we propose a new parameterization of modulations for INRs which, on top of yielding better compression rates, is also more stable to train. More specifically, given a base SIREN network, we only apply shifts $\bm{\beta} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ as modulations using
\begin{equation} \label{eq-coinpp-activation}
\sin(\omega_0 (W \mathbf{h} + \mathbf{b} + \bm{\beta}))
\end{equation}
at every layer of the MLP. To further reduce storage, we use a latent vector which is linearly mapped to the modulations as shown in Figure \ref{fig-latent-to-modulations}. In a slight overload of notation, we also refer to this vector as modulations or latent modulations. Indeed, we found empirically that using only shifts gave the same performance as using both shifts and scales while using only scales yielded considerably worse performance. In addition, linearly mapping the latent vector to modulations worked better than using a deep MLP as in \cite{chan2021pi}. Given this parameterization, we then store a datapoint d (such as an image) as a set of (latent) modulations $\phi$. To decode the datapoint, we simply evaluate the modulated base network $f_\theta(\cdot; \phi)$ at every coordinate $\mathbf{x}$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{y} = f_\theta(\mathbf{x}; \phi)
\end{equation}
as shown in Figure \ref{fig-applying-modulations}.
To fit a set of modulations $\phi$ to a datapoint $\mathbf{d}$, we keep the parameters $\theta$ of the base network fixed and minimize
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq-coinpp-opt}
\mathcal{L}(\theta, \phi, \mathbf{d}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| f_\theta(\mathbf{x}_i; \phi) - \mathbf{y}_i \|_2
\end{equation}
over $\phi$. In contrast to \textsc{COIN}{}, where each datapoint $\mathbf{d}$ is stored as a separate neural network $f_{\theta}$, \textsc{COIN++}{} only requires storing $O(k)$ modulations
(or less when using latents) as opposed to $O(k^2)$ weights, where $k$ is the width of the MLP. In addition, this approach allows us to store shared information in the base network and instance specific information in the modulations. For natural images for example, the base network encodes structure that is common to natural images while the modulations store the information required to reconstruct individual images.
\subsection{Meta-learning modulations}
Given a base network $f_{\theta}$, we can encode a datapoint $\mathbf{d}$ by minimizing equation \ref{eq-coinpp-opt}. However, we are still faced with two problems: \textit{1.} We need to learn the weights $\theta$ of the base network, \textit{2.} Encoding a datapoint via equation \ref{eq-coinpp-opt} is slow, requiring thousands of iterations of gradient descent. \textsc{COIN++}{} solves both of these problems with meta-learning.
Recently, \citet{sitzmann2020metasdf, tancik2020learned} have shown that applying Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) \citep{finn2017model} to INRs can reduce fitting at test time to just a few gradient steps. Instead of minimizing $\mathcal{L}(\theta, \mathbf{d})$ directly via gradient descent from a random initialization, we can meta-learn an initialization $\theta^*$ such that minimizing $\mathcal{L}(\theta, \mathbf{d})$ can be done in a few gradient steps. More specifically, assume we are given a dataset of $N$ points $\{\mathbf{d}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N}$. Starting from an initialization $\theta$, a step of the MAML inner loop on a datapoint $\mathbf{d}^{(j)}$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-maml-inner-loop}
\textstyle \theta^{(j)} = \theta - \alpha \nabla_\theta \mathcal{L}(\theta, \mathbf{d}^{(j)}),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is the inner loop learning rate. We are then interested in learning a good initialization $\theta^*$ such that the loss $\mathcal{L}(\theta, \mathbf{d}^{(j)})$ is minimized after a few gradient steps across the entire set of datapoints $\{\mathbf{d}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N}$. To update the initalization $\theta$, we then perform a step of the outer loop, with an outer loop learning rate $\beta$, via
\begin{equation} \label{eq-maml-outer-loop}
\textstyle \theta \leftarrow \theta - \beta \nabla_\theta \sum_{j=1}^N \mathcal{L}(\theta^{(j)}, \mathbf{d}^{(j)}).
\end{equation}
In our case, MAML cannot be used directly since at test time we only fit the modulations $\phi$ and not the shared parameters $\theta$. We therefore need to meta-learn an initialization for $\theta$ and $\phi$ such that, given a new datapoint, the \textit{modulations} $\phi$ can rapidly be computed while keeping $\theta$ constant. Indeed, we only store the modulations for each datapoint and share the parameters $\theta$ across all datapoints. For \textsc{COIN++}{}, a single step of the inner loop is then given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-cavia-inner-loop}
\textstyle \phi^{(j)} = \phi - \alpha \nabla_\phi \mathcal{L}(\theta, \phi, \mathbf{d}^{(j)}),
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is kept fixed. Performing the inner loop on a subset of parameters has previously been explored by \citet{zintgraf2019fast} and is referred to as CAVIA. As observed in CAVIA, meta-learning the initialization for $\phi$ is redundant as it can be absorbed into a bias parameter of the base network weights $\theta$. We therefore only need to meta-learn the shared parameter initialization $\theta$. The update rule for the outer loop is then given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-cavia-outer-loop}
\textstyle \theta \leftarrow \theta - \beta \nabla_\theta \sum_{j=1}^N \mathcal{L}(\theta, \phi^{(j)}, \mathbf{d}^{(j)}).
\end{equation}
The inner loop then updates the modulations $\phi$ while the outer loop updates the shared parameters $\theta$. This algorithm allows us to meta-learn a base network such that each set of modulations can easily and rapidly be fitted (see Figure \ref{fig-meta-learn-and-patches}). In practice, we find that as few as 3 gradient steps gives us compelling results, compared with thousands for \textsc{COIN}{}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/meta-learning-fig.png}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figs/train_img_patches.png}
\hspace{0.03\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figs/test_img_patches.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(Left) Starting from a random initialization $\theta$, we meta-learn parameters $\theta^*$ of the base network (with training progress shown as a solid line) such that modulations $\phi$ can easily be fit in a few gradient steps (with fitting shown in dashed lines). (Right) During training we sample patches randomly, while at test time we partition the datapoint into patches and fit modulations to each patch.}
\label{fig-meta-learn-and-patches}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Patches, quantization and entropy coding for modulations} \label{sec:patching-quantizing-entropy-coding}
\textbf{Patches for large scale data}. While meta-learning the base network allows us to rapidly encode new datapoints into modulations, the training procedure is expensive, as MAML must take gradients through the inner loop \citep{finn2017model}. For large datapoints (such as high resolution images or MRI scans), this can become prohibitively expensive. While first-order approximations exist \citep{finn2017model, nichol2018first, rajeswaran2019meta}, we found that they severely hindered performance. Instead, to reduce memory usage, we split datapoints into random patches during training. For large scale images for example, we train on 32$\times$32 patches. At train time, we then learn a base network such that modulations can easily be fit to patches. At test time, we split a new image into patches and compute modulations for each of them. The image is then represented by the set of modulations for all patches (see Figure \ref{fig-meta-learn-and-patches}). We use a similar approach for other data modalities, e.g. MRI scans are split into 3D patches.
\textbf{Quantization}. While \textsc{COIN}{} quantizes the neural network weights from 32 bits to 16 bits to reduce storage, quantizing beyond this severely hinders performance \citep{dupont2021coin}. In contrast, we find that modulations are surprisingly quantizable. During meta-learning, modulations are represented by 32 bit floats. To quantize these to shorter bitwidths, we simply use uniform quantization. We first clip the modulations to lie within 3 standard deviations of their mean. We then split this interval into $2^b$ equally sized bins (where $b$ is the number of bits). Remarkably, we found that reducing the number of bits from 32 to 5 (i.e.\ reducing the number of symbols from more than $10^9$ to only 32) resulted only in small decreases in reconstruction accuracy. Simply applying uniform quantization then improves compression by a factor of 6 at little cost in reconstruction quality.
\textbf{Entropy coding}. A core component of almost all codecs is entropy coding, which allows for lossless compression of the quantized code, using e.g. arithmetic coding \citep{rissanen1979arithmetic}. This relies on a model of the distribution of the quantized codes. As with quantization, we use a very simple approach for modeling this distribution: we count the frequency of each quantized modulation value in the training set and use this distribution for arithmetic coding at test time. In our experiments, this reduced storage 8-15\% at no cost in reconstruction quality. While this simple entropy coding scheme works well, we expect more sophisticated methods to significantly improve performance, which is an exciting direction for future work.
Finally, we note that we only transmit the \textit{modulations} and assume the receiver has access to the shared base network. As such, only the modulations are quantized, entropy coded and count towards the final compressed file size. This is similar to the typical neural compression setting where the receiver is assumed to have access to the autoencoder and only the quantized and entropy coded latent vector is transmitted.
\section{Related Work}
\textbf{Neural compression}. Learned compression approaches are typically based on autoencoders that jointly minimize rate and distortion, as initially introduced in \citet{balle2016end, theis2017lossy}. \citet{balle2018variational} extend this by adding a hyperprior, while \citet{mentzer2018conditional, minnen2018joint, lee2019contextadaptive} use an autoregressive model to improve entropy coding. \citet{cheng2020learned} improve the accuracy of the entropy models by adding attention and Gaussian mixture models for the distribution of latent codes, while \citet{xie2021enhanced} use invertible convolutional layers to further enhance performance. While most of these are optimized on traditional distortion metrics such as MSE or SSIM, other works have explored the use of generative adversarial networks for optimizing perceptual metrics \citep{agustsson2019generative, mentzer2020highfidelity}.
Neural compression has also been applied to video \citep{lu2019dvc, golinski2020feedback, agustsson2020scalespace} and audio \citep{kleijn2018wavenet, valin2019lpcnet, zeghidour2021soundstream}.
\textbf{Implicit neural representations and compression}. In addition to \textsc{COIN}{}, several recent works have explored the use of INRs for compression. \citet{davies2020effectiveness} encode 3D shapes with neural networks and show that this can reduce memory usage compared with traditional decimated meshes. \citet{chen2021nerv} represent videos by convolutional neural networks that take as input a time index and output a frame in the video. By pruning, quantizing and entropy coding the weights of this network, the authors achieve compression performance close to standard video codecs. \citet{lee2021meta} meta-learn sparse and parameter efficient initializations for INRs and show that this can reduce the number of parameters required to store an image at a given reconstruction quality, although it is not yet competitive with image codecs such as JPEG. \citet{lu2021compressive, isik2021lvac} explore the use of INRs for volumetric compression. \citet{zhang2021implicit} compress frames in videos using INRs (which are quantized and entropy coded) while learning a flow warping to model differences between frames. Results on video benchmarks are promising although the performance still lags behind standard video codecs. In concurrent work, \citet{strumpler2021implicit} propose a method for image compression with INRs which is closely related to ours. The authors also meta-learn an MLP initialization and subsequently quantize and entropy code the weights of MLPs fitted to images, leading to large performance gains over \textsc{COIN}{}. In particular, for large scale images their method significantly outperforms both \textsc{COIN}{} and \textsc{COIN++}{} as they do not use patches. However, their approach still requires tens of thousands of iterations at test time to fully converge, unlike ours which requires 10 iterations (three orders of magnitude faster). Further, the authors do not employ modulations but directly learn the weights of the MLPs at test time. Finally, unlike our work, their approach is not applied to a wide range of modalities, including audio, medical and climate data. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, none of these works have considered INRs for building a unified compression framework across data modalities.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.42\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/baselines/baseline_pigan_modsine.png}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/baselines/scales_vs_shifts_vs_both.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(Left) Test PSNR on CIFAR10 during training using a fixed number of modulations (see appendix for experimental details). Our method outperforms both baselines, improving PSNR by 2dB for the same number of parameters. (Right) Comparison of using shifts, scales and scales \& shifts for modulations on MNIST (note that shifts and scales \& shifts overlap). As can be seen, shifts perform significantly better than scales.}
\label{fig-inr-baselines}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-5pt}
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:experiments}
We evaluate \textsc{COIN++}{} on four data modalities: images, audio, medical data and climate data.
We implement all models in PyTorch \citep{paszke2019pytorch} and train on a single GPU. We use SGD for the inner loop with a learning rate of 1e-2 and Adam for the outer loop with a learning rate of 1e-6 or 3e-6. We normalize coordinates $\mathbf{x}$ to lie in $[-1, 1]$ and features $\mathbf{y}$ to lie in $[0, 1]$. Full experimental details required to reproduce all the results can be found in the appendix. We train \textsc{COIN++}{} using MSE between the compressed and ground truth data. As is standard, we measure reconstruction performance (or distortion) using PSNR (in dB), which is defined as $\text{PSNR} = - 10 \log_{10} (\text{MSE})$. We measure the size of the compressed data (or rate) in terms of bits-per-pixel (bpp) which is given by $\frac{\text{number of bits}}{\text{number of pixels}}$\footnote{
For non image data a ``pixel'' corresponds to a single dimension of the data.
} and kilobits per second (kpbs) for audio. We benchmark \textsc{COIN++}{} against a large number of baselines including standard image codecs - JPEG \citep{wallace1992jpeg}, JPEG2000 \citep{skodras2001jpeg}, BPG \citep{bellard2014bpg} and VTM \citep{bross2021overview} - autoencoder based neural compression - BMS \citep{balle2018variational}, MBT \citep{minnen2018joint} and CST \citep{cheng2020learned} - standard audio codecs - MP3 \citep{mp3codec} - and \textsc{COIN}{} \citep{dupont2021coin}. For clarity, we use consistent colors for different codecs and plot learned codecs with solid lines and standard codecs with dashed lines. The code to reproduce all experiments in the paper can be found at \url{https://github.com/EmilienDupont/coinpp}.
\subsection{Comparisons to other INR parameterizations}
We first compare our parameterization of INRs with the methods proposed by \citet{chan2021pi} and \citet{mehta2021modulated} as described in Section \ref{sec-storing-modulations}. As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig-inr-baselines}, our method significantly outperforms both in terms of compressibility, improving PSNR by 2dB with the same number of parameters\footnote{Despite significant experimental effort, we were unable to achieve better performance using meta-learning with \cite{mehta2021modulated}.}. Further, using shift modulations is more effective than using scales and shifts, and performs significantly better than scales alone. We also note that our method allows us to quickly fit INRs using only a few hundred parameters. This is in contrast to existing works on meta-learning for INRs \citep{sitzmann2020metasdf, tancik2020learned}, which typically require fitting 3 orders of magnitude more parameters at test time.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.51\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/cifar10/rate_distortion_cifar10.png}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.46\textwidth}
\vspace{-140pt}
{\small Original} {\small \textsc{COIN++}{}} \hspace{1pt} {\small Residual} \hspace{6pt} {\small BPG} \hspace{6pt} {\small Residual}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/cifar10/qualitative_comparison_cifar10.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(Left) Rate distortion plot on CIFAR10. \textsc{COIN++}{} outperforms COIN, JPEG and JPEG2000 while partially closing the gap to state of the art codecs. (Right) Qualitative comparison of compression artifacts for models at similar reconstruction quality. \textsc{COIN++}{} achieves 32.4dB at 3.29 bpp while BPG achieves 31.9dB at 1.88 bpp.}
\label{fig-cifar10-rd-qualitative}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-5pt}
\subsection{Images: CIFAR10}
We train \textsc{COIN++}{} on CIFAR10 using 128, 256, 384, 512, 768 and 1024 latent modulations. As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig-cifar10-rd-qualitative}, \textsc{COIN++}{} vastly outperforms \textsc{COIN}{}, JPEG and JPEG2000 while partially closing the gap to BPG, particularly at low bitrates. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time compression with INRs has outperformed image codecs like JPEG2000. Part of the gap between \textsc{COIN++}{} and SOTA codecs (BMS, CST) is likely due to entropy coding: we use the simple scheme described in Section \ref{sec:patching-quantizing-entropy-coding}, while BMS and CST use deep generative models. We hypothesize that using deep entropy coding for the modulations would significantly reduce this gap.
Figure \ref{fig-cifar10-rd-qualitative} shows qualitative comparisons between our model and BPG to highlight the types of compression artifacts obtained with \textsc{COIN++}{}. In order to thoroughly analyse and evaluate each component of \textsc{COIN++}{}, we perform a number of ablation studies.
\textbf{Quantization bitwidth}. Quantizing the modulations to a lower bitwidth yields more compressed codes at the cost of reconstruction accuracy. To understand the tradeoff between these, we show rate distortion plots when quantizing from 3 to 8 bits in Figure \ref{fig-ablation-num-bits}. As can be seen, the optimal bitwidths are surprisingly low: 5 bits is optimal at low bitrates while 6 is optimal at higher bitrates. Qualitative artifacts obtained from quantizing the modulations are shown in Figure \ref{fig-qualitative-quantization} in the appendix.
\textbf{Quantization \textsc{COIN}{}vs \textsc{COIN++}{}}. We compare the drop in PSNR due to quantization for \textsc{COIN}{} and \textsc{COIN++}{} in Figure \ref{fig-coin-coinpp-quantization}. As can be seen, modulations are remarkably quantizable: when quantizing the \textsc{COIN}{} weights directly, performance decreases significantly around 14 bits, whereas quantizing modulations yields small drops in PSNR even when using 5 bits. However, as shown in Figure \ref{fig-coinpp-quantization-latent-dim}, the drop in PSNR from quantization is larger for larger models.
\textbf{Entropy coding}. Figure \ref{fig-coinpp-entropy-coding} shows rate distortion plots for full precision, quantized and entropy coded modulations. As can be seen, both quantization and entropy coding significantly improve performance.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.42\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/cifar10/ablation_num_bits_10_steps.png}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{}
\label{fig-ablation-num-bits}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.42\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/cifar10/quantization_curves.png}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{}
\label{fig-coin-coinpp-quantization}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.42\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/cifar10/quantization_curves_coinpp_ablation.png}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{}
\label{fig-coinpp-quantization-latent-dim}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.42\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/cifar10/ablation_quant_ec_10_steps_5_bits.png}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{}
\label{fig-coinpp-entropy-coding}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-3pt}
\caption{(a) Rate distortion plot on CIFAR10 when quantizing the modulations $\phi$ to various bitwidths. As can be seen, using 5 or 6 bits is optimal. (b) Drop in PSNR for \textsc{COIN}{} and \textsc{COIN++}{} quantization. \textsc{COIN++}{} is significantly more robust to quantization. (c) Drop in PSNR when quantizing the modulations $\phi$ to various bitwidths, for various latent dimensions. Larger latent dimensions have larger drops in PSNR. (d) Effect of of quantization (to 5 bits) and entropy coding on CIFAR10. As can be seen, both quantization and entropy coding improve rate distortion performance.}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Encoding/decoding speed}. Table \ref{table-encoding-time} shows the average encoding and decoding time for BPG, \textsc{COIN}{} and \textsc{COIN++}{} on CIFAR10. As BPG runs on CPU while \textsc{COIN}{} and \textsc{COIN++}{} run on GPU, these times are not directly comparable. However, we follow standard practice in the literature and run all neural codecs on GPU and standard codecs on CPU (see appendix \ref{sec:cifar10-exp-details} for hardware details). In terms of encoding, \textsc{COIN++}{} compresses images 300$\times$ faster than \textsc{COIN}{} while achieving a 4$\times$ better compression rate. Note that these results are obtained from compressing each image separately. When using batches of images, we can compress the entire CIFAR10 test set (10k images) in 4mins when using 10 inner loop steps (and in just over a minute when using 3 steps). In addition, as shown in Figure \ref{fig-encoding-curves} in the appendix, \textsc{COIN++}{} requires only 3 gradient steps to reach the same performance as \textsc{COIN}{} does in 10,000 steps, while using 4$\times$ less storage. In terms of decoding, \textsc{COIN++}{} is slower than \textsc{COIN}{} as it uses a larger shared network and entropy coding. However, decoding with \textsc{COIN++}{} remains fast (on the order of a millisecond).
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c|c|c|c }
& BPG & \textsc{COIN}{}& \textsc{COIN++}{} \\
\hline\hline
Encoding (ms) & 5.19 & $2.97 \times 10^4$ & 94.9 \\
\hline
Decoding (ms) & 1.25 & 0.46 & 1.29 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Average encoding and decoding time on CIFAR10 for BPG, \textsc{COIN}{} and \textsc{COIN++}{}. As can be seen, \textsc{COIN++}{} encodes images orders of magnitude faster than COIN, while only being marginally slower than BPG at decoding time.}
\label{table-encoding-time}
\end{table}
\subsection{Climate data: ERA5 global temperature measurements}
To demonstrate the flexibility of our approach, we also use \textsc{COIN++}{} to compress data lying on a manifold. We use global temperature measurements from the ERA5 dataset \citep{hersbach2018era5} with the processing and splits from \citet{dupont2021generative}. The dataset contains 8510 train and 2420 test globes of size 46$\times$90, with temperature measurements at equally spaced latitudes $\lambda$ and longitudes $\varphi$ on the Earth from 1979 to 2020. To model this data, we follow \citet{dupont2021generative} and use spherical coordinates $\mathbf{x} = (\cos \lambda \cos \varphi, \cos \lambda \sin \varphi, \sin \lambda)$ for the inputs. As a baseline, we compare \textsc{COIN++}{} against JPEG, JPEG2000 and BPG applied to flat map projections of the data. As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig-era5-rd-qualitative}, \textsc{COIN++}{} vastly outperforms all baselines. These strong results highlight the versatility of the \textsc{COIN++}{} approach: unlike traditional codecs and autoencoder based methods (which would require spherical convolutions for the encoder), we can easily apply our method to a wide range of data modalities, including data lying on a manifold. Indeed, \textsc{COIN++}{} achieves a 3000$\times$ compression rate while having an RMSE of 0.5$^{\circ}$C, highlighting the potential for compressing climate data. More generally, it is likely that many highly compressible data modalities are not compressed in practice, simply because an applicable codec does not exist. We hope the flexibility of \textsc{COIN++}{} will help make neural compression more generally applicable to such modalities.
We also note that very few baselines exist for compressing data on manifolds. A notable exception is \cite{mcewen2011data} which builds a codec analogous to JPEG2000 by using wavelet transforms on the sphere. However, their method is not likely to outperform ours as it is not a learned codec and so cannot take advantage of the low entropy of the climate data. Further, their method is only applicable to the sphere, while our method is applicable to any manifold where a coordinate system can be defined to pass as input to the INR. Finally, we note that, while autoencoder based methods may be able to outperform \textsc{COIN++}{} on this data modality, building such an autoencoder would require a non-trivial amount of work (including the use of spherical convolutions both for the encoder/decoder and hyperprior). In contrast, with \textsc{COIN++}{} we simply change the input coordinates.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/era5/rate_distortion_era5.png}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\vspace{-120pt}
{Original} \hspace{28pt} {\textsc{COIN++}{}} \hspace{28pt} {Residual}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/era5/qualitative_comparison_era5.png}
\vspace{0pt}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(Left) Rate distortion plot on ERA5. \textsc{COIN++}{} vastly outperforms all baselines. (Right) \textsc{COIN++}{} compression artifacts on ERA5. See appendix \ref{sec:additional-qualitative-results} for more samples.}
\label{fig-era5-rd-qualitative}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Compression with patches}
To evaluate the patching approach from Section \ref{sec:patching-quantizing-entropy-coding} and to demonstrate that \textsc{COIN++}{} can scale to large data (albeit at a cost in performance), we test our model on images, audio and MRI data.
\textbf{Large scale images: Kodak}. The Kodak dataset \citep{kodakdataset} contains 24 large scale images of size 768$\times$512. To train the model, we use random 32$\times$32 patches from the Vimeo90k dataset \citep{xue2019video}, containing 154k images of size 448$\times$256. At evaluation time, each Kodak image is then split into 384 32$\times$32 patches which are compressed independently. As we do not model the global structure of the image, we therefore expect a significant drop in performance compared to the case when no patching is required. As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig-kodak-rd-qualitative}, the performance of \textsc{COIN++}{} indeed drops, but still outperforms \textsc{COIN}{} and JPEG at low bitrates. We expect that this can be massively improved by modeling the global structure of the image (e.g. two patches of blue sky are nearly identical, but that information redundancy is not exploited in the current setup) but leave this to future work.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/kodak/rate_distortion_kodak.png}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\vspace{-130pt}
{Original} \hspace{28pt} {\textsc{COIN++}{}} \hspace{28pt} {Residual}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/kodak/qualitative_comparison_kodak.png}
\vspace{0pt}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{(Left) Rate distortion plot on Kodak. While \textsc{COIN++}{} performs slightly better than \textsc{COIN}{}, the use of patches reduces compression performance. (Right) \textsc{COIN++}{} compression artifacts on Kodak. See appendix \ref{sec:additional-qualitative-results} for more samples.}
\label{fig-kodak-rd-qualitative}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\vspace{-30pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figs/librispeech/rate_distortion_librispeech.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-12pt}
\caption{Rate distortion plot on LibriSpeech. While \textsc{COIN++}{} does not outperform specialized codecs like MP3, it still performs fairly well on audio, even though this is a vastly different data modality.}
\label{fig-rate-distortion-librispeech}
\end{wrapfigure}
\textbf{Audio: LibriSpeech}. To evaluate \textsc{COIN++}{} on audio, we use the LibriSpeech dataset \citep{panayotov2015librispeech} containing several hours of speech data recorded at 16kHz. As a baseline, we compare against the widely used MP3 codec \citep{mp3codec}. We split each audio sample into patches of varying size and compress each of these to obtain models at various bit-rates (we refer to appendix \ref{sec:librispeech-appendix} for full experimental details). As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig-rate-distortion-librispeech}, even though audio is a very different modality from the rest considered in this paper, \textsc{COIN++}{} can still be used for compression, highlighting the versatility of our approach. However, in terms of performance, \textsc{COIN++}{} lags behind well-establised audio codecs such as MP3.
\textbf{Medical data: brain MRI scans}. Finally, we train our model on brain MRI scans from the FastMRI dataset \citep{zbontar2018fastmri}. The dataset contains 565 train volumes and 212 test volumes with sizes ranging from 16$\times$320$\times$240 to 16$\times$384$\times$384 (see appendix \ref{sec:fastmri-dataset-appendix} for full dataset details). As a baseline, we compare our model against JPEG, JPEG2000 and BPG applied independently to each slice. Due to memory constraints, we train \textsc{COIN++}{} on 16$\times$16$\times$16 patches. We therefore store roughly 400 independent patches at test time (as opposed to 16 slices for the image codecs). Even then \textsc{COIN++}{} performs reasonably well, particularly at low bitrates (see Figure \ref{fig-mri-rd-qualitative}). As a large number of patches are nearly identical, especially close to the edges, we expect that large gains can be made from modeling the global structure of the data. Qualitatively, our model also performs well although it has patch artifacts at low bitrates (see Figure \ref{fig-mri-rd-qualitative}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/fastmri/rate_distortion_fastmri.png}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\vspace{-130pt}
{Original} \hspace{28pt} {\textsc{COIN++}{}} \hspace{28pt} {Residual}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figs/fastmri/qualitative_comparison_fastmri.png}
\vspace{0pt}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(Left) Rate distortion plot on FastMRI. As can be seen, even when using patches, \textsc{COIN++}{} performs better than JPEG. However, our methods lags behind BPG and JPEG2000. (Right) \textsc{COIN++}{} compression artifacts on FastMRI. See appendix \ref{sec:additional-qualitative-results} for more samples.}
\label{fig-mri-rd-qualitative}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion, limitations and future work} \label{sec:con-lim-fw}
\textbf{Conclusion}. We introduce \textsc{COIN++}{}, the first (to the best of our knowledge) neural codec applied to a wide range of data modalities. Our framework significantly improves performance compared to \textsc{COIN}{} both in terms of compression and encoding time, while being competitive with well-established codecs such as JPEG. While \textsc{COIN++}{} does not match the performance of SOTA codecs, we hope our work will help expand the range of domains where neural compression is applicable.
\textbf{Limitations}. The main drawback of \textsc{COIN++}{} is that, because of the second-order gradients required for MAML, training the model is memory intensive. This in turn limits scalability and requires us to use patches for large data. Devising effective first-order approximations or bypassing meta-learning altogether would mitigate these issues. In addition, training \textsc{COIN++}{} can occasionally be unstable, although the model typically recovers from loss instabilities (see Figure \ref{fig-meta-learning-kodak} in the appendix). Further, there are several common modalities our framework cannot handle, such as text or tabular data, as these are not easily expressible as continuous functions. Finally, \textsc{COIN++}{} lags behind SOTA codecs. Indeed, while we have demonstrated the ease with which \textsc{COIN++}{} is \textit{applicable} to different modalities compared to autoencoders (as they do not require specialized and potentially complicated modality specific encoders and decoders), it is not clear whether \textsc{COIN++}{} can \textit{outperform} autoencoders specialized to each modality. However, we believe there are several interesting directions for future work to improve the performance of INR based codecs.
\textbf{Future work}. In its current form, \textsc{COIN++}{} employs very basic methods for both quantization and entropy coding - using more sophisticated techniques for these two steps could likely lead to large performance gains. Indeed, recent success in modeling distributions of functions \citep{schwarz2020graf, anokhin2021image, skorokhodov2021adversarial, dupont2021generative} suggests that large gains could be made from using deep generative models to learn the distribution of modulations for entropy coding. Similarly, better post-training quantization \citep{nagel2019datafree, li2021brecq} or quantization-aware training \citep{krishnamoorthi2018quantizing, Esser2020learned} would also improve performance. More generally, there are a plethora of methods from the model compression literature that could be applied to \textsc{COIN++}{} \citep{cheng2020survey, liang2021pruning}. For large scale data, it would be interesting to model the global structure of patches instead of encoding and entropy coding them independently. Further, the field of INRs is progressing rapidly and these advances are likely to improve \textsc{COIN++}{} too. For example, \citet{martel2021acorn} use adaptive patches to scale INRs to gigapixel images - such a partition of the input is similar to the variable size blocks used in BPG \citep{bellard2014bpg}. In addition, using better activation functions \citep{ramasinghe2021beyond} to increase PSNR and equilibrium models \citep{huang2021textrm} to reduce memory usage are exciting avenues for future research.
Finally, as \textsc{COIN++}{} replaces the encoder in traditional neural compression with a flexible optimization procedure and the decoder with a powerful functional representation, we believe compression with INRs has great potential. Advances in INRs, combined with more sophisticated entropy coding and quantization may allow \textsc{COIN}{}-like algorithms to equal or even surpass SOTA codecs, while potentially allowing for compression on currently unexplored modalities.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Hyunjik Kim, Danilo Rezende, Dan Rosenbaum and Ali Eslami for helpful discussions. We thank Jean-Francois Ton for helpful discussions around meta-learning and for reviewing an early version of the paper. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback which helped improve the paper. Emilien gratefully acknowledges his PhD funding from Google DeepMind.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Nearest neighbor search (NNS) is a fundamental building block for many applications within machine learning systems and database management systems, such as recommendation systems~\cite{das2007google}, large-scale image search and information retrieval~\cite{kulis2009kernelized,lv2004image,philbin2007object},
entity resolution~\cite{hoffart2012kore}, and sequence matching~\cite{berlin2015assembling}. NNS has recently become the focus of intense research activity, due to its core role in semantic-based search of unstructured data such as images, texts, video, speech using neural embedding models. In semantic-based search, a neural embedding model transfers objects into \emph{embeddings} in $\mathds{R}^d$, where $d$ often ranges from 100 to 1000 and N ranges from millions to billions. The task then is to find the $K$ nearest embeddings for a given query. For example, major e-commerce players such as Amazon~\cite{amazon-search} and Alibaba~\cite{alibaba-search} build semantic search engines, which embed product catalog and the search query into the same high-dimensional space and then recommends products whose embeddings that are closest to the embedded search query; Youtube~\cite{youtube-embed} embeds videos to vectors for video recommendation; Web-scale search engines embed text (e.g., word2vec~\cite{word2vec}, doc2vec~\cite{doc2vec}) and images (e.g., VGG~\cite{vgg}) for text/image retrieval~\cite{sptag,rankbrain}. We expect applications built on top of the embedding-based search to continue growing in the future, due to the success and continual advancement of neural embedding techniques that can effectively capture the semantic relations of objects. We also expect the objects to embed will grow rapidly, due to ubiquitous data collections, e.g., through phones and IoT devices.
Since the search occurs for every query, the \emph{latency} and the \emph{accuracy} (\emph{recall}) of the search engine critically depend on the ability to perform fast near neighbor search in the high-recall range. Various solutions for approximate nearest neighbor search (ANNS) have been proposed, including hashing-based methods\cite{indyk1998approximate,datar2004locality,andoni2006near,andoni2015practical}, quantization-based methods~\cite{jegou2008hamming,ge2013optimized,wu2017multiscale,wei2020analyticdb}, tree-based methods~\cite{silpa2008optimised,beckmann1990r,wang2020deltapq}, and graph-based methods~\cite{malkov2014approximate,wu2014fast,fu2019fast}. Among them, graph-based algorithms have emerged as a remarkably effective class of methods for high-dimensional ANNS, outperforming other approaches for very high recalls on a wide range of datasets~\cite{ann-benchmark}. As a result, these graph-based algorithms have been integrated with many large-scale production systems~\cite{fu2019fast,malkov2020efficient}, where optimizations for fast search and high recall are the focus of a highly active research area and have a clear practical impact.
To provide scalability, existing ANN search libraries often resort to coarse-grained inter-query parallelism, by dispatching each query to a core or even across different machines such that multiple queries can be processed simultaneously~\cite{fu2019fast,bashyam2020fast}. Although inter-query parallelism obtains impressive throughput improvements, it does not help reduce query latency. In particular, online applications often process each query upon its arrival and have stringent latency service level agreements (e.g., a few milliseconds). As the size of datasets grows rapidly, the increased latency of current graph-based ANN algorithms has been restraining ANN-based search engines from growing to large-scale datasets, especially for high-recall regimes.
To provide relevant results with consistently low latency, in this work, we investigate the possibility of intra-query parallelism on individual nodes to meet latency goals.
Although graph-based ANN consists of primarily graph operations, simply dividing the work of graph traversal into multiple threads is insufficient for supporting efficient ANN search, as it cannot efficiently leverage the underline multi-core processors due to complex interactions between graph operations and the hardware threads and memory hierarchy. In our studies, the intra-query parallelism may sometimes hurt search efficiency, because the communication and synchronization overhead increases as we increase the number of cores, making it especially harder to achieve high efficiency.
In this work, we provide an in-depth examination of the graph-based ANN algorithms with intra-query parallelism. Through a series of experiments, we have identified that an intrinsic challenge of the graph search process lies in its long convergence step --- existing \emph{best-first search} leads to long convergence steps and introduces heavy control dependencies that limit the upper bounds on speedup by using more cores, as predicted by Amdahl's Law. In our study, we find that, by enlarging the Best-First Search\xspace to \Hammer, the search process can converge in much fewer iterations, suggesting that the search process can achieve better overall performance by running individual queries with more hardware resources. However, exposing the \emph{path-wise} parallelism also changes the search dynamics of queries, leading to additional challenges that may adversely affect search efficiency, which resides in the aspects of redundant computations, memory-bandwidth under-utilization, high synchronization overhead, and irregular accesses caused poor data locality.
Based on the insights from our analysis, we present \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, a similarity search algorithm that combines a set of optimizations to address these challenges. \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace introduces three tailored optimizations to provide improved performance for graph-based ANN search.
First, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses \emph{parallel neighbor expansion} to divide the search workload to multiple workers in coarse-grained parallelism. Among it, every worker performs its private best-first search in an asynchronous manner to avoid heavy global communication.
Second, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace employs a \emph{staged search} scheme, which reduces redundant computations caused by over-expansion during a parallel search.
Third, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace is characterized by \emph{redundant-expansion aware synchronization} to lazily synchronize among workers while still providing fast search speed high recall.
Finally, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace provides additional optimizations such as loosely synchronized visiting maps and a cache-friendly neighbor grouping mechanism to improve cache locality during parallel search.
In summary, this paper makes the following contributions:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.24in,topsep=0pt]
\item provides the first comprehensive experimental analysis of intra-query parallelism for ANN search on multi-core architecture and identifies several major bottlenecks to speedup graph-based approximate nearest neighbors in high recall regime;
\item studies how the characteristics of a query vary as the search moves forward from multiple aspects, e.g., by increasing the edge-wise parallelism degree and the dynamics in search queue update positions, which reveals the opportunities and challenges it brings;
\item introduces a search algorithm named \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace with novel optimizations such as \emph{staged parallel neighbor expansion} and \emph{redundant-expansion aware synchronization} that allow parallel search on graph-based ANN to achieve significantly lower latency with high recall on different multi-core hardwares.
\item conducts thorough evaluation on a wide range of real-world datasets ranging from million to {\bf billion} data points to show that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace speeds up the search by $1.3\times$--$76.6\times$ compared to highly optimized state-of-the-art CPU-based search algorithms NSG~\cite{fu2019fast} and HNSW~\cite{malkov2020efficient}. \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace sometimes achieves super-linear speedups in the high recall regime as the number of threads increases, obtaining up to $37.7\times$ speedup over NSG and up to $76.6\times$ speedup over HNSW when using 32 threads. \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace also outperforms a state-of-the-art GPU implementation and provides good scalability.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:background}
\subsection{Approximate Nearest Neighbors}\label{subsec:problem_setting}
The nearest neighbor search problem in high-dimensional space is fundamental in various applications of information retrieval and database management. In this paper, the Euclidean space under the $l_2$ norm is denoted by $E^d$. The closeness of any two points $p_1$ and $p_2$ is defined by the $l_2$ distance $\delta (p_1, p_2)$ between them~\cite{fu2019fast}.
The \emph{Nearest Neighbor Search (NNS)} can be defined as follows~\cite{gionis1999similarity}:
\begin{definition}[\textbf{Nearest Neighbor Search}]\label{def:NNS}
Given a finite point set $P$ of $n$ points in the space $E^d$, preprocess $P$ so as to answer a given query point $q$ by finding the closest point $p \in P$.
\end{definition}
Please note that the query point $q$ is not in the point set $P$, i.e. $q \notin P$. The above definition generalizes naturally to the \emph{$K$ Nearest Neighbor Search (K-NNS)} where we want to find $K > 1$ points in the database that are closest to the query point.
A na\"ive solution is to linearly iterate all points in the dataset and evaluate their distance to the query. It is computationally demanding and only suitable for small datasets or queries without a time limit of response.
Therefore, it is practical to relax the condition of the exact search by allowing some extent of approximation.
The \emph{Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search (ANNS)} problem can be defined as follows~\cite{gionis1999similarity}:
\begin{definition}[\textbf{$\epsilon$-Nearest Neighbor Search}]\label{def:ANNS}
Given a finite point set $P$ of $n$ points in the space $E^d$, preprocess $P$ so as to answer a given query point $q$ by finding a point $p \in P$ such that $\delta (p, q) \leq (1 + \epsilon) \delta (r, q)$ where $r$ is the closest point to $q$ in $P$.
\end{definition}
Similarly, this definition can generalize to the \emph{Approximate $K$ Nearest Neighbor Search (AKNNS)} where we wish to find $K > 1$ points $p_1, \ldots, p_K$ such that $\forall i = 1, \ldots,K, \delta (p_i, q) \leq (1 + \epsilon) \delta (r_i, q)$ where $r_i$ is the $i$th closest point to $q$.
In practice, determining the exact value of $\epsilon$ requires some hard efforts. Instead, we use \emph{recall} as the metric to evaluate the quality of the approximation. A high \emph{recall} implies a small $\epsilon$, thus a good quality of the approximation.
It is defined as the value of the recall.
Suppose the approximate points set found for a given query $q$ is $R'$, and the true $K$ nearest neighbor set of $q$ is $R$, the \emph{recall} is
defined as follows~\cite{fu2016efanna}:
\begin{align} \label{formula:recall}
Recall(R') = \frac{\left | R' \cap R \right |}{\left | R' \right |} = \frac{\left | R' \cap R \right |}{K}
\end{align}
For a particular recall target, i.g. $0.990$ or $0.995$, our goal is to make the query latency as short as possible.
\subsection{Graph-based ANN Search}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fig_anns_graph_based_A}
\caption{Data points and a query point.}
\label{subfig:dataset_and_query}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fig_anns_graph_based_B}
\caption{Nearest neighbors of the query.}
\label{subfig:nearest_neighbors}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fig_anns_graph_based_C}
\caption{A graph index and search procedure.}
\label{subfig:graph_index}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{An example of graph-based ANNS. \textmd{Circles are data points. The golden star is query target (not in dataset). Four red circles are its nearest neighbors. Graph-based ANNS builds a graph index on the dataset in~\ref{subfig:graph_index}. The yellow circle is the starting point. Orange circles are visited vertices during the search via Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search}.}}
\label{fig:graph_based_anns}
\vspace{1em}
\end{figure}
Various ANNS solutions have been proposed over decades, e.g., the ones based on trees~\cite{arora2018hd}, hashing~\cite{huang2015query}, quantization~\cite{andre2015cache}, and graphs~\cite{malkov2014approximate,wu2014fast,fu2019fast}. Recently, many experimental results~\cite{malkov2014approximate,fu2019fast} show that graph-based approaches usually outperform others,
resulting in the best execution performance and recall.
That is because graph-based approaches can better express the neighbor relationship, allowing to check much fewer points in neighbor-subspaces.
Graph-based ANNS relies on a graph structure as its index, in which
a vertex represents a data point in the data set and an edge links two points as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:graph_based_anns}. A vertex $p_2$ is called a \emph{neighbor} of a vertex $p_1$ if and only if there is an edge from $p_1$ to $p_2$.
Many prior efforts focus on constructing optimal graphs for efficient ANNS~\cite{fu2019fast,malkov2020efficient}---which is not the focus of this work. In contrast, this work is based on the state-of-the-art graph construction approach~\cite{fu2019fast}, and aims to parallelize ANNS itself with a thorough study of its bottleneck and a set of advanced techniques addressing these bottlenecks.
Given the graph-based index built ready, Best-First Search\xspace algorithm is widely used by many graph-based methods for searching nearest neighbors~\cite{dearholt1988monotonic,arya1993approximate,hajebi2011fast,jin2014fast,malkov2014approximate,malkov2020efficient,harwood2016fanng}.
Given a query point $Q$ and a starting point $P$, the algorithm is to search for $K$ nearest neighbors to $Q$.
In the first search step, it visits $P$'s neighbors and computes their distance to $Q$ respectively to choose the closest vertex or candidate, and the next search step starts from the chosen candidate from the last step.
All visited vertices are recorded and kept in order according to their distance to $Q$.
The search step stops when the first $K$ visited vertices do not change anymore, which are the final $K$ nearest neighbors.
The time spent to find the $K$ nearest neighbors is the query's \emph{latency}.
\iffals
The Best-First Search\xspace (\emph{BFiS}\xspace) is the baseline ANNS algorithm used in NSG~\cite{fu2019fast} and other graph based index methods.
As shown in Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search}, its basic idea is to start from one point, and navigate the graph in a greedy manner, during which it records those current closest candidate vertices in a priority queue where all candidates are sorted regarding their distance to the query.
The whole search procedure can be regarded as a sequence of state update for the priority queue, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig_seq_search}.
In every state, the best first unchecked candidate is selected out and then expanded, whose neighbors are visited and their distance to the query is computed. Those neighbors are then inserted into the queue as new unchecked candidates. The search procedure terminates or converges when no new (unchecked) vertex can update the queue.
\input{text/algo_seq_greedy_search}
\f
\iffalse
\textcolor{red}{TODO: refine this part}
Although it introduces the opportunity of parallelization, the na\"ive parallel algorithm's performance is influenced by three issues significantly.
\subsubsection{Fine-grained Parallelization Level}
In Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search}, the parallelization is among those neighbors of the top-first unchecked candidate.
The parallelization level is too fine-grained as it is on the innermost for-loop.
First, a parallel innermost for-loop usually results in frequent fork and join operations for workers. This incurs high overhead for parallel implementation.
Second, there would be not enough workload for every worker when the number of neighbors is small. For many graph-based index method, the average degree of the graph is carefully chosen because is influences the search complexity. For the greedy search algorithm, the search complexity is influenced by two factors. The first is the number of search steps between the starting point and the destination, and the second is the computational cost at each step.
In other words, the search complexity can be indicated as $O(lo)$ where $l$ is the length of the search path and $o$ is the average out-degree of vertices in the graph~\cite{fu2019fast}. Many graph-based index methods aim to achieve a low average out-degree of the graph. Therefore, when visiting neighbors in parallel, the number of neighbors assigned to each worker would be very small, which leads to inefficient parallelization.
\subsubsection{Communication Among Workers}
The communication among workers is fulfilled through the shared visiting map. As being implicitly used in the searching algorithm, the visiting map is necessary for indicating a vertex's status: whether it visited or not. When vertices are visited by multiple workers simultaneously, the visiting map might be read (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_check_visited}) and written (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_modify_visited}) by different workers, which causes data race.
For Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search}, although it is not likely to have multiple edges between two vertices, data race cannot be avoided completely as the graph topology is unknown a priori.
In order to deal with data race, one option is to use a lock or mutex around any access to the visiting map. In this way, only one worker is able to obtain the visiting map and others need to wait at the same time. This will make accessing the visiting map very expensive.
Other option is to use atomic operation such as compare-and-swap (CAS). In this way, every modification upon the visiting map by one worker will be visible by all others, which also brings noticeable overhead.
\subsubsection{Result Synchronization}
Similar to the Best-First Search\xspace, Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search} uses a priority queue $S$ to store those closest vertices so far, including checked and unchecked ones. Those vertices or candidates are sorted according to their distance to the given query. After a neighbor is visited, it is then added into the queue as an new unchecked candidate. This adding implies some sort-like operation to maintain the order of all candidates.
In Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search}, the queue is shared by all workers. When multiple workers are trying to adding candidates into the queue at the same time, race condition arises. In order to avoid the race condition, a lock or mutex is needed for the adding operation (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_add}). A worker needs to acquire the lock before modifying the queue and release it after adding is finished. When the lock is acquired a worker, other workers need to wait, which can be a performance bottleneck.
\subsubsection{Other Methods}
\TODO{Introduce non-graph-based methods, including tree index and hashing index.}
\subsection{Best-First Search\xspace} \label{subsec:seq_greedy_search}
\input{text/algo_seq_greedy_search}
The Best-First Search\xspace (\emph{BFiS}\xspace, shown in Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search}) has been widely used as the heuristic search algorithm on various graph indices for ANNS.
In graph-based methods, a graph index is built upon the datasets. In this graph, vertices represent data points, and edges represent the relation between data points.
In overall, Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search} navigates the graph through vertices in a greedy manner, during which it records those closest candidate vertices so far in a priority queue, until no new (unchecked) vertex coming in to the queue anymore. By priority, it means that all vertices are sorted according to their distance to the query.
Specifically, Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search} starts searching from a starting point $P$ by computing the distance between point $P$ and the query $Q$ (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_starting_1}) and then adding it to the priority queue $S$ (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_starting_2}). The main searching procedure consists of multiple expanding iterations or search steps of the while loop between Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_while_1} and Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_while_2}.
In every iteration, the algorithm expands the top-first unchecked vertex or candidate in the queue $S$. As a priority queue, $S$'s 1st unchecked candidate is the closest unchecked vertex to the query $Q$. This is where the greediness comes from.
For every neighbor of this candidate, it computes its distance to the query $Q$ (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_adding_1}) and then adds it to the queue $S$ (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_adding_2}). Those newly added vertices are unchecked initially.
Figure~\ref{subfig:seq_search} illustrates one search step as an example. The state of the queue changes from State $t$ to $t + 1$ after all neighbors of the first unchecked candidate are accessed and tried to be added. The whole search procedure ends when the state of the queue cannot be updated as no unchecked vertices are in it anymore.
Please note that the adding operation implies a implicit sorting-like procedure in order to remain all vertices in $S$ are sorted according to their distance to the query $Q$, as $S$ is a priority queue. Additionally, the capacity of $S$ is fixed as value $L$, thus the adding operation when $S$ is already full also implies to drop one candidate at the queue's end.
Base on its design, Best-First Search\xspace (\emph{BFiS}\xspace) can be regarded as a variant of General Best-First Search (GBFS)~\cite{dechter1985generalized}.
GBFS has a closed list of vertices which have been expanded, and an open list of vertices which have been visited but not yet expanded. In each search step, it expands the most promising vertex or candidate on the open list, then the candidate expanded is moved to the closed list, and its neighbors are visited and added to the open list. The search terminates when a goal point is chosen for expansion, or when the open list is empty.
If the cost of a node is its depth in the graph, then GBFS becomes Breadth-First Search (BFS)~\cite{korf1993linear}.
However, \emph{BFiS}\xspace possesses some unique features different from both GBFS and BFS.
First, in \emph{BFiS}\xspace, the graph topology is only used as an index for navigating between data points. Unlike the typical graph structure that the distance is associated with the edges, a vertex's distance here is determined by the data point it represents.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{subsec:problem_setting}, the distance between a data point $p$ and the query $Q$ is calculated as their $l_2$ distance in the Euclidean space. As a data points could have hundreds dimensions of floating point data, the searching time for a query is dominated by the distance computation (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_adding_1}) rather than the vertex navigation.
Second, the objective of \emph{BFiS}\xspace is to find a set of vertices which are approximately closest to the given query point, rather than find the shortest distance from the starting point to a single goal point. For GBFS and BFS, the goal is a single point in the graph. Their searching procedure terminates when the goal point is visited in the end. In contrast, in the scenario of \emph{BFiS}\xspace, the goal point or the query point is not included in the graph dataset. Its output is a set of points in the dataset that are closest to the query during the searching. Moreover, those points found might not be those real nearest neighbors, and the output is a trade-off between query latency and recall.
Third, because its output is a set of vertices, \emph{BFiS}\xspace needs a priority queue to hold those closest vertices that have been visited so far.
Besides the visited/unvisited status, every candidate in the queue has an extra status to determine if it has been checked or expanded.
In every search step, the top-first unchecked candidate is expanded. All its neighbors are visited and then added into the queue as unchecked candidates, and the order of all candidates is maintained according to their distance to the query. Some vertices are then dropped, for the capacity of the queue is limited to $L$. This brings a implicit dependency among sequential steps, as the starting status of the queue is determined by the last step.
The searching procedure terminates not when a certain vertex is visited, but when the status of the queue is stable that there are no unchecked vertices in it.
\subsection{Na\"ive Parallel Search}
\input{text/algo_naive_parallel_search}
As wee can see, the sequential Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search} has implicit dependency among consecutive search steps.
Within a search step, the state of the queue $S$ keeps being updated by adding unchecked candidates into it. The current state of the queue is determined by its previous state's updates.
Base on this observation, the first attempt for parallelizing the sequential algorithm is to parallelize the neighbor iterating (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_while_1}), as shown in Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search}.
In this algorithm, multiple workers visit all neighbors of the top-first unchecked candidate in parallel. A worker first checks if a neighbor assigned is visited (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_check_visited}). If it is not, the worker then computes the neighbor's distance to the query (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_compute}) and add it to the queue (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_add}).
A visiting map is used implicitly in Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search} and Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search} to indicate if a vertex is visited.
Here the visiting map and the priority queue are shared among all workers. Therefore, any read or update upon them is supposed to be atomic. Those atomic operations are emphasized in bold in Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search}.
Figure~\ref{subfig:naive_par_search} shows an example that two workers visit those neighbors of the first unchecked candidate and compute their distance. A lock icon aside the arrow indicates the atomic update towards the queue.
Although it introduces the opportunity of parallelization, the na\"ive parallel algorithm's performance is influenced by three issues significantly.
\subsubsection{Too Fine-grained Parallelization Level}
In Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search}, the parallelization is among those neighbors of the top-first unchecked candidate.
The parallelization level is too fine-grained as it is on the innermost for-loop.
First, a parallel innermost for-loop usually results in frequent fork and join operations for workers. This incurs high overhead for parallel implementation.
Second, there would be not enough workload for every worker when the number of neighbors is small. For many graph-based index method, the average degree of the graph is carefully chosen because is influences the search complexity. For the greedy search algorithm, the search complexity is influenced by two factors. The first is the number of search steps between the starting point and the destination, and the second is the computational cost at each step.
In other words, the search complexity can be indicated as $O(lo)$ where $l$ is the length of the search path and $o$ is the average out-degree of vertices in the graph~\cite{fu2019fast}. Many graph-based index methods aim to achieve a low average out-degree of the graph. Therefore, when visiting neighbors in parallel, the number of neighbors assigned to each worker would be very small, which leads to inefficient parallelization.
\subsubsection{Communication Overhead Among Workers}
The communication among workers is fulfilled through the shared visiting map. As being implicitly used in the searching algorithm, the visiting map is necessary for indicating a vertex's status: whether it visited or not. When vertices are visited by multiple workers simultaneously, the visiting map might be read (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_check_visited}) and written (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_modify_visited}) by different workers, which causes data race.
For Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search}, although it is not likely to have multiple edges between two vertices, data race cannot be avoided completely as the graph topology is unknown a priori.
In order to deal with data race, one option is to use a lock or mutex around any access to the visiting map. In this way, only one worker is able to obtain the visiting map and others need to wait at the same time. This will make accessing the visiting map very expensive.
Other option is to use atomic operation such as compare-and-swap (CAS). In this way, every modification upon the visiting map by one worker will be visible by all others, which also brings noticeable overhead.
\subsubsection{Result Synchronization Overhead}
Similar to the Best-First Search\xspace, Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search} uses a priority queue $S$ to store those closest vertices so far, including checked and unchecked ones. Those vertices or candidates are sorted according to their distance to the given query. After a neighbor is visited, it is then added into the queue as an new unchecked candidate. This adding implies some sort-like operation to maintain the order of all candidates.
In Algorithm~\ref{algo:naive_para_search}, the queue is shared by all workers. When multiple workers are trying to adding candidates into the queue at the same time, race condition arises. In order to avoid the race condition, a lock or mutex is needed for the adding operation (Line~\ref{algo_line:naive_add}). A worker needs to acquire the lock before modifying the queue and release it after adding is finished. When the lock is acquired a worker, other workers need to wait, which can be a performance bottleneck.
\fi
\section{Design of ${\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace}$}
\label{sec:design}
Based on the observations from Section~\ref{subsec:speculation}, we introduce \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, a
parallel search algorithm that exploits lightweight intra-query parallelism (i.e., path-wise parallelism and edge-wise parallelism) to accelerate the search efficiency of similarity graphs on multi-core CPU architectures. We first provide an overview of our architecture-aware design, and then we discuss technical details.
Figure~\ref{fig:fig_system_overview} depicts \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's overall design that addresses the challenges mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:overview} to perform an efficient similarity graph search.
To reduce the long critical path dependency (Challenge I) and increase the amount of parallelism, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses \emph{parallel neighbor expansion} to deliver coarse-grained parallelism.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace further introduces a staged search strategy to reduce redundant computations caused by over-expansion during a parallel search.
To limit global synchronization overhead (Challenge III), \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace adopts \emph{redundant-expansion aware synchronization} to adaptively adjust synchronization frequency.
As such, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace reduces the number of global synchronizations while still achieving high search accuracy.
Besides, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses loosely synchronized visit maps for lightweight communication and also performs the neighbor grouping technique to improve memory locality (Challenge IV).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/fig_system_overview}
\caption{Overview of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace.}
\label{fig:fig_system_overview}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Parallel Neighbor Expansion}
\label{subsec:speculation}
Although it is challenging to parallelize the Best-First Search\xspace (\emph{BFiS}\xspace) process due to its long critical path and limited edge-wise parallelism, the semantics of the algorithm does not seem to always require a strict order as long as the goal is to minimize the total search time of near neighbors. In this section, we exploit whether the search is robust to deviation from a strict order by allowing concurrent expansion of multiple active nodes.
For practical similarity search, e.g., NSG and HNSW, there is no guarantee that a \emph{monotonic search path} always exists for any given query~\cite{fu2019fast}. As a result, the search can easily get trapped into the local optimum. To address this issue, \emph{BFiS}\xspace may \emph{backtrack} to visited nodes and find another out-going edge that has not been expanded to continue the search.
Figure~\ref{fig:example_search_path}(a) illustrates a search path with backtracking. The search starts from vertex $A$ and calculates the distance (indicated by the number following the letter on each vertex) between the three neighbors of $A$ ($B$, $F$, and $H$) and the query point. Because $H$'s distance is locally the smallest, \emph{BFiS}\xspace would select $H$ as the active node in the next step. However, given that further expanding $H$ no longer leads to a closer candidate, the search reaches a local minimum and performs a \emph{backtracking} to the next promising candidate $F$. The search process then may backtrack multiple times until it either finds the near neighbor (e.g., $O$) or exhausts the search budget.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fig_search_path_A.pdf}
\caption{Best-First Search\xspace w/ backtrack.}
\label{subfig:search_path_A}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fig_search_path_B.pdf}
\caption{\Hammer: expand top-3 candidates.}
\label{subfig:search_path_B}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of BFiS and \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace.
\textmd{BFiS needs a long search path with backtrack to find nearest neighbors (11 steps). \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace reduces backtrack and completes with a shorter path (5 steps).}}
\label{fig:example_search_path}
\end{figure}
Backtracking creates additional dependencies in \emph{BFiS}\xspace process and increases the convergence steps to find near neighbors. However, many of these backtracking dependencies can be \textbf{"fake" dependencies} if we perform a \emph{parallel neighbor expansion}, e.g., {\em by expanding multiple active nodes concurrently, it is possible to shorten the convergence steps by
starting early at one of those backtracking points}.
As an example, while it takes 11 steps to find the near neighbor in Figure~\ref{fig:example_search_path}(a), it only takes 5 steps in Figure~\ref{fig:example_search_path}(b) if we expand nodes F, G, J, M right after expanding their parent nodes.
Based on this insight, we introduce \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace. In this scheme, the priority order is relaxed such that in each step, {\bf top $M$ unchecked candidates} are selected as active nodes for expansion instead of just the best candidate.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/insight_last_update_iter_vs_rank}
\caption{Convergence steps to find the $K$-th nearest neighbor in the queue. $K$ is specified by the x-axis.
\textmd{Although \emph{BFiS}\xspace can find the first neighbor quickly, it still needs many steps to find all others.}}
\label{subfig:insight_last_update_iter_vs_rank}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/insight_unchecked_vs_iters}
\caption{Numbers of unchecked candidates (vertices) in the queue after every search step.
\textmd{While \emph{BFiS}\xspace needs 100+ steps to converge, TMS\xspace only needs 10+ steps.
Values are the average of 10K queries.}
}
\label{subfig:insight_unchecked_vs_iters}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{TMS\xspace results in much less search steps than \emph{BFiS}\xspace.
\textmd{
Dataset is SIFT1M. They have the same $L=100$. TMS\xspace has $M=64$, where $M$ means the top $M$ unchecked candidates.}
}
\label{fig:insight_convergence_steps_Top_M_vs_SGS}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98in]{figures/insight_1T_compt_Top_M_vs_SGS}
\caption{Distance computations of \emph{BFiS}\xspace and TMS\xspace, where $M = 64$.}
\label{fig:insight_1T_compt_Top_M_vs_SGS}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98in]{figures/insight_Top_M_compt_steps_vs_M}
\caption{Distance computations and search steps of TMS\xspace when $M$ changes.
}
\label{fig:insight_Top_M_compt_steps_vs_M}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\PunchStarter{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace exposes hidden parallelism.}
The relaxation of the order enables two levels of parallelism: the \emph{path-wise parallelism} where multiple threads can concurrently expand the search frontier,
and the \emph{edge-wise parallelism} when expanding an individual active node.
Moreover, instead of having a global queue to maintain strict expansion orders among all workers, each worker has a local priority queue,
which allows a thread to exploit a small number of \emph{order inversions} (i.e., allowing a worker thread to locally select and expand active nodes ahead of the global order), which can dramatically reduce communication, synchronization, and coordination between threads.
\PunchStarter{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace converges faster to near neighbors.}
One key benefit of TMS\xspace is that it significantly shortens the \emph{convergence steps} compared to \emph{BFiS}\xspace.
Figure~\ref{fig:insight_convergence_steps_Top_M_vs_SGS} shows the comparison results of convergence steps between \emph{BFiS}\xspace and TMS\xspace.
The results are measured on dataset SIFT1M using 10K queries with $0.90$ recall target, and $M$ is set to 64.
\Hammer takes on average 3.4, 5.0, and 5.4 steps to find the 1st, 50th, and 100th nearest neighbor, respectively, whereas \emph{BFiS}\xspace takes 10.1, 69.4, and 88.1 steps, respectively.
From another aspect, TMS\xspace takes much fewer steps to finish examining all the unchecked vertices in $S$ than \emph{BFiS}\xspace, as shown in Figure~\ref{subfig:insight_unchecked_vs_iters}. Both results indicate that TMS\xspace has a much faster convergence speed than \emph{BFiS}\xspace.
\PunchStarter{Tree-based Expansion View.}
Similar to the classical DFS/BFS, \emph{BFiS}\xspace naturally introduces an expansion tree: the root node $T_r$ of the tree is the starting vertex $P$ in graph $G$; the children of a tree node $T_i$ (corresponding to a graph vertex $v_i$) are the unvisited neighbors of $v_i$. The expansion of \emph{BFiS}\xspace bears many similarities to DFS, as each time, it will expand only one leaf node. However, different from DFS, which expands the one with the most depth, \emph{BFiS}\xspace expands the one which is closest to query $Q$. Thus, we have the same concepts of {\em backtracking} and {\em Steps} in \emph{BFiS}\xspace.
The power of \Hammer is that it expands the $M$ leaves simultaneously of the tree, which are $M$ nearest neighbors of query $Q$ among all the leaves of the {\em current} expansion tree. This effectively searches/extends $M$ paths in parallel instead of a single path (in \emph{BFiS}\xspace). Thus, TMS\xspace can potentially reduce the total number of {\em steps} of \emph{BFiS}\xspace by a factor of $M$ times, as for $k$ {\em Steps}, TMS\xspace can expand $k M$ tree nodes/leaves. Further, due to the hardware capability, at the same {\em time}, TMS\xspace can process $M$ leaves/paths expansion as only what is in \emph{BFiS}\xspace (one single leave or path expansion), leading to the low latency of query processing.
We also note that the \emph{BFiS}\xspace becomes a special case of TMS\xspace where $M=1$, and both parallelization are under Bulk Synchronous Parallel (BSP) model~\cite{valiant1990bridging} though \emph{BFiS}\xspace has rather limited parallelism to explore.
\subsection{Staged \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace to Avoid Over-Expansion}
Despite the faster convergence speed, intra-query parallel search incurs additional challenges in increased distance computations. Figure~\ref{fig:insight_1T_compt_Top_M_vs_SGS} shows that to reach the same recall, TMS\xspace often leads to more distance computations than \emph{BFiS}\xspace. TMS\xspace has more computations because parallel neighbor expansion allows a query to take fewer steps to reach the near neighbors by avoiding fake dependencies from backtracking but it also introduces more computations to explore additional paths. Furthermore, we observe that although the convergence steps continue to decrease with larger $M$, the number of distance computations also increases dramatically, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:insight_Top_M_compt_steps_vs_M}.
When the number of parallel workers is large, the search speed of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace might be sluggish because the over-expansion of neighbors can result in many redundant computations during the entire search process. To avoid unnecessary distance computations caused by over-expansion, we take a \emph{staged} search process by gradually increasing the expansion width (i.e., M) and the number of worker threads every $t$ steps during the search procedure. The intuition is that the search is less likely to get stuck at a local minimum at the beginning of the search, so the best-first search with a single thread can already help the query to get close to near neighbors. As the search moves forward, it becomes more likely that a query will get stuck at a local minimum and requires backtracking to escape from the local minimum. Therefore, a parallel neighbor expansion search with a larger expansion width in later phases can better help reduce the convergence steps. We find that a simple staging function works well in practice: when the search begins, we first set a starting value and a maximum value for $M$. The starting value is usually one, and the maximum value can be as large as the number of available hardware threads. Subsequently, for every $t$ steps (e.g., $t=1$) we double the value of $M$ until $M$ reaches its maximum.
Figure~\ref{subfig:insight_1T_compt_Scale_M_vs_Top_M_vs_SGS} shows that by taking staged search, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace reduces the amount of redundant significantly in comparison to \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace without staged search and leads to distance computations close to \emph{BFiS}\xspace. On the other hand, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace is able to converge as almost fast as \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace without staged search, as shown in
Figure~\ref{subfig:insight_unchecked_vs_iter_Top_M_Scale_M}. These results indicate that our staged search method still achieves fast convergence speeds without incurring too many distance computations caused by over-expansion through the parallel search on a large number of workers.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.1in]{figures/insight_1T_compt_Scale_M_vs_Top_M_vs_SGS}
\caption{Distance computation of \emph{BFiS}\xspace, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace w/o staged search, and \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace w. staged search.
\textmd{Staged search avoids additional distance computation from over-expansion.}}
\label{subfig:insight_1T_compt_Scale_M_vs_Top_M_vs_SGS}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.05in]{figures/insight_unchecked_vs_iter_Top_M_Scale_M}
\caption{Number of unchecked candidates after each search step.
\textmd{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace carries fast convergence properties.}}
\label{subfig:insight_unchecked_vs_iter_Top_M_Scale_M}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison between \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace without staged search and with staged search: distance computation \& search steps.
\textmd{$M = 64$.}}
\label{fig:insight_Top_M_vs_Scale_M}
\vspace{1em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Redundant-Expansion Aware Synchronization}
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:overview}, yet another big performance bottleneck in intra-query parallelism resides in the synchronization overhead. Figure~\ref{fig:insight_PSS_sync_frequency_vs_overhead} shows how the global synchronization frequency influences the synchronization overhead (calculated by synchronization time divided by overall execution time) and the overall distance computations. All results in this figure return the same recall value.
It shows that the synchronization overhead increases significantly when the synchronization frequency grows.
We also find that order inversion (without enough synchronization) slows down the search convergence and results in growing distance computations (as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:insight_PSS_sync_frequency_vs_overhead}). This is because, without enough synchronization, worker threads keep searching their own (unpromising) areas without benefiting from other threads' latest search results that may lead to faster convergence. This study demonstrates that a proper synchronization frequency is desired to achieve high system performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98in]{figures/insight_PSS_sync_frequency_vs_overhead}
\caption{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's sync. overhead and distance computation vs. sync. frequency.}
\label{fig:insight_PSS_sync_frequency_vs_overhead}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98in]{figures/insight_PSS_update_position_example}
\caption{A query's average update positions during searching.
}
\label{fig:insight_PSS_update_position_example}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{1em}
\end{figure}
\noindent\textbf{Measuring redundant expansion via update positions.}
To unleash the full power of multi-core systems, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace performs a unique form of lazy synchronization so that worker threads do not need to synchronize at every search step in most cases.
Especially, our synchronization scheme is \emph{redundant-expansion aware}, which means instead of having a strict order through the entire convergence steps, we allow some relaxation of the order as long as each worker thread is still performing some effective search and the global order becomes consistent again after a large amount of redundant expansion has been detected.
In this paper, we propose a new way to measure the effectiveness of intra-query parallel search based on the \emph{update positions} of workers. When a worker expands an unchecked candidate, its neighbors are then inserted into the worker's local queue, and the update position is defined as the \emph{lowest (best)} position of all newly inserted candidates. Thus, \emph{the average update position} is the mean of all update positions of workers.
Figure~\ref{fig:insight_PSS_update_position_example} demonstrates how an example query's average update position changes during the search steps without global synchronization.
It shows that the average update position increases gradually to the local queue capacity and resides there to the end.
When the average update position is close to the queue capacity, it indicates that most workers are searching among unpromising areas and cannot find good enough candidates to update their local results.
Therefore, the average update position can be used as a metric to determine if all workers need to synchronize their local results to adjust the search order. We would like to note that there could be more than one metric to decide when to perform the lazy synchronization. We leave it as an open research question and more advanced methods might lead to better performance improvements.
Algorithm~\ref{algo:check_merge_metric} describes how to use the average update position as the metric to decide when to perform a lazy synchronization. Given the queue capacity $L$ and a position ratio $R$, the threshold of the average update position to do synchronization is set as $L\cdot R$.
If the \emph{checker} finds the average update position is greater than or equal to the threshold (Line~\ref{algo_line:check_metric}), it returns \texttt{true} indicating a global synchronization in Algorithm~\ref{algo:par_stale_search}.
Empirically, the ratio $R$ is close to $1.0$, such as $0.9$ or $0.8$. The input vector of all update positions is updated by workers regularly without locks. The return flag is only written by the \emph{checker} who is assigned among workers in a round-robin manner.
\input{text/algo_check_merge_metric}
Table~\ref{tab:comp_no_sync_bulk_step} shows preliminary results about the performance comparison between adaptive synchronization and no-synchronization. No-synchronization means each thread performs its local search and only combines the results in the end. The results show that adaptive synchronization is able to improve search efficiency with fewer distance computations. Overall, the reduced synchronization and distance computation from our redundant-expansion-aware synchronization is especially helpful for parallel neighbor expansion on a large number of workers, because global synchronization across multiple threads is still expensive and not very scalable as the number of cores increases.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{Comparison between no-sync. and adaptive sync.
\textmd{8 threads on SIFT1M for Recall@100 0.9.
Adaptive sync. check workers' dynamic status and merge queues adaptively.
\texttt{Lt.} denotes latency. \texttt{Compt.} denotes distance computation.}}
\label{tab:comp_no_sync_bulk_step}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Dataset & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{no-sync.} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{adaptive sync.} \\ \cline{2-5}
& Lt. (ms.) & Compt. & Lt. (ms.) & Compt. \\ \hline\hline
SIFT1M & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{1.16} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{125.3 M} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.70} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{33.1 M} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\noindent
\textbf{Putting It Together.}
Algorithm~\ref{algo:par_stale_search} describes the overall algorithm of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace. At the beginning of each global step, the global queue evenly divides its unchecked candidates among all local threads.
After that, each worker performs a local best-first search based on its own local queue of sub-states (Line~\ref{algo_line:stale_substate_start} to Line~\ref{algo_line:stale_substate_end}).
Different from the global state that involves updating the global queue, a worker's local \emph{sub-state} is the state of its private queue.
In a local search step, a worker expands its own best unchecked candidate and updates its private queue accordingly.
Before the global queue's state is updated, a worker can have multiple sub-states of its own private queue.
A worker continues expansion until \texttt{CheckMetrics()} raises a flag for merging
or it has no unchecked candidates left locally. In a round-robin way, a worker is assigned as the \emph{checker}.
Her duty is to check (as what \texttt{CheckMetrics()} does) if all workers need to synchronize their sub-states by merging all private queues into the global queue.
If so (Line~\ref{algo_line:checker_true}), all workers will stop their local search and merge their queues.
\input{text/algo_par_stale_search}
\subsection{Additional Optimizations}
\noindent\textbf{Loosely Synchronized Visiting Map.}
There is one potential bottleneck to multi-threaded parallel scaling in Algorithm~\ref{algo:par_stale_search} on our target architectural platforms (multi-core systems).
Consider visiting a neighbor of a candidate. This is typically after a check and then an update to a visiting map to ensure that a vertex is calculated once (Line~\ref{algo_line:stale_check_map}-\ref{algo_line:stale_update_map}).
During parallel neighbor expansion, the visiting map is shared by all workers to indicate if a vertex has been visited.
Since multiple threads may access the shared visiting map concurrently, locking or lock-free algorithms are required if we still want to ensure a vertex is visited only once. However, this approach involves a significant scalability bottleneck, because it leads to lock contention and sequentialization of updating the visiting map.
We observe that the ANN search algorithm is still correct even if a vertex is calculated multiple times because the local candidates are guaranteed to be merged back to the global priority queue and the visiting map is also guaranteed to have \emph{eventual consistency} the next time of global synchronization. Furthermore, by inserting memory fences, cache coherence further ensures that the updated visiting map is visible to other cores. Due to the potential out-of-order execution in processors, modern multi-core processors provide \emph{fence} instructions as a mechanism to override their default memory access orders. In particular, we issue a fence after a thread updates the visiting map to guarantee a processor has completed the distance computation of the corresponding vertex and has updated the visiting map (otherwise, there is no guarantee the updated visiting map is visible to other cores before next step of global synchronization).
By doing the loosely synchronized local search, we observe that the search algorithm only performs a very small percentage of additional distance computations (less than 5\%) for {SIFT1M} (and similar for other datasets) with 8-way parallelism. This reduces the overhead from synchronization by 10\% and allows us to avert the issue of non-scaling locking across the multi-threading search. This optimization was also considered by Leiserson and Schardl~\cite{benign-race} (termed as "benign races") for their parallel breadth-first search algorithm.
Furthermore, we use a bitvector to implement the visiting map instead of a byte-array.
This optimization allows the cache to hold the largest possible portion of the visiting map and therefore improves the data locality for memory accesses.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/fig_reorder}
\caption{Example of neighbor grouping and hierarchical data storage.
\textmd{
Vertices are ranked according to their in-degree.
Vertices are first reordered into new ids according to their ranks.
High ranked vertices are stored in an optimized index where every vertex's neighbors' data are stored in consecutive locations right after its own data to make expanding cache-friendly.
Other low ranked vertices are stored in a standard index where the graph index and data vectors are stored separately.}}
\label{fig:fig_reorder}
\end{figure}
\noindent{\textbf{Cache Friendly Neighbor Grouping.}}
When a feature vector is loaded into memory for distance computation, modern CPU architectures actually automatically load vectors from nearby memory locations as well.
Our neighbor grouping technique taps into this feature to mitigate the two levels of irregularity mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:overview}.
First, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace \emph{flattens} the graph indices by placing the embeddings of neighbor vertices in consecutive memory, which would avoid one-level of implicit memory addressing and enables a thread to pre-fetch neighbor feature vectors once an active node is selected. Second, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace also regroups nodes, such that vertices that are likely to be visited during the graph traversal are already pre-load into the CPU memory and cache. Together, these two optimizations increase the cache hit rate and help speed up the search process.
One caveat of this approach is that it introduces additional memory consumption, because two neighbor lists may share the same vertex as a common neighbor. It is therefore may require more memory consumption than the original approach.
To avoid increasing the memory consumption, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace takes a hierarchical approach by regrouping only a subset of vertices. In particular, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace divides a graph to a two-level index as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig_reorder}, where only the top-level vertices have their neighbors flattened and stored in consecutive memory, and the bottom-level index stores other vertices using the standard structure.
In this work, we explore two strategies to graph division:
\textbf{Degree-centric}, which puts high in-degree nodes to the top-level of the indices. The intuition is that high in-degree nodes are more frequently accessed, and therefore improving their locality would benefit the most for the overall search efficiency.
\textbf{Frequency-centric}, which exploits query distribution to figure out which nodes are more frequently accessed and puts those frequently accessed nodes into an optimized index.
Section~\ref{sec:eval} evaluates both strategies and shows that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's neighbor grouping strategy brings 10\% performance improvements with selecting only 0.1\% vertices as the top level for a dataset with 100M vertices.
\section{Complexities in Graph-based ANN Search for Optimizations}\label{sec:overview}
\subsection{Overview of Graph-based ANN Search}
The search procedure in existing similarity graph algorithms, such as NSG~\cite{fu2019fast} and HNSW~\cite{malkov2020efficient}, is a \emph{best-first traversal} that starts at a chosen (e.g., medoid o random) point and walks along the edges of the graph while getting closer to the nearest neighbors at each step until it converges to a local minimum. Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search} shows its basic idea. In a similarity graph, nodes represent entities in a problem domain (e.g., a video or image in a recommendation system), with each carrying a \textbf{\emph{feature vector}}. Edges between nodes capture their closeness relationship, which can be measured through a metric distance (e.g., Euclidean). There are a few main differences between the best-first traversal and classic BFS (breadth-first search) and DFS (depth-first search) algorithms. The first is an \textbf{\emph{ordering-based expansion}}. During graph traversal, the algorithm selects the closest unchecked node $v_i$, called an \textbf{\emph{active node}}, and computes the distance of all neighbors of $v_i$ to the query with their feature vectors (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_expand_1}-\ref{algo_line:SGS_expand_2}), and \emph{only} inserts promising neighbors into a \emph{priority queue} as new unchecked candidates for future expansion. In this way, the search can limit the number of distance computations needed to converge to near neighbors. Second, different from the BFS and DFS, which traverse all the connected nodes, the best-first search \textbf{\emph{converges}} when no new (unchecked) vertex can be found to update the priority queue, leading to a different number of convergence iterations (i.e., the number of while loop iterations in Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search}) for different datasets and queries.
\input{text/algo_seq_greedy_search}
\subsection{Complexities for Optimizations}
The graph traversal process in similarity graphs shares some common complexities with traditional graph processing for performance optimizations, but it also owns some distinctive features. However, no previous work has given a systematic examination of these complexities. Such knowledge is essential for optimizing similarity graph search, especially at a large scale.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/fig_csr_index}
\caption{The storage structure of the graph-based index.
\textmd{The graph topology is stored in compressed sparse row (CSR) format, and the data vectors are stored in consecutive arrays.}}
\label{fig:fig_csr_index}
\end{figure}
\noindent{\bf Challenge I: Best-First Search\xspace (\emph{BFiS}\xspace) takes long iterations to converge, resulting in a prolonged critical path with heavy control dependency.}
As Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search} shows,
this search consists of a sequence of search steps (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_while_1}-\ref{algo_line:SGS_while_2}) in which the candidates in the current step are determined by the last step.
Consider that ANNS usually queries for the top K nearest neighbors, requiring the first K elements in the priority queue to become stable. This state update usually converges slowly (e.g., $>$ 400 search steps or convergence steps to find the 100-nn with 0.999 recall for a million-scale dataset SIFT1M), resulting in a long critical path of execution.
\noindent{\bf Challenge II: Limited edge-wise parallelism in traversal and memory bandwidth under-utilization.}
Beyond the aforementioned long convergence steps, it is possible to parallelize the neighbor expansion step (Line~\ref{algo_line:SGS_expand_1}-\ref{algo_line:SGS_expand_2} in Algorithm~\ref{algo:seq_greedy_search}) to reduce the execution time by dividing the neighbors into disjoint subsets and having multiple threads each compute the distance for a subset in parallel, which is called \emph{edge-wise parallelism}.
However, this parallelism strategy often achieves sub-optimal performance, because many similarity graphs have a small truncated out-degree on all nodes to avoid the \emph{out-degree explosion problem}~\cite{fu2019fast}. As a result, dividing the work across more worker threads would result in each thread processing only a very small number of vertices. Furthermore, edge-wise parallelism also adds synchronization overhead (e.g., at Line 14) to maintain an ordered expansion. Our preliminary experiment results in Table~\ref{tab:nsg_parallel_bdw} show that the edge-wise parallelism strategy (e.g.,
running with 64 threads on five datasets) leads to less than 5\% of the peak hardware memory bandwidth ($\sim$80 GB/s),
indicating a large performance potential remains yet to tap into.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{Memory bandwidth (bdw.) measurement for edge-wise parallelism strategy.}
\label{tab:nsg_parallel_bdw}
\scalebox{0.84}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Datasets & SIFT1M & GIST1M & DEEP10M & SIFT100M & DEEP100M \\
\hline \hline
bdw. (GB/s) & 1.9 & 3.3 & 1.6 & 1.0 & 1.1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\noindent{\textbf{Challenge III: Strict expansion order leads to high synchronization cost.}}
Existing similarity graph search algorithms use a priority queue to maintain the strict priority order of all candidates according to their distances to the queue point. Although it is possible in principle to use a concurrent priority queue that uses locks or lock-free algorithms to synchronize the candidate insertions (Line 14),
we observe that the parallel scalability is severely limited by maintaining this strict order because each worker thread only performs distance computations for a few vertices.
\noindent{\textbf{Challenge IV: Poor locality brought by irregular memory accesses.}}
Existing similarity graphs often store the graph index (e.g., in the compressed sparse row (CSR) format that contains a vertex array and an edge array) and feature vectors (e.g., in one embedding matrix) separately in memory as different objects, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig_csr_index}. There are two points in this design that lead to inefficiencies. First, the accessed nodes often reside discontinuously in memory, which leads to unpredictable memory accesses. Second, it requires one-level of indirection to access feature vectors, leading to difficulties for memory locality optimizations.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
This work looks into the problem of accelerating graph-based ANN search on multi-core systems, performing comprehensive studies to reveal multiple challenges and opportunities to exploit intra-query parallelism for speeding up ANN search.
Based on the detailed performance characterization, we propose \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, a similarity search algorithm that takes advantage of multi-core CPUs to significantly accelerate search speed without comprising search accuracy. \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace consists of a set of advanced parallel designs, including parallel neighbor expansion, staged search, redundant-expansion aware synchronization, loosely synchronized visit map, and cache friendly neighbor grouping, systematically addressing all the identified challenges. Evaluation results show that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace outperforms two state-of-the-art methods NSG and HNSW by up to $37.7\times$ and $76.6\times$ on a wide range of real-world datasets ranging from million to billion data points.
\section{Implementation}\label{sec:implementation}
\subsection{NSG Graph}
In order to test search methods, we used the implementation of Navigating Spreading-out Graph (NSG) to build graph indices and then tested our searching performance on them. According to their evaluation, NSG is the state-of-the-art graph-based index method that leads to good performance for the Best-First Search\xspace~\cite{fu2019fast}.
NSG has several features which are designed to simplify and improve search performance.
First, NSG is an approximate monotonic search network. A monotonic search network can provide at least one monotonic path for any two vertices that on the path, the distance from the one end to the other is decreasing in monotonic. This approximate monotonicity is important for search method to reduce the lengh of search path.
Second, NSG sets a soft limit on the out-degrees of vertices in the built graph. In theory, the limit helps reduce the time complexity of searching. In practice, the limit also helps make the workload balance among workers.
Third, NSG provides an approximate medoid of the given dataset, which is used as the starting point for searching. The medoid is similar to the mean or the centroid of the dataset while it also has to be a data point included in the dataset. Please note that the design of Loosely Synchronized Search\xspace is not particularly for NSG only, and its observation should be applicable for other graph-based indices that use Best-First Search\xspace as their searching method.
\subsection{Contiguous Local Queues}
On a shared memory mathine, workers local queues are implemented as one large queue divided into several parts and every worker gets its private part as its own local queue. In this way, all local queues are contigous in memory, and it is able to improve the data locality for memory accesses to the queue.
Moreover, the precedure of global merging is to be done in place simultaneously.
First, the last local queue in the sequence is treated as the global queue when do merging. There is no need to assign extra memory for the global queue. It also saves the data movement between the global queue and the last local queue.
Second, all workers do the global merging simultaneously in a way of balanced binary tree. For example, assume there are 4 workers form $W_0$ to $W_3$. On the first level, $W_0$ and $W_1$ merge their elements into $W_1$, and $W_2$ and $W_3$ merge into $W_3$. on the second level, $W_1$ and $W_3$ merge their elements into $W_3$. As $W_3$'s local queue is the last one in the sequence, it is also the global queue. After that, the merge is finished and the global results are ready in the global queue. The merge on the same level can be done in parallel.
\subsection{Bitvector Visiting Map}
During the search procedure, a visiting map is shared by all workers to indicate if a vertex has been visited so that a vetex will be visited only once.
In PSS\xspace, the visiting map is implemented using bits with normal read and write operation, rather than the conventional bytes with the Compare-and-Swap (CAS) operation.
The benefits of using a bitvector with normal read and write is that 1) it eliminates the overhead of CAS operation, and 2) it provides good data locality for memory access.
In fact, the data race among the visiting map is benigh, and the CAS operation is not necessary.
By using the bitvector, only a negligible amount of additional distance computation will happen and the merging will remove duplicated results eventually, while the the latency performance is improved by at least 10\%.
\minjia{Sort of covered in the design. Consider to remove this paragrpah.}
\section{Evaluation}\label{sec:eval}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/eva_runtime_KNL.pdf}
\caption[latency compared with baselines]{Latency (ms) comparison among \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, NSG, and HNSW on five datasets. \textmd{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace use 32 threads.}}
\label{fig:eva_runtime_KNL}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure*}
This evaluation proves that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace can significantly reduce the ANN search latency with the proposed effective parallel optimizations.
\PunchStarter{Evaluation Objectives.} This evaluation targets five specific evaluation objectives:
(1) \textbf{latency}---demonstrating that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace outperforms existing ANN search algorithms (NSG~\cite{fu2019fast}, HNSW~\cite{malkov2020efficient}, and a parallel version of NSG) by up to $76.6\times$ speedup in terms of the latency without any precision compromise;
(2) \textbf{scalability}---confirming that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace scales well on modern multi-core CPU architectures with up to 64-cores;
(3) \textbf{optimization effects}---studying the performance effect of our key optimizations (parallel neighbor expansion, staged search, redundant-expansion aware synchronization, and cache friendly neighbor grouping) on overall latency, distance computations, synchronization overhead, etc;
(4) \textbf{portability}---proving \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace has good portability by evaluating it on other multi-core CPU architectures;
(5) \textbf{practicability}---showing that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace is practical, applicable to extremely large datasets (e.g., \texttt{bigann}) with billions of points and outperforming an existing GPU implementation (i.e. Faiss) by up to $6.0\times$ speedup with $32$ CPU cores.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Characterization of datasets. \textmd{ {\tt Dim.} denotes the dimension of the feature vector of each point, {\tt \#base} denotes the number of points, and {\tt \#queries} denotes the number of queries.}}\label{tab:datasets}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|}
\hline
Dataset & Dim. & \#base & \#queries \\
\hline
\hline
SIFT1M & 128 & 1M & 10K \\
GIST1M & 960 & 1M & 1K \\
DEEP10M & 96 & 10M & 10K \\
SIFT100M & 128 & 100M & 10K \\
DEEP100M & 96 & 100M & 10K \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\PunchStarter{Implementation.}
A natural question is if our implementations
can leverage any existing graph libraries (e.g., Ligra~\cite{shun2013ligra}); however, it turns out this is very difficult due to multiple reasons:
First, ANN algorithms do not pass messages between vertices. The computation only happens between a vertex and the query point.
Second, ANN algorithms need to do computation with vector values.
Third, ANN algorithms need to keep output results sorted. This requires extra efforts to maintain the results especially after synchronization between workers.
Fourth, existing libraries' optimization techniques for general graph processing are usually not suitable for ANN algorithms. For example, Ligra~\cite{shun2013ligra} can switch between push and pull modes
according to the number of active vertices. However, in ANN algorithms, the number of active vertices is capped by the expected output number of nearest neighbors, making the switching never happen.
Besides, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace runs in a semi-synchronous pattern with delayed synchronization among workers, which is different from the BSP model~\cite{valiant1990bridging} with strict synchronization after every parallel step.
Therefore, we have our high-performance implementation of those algorithms without using existing graph processing libraries. Our proposed ANN algorithms
are written in C++ compiled by Intel C++ Compiler 2021.4.0 with ``\verb|-O3|'' option. We use OpenMP 5.0 to handle the intra-query parallelism.
\PunchStarter{Platform and Settings.}
Unless otherwise specified, all major experiments are conducted on Intel Xeon Phi 7210 (1.30 GHz) with 64 cores and 109 GB DRAM (\emph{KNL} for short).
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace sets the average update position ratio as $0.8$ for SIFT1M, GIST1M, and SIFT100M, and $0.9$ for DEEP10M and DEEP100M.
\PunchStarter{Datasets.}
This evaluation uses five datasets that are characterized in Table~\ref{tab:datasets}.
SIFT1M and GIST1M are from the datasets\footnote{\url{http://corpus-texmex.irisa.fr/}} introduced by J\'egou et al.~\cite{jegou2010product};
SIFT100M is sampled from the SIFT1B (\texttt{bigann}) introduced by J\'egou et al.~\cite{jegou2011searching};
DEEP10M and DEEP100M are sampled from DEEP1B\footnote{\url{https://sites.skoltech.ru/compvision/noimi/}} which is released by Babenko and Lempitsky~\cite{babenko2016efficient}.
These are common datasets for ANN algorithms evaluation~\cite{fu2019fast}.
\PunchStarter{Baselines.}
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace is compared with two state-of-the-art sequential ANN search implementations, NSG\footnote{\url{https://github.com/ZJULearning/nsg}}~\cite{fu2019fast} and HNSW\footnote{\url{https://github.com/nmslib/hnswlib}}~\cite{malkov2020efficient}.
NSG employs a search algorithm called Best-First Search\xspace, and HNSW uses its own best-first search algorithm corresponding to its hierarchical index.
The hyperparameters used for building their indices are set as default values as long as the authors provided them. Otherwise, several values are tested and the best performance is reported.
For NSG, we use its optimized version of searching for SIFT1M, GIST1M, and DEEP10M, and its normal version for SIFT100M and DEEP100M because of memory limit.
We also implement a Na\"ive Parallel NSG that parallelizes neighbor visiting during expansion.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/eva_percentile_latency_KNL}
\caption[Percentile Latency]{Percentile latency of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace\& NSG. Recall: 0.999.
}
\label{fig:eva_percentile_latency_KNL}
\vspace{3em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Search Latency Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_runtime_KNL} compares the latency of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, NSG, and HNSW.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses 32 threads while NSG and HNSW are sequential approaches.
The \emph{query latency} is the average latency of all queries, i.e., it equals the total searching time divided by the number of queries.
All methods search the 100 nearest neighbors for every query (i.e. $K = 100$).
The measure \emph{Recall@100} is calculated according to Formula~\ref{formula:recall} with $K = 100$, which means the ratio of ground-truth nearest neighbors in searching results for each query.
The value of Recall@100 is the average of all queries. All recalls mentioned in this section are Recall@100 if not specified.
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_runtime_KNL} shows that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace outperforms NSG and HNSW on all five datasets.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's latency advantage increases with the growth of recall requirement, and it performs significantly better for high recall cases (e.g., from 0.995 to 0.999).
For the cases of Recall@100 (R@100) being 0.9, 0.99, and 0.999, on all five datasets,
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace achieves $2.1\times$, $5.2\times$, and $13.0\times$ geometric mean speedup over NSG,
and $2.1\times$, $6.7\times$, and $17.8\times$ over HNSW, respectively.
As the recall becomes 0.999, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace achieves up to $37.7\times$ speedup over NSG on DEEP100M, and up to $76.6\times$ speedup over HNSW on GIST1M.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace achieves significantly better performance for high recall situations mainly because of two reasons.
First, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's parallel neighbor expansion effectively reduces convergence steps (comparing with NSG) because it is not easily trapped at a local optimum and can explore a local region more quickly than a sequential search. This is particularly critical for a large graph (e.g., DEEP100M) to achieve high recall, where a query can more easily get stuck at a local optimum.
Second, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace has better data locality from using aggregated L1/L2 cache provided by multiple threads, in contrast to sequential search where only private cache can be used.
Further profiling results are provided in Section~\ref{subsec:opt_effects}.
\textbf{Impact on Tail Latency.}
For online inference, tail latency is as important, if not more, as the mean latency. To see if \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace provides steady speed-ups, we collect the 90th percentile (90\%tile), 95th percentile (95\%tile), and 99th percentile (99\%tile) latency from running NSG and \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace on SIFT100M and DEEP100M in Figure~\ref{fig:eva_percentile_latency_KNL}. The results show that
while NSG's 99\%tile increases significantly by $154\%$ and $91\%$ for SIFT100M and DEEP100M, respectively, the \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's 99\%tile increases only by $31\%$ and $19\%$ over its average for SIFT100M and DEEP100M, respectively. \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace leads to a relatively smaller increase in tail latency presumably because intra-query parallel search is particularly effective in reducing latency on long queries.
\subsection{Scalability Results} \label{subsec:eval_scalability}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/eva_speedup_KNL}
\caption[Scalability of PSS]{Speedup of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace over 1 thread on five datasets.}
\label{fig:eva_speedup_KNL}
\vspace{-2em}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/eva_datasets_size_scale.pdf}
\caption[Scalability of Data Sizes]{Scalability with varied graph sizes for \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, NSG, and HNSW on DEEP1M, DEEP10M, and DEEP100M.
\textmd{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses 32 threads.}}
\label{fig:eva_datasets_size_scale}
\end{figure}
\PunchStarter{Scaling with An Increasing Number of Threads.}
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_speedup_KNL} reports the speedup of 1- to 64-thread \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace over 1-thread on three datasets for three selected recall (0.99, 0.995, and 0.999), respectively.
It shows that this scalability increases as the target recall grows because of the increased distance computations that offers more parallelism opportunities.
The geometric mean speedup of all datasets for the highest recall (0.999) is $9.6\times$,
$11.1\times$, and $9.2\times$ for 16-, 32-, and 64-thread, respectively.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace only scales to 16 threads for SIFT1M because SIFT1M is too small without enough workload for more threads.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace demonstrates super-linear speedup (up to 16 threads) for 0.999 recall on GIST1M and DEEP100M.
This phenomenon will be further analyzed in Section~\ref{subsec:opt_effects}.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace does not scale well for 64 threads due to various reasons. For datasets with high dimensional vectors (e.g. GIST1M), 32-thread \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace has saturated memory bandwidth already. For others (e.g., SIFT1M, DEEP10M, and DEEP100M), extra distance computations of too many unnecessary expansions gradually dominate overall execution.
\PunchStarter{Scaling with An Increase of the Graph Sizes.}
Our experiments also evaluate the scalability with varied dataset sizes (DEEP1M, DEEP10M, and DEEP100M) for \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, NSG, and HNSW, respectively.
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_datasets_size_scale} reports the latency results of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, NSG, and HNSW for the recall of 0.9, 0.99, and 0.999, in which \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses 32 threads.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace constantly outperforms NSG and HNSW, and the heavier workload, the better performance \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace shows.
More specifically, with the growth of dataset size, the speedup of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace over NSG and HNSW increases. For example, when the recall is 0.999, the speedup of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace over NSG grows from $5.9x$ to $27.8x$ when the dataset size changes from 1M to 100M. This trend becomes increasingly obvious with the growth of the recall.
The results reflect that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace is particularly effective and offers more speedups than existing search methods for larger graphs.
\subsection{Analysis Results}
\label{subsec:opt_effects}
This section performs a series of experiments to show where \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's improvements come from. It first compares \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's performance with several alternative parallel search schemes.
(i) NSG-32T: This config extends NSG with parallel neighbor expansion only (e.g., M=1).
(ii) {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoStaged}}: This config is \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace but without using the staged search process.
(iii) {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoSync}}: This config performs parallel neighbor expansion but never synchronizes among workers until the very end.
(iv) {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Exhaust}}: This config uses an exhaustive search to preprocess the dataset and obtain the proper synchronization settings. It should have the best latency performance, although requiring more than ten hours of tuning for the given dataset.
(v) {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Adaptive}}: This is the configuration described in Section~\ref{sec:design}, which adopts redundant-expansion aware synchronization.
For this comparison, we report results on DEEP100M dataset with 32 threads in Figure~\ref{fig:collect_perform_analysis}. Other datasets and threads show the same trend, thus we omit them due to the space constraint.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.in]{figures/eva_improvement_KNL}
\caption{Latency (ms)}
\label{fig:eva_improvement_KNL}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.in]{figures/eva_convergence_KNL}
\caption{Convergence steps}
\label{fig:eva_convergence_KNL}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.1in]{figures/eva_computation_KNL}
\caption{Distance computation}
\label{fig:eva_computation_KNL}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.08in]{figures/eva_breakdown}
\caption{Runtime breakdown}
\label{fig:eva_breakdown}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Study of Synchronization]{Synchronization study w/ 32 threads on DEEP100M.}
\label{fig:collect_perform_analysis}
\end{figure}
\noindent{\bf Effects on Latency. }
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_improvement_KNL} first reports the latency results of all five versions when we change recall from 0.90 to 1.00.
Compared with {NSG-32T},
{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoStaged}} has $4.9\times$ speedup on average for all recall cases, because of the convergence iterations reduction from parallel neighbor expansion.
{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Exhaust}} has an extra $1.5\times$ speedup over {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoStaged}} mainly due to its reduction in synchronization optimization.
{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Exhaust}} achieves slightly better performance than {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Adaptive}} (e.g., $1.1\times$ speedup). However, {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Adaptive}} does not require the expensive offline tuning process as {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Exhaust}}.
\noindent{\bf Effects on Convergence Iterations.}
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_convergence_KNL} profiles the convergence steps of the five parallel methods. Each point is averaged from all queries.
{NSG-32T} results in the most steps of convergence; while
{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoStaged}} results in the fewest.
All three versions of {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace} result in comparable convergence steps to {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoStaged}} that are much less than {NSG-32T}.
This is because {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoStaged}} employs a fixed and relatively large number of multiple paths throughout the searching, resulting in the most aggressive exploring.
{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Adaptive}} and {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Exhaust}} adopt staged search, which slightly increases the convergence steps but significantly reduces distance computations.
Meanwhile, {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoSync}} suffers more divergence compared to {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Adaptive}} and {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Exhaust}}.
\PunchStarter{Effects on Distance Computation.}
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_computation_KNL} profiles the number of distance computations for those five methods.
{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoStaged}} with a fixed value of $M=32$ leads to more distance computations than {NSG-32T}, {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Exhaust}}, and {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Adaptive}} to achieve the same recall (especially for low recall cases).
While completely removing synchronization, {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoSync}} has the most distance computations than others.
However, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:eva_improvement_KNL}, it still achieves lower latency than {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{NoStaged}} because synchronization overhead can dominate the total search time when the number of parallel workers is large.
\PunchStarter{Effects on Synchronization Overhead.}
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_breakdown} reports the execution time breakdown of our four approaches.
It splits the whole execution time into three parts: Expanding part (\emph{Expand}), Merging part (\emph{Merge}), and Sequential part (\emph{Seq}).
\emph{Expand} denotes the parallel phase of a query that workers expand their unchecked candidates. It consists of computing distances and inserting visited neighbors into their queues.
\emph{Merge} denotes the phase that workers merge their local queues into a global queue after they complete expanding. It reflects the major synchronization overhead.
Other sequential execution of a search is included in \emph{Seq}.
All results are for recall 0.999.
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_breakdown} shows that redundant-expansion aware synchronization strategy effectively mitigates the synchronization overhead, allowing {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Adaptive}} to achieve a similar portion of synchronization overhead as {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-\emph{Exhaust}}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.95in]{figures/eva_reorder_KNL}
\caption[Reorder on KNL]{Speedup of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's neighbor grouping on DEEP100M for recall 0.999.
}
\label{fig:eva_reorder_KNL}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.in]{figures/eva_cache_compt_speedup}
\caption[L1 misses, computation, and speedup]{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's L1 misses, speedup over 1-thread, and distance computation w/ recall 0.999 on DEEP100M.}
\label{fig:eva_cache_compt_speedup}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\PunchStarter{Effects of Neighbor Grouping.}
Our fully optimized {\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-32T} also includes another optimization, i.e. neighbor grouping. Figure~\ref{fig:eva_reorder_KNL} shows that our two proposed strategies (\emph{degree-centric} and \emph{frequency-centric}) outperform no-grouping by up to $1.22\times$ and $1.21\times$ speedup, respectively, when we change the thread numbers from 1 to 64.
This speedup mainly comes from the reduction of the last-level cache miss and TLB (translation lookaside buffer) cache miss. This profiling result is omitted due to the space constraint.
\PunchStarter{Super-linear Speedup Observation.}
Section~\ref{subsec:eval_scalability} shows that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace results in an interesting super-linear speedup (up to 16 threads) for 0.999 recall on GIST1M and DEEP100M.
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_cache_compt_speedup} reports three profiling results, distance computations, L1 cache misses, and performance speedup for DEEP100M when changing the thread numbers from 1 to 64. The left x-axis shows the first two profiling results while the right x-axis shows the last one. It shows that as we increase the number of threads, the L1 cache misses and distance computations first decrease and then increase. This causes the super-linear speedup for the cases whose thread numbers are less than 16.
Distance computation shows this trend because: on the one hand, parallel neighbor expansion helps avoid the search from being trapped by local minimal candidates and quickly pick up promising searching paths for more nearest neighbors; on the other hand, too many exploring threads cause unnecessary expansion of non-promising candidates, increasing distance computations. L1 cache miss shows this trend because multi-threads increase the total size of L1 cache.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.2in]{figures/eva_runtime_Skylake.pdf}
\caption{Latency (ms)}
\label{fig:eva_runtime_Skylake}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.2in]{figures/eva_speedup_Skylake}
\caption{Speedup}
\label{fig:eva_speedup_Skylake}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Portability study: DEEP100M on Skylake.}
\vspace{-2em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Portability Evaluation}
To evaluate the portability, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace is also tested on Intel Skylake architecture, Xeon Gold 6138 (2.0 GHz) with 20 cores and 187 GB DRAM ({\tt Skylake} for short). For the sake of space saving, only results on DEEP100M are presented as other datasets show the same trend.
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_runtime_Skylake} compares the latency of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, NSG, and HNSW, in which,
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses 16 threads.
It shows a similar trend as previous, i.e., \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace outperforms NSG and HNSW for all recall.
For 0.9, 0.99, and 0.999 cases,
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace achieves $1.7\times$, $4.5\times$, and $12.9\times$ speedup over NSG,
and $1.3\times$, $5.3\times$, and $9.7\times$ over HNSW, respectively.
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_speedup_Skylake} evaluates \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's scalability.
Similarly, target recall 0.999 can achieve the best speedup over 1 thread, and
speedup for 0.999 is $4.9\times$ and $6.3\times$ for 8 threads and 16 threads, respectively.
\iffalse
Table~\ref{tab:cache_perf_skylake} shows the LLC misses and TLB misses of all three methods when using 16 threads on Skylake.
For SIFT1M, \emph{Expand} and \emph{In-Degree} can reduce TLB misses by 86.5\% and 86.0\%, respectively, although they increased the LLC misses by 50.5\% and 48.3\%, repectively. The increasement of LLC misses might be caused by conflict misses among multiple threads.
For SIFT100M, \emph{Expand} and \emph{In-Degree} can slightly reduce LLC misses by 1.5\% and 4.6\%, respectively.
They can also reduce TLB misses by 1.4\% and 5.3\%, respectively.
The different profiling results between KNL and Skylake requires further investigation.
\fi
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/eva_sift1b_deep1b_latency}
\caption[Latency for 1B datasets]{Performance comparison of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace and NSG on SIFT1B (\texttt{bigann}) and DEEP1B.
\textmd{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's speedup is over its 1-thread. Recall is 0.9.}}
\label{fig:eva_sift1b_deep1b_latency}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Practicality Evaluation}
This section evaluates \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's practicality with two case studies: 1) evaluating it on very large datasets, SIFT1B (\texttt{bigann}) and DEEP1B that contain over 1 billion data vectors; 2) comparing it with a state-of-the-art GPU implementation.
\PunchStarter{Billion-Scale Datasets.}
This experiment is conducted on a particular machine with Xeon Gold 6254 (3.10 GHz) 72 cores and 1.5 TB memory because of the large memory requirement.
Figure~\ref{fig:eva_sift1b_deep1b_latency} compares the latency of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace and NSG. \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses up to 64 threads, and the recall target is 0.9.
When using 64 threads, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace outperforms NSG with $11.5\times$ and $16.0\times$ speedup for SIFT1B and DEEP1B, respectively. As we increase the number of threads, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace shows sub-linear speedup because of the well-known NUMA effect (this machine has 4 NUMA domains). These results indicate the effectiveness of our method in speeding up the search process on billion-scale datasets.
\PunchStarter{Compare with a GPU Implementation.} We also compare \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace with a GPU-based large-scale ANN search algorithm~\cite{johnson2017billion} in Faiss library~\cite{faiss-code}. The GPU experiments are conducted on an NVIDIA Tesla P100 with CUDA 10.2. Faiss is set to have one query in every batch, because we focus on reducing the online query latency to meet stringent latency requirement.
Table~\ref{tab:gpu_latency} shows the latency comparison results on five datasets. \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses 32 threads on KNL.
For the SIFT100M and DEEP100M, Faiss-GPU complains of out-of-memory errors.
For other datasets, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace outperforms Faiss-GPU with $1.4\times$ to $6.0\times$ speedup and much better recall, which indicates that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace can effectively achieve faster search speed than GPU-based search algorithms on CPUs, which are often much cheaper than GPUs.
\begin{table}[]
\small
\caption{Latency comparison of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace and Faiss-GPU on five datasets.
\textmd{{\tt Lt.} means \emph{Latency}.
{\tt OOM} means \emph{out of memory}.
Faiss-GPU's index format is IVFFLat.
\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses 32 threads.}}
\label{tab:gpu_latency}
\begin{tabular}{|c|cc|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Datasets} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Faiss-GPU w/ IVFFlat} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace-32T on KNL} \\ \cline{2-5}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{R@100} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Lt. (ms.)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{R@100} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Lt. (ms.)} \\
\hline \hline
SIFT1M & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.52} & 0.87 & \textbf{0.91} & \textbf{0.61} \\
GIST1M & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.36} & 7.25 & \textbf{0.90} & \textbf{1.21} \\
DEEP10M & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.62} & 5.79 & \textbf{0.90} & \textbf{0.96} \\
SIFT100M & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{OOM} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{OOM} & \textbf{0.90} & \textbf{2.00} \\
DEEP100M & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{OOM} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{OOM} & \textbf{0.90} & \textbf{1.91} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Design of ${\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace}$}
Based on the observations from Section~\ref{subsec:speculation}, we introduce \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, a
parallel search algorithm that exploits lightweight intra-query parallelism (i.e., path-wise parallelism and edge-wise parallelism) to accelerate the search efficiency of similarity graphs on multi-core CPU architectures. We first provide an overview of our architecture-aware design, and then we discuss technical details.
Figure~\ref{fig:fig_system_overview} depicts \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's overall design that addresses the last three challenges mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:overview} to perform efficient similarity graph search.
To increase the amount of parallelism and memory bandwidth utilization (Challenge II), \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses \emph{local best-first subsearch} to deliver coarse-grained parallelism.
To limit global synchronization overhead (Challenge III), \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace adopts \emph{order inversion tolerance} to reduce synchronization frequency.
As such, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace only requires few global synchronizations to find all near neighbors.
Besides, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses loosely synchronized visit maps for lightweight communication, adopts two-stage search to reduce unnecessary distance computations especially at the beginning, and also performs neighbor grouping technique to improve memory locality (Challenge IV). We next explain each of these techniques in detail.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/fig_system_overview}
\caption{Overview of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace.}
\label{fig:fig_system_overview}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Synchronization Optimization}
\label{subsec:loosely_sync}
The loosely synchronized local-subsearch aims to optimize the synchronization procedure during intra-query parallel searching.
It allows multiple threads to cooperatively explore the search frontier in parallel while avoiding expensive per-step synchronization overhead. It has three important components:
(1) a local sub-state that tracks the order from visiting a local neighborhood
and (2) delayed synchronization under certain conditions to guarantee that multiple workers still have a consistent view on the expansion order.
Algorithm~\ref{algo:par_stale_search} depicts this part in detail.
\noindent\textbf{Local Best-First Subsearch.}
At the beginning of each global step, the global queue evenly divides its unchecked candidates among all local threads.
After that, each worker performs a local best-first search based on its own local queue of sub-states (Line~\ref{algo_line:stale_substate_start} to Line~\ref{algo_line:stale_substate_end}).
Different from the global state that involves updating the global queue, a worker's local \emph{sub-state} is the state of its own private queue.
In a local search step, a worker expands its own best unchecked candidate and updates its private queue accordingly.
Before the global queue's state is updated, a worker can have multiple sub-states of its own private queue.
A worker continues expansion until \texttt{CheckMetrics()} raises a flag for merging
or it has no unchecked candidates left locally.
In a round-robin way, a worker is assigned as the \emph{checker}.
Her duty is to check (as what \texttt{CheckMetrics()} does) if all workers need to synchronize their sub-states by merging all private queues into the global queue.
If so (Line~\ref{algo_line:checker_true}), all workers will stop their local search and merge their queues.
The definition of \texttt{CheckMetrics()} is flexible.
It could be a static method that no worker should do local search beyond a given step limit, or, it could be an adaptive method that uses some metrics to determine workers' dynamic status.
The details will be provided later in this section.
\input{text/algo_par_stale_search}
\PunchStarter{Concurrent SubTrees Expansion View.}
If we follow the earlier discussion on the tree expansion view of Best-First Search\xspace (\emph{BFiS}\xspace) and \Hammer (TMS\xspace), we observe the new algorithm \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace considering a different expansion strategy.
Assume every unchecked vertices being initially allocated to each $LS$ (corresponding to each thread) has a virtual root node $T_r$ (Line~\ref{algo_line:stale_dispatching} in Algorithm ~\ref{algo:par_stale_search}). Then each worker grows their own subtrees rooted by $T_r$ concurrently (and independently) according to \emph{BFiS}\xspace.
Only when we need to resync (Line~\ref{algo_line:stale_merge}), we produce another set of trees to expand concurrently and independently.
Note that the trees from different threads may compete (try to visit) the same vertices, but ideally, only one thread will be able to get it. However, this may introduce significant overhead. We will introduce the loosely synchronized communication strategy to reduce such synchronization overhead in the later section.
Note that even though $T$ threads maximally can expand $T$ tree nodes concurrently, unlike the TMS\xspace, such {\em parallel} expansion is asynchronous as a worker only updates its private queue until a global merging happens.
In this way, the total number of synchronization in Algorithm~\ref{algo:par_stale_search} is significantly reduced compared with TMS\xspace.
\noindent\textbf{Order Inversion Tolerant Search.}
To unleash the full power of multi-core systems, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace performs a unique form of \emph{order inversion tolerant} search so that worker threads do not need to synchronize at every search step in most cases.
Specially, \emph{order inversion tolerant} means instead of having a strict order through the entire convergence steps, we allow some relaxation of the order as long as the global order becomes consistent again after a global synchronization.
This is especially helpful for the multi-path parallel search's performance because global synchronization across multiple threads is still expensive and not very scalable as the number of cores increases.
Figure~\ref{fig:insight_PSS_sync_frequency_vs_overhead} shows how the global synchronization frequency influences the synchronization overhead (calculated by synchronization time divided by overall execution time) and the overall distance computations. All results in this figure return the same recall value.
It shows that the synchronization overhead increases significantly when the synchronization frequency grows.
We also find that order inversion (without enough synchronization) slows down the search convergence and results in growing distance computations (as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:insight_PSS_sync_frequency_vs_overhead}). This is because without enough synchronization, worker threads keep searching its own (unpromising) areas without benefiting from other threads' latest search results that may lead to faster convergence. This study demonstrates that a proper synchronization frequency is desired to achieve high system performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98in]{figures/insight_PSS_sync_frequency_vs_overhead}
\caption{\emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's sync. overhead and distance computation vs. sync. frequency.}
\label{fig:insight_PSS_sync_frequency_vs_overhead}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98in]{figures/insight_PSS_update_position_example}
\caption{A query's average update positions during searching.
}
\label{fig:insight_PSS_update_position_example}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\noindent\textbf{Synchronization Metrics.}
As shown in Algorithm~\ref{algo:par_stale_search}, our synchronization frequency is controlled by \texttt{CheckMetrics()}, i.e., it determines when all workers merge their private queues into the global one.
A possible approach of \texttt{CheckMetrics()} is using exhaustive tuning method to find the proper search steps for global synchronization in terms of the shortest latency and recall guarantee.
However, this exhaustive method has a couple of disadvantages.
First, the search procedure for the ideal synchronization point is time-consuming. Given a query, the time complexity of finding the optimal setting of synchronization points is factorial about the total length of the search path.
For a given dataset, this can only be reprocessed offline.
Second, the tuning result is input-sensitive. Even a nuance in datasets or queries may result in total difference synchronization points which need be tuned exhaustively start over. Therefore, although the exhaustive method may provide ideal results, it is impractical.
Here an adaptive \texttt{CheckMetrics()} is proposed based on the update positions of workers. When a worker expands an unchecked candidate, its neighbors are then inserted into the worker's local queue, and \emph{the update position} is defined as the \emph{lowest (best)} position of all newly inserted candidates. Thus, \emph{the average update position} is the mean of all update positions of workers.
Figure~\ref{fig:insight_PSS_update_position_example} demonstrates how an example query's average update position changes during the search steps without global synchronization.
It shows that the average update position increases gradually to the local queue capacity and resides there to the end.
When the average update position is close to the queue capacity, it indicates that most workers are searching among unpromising area and cannot find good enough candidates to update their local results.
Therefore, the average update position can be used as a metric to determine if all workers need to synchronize their local results to adjust the search order.
Algorithm~\ref{algo:check_merge_metric} describes the adaptive \texttt{CheckMetrics()} using the average update position as the metric. Given the queue capacity $L$ and a position ratio $R$, the threshold of the average update position to do synchronizatioin is set as $L\cdot R$.
If the \emph{checker} find the average update position is greater or equal the threshold (Line~\ref{algo_line:check_metric}), it returns \texttt{true} indicating a global synchronization in Algorithm~\ref{algo:par_stale_search}.
Empirically, the ratio $R$ is close to $1.0$, such as $0.9$ or $0.8$. The input vector of all update positions are updated by workers regularly without locks. The return flag is only written by the \emph{checker} who is assigned among workers in a round-robin manner.
Table~\ref{tab:comp_no_sync_bulk_step} shows preliminary results about the performance comparison between adaptive synchronization and no-synchronization. No-synchronization means each thread performs its local search and only combines the results in the end. The results shows that adaptive synchronization is able to improve search efficiency with fewer distance computation.
\begin{table}[]
\caption{Comparison between no-sync. and adaptive sync.
\textmd{8 threads on SIFT1M for Recall@100 0.9.
Adaptive sync. check workers' dynamic status and merge queues adaptively.
\texttt{Lt.} denotes latency. \texttt{Compt.} denotes distance computation.}}
\label{tab:comp_no_sync_bulk_step}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Dataset & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{no-sync.} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{adaptive sync.} \\ \cline{2-5}
& Lt. (ms.) & Compt. & Lt. (ms.) & Compt. \\ \hline\hline
SIFT1M & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{1.16} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{125.3 M} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.70} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{33.1 M} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\input{text/algo_check_merge_metric}
\subsection{Other Optimizations}
\noindent\textbf{Loosely Synchronized Local Computation.}
There is one potential bottleneck to multi-threaded parallel scaling in Algorithm~\ref{algo:par_stale_search} on our target architectural platforms (multi-core systems).
Consider visiting a neighbor of a candidate. This is typically after a check and then an update to a visiting map to ensure that a vertex is calculated once (Line~\ref{algo_line:stale_check_map}-\ref{algo_line:stale_update_map}).
In multi-path parallel search, the visiting map is shared by all workers to indicate if a vertex has been visited.
Since multiple threads may access the shared visiting map concurrently, locking or lock-free algorithms are required if we still want to ensure a vertex is visited only once. However, this approach involves significant scalability bottleneck, because it leads to lock contention and sequentialization of updating the visiting map.
We observe that the ANN search algorithm is still correct even if a vertex is calculated multiple times, because the local candidates are guaranteed to be merged back to the global priority queue and the visiting map is also guaranteed to have \emph{eventual consistency} the next time of global synchronization. Furthermore, by inserting memory fences, cache coherence further ensures that the updated visiting map is visible to other cores. Due to the potential out-of-order execution in processors, modern multi-core processors provide \emph{fence} instructions as mechanism to override their default memory access orders. In particular, we issue a fence after a thread updates the visiting map to guarantee a processor has completed the distance computation of the corresponding vertex and has updated the visiting map (otherwise, there is no guarantee the updated visiting map is visible to other cores before next step of global synchronization).
By doing the loosely synchronized local search, we observe that the search algorithm only performs a very small percentage of additional distance computations (less than 5\%) for {SIFT1M} (and similar for other datasets) with 8-way parallelism. This reduces the overhead from synchronization by 10\% and allows us to avert the issue of non-scaling locking across multi-threading search. This optimization was also considered by Leiserson and Schardl~\cite{benign-race} (termed as "benign races") for their parallel breadth-first search algorithm.
Furthermore, we use a bitvector to implement the visiting map instead of a byte-array.
This optimization allows the cache to hold the largest possible portion of the visiting map and therefore improves the data locality for memory accesses.
\noindent{\textbf{Two-Stage Search.}}
In the implementation of \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace, the global queue will be filled full of unchecked vertices at first place. Most of those initial vertices are chosen randomly from the graph index, so it is quite common that some of them are far away form the query. Those far away vertices are not promising to be explored and cannot contribute to the final results. If they are assigned to workers immediately, unnecessary distance computation will incur.
To avoid the unnecessary distance computation during the beginning exploration, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace adopts \emph{two-stage search}. The idea is to do one or two expasion of sequential \emph{BFiS}\xspace in the beginning to ``warm up'' the global queue, making its unchecked candidates more promising than initial vertices. This is called the \emph{sequential stage}.
After that, it is followed by the \emph{parallel stage} where all unchecked vertices are assigned to workers for local search. In this way, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace can reduce unnecessary distance computation and also tap into the benefits of parallelization to the greatest extent possible.
\noindent{\textbf{Cache Friendly Neighbor Grouping.}}
When a feature vector is loaded into memory for distance computation, modern CPU architectures actually automatically load vectors from nearby memory locations as well.
Our neighbor grouping technique taps into this feature to mitigate the two levels of irregularity mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:overview}.
First, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace \emph{flattens} the graph indices by placing the embeddings of neighbor vertices in consecutive memory, which would avoid one-level of implicit memory addressing and enables a thread to pre-fetch neighbor feature vectors once an active node is selected. Second, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace also regroups nodes, such that vertices that are likely to be visited during the graph traversal are already pre-load into the CPU memory and cache. Together, these two optimizations increase the cache hit rate and helps speedup the search process.
One caveat of this approach is that it introduces additional memory consumption, because two neighbor lists may share the same vertex as a common neighbor. It is therefore may require more memory consumption than the original approach.
To avoid increasing the memory consumption, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace takes a hierarchical approach by regrouping only a subset of vertices. In particular, \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace divides a graph to a two-level index as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig_reorder}, where only the top-level vertices have their neighbors flattened and stored in consecutive memory, and the bottom-level index stores other vertices using the standard structure.
In this work, we explore two strategies to graph division:
\textbf{Degree-centric}, which puts high in-degree nodes to the top-level of the indices. The intuition is that high in-degree nodes are more frequently accessed, and therefore improving their locality would benefit the most for the overall search efficiency.
\textbf{Frequency-centric}, which exploits query distribution to figure out which nodes are more frequently accessed and puts those frequently accessed nodes into an optimized index.
Section~\ref{sec:eval} evaluates both strategies and shows that \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's neighbor grouping strategy brings 10\% performance improvements with selecting only 0.1\% vertices as the top level for a dataset with 100M vertices.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/fig_reorder}
\caption{Example of neighbor grouping and hierarchical data storage.
\textmd{
Vertices are ranked according to their in-degree.
Vertices are first reordered into new ids according to their ranks.
High ranked vertices are stored in an optimized index where every vertex's neighbors' data are stored in consecutive locations right after its own data to make expanding cache-friendly.
Other low ranked vertices are stored in a standard index where the graph index and data vectors are stored separately.}}
\label{fig:fig_reorder}
\end{figure}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
This section describes prior efforts closely related to our work.
\noindent{\bf Graph-based ANN.}
Navigating Spreading-out Graph (NSG)~\cite{fu2019fast} is one of the state-of-the-art graph-based indexing methods.
It is a close approximation of Monotonic Relative Neighborhood Graph (MRNG) that ensures a close-logarithmic search complexity with limited construction time.
NSG (and many other graph-based methods~\cite{dearholt1988monotonic,arya1993approximate,hajebi2011fast,jin2014fast,malkov2014approximate,malkov2020efficient,harwood2016fanng}, e.g., FANNG~\cite{harwood2016fanng}, NSW~\cite{malkov2014approximate}, and HNSW~\cite{malkov2020efficient}) rely on best-first search to process queries.
\iffalse
Here are some examples.
FANNG~\cite{harwood2016fanng} employs a backtrack search algorithm (i.e., a depth-first best-first search) that explores each edge of a candidate vertex and terminates once the total number of distance computations reaches a certain threshold (called {\em stop condition}).
NSW~\cite{malkov2014approximate} performs multiple best-first searches for a given query while all searches share the same result set.
HNSW~\cite{malkov2020efficient} separates links into multiple layers according to their lengths, forming a hierarchical graph structure. A best-first search starts from the upper layer until reaching the bottom.
\fi
Other graph-based methods include~\cite{li2020approximate,zhang2019grip,subramanya32diskann,li2020improving,baranchuk2019learning,lin2019graph,prokhorenkova2020graph,deng2019pyramid,bashyam2020fast}.
\iffalse
For example, GRIP~\cite{zhang2019grip} and DiskANN~\cite{subramanya32diskann} consider the issue of storing indices in both DRAM and SSDs.
Pyramid~\cite{deng2019pyramid} and Bashyam et al.~\cite{bashyam2020fast} build distributed indices based on HNSW.
GGNN~\cite{groh2019ggnn} and SONG~\cite{zhao2020song} leverage GPUs for indices building and distance computing.
\fi
In contrast to these efforts that mostly focus on indexing building, our work {\em for the first time} unveils the real bottleneck of intra-query graph search, and significantly reduces search latency (particularly for billion-scale graphs) with multiple advanced architecture-aware parallel techniques.
\noindent{\bf Non-Graph based ANN Methods.}
Hashing-based methods~\cite{indyk1998approximate,datar2004locality,andoni2006near,andoni2015practical} map data points into multiple buckets with a certain hash function such that the collision probability of nearby points is higher than the probability of others.
\iffalse
FALCONN~\cite{andoni2015practical} is a library based on locality-sensitive hashing~\cite{indyk1998approximate}.
\fi
Quantization-based methods~\cite{jegou2008hamming,ge2013optimized,wu2017multiscale,wei2020analyticdb,wang2020deltapq} (e.g., IVF~\cite{jegou2010product}, and IMI~\cite{babenko2014inverted})
compress vectors into short codes to reduce the number of bits needed to store and compute vectors.
Faiss~\cite{johnson2017billion} is implemented by Facebook with produce quantization (PQ) methods.
Tree-based methods (e.g., KD-tree~\cite{silpa2008optimised} and R* tree~\cite{beckmann1990r}) hierarchically split the data space into lots of regions that correspond to the leaves of a tree structure, and only search a limited number of promising regions.
Flann~\cite{muja2009fast} is a library based on KD-tree.
Graph-based methods have been proved to outperform these non-graph-based methods by checking fewer data points to achieve the same recall~\cite{fu2019fast,ann-benchmark,li2020approximate,echihabi2019return}.
Another line of work that is closely related to \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace is to accelerate ANN search by varied accelerators, e.g., FPGA~\cite{fpga-ann} and GPU~\cite{johnson2017billion}.
\noindent{\bf Parallel Graph Systems.}
Many graph engines and frameworks have been developed in the past decade.
Some of them are shared-memory, focusing on processing in-memory datasets within a computation node, e.g., Galois~\cite{nguyen2013lightweight}, Ligra~\cite{shun2013ligra}, Polymer~\cite{zhang2015numa}, GraphGrind~\cite{sun2017graphgrind}, GraphIt~\cite{zhang2020optimizing}, and Graptor~\cite{vandierendonck2020graptor}.
Some are distributed systems, e.g., Pregel~\cite{malewicz2010pregel}, GraphLab~\cite{low2014graphlab}, and PowerGraph~\cite{joseph2012powergraph}.
Some efforts focus on out-of-core designs (e.g., GraphChi~\cite{aapo2012graphchi} and X-Stream~\cite{roy2013x}) and process large graphs with disk support.
Many graph frameworks are also on GPUs, such as CuSha~\cite{khorasani2014cusha}, Gunrock~\cite{wang2016gunrock}, GraphReduce~\cite{sengupta2015graphreduce}, and Graphie~\cite{han2017graphie}.
These graph systems are either based on a vertex-centric model~\cite{malewicz2010pregel} or its variants (e.g., edge-centric~\cite{roy2013x}).
These models are in the strict BSP model~\cite{valiant1990bridging}.
Different from them (and other asynchronous graph traversal efforts~\cite{han2017graphie, han2015giraph}), \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace uses delayed synchronization that is in the spirit of stale synchronization~\cite{ho2013more} where workers are running in an asynchronous fashion before synchronization, which makes it possible to retain high parallelism and also a low amount of distance computations. Moreover, as aforementioned in the implementation, due to the uniqueness of ANN, it is challenging to migrate many of these system designs to \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace directly.
\noindent{\bf Generic Search Schemes.}
Many efforts aim to parallelize various search schemes (e.g., BFS~\cite{shun2013ligra}, DFS~\cite{naumov2017parallel}, and Beam search~\cite{meister2020best}). Although \emph{Speed-ANN}\xspace's parallel neighbor expansion design is inspired by prior parallel search algorithms on graphs, our work has a very different focus and aims to: 1) identify that ANN's convergence bottleneck comes from the fact that ANN requires to find many targets that may be (or not be) present in the graph---a search scenario that is very different from many previous graph search problems;
2) several optimizations specifically tailored for reducing the number of distance computations and synchronization overhead from parallel neighbor expansion, such as staged search and redundant-expansion aware synchronization.
|
\section{Introduction}
Our opinions are not static. On the contrary, opinions are susceptible to dynamic changes and this is heavily exploited by (social) media, influencers, politicians, and professionals for public relations campaigns and advertising. The way we form our opinions is not a solitary act that simply combines our personal experiences with information from the media. Instead, it is largely driven by interactions with our peers in our social network. We care about the opinions of our peers and relatives, and their opinions significantly influence our own opinion in an asynchronous dynamic process over time. Such opinion dynamics are pervasive in many real-world settings, ranging from small scale townhall meetings, community referendum campaigns, parliamentary committees, and boards of enterprises to large scale settings like political campaigns in democratic societies or peer interactions via online social networks.
The aim for understanding how opinions are formed and how they evolve in multi-agent systems is the driving force behind an interdisciplinary research effort in diverse areas such as sociology, economics, political science, mathematics, physics, and computer science. Initial work on these issues dates back to Downs~\cite{downs1957economic} and early agent-based opinion formation models as proposed by Abelson and Bernstein~\cite{abelson1963computer}.
In this paper we study an agent-based model for opinion formation on a social network where the opinion of an agent depends both on its own intrinsic opinion and on the opinions of its network neighbors. One of the earliest influential models in this direction was defined by \mbox{DeGroot}~\cite{DeGroot74}. In this model the opinion of an agent is iteratively updated to the weighted average of the opinions of its neighbors. Later, Friedkin and Johnsen~\cite{FJ90} extended this by incorporating private opinions.
Every agent has a private opinion which does not change and an expressed opinion that changes over time. The expressed opinion of an agent is determined as a function of the expressed opinions of its neighbors and its private opinion.
The main focus of our paper is the very influential model by Hegselmann and Krause~\cite{HK02} that adds an important feature: the set of neighbors that influence a given agent is no longer fixed and the agents' opinions and their respective sets of influencing neighbors co-evolve over time. At any point in time the set of influencing neighbors of an agent are all the neighbors in a given static social network with an opinion close to their own opinion. Hence,
agents only adapt their opinions to neighboring agents having an opinion that is not too far away from their own opinion. Note that this adaption, in turn, might lead to a new set of influencing neighbors. In sociology this wide-spread behavior is known as homophily~\cite{McPherson01}, which, for example, governs the formation of social networks and explains residential segregation. Co-evolutionary opinion formation helps to analyze and explain current phenomena like filter bubbles in the Internet~\cite{Pariser11} and social media echo chambers~\cite{Cinelli21} that inhibit opinion exchange and amplify extreme views.
The co-evolution of opinions and the sets of influencing neighbors is the key feature of a Hegselmann-Krause system (HKS).
However, it is also the main reason why the analysis of the dynamic behavior of a HKS is highly non-trivial and challenging.
Typical questions studied are the convergence properties of the opinion dynamics: Is convergence to stable states guaranteed and if yes, what are upper and lower bounds on the convergence time? Guaranteed convergence is essential since otherwise the predictive power of the model is severely limited. Moreover, studying the convergence \emph{time} of opinion dynamics is crucially important. In general, the analysis of stable states is significantly more meaningful if these states are likely to be reached in a reasonable amount of time, i.e., if quick convergence towards such states is guaranteed. If systems do not stabilize in a reasonable time, stable states lack justification as a prediction of the system's behavior.
Researchers have investigated the convergence to stable states and the corresponding convergence speed in many variants of the Hegselmann-Krause model. The existing work can be categorized along two dimensions: complete or arbitrary social network and \emph{synchronous} or \emph{asynchronous} updates of the opinions.
Synchronous opinion updates means that \emph{all} agents update their opinion at the same time.
In systems with asynchronous updates a single agent is selected uniformly at random and only this agent updates its opinion.
The main body of recent work focuses on HKSs assuming the complete graph as social network and the synchronous update rule.
Interestingly, convergence guarantees and convergence times for the case with asynchronous updates on an arbitrary social network are, to the best of our knowledge, absent from the literature so far. This case is arguably the most realistic setting as social networks are typically sparse, i.e., non-complete, and social interactions and thereby opinion exchange usually happens in an uncoordinated asynchronous fashion.
\medskip
In this paper we study the following \emph{Hegselmann-Krause system (HKS)}. We have $n$ agents and their opinions are modeled by points in $d$-dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^d$, for some $d\geq 1$. The agents are connected by a {\em social network} which does not change over time. At any point of time the set of \emph{influencing neighbors} of an agent is the subset of its neighbors (in the social network) with an opinion of distance at most $\varepsilon > 0$ from its own opinion.
We assume that in each step a random agent is activated and its opinion is updated to the average of its current opinion and the opinion of all current influencing neighbors. Note in such an asynchronous HKS stable states in the sense that no agent will change its opinion might never be reached. This can be seen by a simple example with two nodes and one edge. Hence, we adopt a natural stability criterion defined by Bhattacharyya and Shiragur~\cite{BhattacharyyaS15}.
A HKS is in a \emph{$\delta$-stable state} if and only if each edge in the influence network has length at most $\delta$.
For this scenario we prove that the convergence of the opinion dynamics is guaranteed and we give an upper bound on the expected convergence time of $$\operatorname{O}(n|E|^2 (\varepsilon/\delta)^2) \leq \operatorname{O}(n^5 (\varepsilon/\delta)^2),$$ where $|E|$ is the cardinality of the edge set of the given social network.
We demonstrate the tightness of our derived upper bound by providing empirical agent-based simulations for several topologies of the underlying social network topologies.
Note that for complete graphs as social network our bound of $\operatorname{O}(n^3(n^2 + (\varepsilon/\delta)^2))$ improves the best previously known upper bound of $\operatorname{O}(n^9 (\varepsilon/\delta)^2)$~\cite{EtesamiB15}.
\subsection{Related Work}
We focus our discussion on recent research on Hegselmann-Krause systems and other opinion formation models.
\paragraph{Synchronous HKSs on Complete Networks}
Most recent research focused on synchronous opinion updates in complete social networks.
For this setting it is known that the process always converges to a state where no agent changes its opinion anymore~\cite{Chazelle11}. We denote such states as \emph{perfectly stable states}.
Touri and Nedic~\cite{TouriN11} prove that any one-dimensional HKS converges in $\operatorname{O}(n^4)$ synchronous update rounds to a perfectly stable state.
Bhattacharyya et al.~\cite{BhattacharyyaBCN13} improve this upper bound to $\operatorname{O}(n^3)$. For $d$ dimensions they show a convergence time of $\operatorname{O}(n^{10} d^2)$.
For arbitrary $d$ Etesami and Başar~\cite{EtesamiB15} establish a bound of $\operatorname{O}(n^6)$ rounds, which is independent of the dimension $d$.
Finally, Martinsson~\cite{Martinsson15} shows that any synchronous $d$-dimensional HKS converges within $\operatorname{O}(n^4)$ update rounds to a perfectly stable state.
Regarding lower bounds, Bhattacharyya et al.~\cite{BhattacharyyaBCN13} construct two-dimensional instances that need at least $\Omega(n^2)$ update rounds before a perfectly stable state is reached.
Later, Wedin and Hegarty~\cite{WedinH15} show that this lower bound holds even in one-dimensional systems.
\paragraph{Synchronous HKSs on Arbitrary Social Networks}
In \cite{parasnis2019convergence}, the authors use the probabilistic method to prove that
the expected convergence time to a perfectly stable state is infinite for general networks.
This also holds for a slightly weaker stability concept than perfect stability: in all future steps an agent's opinion will not move further than by a given distance $\delta$. To show their result the authors construct a HKSs with infinitely many oscillating states.
Their stability notion is also different to the one considered in this paper. We analyze the time to reach a $\delta$-stable state which is defined as a state where any edge in the influence network has length at most $\delta$ (see \cref{sec:model}).
For $\delta$-stability Bhattacharyya and Shiragur~\cite{BhattacharyyaS15} prove that a synchronous HKS with an arbitrary social network reaches a $\delta$-stable state in $\operatorname{O}(n^5 (\varepsilon/\delta)^2)$ synchronous rounds.
\paragraph{Asynchronous HKSs}
Compared to the synchronous case, the existing results for asynchronous HKSs are rather limited.
To the best of our knowledge, they were first studied by Etesami and Başar~\cite{EtesamiB15} where the authors consider \emph{$\delta$-equilibra}
in contrast to $\delta$-stable states. They define a $\delta$-equilibrium as a state where each connected component of the influence network has an Euclidean diameter of at most $\delta$ and prove that the expected number of update steps to reach such a state is bounded by $\operatorname{O}(n^9 (\varepsilon/\delta)^2)$ for the complete social network. In general, $\delta$-equilibria are a proper subset of the set of $\delta$-stable states. However, in \cref{sec:MainResults} we discuss the equivalence of both stability notions on complete social networks.
\paragraph{Other Opinion Formation Models}
In the seminal models by Friedkin and Johnsen~\cite{FJ90} (extending earlier work by DeGroot~\cite{DeGroot74}) each agent has an innate opinion and strategically selects an expressed opinion that is a compromise of its innate opinion and the opinions of its neighbors. Recently, co-evolutionary and game-theoretic variants were studied~\cite{DBLP:journals/geb/BindelKO15,BGM13,BFM18,EpitropouFHS19,FotakisPS16}, and the results focus on equilibrium existence and social quality, measured by the price of anarchy.
In the AI and multi-agent systems community, opinion formation is studied intensively. In~\cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/AulettaFF19} a co-evolutionary model is investigated, where also the innate opinion may change over time.
There is also substantial work on understanding opinion diffusion, i.e., the process of how opinions spread in a social network~\cite{DBLP:conf/ijcai/BredereckE17,DBLP:conf/ijcai/BredereckJK20,DBLP:conf/atal/BotanGP19,DBLP:conf/ijcai/Anagnostopoulos20,DBLP:conf/ijcai/FaliszewskiGKT18,DBLP:conf/atal/DeBG18}.
Moreover, in~\cite{DBLP:conf/atal/CoatesHK18,DBLP:conf/atal/CoatesHK18a} a framework and a simulator for agent-based opinion formation models is presented.
Opinion dynamics and in particular the emergence of echo chambers is modeled with tools from statistical physics in~\cite{fu2008coevolutionary,evans2018opinion}
Another line of related research on opinion dynamics has its roots in randomized rumor spreading and distributed consensus processes (see~\cite{DBLP:journals/sigact/BecchettiCN20} for a rather recent survey).
Communication in these models is typically restricted to constantly many neighbors.
A simple and natural protocol in this context is the \protocol{Voter} process \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/HassinP01,DBLP:journals/networks/NakataIY00,DBLP:conf/podc/CooperEOR12,DBLP:conf/icalp/BerenbrinkGKM16}, where every agent adopts in each round the opinion of a single, randomly chosen neighbor.
Similar processes are the \protocol{TwoChoices} process~\cite{DBLP:conf/icalp/CooperER14,DBLP:conf/wdag/CooperERRS15,DBLP:conf/wdag/CooperRRS17}, the \protocol{3Majority} dynamics~\cite{DBLP:journals/dc/BecchettiCNPST17, DBLP:conf/podc/GhaffariL18, DBLP:conf/podc/BerenbrinkCEKMN17}, and the Undecided State Dynamics~\cite{DBLP:journals/dc/AngluinAE08,DBLP:conf/soda/BecchettiCNPS15,DBLP:conf/mfcs/ClementiGGNPS18,DBLP:conf/podc/GhaffariP16a, DBLP:conf/icalp/BerenbrinkFGK16,BankhamerSODA22}.
\subsection{Model and Notation} \label{sec:model}
A \emph{Hegselmann-Krause system (HKS)} $\HKS$ in $d$ dimensions is defined as follows. We are given a \emph{social network} $G = (V,E)$ and a \emph{confidence bound} $\varepsilon \in \mathbb{R}_+$.
The $n$ nodes of the social network correspond to the agents, and each agent $v \in V$ has an \emph{initial opinion $\posV{v}{0} \in \mathbb{R}^d$}. We will use the terms agents and nodes interchangeably.
As the opinion of agent $v$ is represented by a point in the $d$-dimensional Euclidean space, we sometimes call it \emph{the position of $v$}.
In step $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ the opinion of agent $v \in V$ is denoted as $\posV{v}{t} \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
For some constant confidence bound $\varepsilon\in \mathbb{R}_+$ we define the \emph{influencing neighborhood} of agent $v \in V$ at time $t$ as \[\Nv[t]{v} = \{u \in V| \{u,v\} \in E, \|\posV{u}{t}-\posV{v}{t}\|_2 \leq \varepsilon \} \cup\{v\}.\]
In each step $t$ one agent $v \in V$ is chosen uniformly at random and updates its position according to the rule
\[
\posV{v}{t+1} = \frac{\sum_{u \in\Nv[t]{v} }\posV{u}{t}}{|\Nv[t]{v}|}\;.
\] If $\posV{v}{t} \neq \posV{v}{t+1}$, then we say that (the opinion of) agent $v$ has \emph{moved}.
Also, in an update of agent $v$'s position in step $t$, all other agents do not change their positions, i.e., $\posV{u}{t+1} = \posV{u}{t}$ for $u \neq v$.
Given a social network $G = (V,E)$, we define for any edge $e = \{u,v\} \in E$ at time $t$ the
length of $e$ as $\|\posV{e}{t}\|_2 = \| \posV{u}{t}-\posV{w}{t}\|_2$.
We define the \emph{movement} $\moveV[t]{v}$ of agent $v \in V$ at time $t$ as the $d$-dimensional vector
\[
\moveV[t]{v} = \frac{\sum_{u \in \Nv[t]{v}} (\posV{u}{t}-\posV{v}{t})}{|\Nv[t]{v}|}\;.
\]
Note that $\moveV[t]{v} = \posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{v}{t}$ if $v$ is chosen in step $t$, and hence $\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2$ denotes the distance the agent moves when activated in step $t$.
The \emph{influence network} $\CG{t}$ in step $t$ is given by the social network $G$ restricted to edges that have length at most $\varepsilon$.
More formally, it is defined as $\CG{t} = (V,\Et{t})$, where $e = \{u,v\} \in \Et{t}$ if and only if $u \in \Nv[t]{v}$, i.e., $\|\posV{e}{t}\|_2 \leq \varepsilon$.
We define the \emph{state} of a HKS $\HKS$ at time $t$ as $S_t = \stateHKS[t]$ and it refers to the positions of the agents at that specific time.
If clear from the context, we omit the parameter $t$.
For a fixed state $S$, the term $\Nv{v}$ denotes the influencing neighborhood in this state.
We are interested in the expected number of steps that are required until the HKS reaches a $\delta$-stable state, which is
a natural stability criterion defined by Bhattacharyya and Shiragur~\cite{BhattacharyyaS15}.
A HKS is in a \emph{$\delta$-stable state}, if and only if each edge in the influence network has length at most $\delta$.
We call the number of steps to reach a $\delta$-stable state the \emph{convergence time} of the system.
\subsection{Our Contribution}
We study the convergence time to a $\delta$-stable state in Hegselmann-Krause systems with an arbitrary initial state and an arbitrary given social network, where we update one uniformly at random chosen agent in each step. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analysis of the variant of HKSs that feature asynchronous opinion updates on a given arbitrary social network.
For these systems, we prove the following:
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{UpperBoundArbitraryGraph}
\label{thm:upper-bound}
For a $d$-dimensional HKS $S_0 = \HKS$, the expected convergence time to a $\delta$-stable state under uniform random asynchronous updates is $\operatorname{O}(\Phi(S_0)n|E|/\delta^2)\leq\operatorname{O}(n |E|^2 \left(\varepsilon/\delta \right)^2)$.
\end{restatable}
For graphs with $|E| = \operatorname{O}(n)$, for example graphs with constant maximum node degree, the theorem immediately shows an expected convergence time of $\operatorname{O}(n^3\left(\varepsilon/\delta\right)^2)$.
Interestingly, our upper bound on the expected convergence time in the asynchronous process on arbitrary social networks is of the same order as the best known upper bound of $\operatorname{O}(n^5\left(\varepsilon/\delta \right)^2)$ for the synchronous process~\cite{BhattacharyyaS15} where {\em all} agents are activated in parallel.
Furthermore, we show that the convergence time stated in \cref{thm:upper-bound} also transfers to the model of Etesami and Başar~\cite{EtesamiB15}. They showed that a HKS with asynchronous opinion updates on a complete social network converges to a \emph{$\delta$-equilibrium} in $\operatorname{O}(n^9\left(\varepsilon/\delta \right)^2)$ steps, thus it is a major improvement over their analysis. However, since on arbitrary social networks $\delta$-stability does not imply a $\delta$-equilibrium, it is open if the bound given in Theorem~\ref{thm:upper-bound} also holds for the convergence time to $\delta$-equilibria.
Moreover, for the special case of a complete social network with asynchronous opinion updates, i.e., the case considered by Etesami and Başar~\cite{EtesamiB15}, we show the following even stronger result that holds for arbitrary $\delta$:
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{UpperBoundComplete}
\label{UpperBoundComplete}
Let $\HKS$ be any instance of a $d$-dimen\-sional HKS and let $G=K_n$ be the complete social network.
Using uniform random asynchronous update steps, the expected convergence time to a
$\delta$-stable state is at most $\operatorname{O}( n^3\left(n^2 +(\varepsilon/\delta)^2\right))$.
\end{restatable}
To prove these results we extend the potential function used in~\cite{EtesamiB15}.
The main ingredient for strongly improving the upper bound derived in \cite{EtesamiB15} is to significantly tighten and generalize the proof by Etesami and Başar~\cite{EtesamiB15}. To do so we develop a projection argument (see \cref{lem:project}) and a new analysis of the expected movement of a randomly chosen agent. This allows us to improve the bound on the expected drop of the potential function (see \cref{lma:ExpPotentialDrop}).
To complement our upper bound results we demonstrate that our analysis method is tight in the sense that using this potential function and studying step by step drop, one cannot improve the results. We present a family of examples where the expected potential drop
is exactly of the same order as our upper bound (see \cref{rem:RemakTightniss}).
Moreover, we present a family of one-dimensional HKSs where in expectation $\Omega(n^2)$ steps are needed to reach a $\delta$-stable state (see \cref{thm:lower-bound}).
Last but not least, in \cref{sec:simulations} we provide some simulation results for two specific social network topologies. Our empirically derived lower bounds asymptotically match our theoretically proven upper bound from \cref{thm:upper-bound}.
\section{Social Hegselmann-Krause Systems}
\label{sec:MainResults}
In this section, we prove \cref{thm:upper-bound} using three intermediate steps.
First, we show that there is a projection of any state of a $d$-dimensional HKS to one dimension while preserving the main properties of the HKS.
In the next step, we prove for any 1-dimensional HKS that the term $\sum_{v \in V}(|\Nv[t]{v}|\cdot \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2)$ can be lower bounded by the twice the length of the longest edge in the system (see \cref{lem:min_movement}).
Finally, we prove that the drop in the potential when activating an agent $v$ can be lower bounded by a function of its movement $\moveV[t]{v}$ (see \cref{lem:potentialDrop}).
Combining these three properties on HKSs enables us to prove the theorem.
Let $S = \stateHKS$ be a state of some $d$-dimensional HKS with influential network $\infNetw{}$.
For some arbitrary edge $e=\{u,w\} \in \Et{}$, we will project the state $S$ to a state $\bar{S}_e$ of some $1$-dimensional HKS.
We define the projected state $\bar{S}_e$ along edge $e=\{u,w\}$ with the help of the projection vector \[p = \frac{(\posV{u}{} - \posV{w}{})}{\|\posV{u}{} - \posV{w}{}\|_2}\;,\] where the order of $u$ and $w$ is chosen arbitrarily.
We define
\[\bar{S}_e = \stateHKSProj\;,\]
as follows.
We project the position of each agent $v \in V$ to
\[\posVProj{v}{} = \posV{v}{}^\top p \in \mathbb{R}\;.\]
Furthermore, in the graph $\graphProj{}$ of the projected system, we restrict the set of edges $\bar{E}$ to the ones, which are edges of the influence network in the original state, i.e.,
$\bar{E} = \Et{}$.
For an agent $v \in V$, we denote by $\NvProj{v}$ its influencing neighborhood, and by $\moveVProj{v}$ its movement in $\bar{S}_e$.
In the following lemma, we prove that the projected system behaves similarly to the original system in the sense that the length of the edge $e$ stays the same and the influence network does not change.
Furthermore, the agents in the original HKS move at least as much as the agents in the projected state, when activated.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:project}
Let $S = \stateHKS$ be a state of a $d$-dimensional HKS with influence network $\infNetw{}$
and $e = \{u,w\} \in \Et{}$.
Then it holds for the projected state $\bar{S}_e$ defined as above that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\|\posV{u}{}-\posV{w}{}\|_2 = |\posVProj{u}{} - \posVProj{w}{}|$\;, \label{en:lem:project:1}
\item $\Nv{v} = \NvProj{v}$\;,\label{en:lem:project:2}
\item $\sum_{v \in V} (|\Nv{v}|\cdot\|\moveV[]{v}\|_2) \geq \sum_{v \in V} (|\NvProj{v}||\moveVProj[]{v}|)$ \;.\label{en:lem:project:4}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $p$ be the projection vector used to generate $\bar{S}_e$.
To see statement \eqref{en:lem:project:1} note that
\begin{align*}
|\posVProj{u}{} - \posVProj{w}{}|
&= \left|\posV{u}{}^\top p - \posV{w}{}^\top p \right|\\
&= \left|(\posV{u}{}-\posV{w}{})^T p\right|\\
&=\left| \frac{(\posV{u}{} -\posV{w}{})^\top (\posV{u}{} -\posV{w}{})}{ \norm{(\posV{u}{} -\posV{w}{})}_2}\right|\\
&= \norm{(\posV{u}{} -\posV{w}{})}_2.
\end{align*}
To prove statement \eqref{en:lem:project:2}, we show that for each pair $v,v' \in V$ it holds that $\|\posV{v}{}-\posV{v'}{}\|_2 \geq |\posVProj{v}{}-\posVProj{v'}{}|$.
\begin{align*}
|\posVProj{v}{}-\posVProj{v'}{}|
=& \left|\posV{v}{}^\top p- \posV{v'}{}^\top p\right|\\
=& \left|(\posV{v}{} -\posV{v'}{})^\top p\right|\\
=& \left|\frac{(\posV{v}{} -\posV{v'}{})^\top (\posV{u}{} - \posV{w}{})}{ \norm{(\posV{u}{} -\posV{w}{})}_2}\right|\\
\overset{\text{Cauchy-Schwarz}}{\leq} & \norm{(\posV{v}{} - \posV{v'}{})}_2\;.
\end{align*}
Since the difference between projected positions of agents is at most as large as the difference between their original positions and since $\bar{E}$ contains only the edges of the influence network in the original state, it holds that $\Nv{v} = \NvProj{v}$.
Finally, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\|\moveV{v}\|_2 =& \left\|\frac{\sum_{u \in \Nv{v}} (\posV{u}{} - \posV{v}{})}{\abs{\Nv{v}}} \right\|_2 \\
=& \frac{\left\|\sum_{u \in \Nv{v}} (\posV{u}{} - \posV{v}{})\right\|_2}{\abs{\Nv{v}}} \\
\overset{\text{Cauchy-Schwarz}}{\geq}& \frac{\left|\left(\sum_{u \in \Nv{v}} (\posV{u}{} - \posV{v}{})\right)^\top (\posV{u}{} - \posV{w}{})\right|}{\abs{\Nv{v}}\|\posV{u}{} - \posV{w}{}\|_2}\\
= &\left|\frac{\left(\sum_{u \in \Nv{v}} (\posV{u}{}^\top p - \posV{v}{}^\top p)\right)}{\abs{\Nv{v}}}\right| \\
= &\left| \frac{\sum_{j \in \NvProj{v}}(\posVProj{u}{} - \posVProj{v}{})}{\abs{\NvProj{v}}} \right| = |\moveVProj{v}|\;,
\end{align*}
and hence
\begin{align*}
\sum_{v \in V} |\Nv{v}|\|\moveV{v}\|_2
&\geq
\sum_{v \in V} \abs{\NvProj{v}}|\moveVProj{v}|\;. \quad\quad\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\noindent We now prove a lower bound on the total movement of agents.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:summedMovement}
Let $S =\stateHKS$ be a state of a $1$-dimensional HKS, let $c\in \mathbb{R}$ and $V_\ell = \{v \in V \mid \posV{v}{} \leq c\}$ and $V_r = V \setminus V_\ell$.
Define $E_{\ell,r} = \{\{u,w\} \in E_I \mid u \in V_l, w \in V_r\}$.
Then it holds that
\[\sum_{v \in V}|\Nv{v}||\moveV{v}| \geq 2 \sum_{e \in E_{\ell,r}} \|\posV{e}{}\|_2 \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We observe
\begin{align*}
\sum_{v \in V_\ell} |\Nv{v}||\moveV{v}| &\geq \sum_{v \in V_\ell} |\Nv{v}|\moveV{v}\\
&= \sum_{v \in V_\ell} |\Nv{v}| \sum_{u \in \Nv{v}} \frac{\posV{u}{} -\posV{v}{}}{|\Nv{v}|} \\
&= \sum_{v \in V_\ell}\sum_{u \in V_r} (\posV{u}{} -\posV{v}{})\\
&= \sum_{e \in E_{\ell,r}} \|\posV{e}{}\|_2\;.
\end{align*}
Similarly, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{v \in V_r} |\Nv{v}||\moveV{v}| &\geq \left| \sum_{v \in V_r} |\Nv{v}|\moveV{v} \right|\\
&= \sum_{e \in E_{\ell,r}} \|\posV{e}{}\|_2\;.
\end{align*}
The lemma follows by combining the two results as $V_r = V \setminus V_{\ell}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{lem:min_movement}
Let $S = \stateHKS$ be a state of a $d$-dimensional HK system.
Let $\lambda$ be the length of a longest edge in the influence network.
Then
\[\sum_{v \in V}|\Nv[t]{v}|\cdot \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2 \geq 2 \lambda .\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let edge $e = \{ v_\ell,v_r \} \in \mathcal{E}$ be a longest edge in the influence network and $\|\posV{e}{}\|_2 = \lambda$.
Let $\bar{S}_e = \stateHKSProj$ be the state projected to one dimension along the edge $e$.
By \cref{lem:project}, we know that
\[\sum_{v \in V}|\Nv{v}|\cdot \|\moveV{v}\|_2 \geq \sum_{v \in V}|\NvProj{v}|\cdot |\moveVProj{v}|\;.\]
Furthermore, we know that the influence network in both systems has the same set of edges, and that the length of the longest edge in the influence network of $\bar{I}_t$ is equal to the length of the longest edge in $I_t$.
Hence $e = \{u,w\} \in E$ is a longest edge in the influence network $\bar{I}$ with $\|\posV{e}{}\|_2 = \lambda$.
Analogously to \cref{lem:summedMovement}, we partition $V$ into two sets $V_\ell$ and $V_r$ at $c = (\posV{{u}}{}+\posV{{w}}{})/2$ and define $E_{\ell,r} = \{\{v, v'\} \mid v \in V_\ell, v' \in V_r\}$.
Note that $e \in E_{\ell,r}$ and hence
\[\sum_{v \in V} |\moveVProj{v}| |\NvProj{v}| \geq 2 \sum_{e \in E_{\ell,r}} \|\posV{e}{}\|_2 \geq 2 \lambda\;.\qedhere\]
\end{proof}
\noindent For any state $S=\stateHKS$ of a $d$-dimensional HKS $\HKS$, we define the following potential function.
\[\Phi(S) = \sum_{\{u,v\}\in E} \min\{ \|\posV{u}{} - \posV{v}{}\|_2^2, \varepsilon^2\} .\]
This potential is upper-bounded by $|E| \varepsilon^2$.
In the next step, we will prove a lower bound on the drop in the potential when updating any agent $v \in V$. The proof is inspired by the work of Etesami and Başar~\cite{EtesamiB15}.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{EtesamiBasar}
\label{lem:potentialDrop}
Let $S_t = \stateHKS[t]$ be the state of some $d$-dimensional HKS $\HKS$.
Suppose we update the position of agent $v$ and $v$ moves by $\moveV[t]{v}$.
Let \[S_{t+1} = \stateHKS[t+1]\] be the new state. The potential decreases by at least
\[\Phi(S_t) - \Phi(S_{t+1}) \geq (|\Nv[t]{v}|+1) \cdot \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2.\]
If the influence network does not change from step $t$ to $t+1$, we obtain equality.
\label{lem:etesami_modified}
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
As we activate $v$, the position of agents $u \neq v$ does not change. By the definition of $\Phi$, we have
\begin{align*}
\MoveEqLeft \Phi(S_t) - \Phi(S_{t+1})\\
\MoveEqLeft = \sum_{\{u,v\}\in E} ( \min\{ \|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2, \varepsilon^2\}\\
& - \min\{ \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{u}{t+1}\|_2^2, \varepsilon^2\} )\\
\MoveEqLeft= \sum_{\substack{\{u,v\} \in \\ \Et{t} \cap \Et{t+1}}} \left(\|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2 - \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{u}{t+1}\|_2^2\right)\\
& + \sum_{\substack{\{u,v\} \in \\ \Et{t}\setminus \Et{t+1}}} \left(\|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t+1}\|_2^2 - \varepsilon^2\right)\\
& + \sum_{\substack{\{u,v\} \in \\ \Et{t+1} \setminus \Et{t}}} \left(\varepsilon^2 - \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{u}{t+1}\|_2^2\right)\\
\MoveEqLeft\geq \sum_{\substack{\{u,v\} \in \\ \Et{t} \cap \Et{t+1}}} \left(\|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2 - \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{u}{t+1}\|_2^2\right)\\
& + \sum_{\substack{\{u,v\} \in \\ \Et{t}\setminus \Et{t+1}}} \big(\|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad- \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{u}{t+1}\|_2^2\big),\\
\intertext{where we have equality if $\Et{t} = \Et{t+1}$. We conclude}
\MoveEqLeft \Phi(S_t) - \Phi(S_{t+1})\\
\MoveEqLeft \geq \sum_{\substack{\{u,v\} \in \Et{t}}} \left(\|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2 - \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{u}{t+1}\|_2^2\right)\\
\MoveEqLeft= \sum_{u \in\Nv[t]{v}} \left(\|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2 - \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{u}{t+1}\|_2^2\right)\\
\MoveEqLeft= \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{v}{t}\|_2^2 \\
& + \sum_{u \in\Nv[t]{v}} \big(\|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad~~ - \|\posV{v}{t+1} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2\big)\\
\MoveEqLeft= \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2 \\
& + \sum_{u \in\Nv[t]{v}} \big(\|\posV{v}{t} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2\\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad~~- \|\posV{v}{t}+\moveV[t]{v} - \posV{u}{t}\|_2^2\big),\\
\intertext{Using the definition of $\|\cdot\|$, we obtain}
\MoveEqLeft= \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2 \\
& +\sum_{u \in\Nv[t]{v}} (\posV{v}{t}^\top \posV{v}{t} - 2\posV{v}{t}^\top \posV{u}{t}\\
&\quad\quad\quad+ \posV{u}{t}^\top \posV{u}{t}\\
&\quad \quad \quad -(\posV{v}{t}+\moveV[t]{v})^\top (\posV{v}{t}+\moveV[t]{v})\\
&\quad \quad \quad +2(\posV{v}{t}+\moveV[t]{v})^\top \posV{u}{t}- \posV{u}{t}^\top \posV{u}{t})\\
\MoveEqLeft= \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2 \\
& + \smashoperator{\sum_{u \in\Nv[t]{v}}} (
-2\moveV[t]{v}^\top \posV{v}{t} - \moveV[t]{v}^\top \moveV[t]{v}\\
&\quad\quad\quad+2\moveV[t]{v}^\top \posV{u}{t}) \\
\MoveEqLeft= \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2 -|\Nv[t]{v}|\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2 \\
& +2\moveV[t]{v}^\top \left(\sum_{u \in\Nv[t]{v}} \left(\posV{u}{t}-\posV{v}{t}\right)\right) \\
\MoveEqLeft= \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2 -|\Nv[t]{v}|\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2 +2|\Nv[t]{v}|\moveV[t]{v}^\top \moveV[t]{v}\\
\MoveEqLeft= (\Nv[t]{v}+1)\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2\;,
\end{align*}
which finishes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\noindent We now have the tools to prove a lower bound on the expected potential drop in a single step.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lma:ExpPotentialDrop}
For any state $S_t=\stateHKS[t]$ of some HKS $\HKS$ in step $t$, when updating an agent chosen uniformly at random resulting in state $S_{t+1} = \stateHKS[t+1]$, the expected potential drop is at least
\[\mathbb{E}[\Phi(S_t) - \Phi(S_{t+1})] \geq \frac{2 (\lambda_t)^2}{n|\Et{t}|}\;,\]
where $\lambda_t$ is the length of the longest edge in the influence network $\CG{t}$ in step $t$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From \cref{lem:etesami_modified} we know that the potential never increases: if we choose agent $v$ to be updated,
the potential decreases by at least
\[\Phi(S_t) - \Phi(S_{t+1}) \geq (|\Nv[t]{v} |+1) \cdot \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2.\]
Let $e_t$ be a longest edge in the corresponding influence network of $S_t$.
By \cref{lem:min_movement}, we know that
\[\sum_{v \in V}|\Nv[t]{v}|\cdot \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2 \geq 2\|e_t\|_2.\]
Using Cauchy-Schwarz $\left(\sum_{v \in V} a_v b_v \right)^2 \leq \sum_{v \in V} a_v^2 \cdot \sum_{v \in V} b_v^2$ with $a_v = \sqrt{|\Nv[t]{v}|}\cdot\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2$ and $b_v = \sqrt{|\Nv[t]{v}|}$, we conclude that the expected potential drop in each step with an edge with length at least $\lambda_t$ is at least
\begin{align*}
\MoveEqLeft\mathbb{E}[\Phi(S_t) - \Phi(S_{t+1})]\\ =& \sum_{v \in V}\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}[\Phi(S_t) - \Phi(S_{t+1}) | v \text{ is updated}]\\
\geq& \frac{1}{n}\sum_{v \in V} (|\Nv[t]{v}| + 1)\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2\\
\geq& \frac{1}{n}\sum_{v \in V} (\sqrt{|\Nv[t]{v}|}\cdot \|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2)^2\\
\geq& \frac{1}{n}\frac{\left(\sum_{v \in V} |\Nv[t]{v}|\cdot\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2\right)^2}{\sum_{v \in V} \sqrt{|\Nv[t]{v}|}^2}\\
\geq& \frac{1}{n} \cdot \frac{4 (\lambda_t)^2}{2|\Et{t}|}. \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\noindent The proof of \cref{thm:upper-bound} is a direct consequence of \cref{lma:ExpPotentialDrop}.
\UpperBoundArbitraryGraph*
\begin{proof}
Note that by definition of the potential function, we have $\Phi(S) \leq \varepsilon^2|E|$ for all states $S$.
We know by \cref{lma:ExpPotentialDrop} that the expected potential drop at any step $t$ is at least
\[\mathbb{E}[\Phi(S_t) - \Phi(S_{t+1})] \geq \frac{2 \delta^2}{n|\Et{t}|} \geq \frac{2 \delta^2}{n|E|}\]
as long as there is an edge with length at least $\delta$.
Thus, the expected number of steps to reach a $\delta$-stable state is upper bounded by
\[\frac{|E| \varepsilon ^2}{\frac{2 \delta^2}{n |E|}} = \frac{n |E|^2}{2} \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta}\right)^2\;. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}
\noindent The results from \cref{thm:upper-bound} directly improve the results from Etesami and Başar~\cite{EtesamiB15} even though they use a slightly different convergence criterium.
In their paper convergence is reached if the diameter of each connected component is bounded by $\delta$ and they call this state a $\delta$-equilibrium.
They bound the expected number of update steps to reach a $\delta$-equilibrium in the complete social network by $\operatorname{O}(n^9(\varepsilon/ \delta)^2)$.
Note that if the social network is the complete graph, each connected component in the influence network where each edge has a length of at most $\varepsilon/2$ also must be a complete graph and hence the diameter of this connected component is also bounded by $\varepsilon/2$.
Hence, if $\delta \leq \varepsilon/2$, a $\delta$-stable state must be in $\delta$-equilibrium as well.
On the other hand, if $\delta > \varepsilon/2$, the expected number of steps to reach a $\varepsilon/2$-stable state and hence a $\delta$-equilibrium is bounded by $\operatorname{O}(n^5)$ by \cref{thm:upper-bound}.
The next theorem shows that our bound on the potential drop per step is tight. Consequently, if we would like to improve the theorem, we have to choose a different potential function and/or consider multiple activations at once.
\begin{theorem}
\label{rem:RemakTightniss}
There is a family of examples with $|E| = \Theta(n^2)$, a potential of $\Theta(n^2\varepsilon^2)$, where the expected potential drop is $\Theta(\varepsilon^2/n^3)$ for the first activation.
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\w}{1.6}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\h}{0.6}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\x}{\w/35}
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (la) at (0*\w,0*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (lb) at (0*\w,1*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (lc) at (0*\w,2*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (ld) at (0*\w,3*\h) {};
\node at (0*\w,-0.5*\h) {$C_l$};
\draw[thick] (la) -- (lb);
\draw[thick] (lb) -- (lc);
\draw[thick] (lc) -- (ld);
\draw[thick] (la) to[out=120,in=-120] (lc);
\draw[thick] (lb) to[out=120,in=-120] (ld);
\draw[thick] (la) to[out=120,in=-120] (ld);
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (l) at (\x*5,1.5*\h) {};
\node[label={[xshift=0.1*\w cm, yshift=-1*\h cm]$\ell$}] at (l) { };
\draw[thick] (la) -- (l);
\draw[thick] (lb) -- (l);
\draw[thick] (lc) -- (l);
\draw[thick] (ld) -- (l);
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (pa) at (\w-4*\x,1.5*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (pb) at (2*\w-10*\x,1.5*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (pc) at (3*\w-13*\x,1.5*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (pd) at (4*\w-13*\x,1.5*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (pe) at (5*\w-16*\x,1.5*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (pf) at (6*\w-22*\x,1.5*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (r) at (7*\w-31*\x,1.5*\h) {};
\node[label={[xshift=-0.1*\w cm, yshift=-1*\h cm]$r$}] at (r) { };
\draw[thick] (l) -- node[midway,above]{$\varepsilon - 9\hat{m}$} (pa);
\draw[thick] (pa) -- node[midway,above]{$\varepsilon - 6\hat{m}$} (pb);
\draw[thick] (pb) -- node[midway,above]{$\varepsilon - 3\hat{m}$} (pc);
\draw[thick] (pc) -- node[midway,above]{$\varepsilon$} (pd);
\draw[thick] (pd) -- node[midway,above]{$\varepsilon - 3\hat{m}$} (pe);
\draw[thick] (pe) -- node[midway,above]{$\varepsilon - 6\hat{m}$} (pf);
\draw[thick] (pf) -- node[midway,above]{$\varepsilon - 9\hat{m}$} (r);
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (ra) at (7*\w-26*\x,0*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (rb) at (7*\w-26*\x,1*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (rc) at (7*\w-26*\x,2*\h) {};
\node[circle,fill=black,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=3pt] (rd) at (7*\w-26*\x,3*\h) {};
\node at (7*\w-26*\x,-0.5*\h) {$C_r$};
\draw[thick] (ra) -- (rb);
\draw[thick] (rb) -- (rc);
\draw[thick] (rc) -- (rd);
\draw[thick] (ra) to[out=60,in=-60] (rc);
\draw[thick] (rb) to[out=60,in=-60] (rd);
\draw[thick] (ra) to[out=60,in=-60] (rd);
\draw[thick] (ra) -- (r);
\draw[thick] (rb) -- (r);
\draw[thick] (rc) -- (r);
\draw[thick] (rd) -- (r);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{A state $S$ of a HKS with $\Phi(S) = \Theta(n^2 \varepsilon)$ and an expected potential drop of $\Theta(\varepsilon^2/n^3)$. Only edges in $\Et{0}$ are presented, and $\hat{m} = \varepsilon/(n^2/16 +5n/4-1)$ represents the equal movement of all nodes. Note that the state $S$ is a one-dimensional instance and the position of all nodes of the cliques $C_{\ell}$ and $C_r$ have the same position, respectively. We use the second dimension only for a better illustration of the influencing network. We call the state $S$ with its social network reduced to the edges in $\Et{0}$ a \textsl{Dumbbell} instance.}
\label{fig:DumbbellGraph}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
Consider the following family of $1$-dimensional HKSs $HK_n = \HKS[0]$ such that $|V| = 4 n$ for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$, see \cref{fig:DumbbellGraph} for the example for $n = 4$.
The set of nodes $V$ is partitioned into sets $C_\ell, C_r, P, \{\ell,r\} \subseteq V$, such that $|C_\ell| = |C_r| = n$ and $|P| = 2n -2$.
The set of edges $E$ is given such that $C_\ell$, $C_r$, and $P$ are cliques while nodes $\ell$ and $r$ are connected to all nodes.
To define the opinions of the agents that correspond to the nodes $V$ at state $S_0$, define $\hat{m} = \varepsilon/(n^2 + 5n -1)$ and choose
\begin{itemize}
\item $\posV{v}{0} = 0$ for each $v \in C_\ell$,
\item $\posV{\ell}{0}= \hat{m}\cdot (n + 1)$,
\item for each $j \in \{1,\dots, n\}$ there exists a node $v_j \in P$ with
\begin{align*}
\posV[j]{v_j}{0} & = \posV[j-1]{v_{j-1}}{0} + \varepsilon - 3 (n-j)\hat{m}
\end{align*}
where we define $v_0 = \ell$.
\item for each $j \in \{n+1,\dots, 2n-2\}$ there exists a node $v_j \in P$ with
\begin{align*}
\posV[j]{v_j}{0} &= \posV[j-1]{v_{j-1}}{0}+\varepsilon - 3(j-n)\hat{m}
\end{align*}
\item $\posV{r}{0} = \posV[2n-2]{v}{0} + \varepsilon - 3 (n-1)\hat{m}$
\item $\posV{v}{0} = \posV{r}{0} + (n +1)\hat{m} $ for each $v \in C_r$.
\end{itemize}
Note that all the edges inside the cliques $C_\ell \cup \{\ell\}$ and $C_r\cup \{r\}$ are in the influence network $\CG{0}$,
as well as each edge between $v_{j}$ and $v_{j+1}$ for $j \in \{0,\dots,2n-2\}$, where $v_0 = \ell$ and $v_{2n-1} = r$.
Also,
\begin{align*}|\posV{{v_i}}{0} - \posV{{v_j}}{0}| &\geq \posV{{v_2}}{0} - \posV{{v_0}}{0}\\ &= \varepsilon - 3 (n-2)\hat{m} + \varepsilon - 3 (n-1)\hat{m}\\ &= 2\varepsilon - 3(2n-3)\varepsilon/(n^2 + 5n -1)\\ &> \varepsilon
\end{align*}for all $0 \leq i,j \leq 2n$ with $|i-j| \geq 2$ and therefore the above mentioned edges are the only ones in $\CG{0}$.
We proceed by verifying that for each $v \in V$ it holds that $|\moveV[0]{v}| = \hat{m}$. We calculate the movement for $\ell$. Let $v \in C_\ell$.
Since all $n$ agents in $C_\ell$ have the same initial position $\posV{v}{0} = 0$, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\moveV[0]{\ell} = & (n\cdot \posV{v}{0} + \posV[1]{v}{0} - (n+1) \posV{\ell}{0})/(n+2) \\
= & (\posV{\ell}{0}+ \varepsilon - 3 (n-1)\hat{m}\\
& - (n+1) \posV{\ell}{0})/(n+2) \\
= & (\varepsilon - 3 (n-1)\hat{m} - n \cdot \posV{\ell}{0})/(n+2) \\
= & (\varepsilon - 3 (n-1)\hat{m}- n \cdot \hat{m}\cdot (n +1))/(n+2) \\
= & (\varepsilon - (n^2 +4n-3)\hat{m})/(n+2) \\
= & (\varepsilon - (n^2 +4n-3)\varepsilon/(n^2 + 5n -1))/(n+2) \\
= & \varepsilon((n^2 + 5n -1)\\
& - (n^2 +4n-3))/((n^2 + 5n -1)(n+2)) \\
= & \varepsilon((n +2)/((n^2 + 5n -1)(n+2)) \\
= & \hat{m}\;.
\end{align*}
The calculation of the movement of the other agents is analogous.
Note that the nodes on the path from $\ell$ to $r$ are the only nodes that have edges not included in $\CG{0}$.
However, independently of the chosen agent to be updated, no new edge will be activated, since the distance between the corresponding nodes always stays larger than $\varepsilon$.
Hence, by \Cref{lem:etesami_modified}, the expected potential drop is given by
\begin{align*}
\MoveEqLeft \mathbb{E}[\Phi(S_0) - \Phi(S_1)]\\
&= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{v \in V}(|\Nv[0]{v}|+1)|\moveV[0]{v}|^2\\
&= \frac{1}{n} \left(\frac{n}{2} \left(\frac{n}{4}+2\right) + 2\left(\frac{n}{4}+3\right) + \left(\frac{n}{2}-2\right)\cdot 4\right)\hat{m}^2\\
&= \left(n/8+7/2 -2/n\right) \hat{m}^2\\
&= \left(n/8+7/2 - 2/n\right) (\varepsilon/(n^2/16 +5n/4-1))^2\\
&= \Theta(\varepsilon^2/n^3).
\end{align*}
On the other hand, there exist $n/2(n/2-2)$ edges with length longer than $\varepsilon$ and hence $\Phi(S_0) = \Theta(\varepsilon^2n^2)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Improved Results For Specific Social Network Topologies}
In this section we will prove two improved upper bounds, each for a more restricted set of graph classes.
The first result holds for the case that the social network is a complete graph, while the second is for the case that in each step of the HKS the influence network is the same as the social network.
\UpperBoundComplete*
\begin{proof}
We split this proof into two steps.
First, we count the number of possible steps where the influence network has an edge of length at least $\varepsilon /2$.
Secondly, we upper-bound the number of steps where the longest edge of the influence network is in $[\delta,\varepsilon/2]$.
Assume in step $t$ there is an edge in the influence network with length at least $\varepsilon /2$. Let $S_t$ and $S_{t-1}$ denote the states of the HKS in steps $t$ and $t-1$, respectively.
In this case, by \cref{lma:ExpPotentialDrop}, we have
\[\mathbb{E}[\Phi(S_t)-\Phi(S_{t-1})] \geq \frac{\varepsilon^2}{n |\Et{t}|}\;.\]
As a consequence, the expected number of such steps is bounded by $|E|^2n = \operatorname{O}(n^5)$.
\begin{claim}
Let $\CG{t}$ be the current influence network. The following property holds in $\CG{t}$. If all edges have length at most $\varepsilon/2$, each connected component $C_i = (V_i,E_i)$ for $V_i \subseteq V$ is a complete graph.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the Claim]
Assume that $v,u \in V_i$, but $\{v,u\} \not \in E_i$.
Than there exists a shortest path $P = (v,w_1,\dots,w_k,u)$ of length at least $2$ from $v$ to $u$ where each edge has a length of at most $\varepsilon/2$.
As a consequence, the distance between $v$ and $w_2$ has to be smaller than $\varepsilon$ and the edge between $v$ and $w_2$ has to exist in the influence network.
Hence $P$ is not the shortest path contradicting the assumption.
\end{proof}
For the rest of the proof assume that all edges in the influence network are shorter than $\varepsilon/2$ and there exists one edge with length at least $\delta$.
We project the HKS to one dimension along the longest edge.
By \cref{lem:project} we know that in the projected graph no edge increases its length and there exists an edge with length at least $\delta$.
For each connected component $C_i = (V_i,E_i)$ define by $\lambda_i(t)$ the length of the longest edge in the connected component.
We bound the total movement in this component from below using \cref{lem:summedMovement}.
Let $e_i = \{u,w\}$ be the longest edge of the connected component $C_i = (V_i,E_i)$.
We partition $V_i$ into $V_{i,\ell}$ and $V_{i,r}$ at $c = (\posV{u}{t}+\posV{w}{t})/2$ and we define the set $E_{\ell,r}$ as in \cref{lem:summedMovement}.
Since each node from $V_{i,\ell}$ is connected to $w$ while each node from $V_{i,r}$ is connected to $u$,
the set $E_{\ell,r}$ contains at least $(|V_i|-1)$ edges of length at least $\lambda_t/2$ and one of them has length $\lambda_t$.
As a consequence, $\sum_{e \in E_{\ell,r}} \|e\| \geq |V_i|\lambda_t/2$ and hence, by \cref{lem:summedMovement},
\begin{align*}|V_i| \sum_{v \in V_i} |\moveV[t]{v}| &= \sum_{v \in V_{i}} |\Nv[t]{v}||\moveV[t]{v}|\\
&\geq 2 \sum_{e \in E_{\ell,r}} \|e\|\\
&\geq |V_i|\lambda_i(t)
\end{align*}
and therefore
\[ \sum_{v \in V_i} |\moveV[t]{v}| \geq \lambda_i(t)\;.\]
As a consequence, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\MoveEqLeft\mathbb{E}[\Phi(S_t)-\Phi(S_{t-1})] \\
& \geq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{v \in V} (|\Nv[t]{v}| + 1)\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2\\
& \geq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^k (|V_i|+1)\sum_{v \in V_i}\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2^2\\
& \geq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^k (|V_i|+1) \left(\sum_{v \in V_i}\|\moveV[t]{v}\|_2\right)^2/|V_i|\\
& > \frac{1}{n} \cdot \sum_{i = 1}^k (\lambda_{i}(t))^2.
\end{align*}
Since one of the edges $\lambda_{i}(t)$ has length at least $\delta$, the expected potential drop is at least $\delta^2/n$.
Therefore, in expectation there are at most $\operatorname{O}(|E| n (\varepsilon/\delta)^2)$ steps where the length of the longest edge is in $[\delta,\varepsilon/2]$.
Combining the two results finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\noindent We say a HKSs is \emph{socially stable} if independently of the update steps the influence network is always equal to the social network.
For these systems, we can prove a better upper bound on the expected number of steps needed to reach a $\delta$-stable state.
Examples for such graphs are the path, where all the nodes are positioned with equal distance of at most $\varepsilon$ and the graph from \cref{rem:RemakTightniss}, if the social network for the latter is reduced to the set of edges in $\Et{0}$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\HKS$ be a HKSs where the social network and the influence network are equal in each step.
Using uniform asynchronous update steps, the expected convergence time to a $\delta$-stable state is bounded by $\operatorname{O}(n |E|^2 \log(\varepsilon/\delta))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that at any step it holds that $\Phi(S_t) \leq |E|(\lambda_t)^2$, where $\lambda_t$ is the length of the longest edge at time $t$.
By \cref{lma:ExpPotentialDrop}, the expected drop of the potential in each step is bounded by ${2(\lambda_t)^2}/({n|E|})$.
As a consequence, for each $i \in \mathbb{N}$ the expected number of steps with $\lambda_t \in [\varepsilon/2^{i+1},\varepsilon/2^{i}]$ is bounded by $\operatorname{O}(n|E|^2)$.
Since for $\lambda_t \in [\delta,\varepsilon]$ there are at most $\log(\varepsilon/\delta)$ such intervals, the expected number of update steps is bounded by $\operatorname{O}(n|E|^2 \log(\varepsilon/\delta))$.
\end{proof}
\section{Lower Bound}
In this section we complement our upper bounds on the expected convergence time with a lower bound.
To the best of our knowledge no lower bound for asynchronous updates is known so far.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:lower-bound}
There exists a family of social 1-dimensional HKSs where, in expectation, at least $\Omega(n^2)$ steps are needed to reach a $\delta$-stable state.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We consider the following family of 1-dimensional HKSs.
Let the social network $G=P_n$ be the path with $n$ nodes such that $v_i$ is the $i$'th node on the path, and the position of agent $v_i$ is $\posV[]{v_i}{0} = i\cdot \varepsilon$. It follows that all edges have length exactly $\varepsilon > \delta$, which implies that at least one of the two agents $v_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor }$, $v_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor +1}$ has to move at some step to reach a $\delta$-stable state.
In the following we prove by induction that agent $v_i$ moves the first time after $\Omega(\min\{n (i-1), n (n-i)\})$ steps in expectation.
This certainly holds for agents $v_1$ and $v_n$, since they move for the first time upon their first activation.
Note that agent $v_i$ can only move for the first time, after agent $v_{i-1}$ or agent $v_{i+1}$ has moved for the first time because otherwise both incident edges $\{v_{i-1},v_i\}, \{v_i,v_{i+1}\}$ have the same length $\varepsilon$ and hence agent $v_i$ cannot move.
By induction hypothesis one of these agents moves for the first time after
\begin{align*}&\min\big\{\Omega(\min \{n(i-2), n(n - (i-1))\}),\\ & \quad\quad~~\Omega(\min \{n i, n (n-(i+1))\})\big\} \\
&= \Omega(\min \{n(i-2),n (n-i-1)\})
\end{align*} steps.
Since agents are activated uniformly at random, after activating one of the neighboring agents of $v_i$ for the first time, additional $\Omega(n)$ activations in expectation are needed so that agent $v_i$ can finally move for the first time.
Hence in expectation agent $v_i$ moves for the first time after $\Omega(\min \{n(i-1), n (n-i)\})$ steps.
As a consequence, agent $v_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor }$ or agent $v_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor +1}$ moves for the first time after $\Omega(n^2)$ steps in expectation.
\end{proof}
\section{Simulation Results}\label{sec:simulations}
For corroborating our theoretical findings, we performed agent-based simulations of asynchronous Hegselmann-Krause opinion dynamics in one dimension on two types of initial HKS states called \textsl{Path} and \textsl{Dumbbell}. They are defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textsl{Path:} The given social network is a path graph. Initially, the agents' opinions are uniformly distributed in one dimension with equal distance of $\varepsilon$ so that the influence network forms a path graph with uniform edge length of $\varepsilon$.
\item \textsl{Dumbbell:} This is the state constructed in the proof of \cref{rem:RemakTightniss} using the dumbbell graph, except that the social network contains only the edges that are in $\Et{0}$
\end{itemize}
In our simulations we fixed $\varepsilon = 100$ and $\delta = 1$.
For each initial HKS state on social networks with varying numbers of agents $n$, we simulated 100 independent runs of random activations needed to reach a $\delta$-stable state.
We present our simulation results in \cref{fig:SimulationPathnadDumbbell}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\input{plot1}
\caption{%
The plot shows the normalized convergence time: the number of agent activations until a $\delta$-stable state has been reached, divided by $n^3$. The data indicate that the convergence time on \textsl{Path} instances with equal distances scales as $n^3$ and on \textsl{Dumbbell} instances it scales as $n^4$.
}
\label{fig:SimulationPathnadDumbbell}
\end{figure}
There, the obtained number of activations divided by $n^3$ is plotted via a box plots that summarize the results for each configuration.
Since for \textsl{Path} instances the number of activations appear to be constant, we observe that we need $\Theta(n^3)$ activations for \textsl{Path} instances.
On the other hand, the number of activations seem to grow linearly in $n$ for \textsl{Dumbbell} instances. This hints at $\Theta(n^4)$ activations until \textsl{Dumbbell} instances reach a $\delta$-stable for constant $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$.
Note that by construction, in the first step the potential function of both instance types is bounded by $\Phi(S_0) = \Theta(n \varepsilon^2)$. Applying \cref{thm:upper-bound} yields an upper bound of $\Phi(S_0)/(2\delta^2/(n|E|)) = \operatorname{O}(n \varepsilon^2 / (2\delta^2/(n|E|)))$, which yields an upper bound of $\operatorname{O}(n^3 (\varepsilon/\delta)^2)$ for \textsl{Path} instances and
$\operatorname{O}(n^4 (\varepsilon/\delta)^2)$ for \textsl{Dumbbell} instances. Thus, if the empirically observed lower bounds on the expected number of steps until convergence are in fact true, our theoretical analysis is tight for these two graph classes with respect to the dependence on the number of agents.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we present the first analysis of the convergence time of asynchronous Hegselmann-Krause opinion dynamics on arbitrary social networks. As our main result, we derive an upper bound of $\operatorname{O}(n |E|^2 \left(\varepsilon/\delta \right)^2)$ expected random activations until a $\delta$-stable state is reached. This bound significantly improves over the state-of-the-art upper bound for the special case with a given complete social network. Moreover, our simulation results on one dimensional instances with a path graph or a dumbbell graph as social network indicate that our theoretical upper bound is tight for these instances.
Our theoretical lower bound on the expected convergence time is the first proven non-trivial lower bound for asynchronous opinion updates. A challenging open problem is to improve this lower bound so that it matches our proven upper bound. As the experimental results suggest, this might be possible. However, proving lower bounds for the asynchronous setting seems to be much more involved compared to the analysis of synchronous opinion dynamics as the specific order of agent activations determines which of the possibly many $\delta$-stable states with possibly very different potential function values is reached.
It might be possible to prove better bounds for specific social network topologies. Regarding this, it would be interesting to consider social networks that have similar features as real-world social networks. Moreover, another direction for future work is to consider social networks with directed and possibly weighted edges. This would more closely mimic the structure of real-world neighborhood influences and it would allow to study asymmetric influence settings found in online social networks like Twitter. Another promising extension would be to incorporate the influence of external factors like publicity campaigns.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous reviewers for suggesting additional real-world applications for our model, for pointing us to additional related work, and for sharing interesting ideas on future work.
This work was supported by DFG Research Group ADYN under grant DFG 411362735.
\printbibliography
\end{document}
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}
\subsection{End-to-End jitter}
\label{subsec:1}
End-to-end jitter between hosts in a network has multiple definitions, the most common being the difference in time for consecutive packets to reach from one host to the other over a number of network nodes, i.e., the difference in one-way delays between end hosts for consecutive packets. Jitter is of concern to the Quality of Service realization in a network.
Even when packets are sent from a host at a uniform rate, it is possible that the packets are not received by an end host at a uniform rate (zero jitter). This behaviour is the result of various characteristics of the traffic at different network nodes. According to previous works \cite{SimpleFormulaFor}, it can be accounted for by the difference in the in-time and out-time of packets at each node.
\subsection{Motivation behind monitoring jitter}
\label{subsec:2}
Most applications that rely on continuous transmission of packets like video/audio streaming, video chats and cloud gaming \cite{sdnController} are affected by jitter. Jitter at the end host deteriorates the quality of the user experience.
In order to minimize the jitter by taking real time decisions within a network, such as changing the path of a flow, we need to estimate the end-to-end jitter experienced. Being able to closely estimate the jitter (or patterns in the jitter) at multiple hops away from the end-host is thus important.
\subsection{Approaches taken to monitor the jitter}
\label{subsec:3}
Our first attempt to monitor the jitter involves using a common controller (Floodlight) that polls for statistics already collected by OVS switches, such as the count of packets that have passed through a switch (or a port of the switch) within a particular interval of time.
Later, we switch our approach to using only local information at the switch level. This involves using programmable data-planes (P4 programmable switches) to estimate the jitter at the data-plane itself. We can then send these estimates to a controller for further use. The switch can also be programmed to make real-time decisions based on the statistics it collects and calculates.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:2}
In \cite{passiveTCPStream}, RTT estimation at the mid-point of a TCP stream is discussed. Jitter is calculated as the absolute difference between the estimated RTT and the actual RTT calculated at that instant. Mean jitter is defined as the average of all the estimates for that particular stream. The authors give a direct formula to estimate the jitter.
\begin{equation}
Jitter_{t+1} = \frac{7}{8}.Jitter_{t} + \frac{1}{8}.Jitter_{sample}\;
\end{equation}
Compared to the focus of \cite{passiveTCPStream}, we direct our attention to the jitter experienced in the use of real time protocols such as UDP, as the objective is to monitor jitter that can affect the QoS a user experiences.
In \cite{AnAnalyticalModel}, the end-to-end jitter of a tagged stream in a tandem queuing network is discussed. The authors show various results, including the fact that the jitter decreases with increasing the load, and that the total jitter depends on the position of the congested nodes in the path. The authors assume a Poisson distribution for each stream, and mathematically derive the average jitter of an entire flow. Although it discusses estimating the jitter in a multi-node case, traffic with a Poisson distribution cannot be assumed for a modern network. As compared to a model that calculates the average jitter for an entire flow, we aim to monitor the jitter continuously.
In \cite{SimpleFormulaFor}, a strong mathematical formulation for the end-to-end jitter is discussed with the assumption of periodic traffic. The end-to-end jitter is given by the expected absolute value of the sum of inter-packet delay variations introduced by each node along the path. It introduces an exponential approximation for the steady state waiting time, which is used in the estimations of the jitter for both single and multi-node cases, but the jitter estimation is limited by the assumption on waiting times between two consecutive packets.
RFC 1889 \cite{rfcRTP} discusses a Real Time Protocol and some traffic characteristics related to it. The jitter at a packet arrival is calculated as the sum of $1/16$ times the jitter caused by the current and the previous packet and $15/16$ times the previous estimate of the jitter. We use this idea of exponential averaging to estimate the jitter in our P4 (programmable data-plane) implementation.
In \cite{delayAndJitterAnalysis}, the authors analyze the delay and jitter in networks that handle huge traffic volumes. Although the work is not on directly estimating the jitter, the authors give an analytical formulation for jitter with the assumption of Poisson traffic. It discusses the effect on end-to-end jitter as a result of changing network parameters such as increasing the network size, increasing the load, etc.
In \cite{sdnController}, the authors discuss latency and jitter in Cloud-Gaming, an example of an application where jitter estimation and actions based on the estimate are important. Although this paper does not directly talk about the estimation of jitter, it proposes a Load-Sharing algorithm that can be employed in an SDN controller to greatly decrease the jitter experienced in certain cases.
\section{Mathematical Formulation}
\label{sec:3}
\subsection{Nodes adding variation in the one-way delay}
\label{subsec:4}
Previous works \cite{SimpleFormulaFor} mention the idea that the end-to-end jitter can be modelled as the amount of variation each node in the network adds to the flow. Using SDN controllers we can collect real-time statistics such as the count of packets/bytes that have passed through a port for a particular flow. We collect the count of packets that have been transmitted by a port x of a switch S. Let this count of packets be a. Next, we collect the same statistic after t seconds. Let this count of packets be b. Thus, the rate at which packets were transmitted by port x of Switch S is:
\begin{equation}
r = \frac{(b-a)}{t}\;
\end{equation}
Or, over the interval t, the average time of upload of a packet into the link at port x of Switch S was:
\begin{equation}
t_{offload,x,S} = \frac{t}{(b-a)} \;
\end{equation}
Consider a network with two switches. Both S1 and S2 have in-ports x1 and x2 and out-ports y1 and y2. Host h1 is connected to S1 and host h2 is connected to S2, a flow from h1 to h2 is considered. Therefore the total time that a packet takes from h1 to h2 (one-way delay) is:
\begin{equation}
t_{1} = t_{h1,S1} + t_{load,x1,S1} + t_{offload,y1,S1} + t_{S1,S2} + t_{load,x2,S2} + t_{offload,y2,S2} + t_{S2,h2}\;
\end{equation}
Similarly, the one-way delay for the next packet will be:
\begin{equation}
t_{2} = t_{h1,S1} + t^{'}_{load,x1,S1} + t^{'}_{offload,y1,S1} + t_{S1,S2} + t^{'}_{load,x2,S2} + t^{'}_{offload,y2,S2} + t_{S2,h2}\;
\end{equation}
It is safe to assume that the time it takes for packets to travel across a link is constant. Thus, the only variable times in the above equations would be the load and offload times. The end-to-end jitter as a result of these two packets would be:
\begin{equation}
t_{2}-t_{1} = (\delta t_{load,x1,S1}) + (\delta t_{offload,y1,S1}) +(\delta t_{load,x2,S2}) + (\delta t_{offload,y2,S2})\;
\end{equation}
This equation is developed with the idea that we can model the jitter as the addition of variations in the one-way delay of a flow by the network nodes in the path. The difference here is that instead of just network nodes, we are considering each port (in-port and out-port) of each network node in the path.
Similar to the equation above, the current estimate of the delay value can be subtracted from the delay value that was calculated during the previous iteration. This would give us a statistic to monitor jitter, as we will see in Section \ref{sec:5}. This statistic can be easily calculated by a controller using the count of packets that have been transmitted or received at a particular port over an interval t.
\subsection{Deviation from the one-way delay}
\label{subsec:5}
As compared to a simple SDN controller setup, it is possible to calculate the actual one-way delay from the end-host to various network nodes in a P4 data-plane. If any node (P4 switch) between the sending host and the receiving host has collected the previous $n-1$ one-way delays that the packets took to reach that switch, the mean one-way delay can be calculated on the current packet arrival as:
\begin{equation}
t_{mean} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} t_{i}}{n}\;
\end{equation}
As indicated by previous works \cite{passiveTCPStream}, the jitter can be considered as the standard deviation from the mean of the one-way delay. This standard deviation can be calculated as:
\begin{equation}
\delta t = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (t_{i}-t_{mean})^{2}}{n-1}}\;
\end{equation}
Thus, we can calculate an estimate for the jitter using a data-plane programmable node that is able to retain the past $n-1$ one-way delays of packets that it received. At the same time, there are limitations to most P4 programmable switches that we need to account for in order to estimate the jitter.
Firstly, many P4 programmable switches cannot perform normal division. Division by a power of 2 is possible, emulated by bit-shifts to the right. Since the degree of freedom for the variance of a set is n-1 where n is the number of data-points, we consider n in our experiments to be a power of 2 plus 1, i.e., $ n = 2^{m}+1 $. Since the mean of the one-way delays also have to be calculated, we approximate it to the mean of the last n-1 packets.
Secondly, P4 programmable switches cannot be used to calculate square roots. Thus, in our experiments, we compare the squares of the actual value of the end-to-end jitter with the variance of the one-way delay, i.e., $(\delta t)^{2}$.
Finally, squaring a number is a computationally expensive task that should be avoided in the P4 programmable switch if possible. We thus attempt to use a deviation from the mean that is based on Manhattan distance, rather than Euclidean distance (standard deviation). Manhattan distance is given by the absolute value of the difference in two vectors.
The deviation based on the Manhattan distance will be calculated as:
\begin{equation}
\delta t = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}|t_{i}-t_{mean}|}{n-1}\;
\end{equation}
\section{SDN Controller Implementation and Results}
\label{sec:4}
\subsection{Implementation of the Jitter Estimator}
\label{subsec:6}
Following the first mathematical formulation, we calculate the average time that it takes for a packet of a flow to offload into a link from a port and to load from a link into a port. We thus consider the average time it takes for a packet to offload from port2 of S1, port3 of S2 and port1 of S3 (refer Fig. \ref{fig:Topology used in SDN approach}). We also consider the average time it takes for a packet to load into port1 of S1, port2 of S2 and port3 of S3. We subtract the sum of these average times from the sum of the average times corresponding to the same ports from the previous iteration of statistics collection.
The experiments in this section were run on OVS switches in a Mininet network. A Floodlight SDN controller was used to communicate with the switches. The links between the three OVS switches were configured at a 100 Mbps each.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm,scale=0.65]{SDN.png}
\caption[Topology used in the SDN approach]{Topology used in SDN approach (100 Mbps links between switches)}
\label{fig:Topology used in SDN approach}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Single Flow Runs}
\label{subsec:12}
First, a 90 Mbps flow was run from h1 to h3 for 200 seconds, with statistics polled every 1 second. On plotting the the end-to-end jitter actually experienced along with the results of the estimate against time, we get Fig. \ref{fig:Single Flow 90Mbps} (orange represents the estimate while blue represents the actual jitter).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{90bw-singleflow.png}
\caption[Single Flow 90Mbps]{Single Flow 90 Mbps}
\label{fig:Single Flow 90Mbps}
\end{figure}
It is impossible to synchronize these two time series using an SDN controller. This is because the estimates of the jitter are completely time-independent of the jitter calculation at the host. Thus, one can only approximately place the two time series together for visual comparison. The measure of similarity between the time series is done using a distance measure called Dynamic Time Warping (DTW). It is a measure of the minimum distance between the two time series, even when they are not synchronized in time. For the above mentioned run, the DTW distance between the estimate and the actual jitter experienced at the host is 327.206 units.
Although the base of the estimate seems to be lower than that of the actual end-to-end jitter, the peaks in the jitter, which is of concern to us, are almost of the same height. Also, the number of peaks are almost the same in the estimate as in the actual jitter, although the peaks have been depicted a bit forward in time, and sometimes at different heights. The ability to capture the surges in jitter is extremely helpful as the controller can use this information to make real time decisions in order to reduce the jitter.
Note that for all plots in this section, the above justifications hold. Thus we will be evaluating the runs based on the similarity of the peaks in the estimate and the actual jitter, and also based on the DTW distance between the two time series.
Next, we run a single flow of 50 Mbps between h1 and h3. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Single Flow 50Mbps}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{50bw-SingleFlow.png}
\caption[Single Flow 50Mbps]{Single Flow 50 Mbps}
\label{fig:Single Flow 50Mbps}
\end{figure}
Although the peaks of the estimate are higher than that of the actual jitter, most of the surges in the estimate seem to have a corresponding surge in the actual jitter. The DTW distance between the estimate and the actual jitter turns out to be 201.516 units. This indicates that when the bandwidth utilization is decreased, the estimates seem to be getting better.
Next, we run a single flow of 100 Mbps between h1 and h3. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Single Flow 100Mbps}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{100bw-SingleFlow.png}
\caption[Single Flow 100Mbps]{Single Flow 100 Mbps}
\label{fig:Single Flow 100Mbps}
\end{figure}
The DTW distance between the estimate and the actual jitter in this run is 345.85 units. Since a 100Mbps flow is not healthy over a 100Mps link, a number of packets are lost. This again indicates that on increasing the bandwidth utilization of the flow, the estimate tends to become worse.
\subsection{Increasing the period of Statistics collection}
\label{subsec:7}
The period of statistics collection is generally increased to counter an inherent problem of statistics collection at smaller time intervals, i.e., the likelihood of spurious values for the traffic statistics collected and the resultant calculations. On increasing the time interval over which the next statistic is collected, we smoothen out the values of the statistics in question.
We run a 90 Mbps flow from h1 to h3 for 200 seconds, with statistics from the ports of interest collected every 3 seconds. This is compared with the end-to-end jitter experienced by the flow over periods of 3 seconds as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:90Mbps Single Flow - Interval 3s}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{90MbpsSingleFlow3seconds.png}
\caption[90Mbps Single Flow - Interval 3s]{Single Flow 90 Mbps- Interval 3s}
\label{fig:90Mbps Single Flow - Interval 3s}
\end{figure}
The DTW distance between the two time series is 61.66. Each surge seems to have a corresponding surge in the actual jitter experienced. Since the estimate is calculated over a different period of statistics collection from the other runs, a direct comparison between the DTW distances cannot be made (the DTW distance per point is much lesser in this run than the previous ones).
\section{P4 Implementation and Results}
\label{sec:5}
\subsection{Implementation of the Jitter Estimator}
\label{subsec:8}
This approach aims at estimating the end-to-end jitter within a programmable data-plane setup in a computationally inexpensive manner. As discussed in Section \ref{sec:3}, we save one-way delays from the source host at respective switches for $2^{n}+1$ packets. These delays are used to estimate the jitter according to the formulae given in Section \ref{sec:3}. Since the one-way delays are saved until $2^{n}+1$ packets arrive, the jitter estimator and thus the extra computation is used only once in these intervals.
The topology used for the experiments below is similar to that in the previous section. Three P4 programmable BmV2 switches S1, S2 and S3 are linearly connected in a Mininet network. We do not need to use P4 run-time as these experiments are run on static flows. A host h1 is connected to S1 and a host h2 is connected to S3. All the runs consists of a flow from h1 to h2. In order to collect the timestamps of when the packets are sent, an extra header dedicated to timestamps is used.
\subsection{Euclidean Distance estimate}
\label{subsec:9}
As explained in Section \ref{sec:3}, the variance in mean one-way delay is an estimate of the square of the average jitter experienced over $2^{n}+1$ packets. Fig. \ref{fig:Euclidean Distance Variance-17 packets-S2} shows a comparison of the estimates from switch S2 and the actual jitter.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{17EuclS2.png}
\caption[Euclidean Distance Variance at S2 (17 packets)]{Euclidean Distance Variance at S2 (17 packets)}
\label{fig:Euclidean Distance Variance-17 packets-S2}
\end{figure}
Unlike in the SDN approach, there is no discrepancy regarding where the two series should be placed with respect to each other. This helps with the visual comparison of the two series. Although the base of the estimate is lower than that of the actual jitter, the peaks of the estimate fall right in place with the peaks of the actual end-to-end jitter experienced in the network. The distance between the two time series shown in the plot Fig. \ref{fig:Euclidean Distance Variance-17 packets-S2} is 125805 units. This value is large because we are comparing squares of the value of jitters.
For the same run as the one above, we estimate the jitter at Switch S3 and compare it with the square of the actual end-to-end jitters. Fig. \ref{fig:Euclidean Distance Variance-17 packets-S3} shows the results.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{17EuclS3.png}
\caption[Euclidean Distance Variance at S3 (17 packets)]{Euclidean Distance Variance at S3 (17 packets)}
\label{fig:Euclidean Distance Variance-17 packets-S3}
\end{figure}
The results are almost the same as in the previous case with the peaks at the same places, except for a few random outliers. The distance between the estimate and square of the actual jitters is better than that of S2, at 123340.37 units. This indicates that as the number of hops to the receiving host decreases, the jitter estimates tend to get closer to the actual jitter.
Next we run a Euclidean Distance estimate for the square of the jitters, where the interval of estimation is at 33 packets. Fig. \ref{fig:Euclidean Distance Variance-33 packets-S2} shows the results.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{33EuclS2.png}
\caption[Euclidean Distance Variance at S2 (33 packets)]{Euclidean Distance Variance at S2 (33 packets)}
\label{fig:Euclidean Distance Variance-33 packets-S2}
\end{figure}
As in the previous case, there seems to be a one is to one correspondence of the peaks. The distance between the two series is 111154.71 units, which is better than the estimates of both S2 and S3 in the 17 packets case. This indicates that as we increase the interval of jitter estimation, the estimate tends to get closer to the actual jitter.
\subsection{Manhattan Distance estimate}
\label{subsec:10}
We estimate the jitter at switch S2 using a Manhattan distance estimate (ref. Section \ref{sec:3}) and at an interval of 17 packet arrivals. Fig. \ref{fig:Manhattan Distance Estimate-17 packets-S2} shows a comparison between the estimate and the actual end-to-end jitter.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{17ManhS2.png}
\caption[Manhattan Distance Estimate at S2 (17 packets)]{Manhattan Distance Estimate at S2 (17 packets)}
\label{fig:Manhattan Distance Estimate-17 packets-S2}
\end{figure}
The base of the actual jitter time series and the estimated jitter is much closer than in the Euclidean distance estimate (since the estimate is not on the squared jitter). There is a one-is-to-one correspondence between the peaks, as in the previous cases. The distance between the two time series is 3230.63 units. For the estimate at switch S3 in the same run, the distance is lower, at 3209.3 units.
We also estimate the jitter at switch S2 at an interval of 33 packet arrivals, using a Manhattan distance estimate. Fig. \ref{fig:Manhattan Distance Estimate-33 packets-S2} shows a comparison between the estimate and the actual end-to-end jitter.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm,scale=0.7]{33ManhS2.png}
\caption[Manhattan Distance Estimate at S2 (33 packets)]{Manhattan Distance Estimate at S2 (33 packets)}
\label{fig:Manhattan Distance Estimate-33 packets-S2}
\end{figure}
The distance between the two time series is 2558.14 units. This is lower than the distance which results from a 17 packet interval of estimation. Also, as expected, the distance of the estimate at S3 from the actual jitter is slightly lower at 2535.71.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:6}
Modelling the end-to-end jitter experienced by a flow as the sum of variations in the one-way delay added by each each port in the path gives a statistic that lets the SDN controller monitor the jitter. It indicates surges in the jitter, which is the major motivation behind jitter estimation. Also, from the results of the simulations, it can be concluded that with a decrease in the link utilization of the flow, the jitter estimate gets closer to the actual jitter. Increasing the period of statistics collection results in less spurious values in the estimated jitter.
Modelling the end-to-end jitter as the standard deviation of one-way-delays between end-hosts is especially useful in programmable data-planes where the count of packets that have passed through and their timestamps can be stored. On increasing the number of packets over which the standard deviation is calculated, or on decreasing the hops to the receiving host, the estimate gets closer to the actual jitter experienced. Also, using Manhattan distance gives a decent estimate of the jitter with the added benefit of its computational lightness compared to the Euclidean distance estimate.
\input{referenc}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fig_1_pull
\caption{
\textbf{Does the Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) accurately measure the distances between image distributions?}
We generate datasets that demonstrate the unreliability of FID in judging perceptual (dis)similarities between image distributions.
The top left box shows a sample of a dataset constructed by introducing imperceptible noise to each ImageNet image.
Despite the remarkable visual similarity between this dataset and ImageNet (bottom box), an extremely large FID (almost 8000) between these two datasets showcases FID's failure to capture perceptual similarities.
On the other hand, a remarkably low FID (almost 1.0) between a dataset of random noise images (samples shown in the top right box) and ImageNet illustrates FID's failure to capture perceptual dissimilarities.
}
\label{fig:pull}
\end{figure*}
Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are vulnerable to small imperceptible perturbations known as adversarial attacks.
For example, while two inputs $x$ and $(x+\delta)$ can be visually indistinguishable to humans, a classifier $f$ can output two different predictions.
To address this deficiency in DNNs, adversarial attacks~\cite{goodfellow2015explaining,croce2020reliable} and defenses~\cite{madry2018towards,mart} have prominently emerged as active areas of research.
Starting from image classification~\cite{awp}, researchers also assessed the robustness of DNNs for other tasks, such as segmentation~\cite{arnab2018robustness}, object detection~\cite{zhao2019seeing}, and point cloud classification~\cite{liu2021pointguard}.
While this lack of robustness questions the reliability of DNNs and hinders their deployment in the real world, DNNs are still widely used to evaluate performance in other computer vision tasks, such as that of generation.
Metrics in use for assessing generative models in general, and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)~\cite{goodfellow2014generative} in particular, are of utmost importance in the literature.
This is because such metrics are widely used to establish the superiority of a generative model over others, hence guiding which GAN should be deployed in real world.
Consequently, such metrics are expected to be not only useful in providing informative statistics about the distribution of generated images, but also reliable and robust.
In this work, we investigate the robustness of metrics used to assess GANs.
We first identify two interesting observations that are unique to this context.
First, current GAN metrics are built on pretrained classification DNNs that are nominally trained (\textit{i.e.~\xspace} trained on clean images only).
A popular DNN of choice is the Inception model~\cite{szegedy2016rethinking}, on which the Inception Score (IS)~\cite{salimans2016improved} and Fréchet Inception Distance (FID)~\cite{heusel2017GANs} rely.
Since nominally trained DNNs are generally vulnerable to adversarial attacks~\cite{croce2020reliable}, it is expected that DNN-based metrics for GANs also inherit these vulnerabilities.
Second, current adversarial attacks proposed in the literature are mainly designed at the instance level (\textit{e.g.~\xspace} fooling a DNN into misclassifying a particular instance), while GAN metrics are distribution-based.
Therefore, attacking these distribution-based metrics requires extending attack formulations from the paradigm of instances to that of distributions.
In this paper, we analyze the robustness of GAN metrics and recommend solutions to improve their robustness.
We first attempt to assess the robustness of the quality measures used to evaluate GANs.
We check whether such metrics are actually measuring the quality of image distributions by testing their vulnerability against additive pixel perturbations.
While these metrics aim at measuring perceptual quality, we find that they are extremely brittle against imperceptible but carefully-crafted perturbations.
We then assess the judgment of such metrics on the image distributions generated by StyleGANv2~\cite{Karras_2020_CVPR} when its input is subjected to perturbations.
While the output of GANs is generally well behaved, we still observe that such metrics provide inconsistent judgments where, for example, FID favors an image distribution with significant artifacts over more naturally-looking distributions.
At last, we endeavor to reduce these metrics' vulnerability by incorporating robustly-trained models.
We summarize our contributions as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We are the first to provide an extensive experimental evaluation of the robustness of the Inception Score (IS) and the Fréchet Inception Distance~(FID) against additive pixel perturbations.
We propose two instance-based adversarial attacks that generate distributions of images that fool both IS and FID.
For example, we show that perturbations $\delta$ with a small budget (\textit{i.e.~\xspace} $\|\delta\|_\infty \leq 0.01$) are sufficient to increase the FID between ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet} and a perturbed version of ImageNet to $\sim 7900$, while also being able to generate a distribution of random noise images whose FID to ImageNet is $1.05$.
We illustrate both cases in Figure~\ref{fig:pull}.
\item We extend our evaluation to study the sensitivity of FID against perturbations in the latent space of state-of-the-art generative models.
In this setup, we show the vulnerability of both StyleGANv2 and FID against perturbations in both its $z$- and $w$- spaces.
We found that FID provides inconsistent evaluation of the distribution of generated images compared to their visual quality.
Moreover, our attack in the latent space causes StyleGANv2 to generate images with significant artifacts, showcasing the vulnerability of StyleGANv2 to additive perturbations in the latent space.
\item We propose to improve the reliability of FID by using adversarially-trained models in its computation.
Specifically, we replace the traditional Inception model with its adversarially-trained counterpart to generate the embeddings on which the FID is computed.
We show that our robust metric, dubbed R-FID, is more resistant against pixel perturbations than the regular FID.
\item Finally, we study the properties of R-FID when evaluating different GANs.
We show that R-FID is better than FID at distinguishing generated fake distributions from real ones.
Moreover, R-FID provides more consistent evaluation under perturbations in the latent space of StyleGANv2.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textit{GANs and Automated Assessment.} GANs~\cite{goodfellow2014generative} have shown remarkable generative capabilities, specially in the domain of images~\cite{Karras_2019_CVPR,Karras_2020_CVPR,brock2018large}.
Since the advent of GANs, evaluating their generative capabilities has been challenging~\cite{goodfellow2014generative}.
This challenge spurred research efforts into developing automated quantitative measures for GAN outputs.
Metrics of particular importance for this purpose are the Inception Score (IS), introduced in~\cite{salimans2016improved}, and the Fréchet Inception Distance~(FID), introduced in~\cite{heusel2017GANs}.
Both metrics leverage the ImageNet-pretrained Inception architecture~\cite{szegedy2016rethinking} as a rough proxy for human perception.
The IS evaluates the generated images by computing conditional class distributions with Inception and measuring (1) each distribution's entropy---related to Inception's certainty of the image content, and (2) the marginal's entropy---related to diversity across generated images.
Noting the IS does not compare the generated distribution to the (real world) target distribution, Heusel~\textit{et al.~\xspace}~\cite{heusel2017GANs} proposed the FID.
The FID compares the generated and target distributions by (1) assuming the Inception features follow a Gaussian distribution and (2) using each distribution's first two moments to compute the Fréchet distance.
Further, the FID was shown to be more consistent with human judgement~\cite{shmelkov2018good}.
Both the original works and later research criticized these quantitative assessments.
On one hand, IS is sensitive to weight values, noisy estimation when splitting data, distribution shift from ImageNet, susceptibility to adversarial examples, image resolution, difficulty in discriminating GAN performance, and vulnerability to overfitting~\cite{barratt2018note,salimans2016improved,borji2019pros,xu2018empirical}.
On the other hand, FID has been criticized for its over-simplistic assumptions (``Gaussianity'' and its associated two-moment description), difficulty in discriminating GAN performance, and its inability to detect overfitting~\cite{borji2019pros,lucic2018gans,xu2018empirical}.
Moreover, both IS and FID were shown to be biased to both the number of samples used and the model to be evaluated \cite{chong2020effectively}.
In this work, we provide extensive empirical evidence showing that both IS and FID are not robust against perturbations that modify image quality.
Furthermore, we also propose a new \textit{robust} FID metric that enjoys superior robustness.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textit{Adversarial Robustness.} While DNNs became the \textit{de facto} standard for image recognition, researchers found that such DNNs respond unexpectedly to small changes in their input~\cite{szegedy2014intriguing,goodfellow2015explaining}.
In particular, various works~\cite{carlini2017towards,madry2018towards} observed a widespread vulnerability of DNN models against input perturbations that did not modify image semantics.
This observation spurred a line of research on adversarial attacks, aiming to develop procedures for finding input perturbations that fool DNNs~\cite{croce2020reliable}.
This line of work found that these vulnerabilities are pervasive, casting doubt on the nature of the impressive performances of DNNs.
Further research showed that training DNNs to be robust against these attacks~\cite{madry2018towards} facilitated the learning of perceptually-correlated features~\cite{ilyas2019adversarial,engstrom2020adversarial}.
Interestingly, a later work~\cite{santurkar2019image} even showed that such learnt features could be harnessed for image synthesis tasks.
In this work, we show (1) that DNN-based scores for GANs are vulnerable against adversarial attacks, and (2) how these scores can be ``robustified'' by replacing nominally trained DNNs with robustly trained ones.
\section{Robustness of IS and FID}\label{sec:robustness-of-fid}
To compare the output of generative models, two popular metrics are used: the \emph{Inception Score} (IS) and the \emph{Fréchet Inception Distance} (FID).
These metrics depend only on the statistics of the distribution of generated images in an ImageNet-pretrained Inception's embedding space, raising the question:
\begin{center}
\emph{What do quality measures for generative models, such as IS and FID, tell us about image quality?}
\end{center}
We investigate this question from the robustness perspective.
In particular, we analyze the sensitivity of these metrics to carefully crafted perturbations.
We start with preliminary background about both metrics.
\subsection{Preliminaries}
We consider the standard image generation setup where a generator $G: \mathbb R^{d_z} \rightarrow \mathbb R^{d_x}$ receives a latent code $z \in \mathbb R^{d_z}$ and outputs an image $x \in \mathbb R^{d_x}$.
Upon training, $G$ is evaluated based on the quality of the generated distribution of images $\mathcal D_G$ by computing either the IS~\cite{salimans2016improved} or the FID~\cite{heusel2017GANs}.
Both metrics leverage an ImageNet-pretrained~\cite{deng2009imagenet} InceptionV3 \cite{szegedy2016rethinking}.
Salimans~\textit{et al.~\xspace}~\cite{salimans2016improved} proposed measuring the perceptual quality of the generated distribution $\mathcal D_G$ by computing the IS as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: IS-formula}
\text{IS}(\mathcal D_G) = \exp\left(\:\mathbb E_{x\sim \mathcal D_G}\left(\text{KL}\left(p(y|x)\:||\:p(y)\right)\right)\:\right),
\end{equation}
where $p(y|x)$ is the output probability distribution of the pretrained Inception model.
While several works have argued about the effectiveness of the IS and its widely-used implementation \cite{barratt2018note}, its main drawback is that it disregards the relation between the generated distribution, $\mathcal D_G$, and the real one, $\mathcal D_R$, used for training $G$ \cite{heusel2017GANs}.
Consequently, Heusel \textit{et al.~\xspace} proposed the popular FID, which involves the statistics of the real distribution.
In particular, FID assumes that the Inception features of an image distribution $\mathcal D$ follow a Gaussian distribution with mean $\mu_\mathcal D$ and covariance $\Sigma_\mathcal D$, and it measures the squared Wasserstein distance between the two Gaussian distributions of real and generated images.
Hence, $\text{FID}(\mathcal D_R, \mathcal D_G)$, or $\text{FID}$ for short, can be calculated as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: FID-formula}
\text{FID} = \| \mu_R - \mu_G\|^2 + \text{Tr}\left(\Sigma_R + \Sigma_G - 2(\Sigma_R \Sigma_G)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}\right),
\end{equation}
where $._R, ._G$ are the statistics of the real and generated image distributions, respectively, and $\text{Tr}(\cdot)$ is the trace operator.
Note that the statistics of both distributions are empirically estimated from their corresponding image samples.
In principle, FID measures how close (realistic) the generated distribution $\mathcal D_G$ is to $\mathcal D_R$.
We remark that the FID is the \emph{de facto} metric for evaluating image generation-related tasks.
Therefore, our study focuses mostly on FID.
We note here that both the IS and the FID are oblivious to $G$'s training process and can be computed to compare two arbitrary sets of images $\mathcal D_R$ and $\mathcal D_G$.
In generative modeling, this is typically a set of real images (photographs) and a set of generated images.
However, it is also possible to compare two sets of photographs, two sets of generated images, manipulated photographs with real photographs, \emph{etc}.
This flexibility allows us to study these metrics in a broader context next, where no generative model is involved.
\subsection{Robustness under Pixel Perturbations}\label{subsec: robustness under pixel perturbations}
We first address the question presented earlier in Section~\ref{sec:robustness-of-fid} by analyzing the sensitivity of IS and FID to additive pixel perturbations.
In particular, we assume $\mathcal D_R$ to be either CIFAR10~\cite{krizhevsky2009learning} or ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet} and ask: \textbf{(i)} can we generate a distribution of imperceptible additive perturbations $\delta$ that deteriorates the scores for $\mathcal D_G = \mathcal D_R + \delta$?
Or, alternatively, \textbf{(ii)} can we generate a distribution of low visual quality images, \textit{i.e.~\xspace} noise images, that attain good quality scores?
If the answer is yes to both questions, then FID and IS have limited capacity for providing information about image quality in the worst case.
\subsubsection{Good Images - Bad Scores}\label{sec:goodims_badscores}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{figures/fig_2_inception
\caption{
\textbf{Sensitivity of Inception Score (IS) against pixel perturbations.}
\textit{First row:} real-looking images (sampled from $\mathcal{D}_G = \mathcal D_R + \delta$) with a low IS (below 3).
\textit{Second row:} random noise images with a high IS (over 135).}
\label{fig:is_pixel}
\end{figure}
We aim at constructing a distribution of real-looking images with \emph{bad} quality measures, \textit{i.e.~\xspace} low IS or high FID.
While both metrics are distribution-based, we design instance-wise proxy optimization problems to achieve our goal.
\noindent\textit{Minimizing IS.}
Based on Eq. \eqref{eq: IS-formula}, one could minimize the IS by having both the posterior $p(y|x)$ and the prior $p(y)$ be the same distribution.
Assuming that $p(y)$ is a uniform distribution, we minimize the IS by maximizing the entropy of $p(y|x)$.
Therefore, we can optimize a perturbation $\delta^*$ for each real image $x_r\sim \mathcal D_R$ by solving the following problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:minimize-IS}
\begin{aligned}
&\delta^* = \argmax_{\|\delta\|_\infty \leq \epsilon} ~\mathcal L_{\text{ce}}\left(p(y|x_r+\delta), \hat{y}\right), \\
&\text{s.t. } \hat y = \argmax_i~ p^i(y|x_r + \delta),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal L_{\text{ce}}$ is the Cross Entropy loss.
We solve the problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq:minimize-IS} with 100 steps of Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) and zero initialization.
We then compile the distribution $\mathcal D_G$, where each image $x_g = x_r + \delta^*$ is a perturbed version of the real dataset $\mathcal D_R$.
Note that our objective aims to minimize the network's confidence in predicting all labels for each $x_g$. In doing so, both $p(y|x_g)$ and $p(y)$ tend to converge to a uniform distribution, thus, minimizing the KL divergence between them and effectively lowering the IS.
Note how $\epsilon$ controls the allowed perturbation amount for each image $x_r$.
Therefore, for small $\epsilon$ values, samples from $\mathcal D_G$ and $\mathcal D_R$ are perceptually indistinguishable.
\input{tables/fid_pixel}
\noindent\textit{Maximizing FID.}
Next, we extend our attack setup to the more challenging FID.
Given an image $x$, we define $f(x): \mathbb R^{d_x} \rightarrow \mathbb R^{d_e}$ to be the output embedding of an Inception model.
We aim to maximize the FID by generating a perturbation $\delta$ that pushes the embedding of a real image away from its original position.
In particular, for each $x_r \sim \mathcal D_R$, we aim to construct $x_g = x_r + \delta^*$ where:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:maximize-fid}
\delta^* = \argmax_{ \| \delta \|_\infty \leq \epsilon} ~\left\| f(x_r) - f(x_r + \delta) \right\|_2 .
\end{equation}
In our experiments, we solve the optimization problem in Eq. \eqref{eq:maximize-fid} with 100 PGD steps
and a randomly initialized $\delta$ \cite{madry2018towards}.
Maximizing this objective indirectly maximizes FID's first term (Eq.~\eqref{eq: FID-formula}), while resulting in a distribution of images $\mathcal D_G$ that is visually indistinguishable from the real $\mathcal D_R$ for small $\epsilon$ values.
\noindent\textit{Experiments.}
We report our results in Table~\ref{tb:FID-pixel}.
Our simple yet effective procedure illustrates how both metrics are very susceptible to attacks.
In particular, solving the problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq:minimize-IS} yields a distribution of noise that significantly decreases the IS from 11.5 to 2.5 in CIFAR10 and from 250.7 to 2.9 in ImageNet.
We show a sample from $\mathcal D_G$ in Figure~\ref{fig:is_pixel}, first row.
Similarly, our optimization problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq:maximize-fid} can create imperceptible perturbations that maximize the FID to $\approx$7900 between ImageNet and its perturbed version (examples shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pull}).
\subsubsection{Bad Images - Good Scores}\label{subsec:bad-images-good-quality}
While the previous experiments illustrate the vulnerability of both the IS and FID against small perturbations (\textit{i.e.~\xspace} good images with bad scores), here we evaluate if the converse is also possible, \textit{i.e.~\xspace} bad images with good scores.
In particular, we aim to construct a distribution of noise images (\textit{e.g.~\xspace} second row of Figure~\ref{fig:is_pixel}) that enjoys good scores (high IS or low FID).
\noindent\textit{Maximizing IS.}
The IS has two terms: Inception's confidence on classifying a generated image, \textit{i.e.~\xspace} $p(y|x_g)$, and the diversity of the generated distribution of predicted labels, \textit{i.e.~\xspace} $p(y)$.
One can maximize the IS by generating a distribution $\mathcal D_G$ such that: \textbf{(i)} each $x_g \sim \mathcal D_G$ is predicted with high confidence, and \textbf{(ii)} the distribution of predicted labels is uniform across Inception's output $\mathcal Y$.
To that end, we propose the following procedure for constructing such $\mathcal D_G$.
For each $x_g$, we sample a label $\hat y \sim \mathcal Y$ uniformly at random and solve the problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: maximize IS}
x_g = \argmin_x ~\mathcal{L}_{ce}(p(y|x), \hat y).
\end{equation}
In our experiments, we solve the problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq: maximize IS} with 100 gradient descent steps and random initialization for $x$.
\noindent\textit{Minimizing FID.}
Here, we analyze the robustness of FID against such a threat model. We follow a similar strategy to the objective in Eq.~\eqref{eq:maximize-fid}.
For each image $x_r \sim \mathcal D_R$, we intend to construct $x_g$ such that:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: minimizing-fid}
x_g = \argmin_x ~\left\|f(x) - f(x_r)\right\|_2
\end{equation}
with a randomly initialized $x$.
In our experiments, we solve Eq. \eqref{eq: minimizing-fid} with 100 gradient descent steps.
As such, each $x_g$ will have a similar Inception representation to a real-world image, \textit{i.e.~\xspace} $f(x_g) \approx f(x_r)$, while being random noise.
\paragraph{Experiments.}
We report our results in the last row of Table \ref{tb:FID-pixel}.
Both the objectives in Eqs.~\eqref{eq: maximize IS} and \eqref{eq: minimizing-fid} are able to fool the IS and FID, respectively.
In particular, we are able to generate distributions of noise images with resolutions $32\times32$ and $224\times224$ (\textit{i.e.~\xspace} CIFAR10 and ImageNet resolutions) but with IS of 94 and 136, respectively.
We show a few qualitative samples in the second row of Figure~\ref{fig:is_pixel}.
Furthermore, we generate noise images that have embedding representations very similar to those of CIFAR10 and ImageNet images. This lowers the FID of both datasets to 9.94 and 1.05, respectively (examples are shown in Figure \ref{fig:pull}).
\subsection{Robustness under Latent Perturbations}\label{subsec: robustness under latent perturbations}
In the previous section, we established the vulnerability of both the IS and FID against pixel perturbations.
Next, we investigate the vulnerability against perturbations in a GAN's latent space.
Designing such an attack is more challenging in this case, since images can only be manipulated indirectly, and so there are fewer degrees of freedom for manipulating an image.
To that end, we choose $G$ to be the state of the art generator StyleGANv2~\cite{Karras_2019_CVPR} trained on the standard FFHQ dataset~\cite{Karras_2019_CVPR}.
We limit the investigation to the FID metric, as IS is not commonly used in the context of unconditional generators, such as StyleGAN.
Note that we always generate $70$k samples from $G$ to compute the FID.
Recall that our generator $G$ accepts a random latent vector $z \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \text{I})$\footnote{The appendix presents results showing that sampling $z$ from different distributions still yields good looking StyleGANv2-generated images.} and maps it to the more expressive latent space $w$, which is then fed to the remaining layers of $G$.
It is worthwhile to mention that ``truncating'' the latent $w$ with a pre-computed $\bar{w}$\footnote{$\bar{w}$ is referred to as the mean of the $w$-space. It is computed by sampling several latents $z$ and averaging their representations in the $w$-space.} and constant $\alpha\in \mathbb R$ (\textit{i.e.~\xspace} replacing $w$ with $\alpha w + (1-\alpha)\bar{w}$) controls both the quality and diversity of the generated images~\cite{Karras_2019_CVPR}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fig_3_attacked_fid
\caption{
\textbf{Effect of attacking truncated StyleGANv2's latent space on the Fréchet Inception Distance (FID).}
We conduct attacks on the latent space of StyleGANv2 and record the effect on the FID.
We display the resulting samples of these attacks for two truncation values, $\alpha=0.7$ (top row) and $\alpha=1.0$ (bottom row).
Despite the stark differences in realism between the images in the top and bottom rows---\textit{i.e.~\xspace} the top row's remarkable quality and the bottom row's artifacts---the FID to FFHQ reverses this ranking, wherein the bottom row is judged as \textit{farther} away from FFHQ than the top row.
}
\label{fig:fid_latent}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Effect of Truncation on FID.}
We first assess the effect of the truncation level $\alpha$ on both image quality and FID.
We set $\alpha \in [0.7, 1.0, 1.3]$ and find FIDs to be $[21.81, 2.65, 9.31]$, respectively.
Based on our results, we assert the following observation: while the visual quality of generated images at higher truncation levels, \textit{e.g.~\xspace} $\alpha = 0.7$, is better and has fewer artifacts than the other $\alpha$ values, the FID does not reflect this fact, showing lower (better) values for $\alpha\in\{1.0, 1.3\}$.
We elaborate on this observation with qualitative experiments in the appendix.
\paragraph{FID-Guided Sampling.}
Next, we extend the optimization problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq:maximize-fid} from image to latent perturbations.
In particular, we aim at constructing a perturbation $\delta^*_z$ for each sampled latent $z$ by solving:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:maximize-fid-latent}
\begin{aligned}
\delta^*_z &= \argmax_\delta ~\left\|f( G(z+\delta) ) - f(x_r) \right\|_2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, $\delta^*_z$ perturbs $z$ such that $G$ produces an image whose embedding differs from that of real image $x_r$.
We solve the problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq:maximize-fid-latent} for $\alpha \in \{0.7, 1.0\}$.
\paragraph{Experiments.}
We visualize our results in Figure \ref{fig:fid_latent} accompanied with their corresponding FID values (first and second rows correspond to $\alpha=0.7 \text{ and } 1.0$, respectively).
While our attack in the latent space is indeed able to significantly increase the FID (from 2.65 to 31.68 for $\alpha=1.0$ and 21.33 to 34.10 for $\alpha=0.7$), we inspect the results and draw the following conclusions.
\textbf{(i)} FID provides inconsistent evaluation of the generated distribution of images.
For example, while both rows in Figure \ref{fig:fid_latent} have comparable FID values, the visual quality is significantly different.
This provides practical evidence of this metric's unreliability in measuring the performance of generative models.
\textbf{(ii)} Adding crafted perturbations to the input of a state of the art GAN deteriorates the visual quality of its output space (second row in Figure \ref{fig:fid_latent}).
This means that GANs are also vulnerable to adversarial attacks.
This is confirmed in the literature for other generative models such as GLOW~\cite{NEURIPS2018_d139db6a,pmlr-v108-pope20a}.
Moreover, we can formulate a problem similar to Eq.~\eqref{eq:maximize-fid-latent} but with the goal of perturbing the $w$-space instead of the $z$-space.
We leave results of solving this formulation for different $\alpha$ values to the appendix.
\paragraph{\textbf{Section Summary.}}
In this section, we presented an extensive experimental evaluation investigating if the quality measures (IS and FID) of generative models actually measure the perceptual quality of the output distributions.
We found that such metrics are extremely vulnerable to pixel perturbations.
We were able to construct images with very good scores but no visual content (Section~\ref{subsec:bad-images-good-quality}), as well as images with realistic visual content but very bad scores (Section~\ref{sec:goodims_badscores}).
We further studied the sensitivity of FID against perturbations in the latent space of StyleGANv2 (Section~\ref{subsec: robustness under latent perturbations}), allowing us to establish the inconsistency of FID under this setup as well.
Therefore, we argue that such metrics, while measuring useful properties of the generated distribution, lead to questionable assessments of the visual quality of the generated images.
\section{R-FID: Robustifying the FID}
After establishing the vulnerability of IS and FID to perturbations, we analyze the cause of such behavior and propose a solution.
We note that, while different metrics have different formulations, they rely on a pretrained Inception model that could potentially be a leading cause of such vulnerability.
This observation suggests the following question:
\begin{center}
\emph{Can we robustify the FID by replacing its Inception\\component with a robustly trained counterpart?}
\end{center}
We first give a brief overview of adversarial training.
\subsection{Leveraging Adversarially Trained Models}
Adversarial training is arguably the \emph{de facto} procedure for training robust models against adversarial attacks.
Given input-label pairs $(x, y)$ sampled from a training set $\mathcal D_{tr}$, $\ell_2$-adversarial training solves the following min-max problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:adv-training}
\min_{\theta}~ \mathbb E_{(x, y) \sim \mathcal D_{tr}}\left[ \max_{\|\delta\|_2 \leq \kappa} \mathcal L \left(x+\delta, y; \theta\right) \right]
\end{equation}
\noindent for a given loss function $\mathcal L$ to train a robust network with parameters $\theta$.
We note that $\kappa$ controls the robustness-accuracy trade-off: models trained with larger $\kappa$ tend to have higher robust accuracy (accuracy under adversarial attacks) and lower clean accuracy (accuracy on clean images).
Since robust models are expected to resist pixel perturbations, we expect such models to inherit robustness characteristics against the attacks constructed in Section \ref{subsec: robustness under pixel perturbations}.
Moreover, earlier works showed that robustly-trained models tend to learn more semantically-aligned and invertible features~\cite{ilyas2019adversarial}.
Therefore, we hypothesize that replacing the pretrained Inception model with its robustly trained counterpart could increase FID's sensitivity to the visual quality of the generated distribution (\textit{i.e.~\xspace} robust against attacks in Section~\ref{subsec: robustness under latent perturbations}).
To that end, we propose the following modification to the FID computation.
We replace the pretrained Inception model with a robustly trained version on ImageNet following Eq.~\eqref{eq:adv-training} with $\kappa \in \{64, 128\}$.
The training details are left to the appendix.
We refer to this alternative as R-FID, and analyze its robustness against perturbations next.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figures/fig_4_rfid_pixel
\caption{
\textbf{Attacking R-FID with pixel perturbations.}
We attack two variants of R-FID ($\kappa = 64$ and $\kappa = 128$) and visualize samples from the resulting datasets.
Attempting to fool these R-FIDs at the pixel level yields perturbations that correlate with semantic patterns, in contrast to those obtained when attempting to fool the standard FID (as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pull}).
}
\label{fig:rfid_pixel}
\end{figure}
\input{tables/rfid_pixel}
\subsection{R-FID against Pixel Perturbations}\label{subsec:rfid-pixel}
We first test the sensitivity of R-FID against additive pixel perturbations.
For that purpose, we replace the Inception with a robust Inception, and repeat the experiments from Section~\ref{sec:goodims_badscores} to construct real images with bad scores.
We conduct experiments on CIFAR10 and ImageNet with $\epsilon \in \{0.01, 0.02, 0.03\}$ for the optimization problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq:maximize-fid}, and we report the results in Table \ref{tb:RFID-pixel}.
We observe that the use of a robustly-trained Inception significantly improves robustness against pixel perturbations.
Our robustness improvement for the same value of $\epsilon=0.01$ is of 3 orders of magnitude (an FID of 4 for $\kappa=128$ compared to 7900 reported in Table~\ref{tb:FID-pixel}).
While both models consistently provide a notable increase in robustness against pixel perturbations, we find that the model most robust to adversarial attacks (\textit{i.e.~\xspace} $\kappa=128$) is also the most robust to FID attacks.
It is worthwhile to mention that this kind of robustness is expected since our models are trained not to alter their prediction under additive input perturbations.
Hence, their feature space should enjoy robustness properties, as measured by our experiments.
In Figure~\ref{fig:rfid_pixel} we visualize a sample from the adversarial distribution $\mathcal D_G$ (with $\epsilon=0.08$) when $\mathcal D_R$ is ImageNet.
We observe that our adversaries while aiming only at pushing the feature representation of samples of $\mathcal D_G$ away from those of $\mathcal D_R$, are also more correlated with human perception.
This finding aligns with previous observations in the literature, which find robustly-trained models have a more interpretable (more semantically meaningful) feature space~\cite{ilyas2019adversarial,engstrom2020adversarial}.
We leave the evaluation under larger values of~$\epsilon$, along with experiments on unbounded perturbations, to the appendix.
\input{tables/rfid_ablation}
\subsection{R-FID under Latent Perturbations}\label{subsec:rfid-latent}
In Section \ref{subsec:rfid-pixel}, we tested R-FID's robustness against pixel-level perturbations.
Next, we study R-FID for evaluating generative models.
For this, we follow the setup in Section~\ref{subsec: robustness under latent perturbations} using an FFHQ-trained StyleGANv2 as generator $G$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fig_5_rfid_latent
\caption{
\textbf{Robustness of R-FID against perturbations in StyleGANv2 latent space.}
We conduct attacks on two variants of R-FID ($\kappa=64$ on the left, and $\kappa=128$ on the right) and two truncation values ($\alpha=0.7$ on the top, and $\alpha=1.0$ on the bottom) by perturbing the latent space. We also visualize samples from the generated distributions.
For the pairs $(\kappa, \alpha) \in \{(64, 0.7), (64, 1.0), (128, 0.7), (128, 1.0)\}$, we find corresponding R-FID values of \{128.1, 157.8, 126.6, 162,8\}.
In contrast to the minimal changes required to fool the standard FID (Fig.~\ref{fig:fid_latent}), fooling the R-FID leads to a dramatic degradation in visual quality of the generated images.
}
\label{fig:rfid_latent}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textit{Effect of Truncation on R-FID.}
Here, we analyze the R-FID when the generator is using different truncation levels.
In particular, we choose $\alpha \in \{0.7, 0.9, 1.0\}$ and report results in Table~\ref{tb:RFID-ablation}.
We observe that the robust Inception model clearly distinguishes the distribution generated by StyleGANv2 from the FFHQ dataset, regardless of the truncation $\alpha$.
In this case, we obtain an R-FID of 113.8, substantially larger than the 2.6 obtained when the nominally-trained Inception model is used.
This result demonstrates that, while the visual quality of StyleGANv2's output is impressive, the generated image distribution is far from the FFHQ distribution.
We further evaluate if the R-FID is generally large between any two distributions by measuring the R-FID between two distributions of images generated at two truncation levels $(\alpha_i, \alpha_j)$.
Table \ref{tb:RFID-ablation} reports these results.
We observe that \textbf{(i)} the R-FID between a distribution and itself is $\approx 0$, \textit{e.g.~\xspace} R-FID = $10^{-3}$ at (1.0, 1.0).
Please refer to the appendix for details.
\textbf{(ii)} The R-FID gradually increases as the image distributions differ, \textit{e.g.~\xspace} R-FID at (0.9, 1.0) $<$ (0.7, 1.0).
This observation validates that the large R-FID values found between FFHQ and various truncation levels are a result of the large separation in the embedding space that robust models induce between real and generated images.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textit{R-FID Guided Sampling.}
Next, we assess the robustness of the R-FID against perturbations in the latent space of the generator $G$.
For this purpose, we conduct the attack proposed in Eq.~\eqref{eq:maximize-fid-latent} with $f$ now being the robustly-trained Inception.
We report results and visualize few samples in Figure~\ref{fig:rfid_latent}.
We make the following observations.
\textbf{(i)} While the R-FID indeed increases after the attack, the relative increment is far less than that of the non-robust FID.
For example, R-FID increases by 44\% at $\kappa=64$ and $\alpha=0.7$ compared to an FID increase of 1000\% under the same setup.
\textbf{(ii)} The increase in R-FID is associated with a significantly larger amount of artifacts introduced by the GAN in the generated images.
This result further evidences the vulnerability of the generative model.
However, it also highlights the changes in the image distribution that are required to increase the R-FID.
We leave the $w$- space formulation for the attack on the R-FID, along with its experiments, to the appendix.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textit{\textbf{Section Summary.}}
In this section, we robustified the popular FID by replacing the pretrained Inception model with a robustly-trained version.
We found this replacement results in a more robust metric (R-FID) against perturbations in both the pixel (Section~\ref{subsec:rfid-pixel}) and latent (Section~\ref{subsec:rfid-latent}) spaces.
Moreover, we found that pixel-based attacks yield much more perceptually-correlated perturbations when compared to the attacks that used the standard FID (Figure~\ref{tb:RFID-pixel}).
Finally, we observed that
changing R-FID values requires a more significant and notable distribution shift in the generated images (Figure~\ref{fig:rfid_latent}).
\subsection{R-FID against Quality Degradation}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Sensitivity of R-FID against noise and blurring.} We measure R-FID $(\kappa=128)$ between ImageNet and a transformed version of it under Gaussian noise and blurring.
As $\sigma$ increases, the image quality decreases and R-FID increases.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{x{2.8cm}|x{1.1cm}x{1.1cm}x{1.1cm}x{1.1cm}}
\toprule
\midrule
$\nicefrac{\sigma_N}{\sigma_B}$ & \nicefrac{0.1}{1.0} & \nicefrac{0.2}{2.0} & \nicefrac{0.3}{3.0} & \nicefrac{0.4}{4.0}\\
\midrule
Gaussian (N)oise & 16.65 & 61.33 & 128.8 & 198.3 \\
Gaussian (B)lur & 15.54 & 54.07 & 78.67 & 89.11\\
\midrule
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\label{tb:RFID-quality-degradation}
\end{table}
At last, we analyze the effect of transformations that degrade image quality on R-FID.
In particular, we apply Gaussian noise and Gaussian blurring on ImageNet and report the R-FID $(\kappa=128)$ between ImageNet and the degraded version in Table \ref{tb:RFID-quality-degradation}.
Results show that as the quality of the images degrades~(\textit{i.e.~\xspace} as $\sigma$ increases), the R-FID steadily increases.
Thus, we find that R-FID is able to distinguish a distribution of images from its degraded version.
\section{Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusions}
In this work, we demonstrate several failure modes of popular GAN metrics, specifically IS and FID. We also propose a robust counterpart of FID (R-FID), which mitigates some of the robustness problems and yields significantly more robust behavior under the same threat models.
Measuring the visual quality for image distributions has two components: (1) the statistical measurement (\textit{e.g.~\xspace} Wasserstein distance) and (2) feature extraction using a pretrained model (\textit{e.g.~\xspace} InceptionV3).
A limitation of our work is that we only focus on the second part (the pretrained model).
As an interesting avenue for future work, we suggest a similar effort to assess the reliability of the statistical measurement as well, \textit{i.e.~\xspace} analyzing and finding better and more robust alternatives to the Wasserstein distance.
Current metrics mainly focus on comparing the distribution of features. In these cases, visual quality is only hoped to be a side effect and not directly optimized for nor tested by these metrics. Developing a metric that
directly assesses visual quality remains an open problem that is not tackled by our work but is
recommended for future work.
\textbf{Acknowledgments.} This work was supported by the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) Office of Sponsored Research (OSR) under Award No. OSR-CRG2019-4033.
\section{Sampling $z$ Outside Standard Gaussian}
In this section, we check the effect of sampling the latent $z$ from distributions other than the one used in training. In particular, instead of sampling $z$ from a standard Gaussian distribution, we try the following setups:
\begin{itemize}
\item $z \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu, I)$ where $\mu \in \{0.1, 0.2, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 2.0, 6.0, 7.0\}$.
\item $z \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu, I) + \mathcal{U}[0, 1]$ where $\mathcal{U}$ is a uniform distribution.
\item $z \sim \mathcal{U}[0, 1]$
\end{itemize}
We report the results in Figures \ref{fig:shifting-mean} and \ref{fig:uniform-sampling}, setting the truncation to $\alpha=0.5$.
We observe that the effect of the distribution from which $z$ is sampled has a minor effect on the quality of the generated output image from StyleGAN. Therefore, we run our latent attack as an \emph{unconstrained} optimization.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/shifted_mean.png}
\caption{\textbf{Effect of shifting the mean of the Gaussian distribution on the output visual quality.} We notice that, for a truncation level $\alpha=0.5$, shifting the mean of the Gaussian distribution from which we sample the latent $z$ has a \emph{very minor} effect on the visual quality of the generated images.}
\label{fig:shifting-mean}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/uniform_sampling.png}
\caption{\textbf{Sampling from other distributions than standard Gaussian.}
We analyze the effect of adding a random uniform vector to the sampled $z$ from a standard Gaussian in the first row.
In the second row, we sample $z$ from a uniform distribution as opposed to the standard Gaussian.
In both cases, and for truncation level of $\alpha=0.5$, we note that StyleGANv2 is capable of producing output images with good visual quality.}
\label{fig:uniform-sampling}
\end{figure}
\section{Visualizing the Output of StyleGANv2 at Different Truncation Levels}
In Section \ref{subsec: robustness under latent perturbations}, we argued that FID favours a distribution of images with more artifacts.
That is, FID values for a distribution of images generated with truncation of $\alpha=0.7$ are worse than the ones for $\alpha \in \{1.0, 1.3\}$, while the latter suffer from significantly more artifacts. We visualize some examples in Figure \ref{fig:truncation-fid} for completeness.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/truncations.png}
\caption{\textbf{Visualizing the output of StyleGANv2 at different truncation levels.} We observe that while outputs with $\alpha=0.7$ are more stable in terms of visual quality, the FID for $\alpha \in \{1.0, 1.3\}$ is better.}
\label{fig:truncation-fid}
\end{figure}
\section{Maximizing FID in the $w-$ Space}\label{app:fid-latent-w}
In Section \ref{subsec: robustness under latent perturbations}, we showed the vulnerability of both the FID and StyleGANv2 against perturbations in the latent space $z$.
One natural question that could arise is whether this vulnerability propagated to the $w-$ space as well.
To that end, we replicate the setup in Section \ref{subsec: robustness under latent perturbations} with the following procedure: for each $z_i \in \mathcal{N}(0, I)$, we map it to the $w-$ space and construct the perturbation $\delta^*_w$ by solving the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:maximize-fid-latent-w}
\begin{aligned}
\delta^*_w &= \argmax_\delta ~\left\|f( \hat G(w+\delta) ) - f(x_r) \right\|_2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We note here that $\hat G$ is a StyleGANv2 model excluding the mapping layers from the $z-$ space to the $w-$ space.
We solve the optimization problem in \eqref{eq:maximize-fid-latent-w} with 20 iterations of SGD and learning rate of 0.3.
We note that the number of iterations is set to a relatively small value compared to the attacks conducted in the $z-$space for computational purposes.
We visualize the results in Figure \ref{fig:fid-w}.
For a truncation value of $\alpha=1.0$, the FID increases from 2.65 to 6.42.
We note here that, similar to earlier observations, the FID is providing inconsistent judgement by favouring a distribution with larger artifacts (comparing Figure \ref{fig:fid-w} with the first row of Figure \ref{fig:truncation-fid}).
Moreover, even with the small learning rate and number of iterations, we observe the StyleGANv2 is vulnerable against manipulations in the $w-$space.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/fid_w.png}
\caption{\textbf{Robustness of FID against perturbations in $w-$space.}
We analyze the sensitivity of StyleGANv2 and FID against perturbations in the $w-$space.
We report an FID value of 6.4, as opposed to 2.65 without perturbations $(\alpha=1.0)$. }
\label{fig:fid-w}
\end{figure}
\section{Training Details and Code}
We conducted $\ell_2$ PGD adversarial training by solving the problem in Equation~\eqref{eq:adv-training}.
At each iteration, we compute the adversary using 2 steps of PGD attack and random initialization with Gaussian noise.
We train the network for 90 epochs with SGD optimizer and a learning rate of $0.1$.
We drop the learning rate by a factor of $10$ after each 30 epochs.
We train on ImageNet's training set from scratch.
We release our implementation and pre-trained models at \href{https://github.com/MotasemAlfarra/R-FID-Robustness-of-Quality-Measures-for-GANs}{https://github.com/R-FID-Robustness-of-Quality-Measures-for-GANs}.
\section{Attacking R-FID with Larger $\epsilon$}
In Section \ref{subsec:rfid-pixel}, we tested the sensitivity of R-FID against pixel perturbations that are limited by an $\epsilon$ budget.
In the main paper, we reported the results after attacking R-FID with a budget of $\epsilon\in\{0.01, 0.02, 0.03\}$.
For completeness, we conduct experiments with $\epsilon\in\{0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08\}$ for the robust Inception model trained with $\kappa=128$.
We find R-FID values of $\{503.6, 663.2, 817.1, 891, 960.7\}$, respectively.
We note that, even under the largest $\epsilon$ value we considered ($\epsilon=0.08$), the R-FID is still one order of magnitude smaller than of FID when being attacked with $\epsilon=0.01$.
This provides further evidence to the effectiveness of R-FID in defending against pixel perturbations.
\paragraph{Unbounded Perturbations.}
Here we test the robustness of R-FID against noisy images.
In Section~\ref{subsec:bad-images-good-quality}, we showed the sensitivity of FID in assigning good scores to noisy images.
We replicate our setup from Table~\ref{tb:FID-pixel} for ImageNet and conducted the attack on R-FID.
For the optimized noise images (noise images in this case should be assigned low R-FID), we found the R-FID to be 340, significantly higher than when attacking FID (Table~\ref{tb:FID-pixel} reports an FID of 1.05 for random noise images).
We note that while better metrics could be proposed in the future, we believe that R-FID is a step towards a more reliable metri---more robust to both pixel and latent perturbations).
\begin{comment}
\section{Noise Images and R-FID}
We replicated our setup from Table 1 (in the main paper) for ImageNet and conducted the attack on R-FID.
For the optimized noise images (noise images in this case should be assigned \textit{low} R-FID), we found the R-FID to be 340, which is significantly higher than when attacking FID (Table~1 reports an FID of~1.05 for random-noise images).
Note this is an unbounded attack, \textit{i.e.~\xspace} the perturbation's level is unrestricted.
While better metrics could eventually be proposed, we believe R-FID is a step towards a more reliable metric---larger robustness against both pixel and latent perturbations.
\end{comment}
\section{Effect of Truncation on R-FID}
In Section~\ref{subsec:rfid-latent}, and specifically Table~\ref{tb:RFID-ablation}, we analyzed whether R-FID outputs large values for any pair of distributions.
We provided R-FID values for distributions generated from StyleGANv2 with pairs of truncation values $(\alpha_i, \alpha_j)$.
For completeness, we report the results for the rest of the pairs, including the R-FID between two splits of FFHQ dataset in Table~\ref{tb:RFID-ablation-app}.
We observe that the R-FID is very small for identical distributions (\textit{e.g.~\xspace} two splits of FFHQ, or at the same truncation level (1.0, 1.0)).
Moreover, R-FID increases gradually as the distributions differ.
This fact confirms our earlier observation that R-FID better discriminates the generated distribution from the real one.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/rfid_128_w.png}
\caption{\textbf{Robustness of R-FID against perturbations in the $w-$space.} We report R-FID (at $\alpha=1.0$) of 114.3, as opposed to 113.8 without perturbations.}
\label{fig:rfid-w}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{\textbf{R-FID between two distributions.}
We analyze the R-FID between distributions of images generated at different truncation levels.
The last column is the R-FID between two non-overlapping splits of the FFHQ dataset.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
\toprule
\midrule
$(\mathcal D_G(\alpha_i), \mathcal D_G(\alpha_j))$ & (0.7, 1.0)& (0.7, 0.9)& (0.9, 1.0) & (1.0, 1.0) & $(\hat{ \mathcal D}_R, \hat{ \mathcal D}_R)$ \\
\midrule
$\kappa=64$ & 10.5 & 4.9 & 0.48& 0.007 &0.004 \\
$\kappa=128$ & 9.9 & 4.6 & 0.46& 0.008 &0.006 \\
\midrule
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\label{tb:RFID-ablation-app}
\end{table}
\section{Maximizing R-FID in the $w-$ Space}
We replicate our setup in Appendix~\ref{app:fid-latent-w} to analyze the sensitivity of R-FID against perturbations in the $w-$ space.
To that end, we leverage our attack in Equation~\eqref{eq:maximize-fid-latent-w} but replace the pretrained Inception with a robustly trained version with $\kappa = 128$.
We visualize the results accompanied by the R-FID value in Figure~\ref{fig:rfid-w}.
We draw the following observations: \textbf{(i):}
The increase in the R-FID under the same threat model is much smaller than the increase of FID (113.8 $\rightarrow$ 114.3 compared to 2.54 $\rightarrow 6.4$).
That is, R-FID is more robust than FID against latent perturbations in the $w-$space.
\textbf{(ii):} Changes in the R-FID are accompanied by significant changes in the visual quality of the generated image from StyleGANv2.
This is similar to the earlier observation noted in Section~\ref{subsec:rfid-latent}.
This constitutes further evidence about the effectiveness of R-FID for providing a robust metric against manipulation.
\section{How Large is $\delta^*$}
In Section~\ref{subsec: robustness under latent perturbations}, we constructed $\delta^*$ to perturb the latent code in an unbounded fashion.
While the random latent $z$ belongs to a standard normal distribution, there are no bounds on how each latent $z$ should look like.
Nevertheless, we analyze the latent perturbation $\delta^*$ to better assess the robustness under latent perturbations.
To that end, we measure the Wasserstein distance between the unperturbed and perturbed latent codes. We found this value to be small ($\sim$0.07 on average across experiments).
We attribute such a small value to using a small step size and a moderate number of iterations for solving the optimization problem
\section{Additional Comments on the Motivation}
This work aims at characterizing the reliability of the metrics used to judge generative models.
Such metrics play a sensitive role in determining whether a generative model is doing a better job than the other.
Throughout our assessment, we found that both IS and FID can be easily manipulated by perturbing either the pixel or the latent space.
That is, GAN designers could potentially improve the scores of their generative model by simply adding small imperceptible perturbations to the generated distribution of images or latents.
This makes the IS and FID less trustworthy, urging for more reliable metrics.
In this work, we also proposed one possible fix to increase the reliability of FID, by replacing the pretrained InceptionV3 with a robustly trained version.
We note, at last, that while better metrics could appear in the future, we conjecture that R-FID will be part of future solutions to this problem.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Robust Inception Score} against pixel perturbations on CIFAR10.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\toprule
\midrule
$\epsilon$ & 0.0 & $5\times10^{-3}$ & $0.01$ & random noise \\
\midrule
R-IS & 9.94 & 5.49 & 3.91 & 1.01 \\
\midrule
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\label{tb:RIS}
\end{table}
\section{Robust Inception Score (R-IS)}
Finally and for completeness, we explore the robustness enhancements that the robust model provide to the Inception Score~(IS).
Thus, we replicate the setup from Table~\ref{tb:FID-pixel} and conduct pixel perturbations on CIFAR10 dataset.
We report the results for $\kappa=128$ in Table~\ref{tb:RIS}.
We observe that the variation of R-IS against pixel perturbations is much more stable than regular IS.
For instance, R-IS drops from 9.94 to 5.49 at $\epsilon=5\times10^{-3}$ compared to IS which drops from 11.54 to 2.62 for the same value of $\epsilon$.
Moreover, running the same optimization for constructing noise images with good IS does not yield a good R-IS.
This demonstrates an additional advantage of deploying robust models in GANs quality measures.
\section{Additional Visualizations}
In the main paper, and due to space constraints, we provided only six samples from the analyzed distributions.
For completeness and fairer qualitative comparison, we show additional samples from each considered distribution.
In particular, we visualize the output of StyleGANv2 after attacking the latent space by:
\textbf{(i):} Maximizing FID with truncation $\alpha=0.7$ (Figure \ref{fig:fid_0.7_attack_z})
\textbf{(ii):} Maximizing FID with truncation $\alpha=1.0$ (Figure \ref{fig:fid_1.0_attack_z})
\textbf{(iii):} Maximizing R-FID $(\kappa=128)$ with truncation $\alpha=0.7$ (Figure \ref{fig:128rfid_0.7_attack_z})
\textbf{(iv):} Maximizing R-FID $(\kappa=128)$ with truncation $\alpha=1.0$ (Figure \ref{fig:128rfid_1.0_attack_z})
\textbf{(v):} Maximizing R-FID $(\kappa=64)$ with truncation $\alpha=0.7$ (Figure \ref{fig:64rfid_0.7_attack_z})
\textbf{(vi):} Maximizing R-FID $(\kappa=64)$ with truncation $\alpha=1.0$ (Figure \ref{fig:64rfid_1.0_attack_z}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/fid_0.7_ext.png}
\caption{Visualizing samples after attacking the latent space $z$ for StyleGANv2 to maximize FID with truncation $\alpha=0.7$.}
\label{fig:fid_0.7_attack_z}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/fid_1.0_ext.png}
\caption{Visualizing samples after attacking the latent space $z$ for StyleGANv2 to maximize FID with truncation $\alpha=1.0$.}
\label{fig:fid_1.0_attack_z}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/rfid_0.7_ext_128.png}
\caption{Visualizing samples after attacking the latent space $z$ for StyleGANv2 to maximize R-FID with $\kappa=128$ and truncation $\alpha=0.7$.}
\label{fig:128rfid_0.7_attack_z}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/rfid_1.0_ext_128.png}
\caption{Visualizing samples after attacking the latent space $z$ for StyleGANv2 to maximize R-FID with $\kappa=128$ and truncation $\alpha=1.0$.}
\label{fig:128rfid_1.0_attack_z}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/rfid_0.7_ext_64.png}
\caption{Visualizing samples after attacking the latent space $z$ for StyleGANv2 to maximize R-FID with $\kappa=64$ and truncation $\alpha=0.7$.}
\label{fig:64rfid_0.7_attack_z}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ figures/appendix/rfid_1.0_ext_64.png}
\caption{Visualizing samples after attacking the latent space $z$ for StyleGANv2 to maximize R-FID with $\kappa=64$ and truncation $\alpha=1.0$.}
\label{fig:64rfid_1.0_attack_z}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
Automatic image captioning is a challenging problem with many complexities and is the focus of many impactful research works. Applications of automatic image captioning include human-computer interaction \cite{li2020oscar, fukui2016multimodal, zhang2021vinvl}, medical image captioning and automatic medical prescription \cite{pavlopoulos2019survey, huang2021contextualized, ayesha2021automatic}, quality control in industry \cite{luo2019visual}, traffic data analysis \cite{li2020traffic}, and especially assistive technologies for visually impaired individuals \cite{gurari2020captioning, sidorov2020textcaps, dognin2020image, ahsan2021multi, makav2019new}. Given the many challenges and obstacles of a visually impaired lifestyle, finding a means to ease these problems can be valuable, and may improve the life quality of visually impaired individuals.
Prior to the breakthrough in deep learning methods, image captioning was mainly done using traditional machine learning-based techniques. These techniques often involved feature extraction methods such as Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) \cite{lowe2004}, Local Binary Patterns (LBP) \cite{10.1007/3-540-45054-8_27}, and the Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) \cite{1467360}. After feature extraction, a classifier was used to classify objects. However, due to the complexities of feature extraction from large data sets, traditional methods are less preferred compared to deep learning-based methods, which learn features automatically \cite{hossain2019comprehensive}.
There are many challenges and open problems in image captioning which are a part of the problem's nature, such as the parallax error. It can even be difficult for the human eye to detect an object at specific angles that change an object's appearance to the point that it is no longer detectable. In addition to angles, many objects with varying shapes may belong to a specific object class. Also, objects being overlapped by other objects can make it difficult for the vision assistant to detect all objects correctly. Scene clutter is also another problem for object detection. When creating a vision assistant capable of captioning images, one must acknowledge these problems and handle them effectively.
Many literature reviews and surveys have been done on image captioning, which provide a rich narrative of the research works conducted in the past years. One notable example is \cite{hossain2019comprehensive}. The structure of this survey paper has been greatly inspired by this work. However, we have dedicated a separate section to each method category instead of a pairwise comparison between them-which forms the structure of the survey done by Hossain et al. \cite{hossain2019comprehensive}. Most other survey papers have covered works dating from 2018 and older, and more recent works have yet to be attended to. Works such as \cite{elhagry2021a} only cover a limited number of research works, while others \cite{chohan2020image} do not discuss the details regarding the inner workings of the methods. Considering the recent advances in the field of image captioning, a new review of the more recent research works can aid researchers in catching up with the latest progress in this field. In addition, the new promising directions (discussed in \ref{challenges_future_directions}) open ways for improvement, which must be closely monitored and watched by researchers. This survey covers research works from 2018 to 2022 and highlights the gaps in current literature in addition to future directions.
This paper is organized as follows:
Different methods of image captioning are discussed first, followed by the most common problems and challenges of image captioning. The different methods are discussed thoroughly, widely used datasets and evaluation metrics are introduced, the performances of the covered methods are compared, and finally, future directions are reviewed.
\section{Common Solutions and Techniques}
Automatic image captioning is usually computationally intensive and structurally complicated. Therefore, it is necessary to study and observe the different methods of solving this problem in order to propose a practical and efficient solution. Despite the recent remarkable advances in hardware design and optimization techniques, utilizing sensible methods and tools is still of vital importance. This section discusses some of the standard solutions and techniques used in image captioning.
\subsection{Most Common Solutions}
Image captioning is presented chiefly as a sequence-to-sequence problem in machine vision. In sequence-to-sequence problems, the goal is to convert a specific sequence to the appropriate corresponding sequence. One of the essential sequence-to-sequence problems is machine translation. In machine translation, a sequence of words (e.g., a sentence) in a language is translated to its alternative in another language. In order to learn the correspondence between the sequences, the sequences are mapped into a common space in which the distance between two sequences with close meaning is small.
One of the most common solutions to the image captioning problem is inspired by machine translation and has given promising results according to the performance metrics. In this class of methods, known as the "encoder-decoder" methods, the input image is mapped to an intermediate representation of the image contents. It is then converted to a sequence of words that make up the caption of the image. In the encoding stage, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are frequently used to detect objects in the image since the last convolutional layer of these networks provides a rich representation of an image.
This layer is used as a feature vector (or multiple feature vectors obtained from different regions in the image). In the decoding stage, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are commonly used due to their ability to give a proper representation of the human language and texts. After the image and its corresponding caption in the dataset are mapped into a common space, the correspondence between the two representations is learned and new captions are generated for new images.
Despite significant results, these methods usually give general and vague captions for images and do not describe image contents appropriately since all information is compressed into a single vector. This causes problems with learning the information at the beginning of the sequence and the deeper relations between image contents. Many new methods have been proposed to solve these problems, most of them having the encoder-decoder structure as their core component. These methods and their features and possible flaws are discussed later in this survey.
In addition to these methods, other methods, such as dense captioning \cite{johnson2016densecap}, have been proposed to solve the image captioning problem. However, in recent works on image captioning dating from 2018 to 2022, these methods are seldom used, and methods based on the attention mechanism and graphs have been used more frequently.
\subsection{Some of the Widely Used Techniques in Image Captioning}
Before introducing various methods of image captioning in detail, we discuss some of the frequently used techniques in image captioning methods.
\subsubsection{R-CNNs} When detecting objects, an especially trained Convolutional Neural Network also detects the object’s bounding box inside the image. If a simple CNN is used for object detection, using a grid above the image and processing the individual cells of the grid is one way to detect object bounding boxes. However, objects that appear in images are of various shapes and sizes and can be located anywhere inside the image; therefore, one type of grid with fixed cell sizes will not give desirable results. In order to resolve this issue, grids with different cell sizes must be used to detect objects with different settings, which will be computationally intensive.
To solve this issue, Girshick et al. introduced Region-based CNNs (R-CNN) \cite{girshick2014rich}. These networks use selective search to extract only 2000 regions from the image. The regions are given the term: \textit{region proposals}. The selective search algorithm generates many candidate regions to segment the input image. These regions are merged recursively and form larger regions which are then selected as the final region proposals.
Since no form of actual learning is used inside the selective search algorithm, the algorithm may produce incorrect region proposals.
\textbf{Fast R-CNN: }The same authors that introduced R-CNN introduced another network under the name of Fast R-CNN \cite{girshick2015fast}. The working of Fast R-CNN is very similar to that of R-CNN. However, instead of feeding the region proposals to a CNN, the input image is fed to the CNN to produce a convolutional feature map. Region proposals are then generated using this feature map and the selective search algorithm.
Fast R-CNN is faster than R-CNN in that the image is only convolved once, and a feature map is extracted, as opposed to R-CNN that fed 2000 region proposals to a CNN.
\textbf{Faster R-CNN: }Despite Fast R-CNN being faster than R-CNN, both use the selective search algorithm, which is time-consuming and affects the network's performance. In \cite{ren2015faster}, a new method was presented in which the network learns the region proposals and does not use the selective search algorithm. Similar to Fast R-CNN, an image is given to the CNN as input, and a convolutional feature map is extracted. Instead of the selective search algorithm, a separate network is used to predict region proposals.
Faster R-CNN is significantly faster than R-CNN and Fast R-CNN and can be used in real-time object detection. Faster R-CNN is used in many papers covered in this survey to generate a presentation for the input image.
\subsubsection{RNNs}
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) \cite{rumelhart1985learning, osti_6910294} are a type of artificial neural network that also have internal memory. These networks are recurrent in the sense that they perform the same operation for each input data, and the output from the current input data is dependent on the computations from previous steps. After the output is computed, it is fed back into the network. RNN uses current input and the learned output from the previous step during inference time. In contrast to the feed-forward neural networks, RNNs use their internal memory (also known as the internal state) to process a sequence of input. This feature enables RNNs to perform tasks such as human handwriting or speech detection. In other words, RNNs can be used in applications in which the inputs are related to each other in some way and are not independent.
On the other hand, these networks are prone to problems such as "Vanishing Gradient," difficulty in training, and the inability to process long sequences. If a sequence is lengthy, RNN networks might lose parts of the information at the beginning of the sequence.
\subsubsection{LSTMs and GRUs}
An improved version of RNN networks is the "Long Short-Term Memory Network (LSTM)"\cite{hochreiter1997long}. LSTMs have been explicitly designed to resolve long-term dependency problems \cite{Gers2000learning}. Since LSTMs are effective at capturing long-term temporal dependencies without such optimization issues, they have been used to solve many challenging problems, including handwriting recognition/generation, language modeling/translation, speech synthesis, acoustic modeling of speech, protein secondary structure prediction, and audio and video analysis.\cite{Greff_2017} These networks have an internal "Gate" mechanism that can control and modify the flow of information. These gates can learn which data is essential in a sequence or must be ignored. Therefore, important information is stored all through the sequence. Despite the advantages of LSTMs over RNN, LSTMs ignore the hierarchical structure in a sentence. Also, LSTMs need plenty of storage space due to their memory cells.
LSTM networks are widely used in "Encoder-Decoder"-based methods in image captioning to generate representations of the captions, which are textual data. Another network similar to LSTMs is the "Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)"\cite{cho2014learning}. These networks are similar to LSTMs in structure but use fewer gates to control the flow of information. Fewer parameters allow GRUs to train easier and faster than their LSTM counterparts. GRUs have been shown to perform better on specific smaller and less frequent datasets \cite{gruber2020gru}.
\subsubsection{ResNet}
Residual neural networks or ResNets are used in object detection \cite{he2016deep}. The structure of these networks is inspired by the pyramidal cells in the cerebral cortex and uses slip connections to connect multiple layers. Usually, ResNets are implemented with two or three skip connections. ResNets are built with "Residual Blocks" placed on top of each other; for example, ResNet-50 consists of 50 layers containing residual blocks. Optimization of this structure is shown to be easier and faster compared to the simple network structure (without skip connections and residual blocks). Some of the research works presented in this survey have used ResNet to detect objects and generate image representations.
\section{Deep Learning-Based Image Captioning}\label{deep_learning_based_image_captioning}
In this section, we have organized and classified the different frameworks, methods, and approaches which were extensively used in recent research works based on their core structure. Some terms and notations in the covered papers have been altered to maintain consistency throughout this review. A figure demonstrating the taxonomy provided in this paper is shown in \ref{fig_general_framework}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/general-framework-diagram.pdf}
\caption{The taxonomy of the image captioning methods covered in this survey paper.}
\label{fig_general_framework}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Attention-Based Methods}\label{section_attention}
Attention-based methods \cite{bahdanau2014neural} are inspired by the human attention pattern and the way the human eye focuses on images. When inspecting images, humans focus more on the image's salient features. The same mechanism is implemented in attention-based mechanisms. During the training process, the model is shown "where to look at." To understand the mechanism of attention-based methods, one can imagine a sequential decoder in which, in addition to the previous cell's output and internal state, there is also a context vector under the term 'c.'
Vector c is the weighted sum of hidden states in the encoder.
\begin{equation}
c_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^{T_{x}} a_{i j} h_{j}
\end{equation}
In the statement above, $a_{ij}$ is the "amount of attention" that output $i$ must pay to input $j$, and $h_j$ is the encoder state in input $j$. $a_{ij}$ is obtained by calculating softmax over attention amounts that are shown with $e$ on inputs and for output $i$:
\begin{equation}
a_{i j}=\operatorname{softmax}\left(e_{i j}\right)=\frac{\exp \left(e_{i j}\right)}{\sum_{k=1}^{T_{x}} \exp \left(e_{i k}\right)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
e_{i j}=f\left(S_{i-1}, h_{j}\right)
\end{equation}
where, $f$ is the model that determines how much input at $j$ and output $i$ are correlated, and $S_{i-1}$ is the hidden state from the previous time step. The model $f$ can be estimated with a small neural network and can be optimized with any gradient-based optimization techniques, such as gradient descent. A presentation of the attention mechanism used in an encoder-decoder framework typically used in machine translation is shown in Figure \ref{fig_attention}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/fig-attention.pdf}
\caption{The attention mechanism in an encoder-decoder framework is typically used in machine translation.\cite{attention_mechanism_figure}}
\label{fig_attention}
\end{figure}
In short, attention-based image captioning methods generate a weighted sum of extracted feature vectors at each time step in their decoder that guides the decoder module.
Similar to the encoder-decoder framework, attention-based methods were first introduced for the machine translation problem in \cite{bahdanau2014neural}. In most of the attention-based methods, a CNN or a region-based CNN is used in the encoding stage to provide a representation of the image, and an RNN is usually used in the decoding stage. A block diagram of the basis of attention-based methods (which was first proposed by Xu et al. \cite{xu2015show}) is shown in Figure \ref{fig_attention_workflow}. The last layer of a Convolutional Neural Network (Here, VGGnet by Simonyan et al. \cite{simonyan2014very})- just before max pooling- has been used to extract features from the image. The LSTM network \cite{hochreiter1997long} with attention has been used as the decoder. The multiple images surrounding the LSTM shown in this figure demonstrate the attention values over different regions of the image. The lighter areas mean a higher attention value. The colored outline of the generated words in the caption corresponds to the regions outlined by the same colors.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{figures/attention-mechanism.pdf}
\caption{The basis of attention-based methods (best viewed in color). }
\label{fig_attention_workflow}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Multi-Head Attention} Multi-head attention \cite{vaswani2017attention} is a module for the attention mechanisms, which runs through the attention mechanism several times in parallel. The attention outputs achieved by this method are then concatenated and linearly transformed into the expected dimension. Multiple attention heads help attend to the parts of the sequence which are different in nature, e.g., longer-term dependencies versus shorter-term dependencies. Multi-head attention can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{MultiHead}(Q,K,V)=[\text{head}_1,...,\text{head}_n]W_0 \\
\text{where}\ \text{head}_i=\text{Attention}(QW_i^Q,KW_i^K,VW_i^V)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Where the set of queries is packed together into the matrix $Q$, the keys and values are packed into matrices $K$ and $V$, and $W_i^Q$, $W_i^K$, $W_i^V$, and $W^Q$ are the parameter matrices: $W_i^Q \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{model}\times d_k}$, $W_i^K \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{model}\times d_k }$, $W_i^V \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{model}\times d_v }$ and $W_i^O \in \mathbb{R}^{hd_{v}\times d_{model} }$, $h$=the number of parallel attention layers.
\textbf{Soft Attention and Hard Attention}
Attention is usually implemented in two forms: soft or hard attention \cite{xu2015show}. In soft attention, weighted image features accounted for attention are used as input instead of using an image as an input to the LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long}. Soft attention disregards irrelevant areas by multiplying the corresponding features map with a low weight. High attention areas keep the original value while low attention areas get closer to 0 (become dark in the visualization) \cite{xu2015show}.
Hard attention uses a stochastic sampling model. Sampling is performed to accurately calculate the gradient descent in the backpropagation, and the results are averaged using the Monte Carlo method. Monte Carlo performs end-to-end episodes to compute an average for all sampling results. The accuracy depends on the number of samples and sampling quality in hard attention. However, soft attention applies the regular backpropagation method to compute the gradient, which is easier to calculate. The accuracy is also subject to the assumption that the weighted average is a good representation of the area of attention.
Attention-based methods are widely used in the encoder-decoder framework. Most of the research works discussed in this survey have used it as their primary framework or have combined it with other methods to improve its performance.
Vinyals et al. \cite{vinyals2015show} have been one of the pioneers in attention-based methods for image captioning. The presented model in this work is inspired by machine translation, based on the findings that indicate that given a powerful sequence model, it is possible to achieve remarkable results by directly maximizing the probability of the correct translation. CNNs can produce a rich presentation of an input image by embedding it into a fixed-length vector. Vinyals et al. \cite{vinyals2015show} have presented a model that uses CNN as an image "encoder" by pre-training it for an image classification task first and using the last hidden layer as an input to an RNN "decoder" that generates sentences. The model is trained to maximize the likelihood of the target description sentence given the training image.
Anderson et al. proposed the "bottom-up and top-down" method in \cite{anderson2018bottom}. The bottom-up module proposes the salient regions in the image, and each of the proposed regions is represented as a convolutional feature vector. This module is implemented using Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster}, which was discussed previously. Faster R-CNN works well as a "hard" attention mechanism since a small number of bounding box features are selected from a large number of configurations. Faster R-CNN network is initialized with ResNet-101 \cite{he2016deep} pre-trained for image classification on the ImageNet dataset. Faster R-CNN is then trained using the Visual Genome \cite{krishna2017visual} dataset. The top-down module, designed to caption images, contains two LSTM networks \cite{hochreiter1997long} with the standard implementation. The first LSTM network operates as a top-down visual attention model, and the second LSTM network operates as a language model. The top-down visual attention module estimates a distribution of attention over regions and calculates the extracted feature vector as a weighted sum over total region proposals. The captioning model takes a variably-sized set of $k$ image features: $V=\{v_1,...,v_k\}, v_i \in \mathbb{R}^D$ as input. Each image feature encodes a salient region of the image. These image features can be defined as the output of the bottom-up attention model or as the spatial output layer of a CNN. The input vector to the attention LSTM at each time step consists of the previous output of the language LSTM, the mean-pooled image features $\bar{v}=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i} v_i$, and an encoding of the word generated previously all concatenated together. The input to the language model LSTM is composed of the attended image feature concatenated with the output of the attention LSTM.
The two-layer LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} structure has also been used by Yao et al. in \cite{yao2018exploring} as the attention mechanism in the final stage (More detail on the workings of this paper is discussed in "Combining Attention-Based and Graph-Based Methods" (section \ref{section_combining_attention_graph})).
Gu et al. \cite{gu2018stack} have presented a multi-stage coarse-to-fine structure for image captioning. This structure contains multiple decoders that each work on the output of the decoder in the previous step, making the captions richer in every step. This paper has used the LSTM network \cite{hochreiter1997long} as the decoder. The structure comprises three LSTM networks, with the first LSTM presenting the coarse details at the first stage and reducing computations in the later stages. The other LSTMs operate as fine-level decoders.
At each stage, attention weights and hidden vectors generated by the previous stage decoder are used as input to the next stage decoder.
The operation of the coarse decoder is based on the general and global features of the image. However, in many cases, each word belongs to a small region of the image only. Using the general features of the image might yield improper results due to the possible noise from unrelated regions. Therefore, a "Stacked Attention Model \cite{yang2016stacked}" is used to improve the performance of this coarse-to-fine structure. This model enables the structure to extract visual information from finer details for future word predictions. The stacked model generates a spatial map that determines the region of each predicted word. Using this stacked attention model, finer and more precise details are extracted, and noise is gradually reduced. Also, regions that are highly relevant to the words are determined.
Huang et al. \cite{huang2019attention} have introduced a new attention-based structure containing one more level of attention. The structure named "Attention on Attention (AoA)" generates an "Information Vector" and an "Attention Gate" with two linear transformations.
An attention module $f_{att}(\textbf{Q},\textbf{K},\textbf{V})$ operates on some queries, keys and values denoted by $\textbf{Q}$, $\textbf{K}$, and $\textbf{V}$ respectively and generates some weighted average vectors denoted by $\bm{\hat{V}}$. The attention module measures the similarity between $\textbf{Q}$ and $\textbf{K}$ and uses this similarity score to calculate weighted average vectors over $\textbf{V}$, which is formulated as:
\begin{equation}
a_{i,j}=f_{sim}(\bm{q_i}, \bm{k_j}), \alpha_{i,j}=\frac{e^{a_{i,j}}}{\sum_{j}e^{a_{i,j}}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bm{\hat{v_i}}=\sum_{j}\alpha_{i,j}\bm{v_j}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{q_i} \in \bm{Q}$ is the $i^{th}$ query, $\bm{k_j} \in \bm{K}$ and $\bm{v_j}\in \bm{V}$ are the $j^{th}$ key/value pair. $f_{sim}$ is a function that computes the similarity score of each $\bm{k_j}$ and $\bm{q_i}$, and $\bm{\hat{v_i}}$ is the attended vector for the query $\bm{q_i}$. Since the attention module produces a weighted average for each query regardless of the relation between $\bm{Q}$ and $\bm{K/V}$, the weighted average vector can be irrelevant or misleading information. The AoA module measures the relevance between the attention results and the query.
The information vector $\bm{i}$ is generated with a linear transformation on current content (caption) and results from the attention component, and stores both parts’ data. The attention gate $\bm{g}$ is generated from the content and the result from the attention component using sigmoid activation. The value inside each part (also called a channel) of this attention gate determines the level of importance of the channel in the information vector. Both the information vector and the attention gate is conditioned on the attention result and the current context (\emph{i.e.} the query) $\bm{q}$. The AoA structure adds another level of attention with element-wise multiplication of the attention gate and the information vector and finally produces the attended information, which contains useful data. The AoA structure is applied to both the encoder and decoder (termed AoANet): AoA is applied to the encoder after extracting image features to obtain the relation between objects present inside the image. AoA is also applied to the decoder to remove the attention results which are unrelated to the actual output or are ambiguous and leave the essential and useful results. The AoA structure has been introduced as an addition to the attention-based methods, and it can be applied to any attention method. In the experiments conducted by the authors, a Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster} pre-trained on the ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet} and Visual Genome \cite{krishna2017visual} datasets is used to extract feature vectors from the image.
Jiang et al. propose a novel recurrent fusion network (RFNet) in \cite{jiang2018recurrent} for the image captioning task, which uses multiple CNNs as encoders, and a recurrent fusion process is inserted after the encoders to produce better representations for the decoder. Each representation extracted from an individual image CNN can be regarded as an individual view depicting the input image. The fusion procedure consists of two stages; the first stage produces multiple sets of "thought vectors" by exploiting the interactions among the representations from multiple CNNs. The second stage performs multi-attention on the sets of thought vectors and generates a new set of thought vectors for the decoder. For the experiments, they use ResNet \cite{he2016deep}, DenseNet \cite{huang2017densely}, Inception-V3 \cite{szegedy2016rethinking}, Inception-V4 \cite{szegedy2017inception} and Inception-ResNet-V2 \cite{szegedy2017inception} as encoders to extract 5 groups of representations. Having considered reinforcement learning (RL) as a method to improve image captioning performance, they have trained their model with cross-entropy loss and fine-tuned the trained model with CIDEr optimization using reinforcement learning.
Incorporating attention in image captioning has transformed the field considerably, enabling more accurate and natural caption generation. However, they do not come without flaws. One problem with classic attention-based image captioning is that they do not consider the relations between the objects detected inside the image.
\subsection{Attention-Based Methods that Consider Spatial and Semantic Relations between Image Elements}\label{section_attention_spatial_semantic}
A group of methods aim to use the spatial and semantic relations in an image to describe the content more appropriately.
Herdade et al. \cite{herdade2019image} have presented a structure called "Object Relation Transformer" based on the encoder-decoder framework and designed explicitly for image captioning. This structure implements spatial relationships between detected objects inside an image using geometric attention. The object relation module presented by Hu et al. \cite{hu2018relation} represents the spatial relations in the encoder. The combination of Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster}, and ResNet-101 \cite{he2016deep} as the base Convolutional Neural Network is used for object detection and feature extraction. Every image feature vector is processed through an input embedding layer consisting of a fully connected layer to reduce the dimension, followed by a ReLU and a dropout layer. The first encoder layer of the Transformer model uses the embedded feature vectors as input, and the subsequent layers use the output tokens of the previous encoder layers. Each encoder layer is composed of a multi-head self-attention layer followed by a small feed-forward neural network.
Using the intermediate feature maps obtained from ResNet-101 \cite{he2016deep} as input, a "Region Proposal Network (RPN)" generates bounding boxes for the objects proposed by the network. Multiple neural network layers are added to predict the corresponding class for each region and correct the bounding box for each of the proposed regions. Also, to implement geometric attention, the value of attention weight matrices changes: bounding box properties (such as center, width, and height) are combined with their corresponding attention weights using a high-dimensional embedding \cite{vaswani2017attention}.
In the method proposed by Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x},
a new type of attention in the form of a unified block called "X-Linear Attention Block" is introduced, which uses bilinear pooling to emphasize salient image features and multimodal reasoning. This structure uses spatial and channel-wise bilinear attention to extract second-order interactions. The second-order interaction is obtained by calculating the outer product of the key (mapped image features) and the query (internal state of the sentence decoder) using bilinear pooling to consider all second-order interactions between keys and queries. After bilinear pooling, two embedding layers are used to predict the attention weights belonging to each region, and a softmax layer is then used to normalize the spatial attention vector. Also, a "squeeze-excitation" operation is performed on the embedded outer product (feature map). The squeezing process aggregates the feature map across spatial regions to produce a channel descriptor. The excitation process performs the self-gating mechanism with a sigmoid on the channel descriptor to obtain the channel-wise attention vector. Finally, the outer product of the key and query and the value from bilinear pooling is weighted summated with the spatial attention vector. Then, the channel-wise multiplication of this weighted sum and the channel attention vector is calculated and taken as the attended features.
Higher-order interactions can be computed by combining the X-linear attention blocks. This research work has used Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster} to detect a set of regions. A stack of X-linear attention blocks is then used to encode region-level features of the image and the higher-order interactions between them to produce a set of enhanced region-level and image-level features. These attention blocks are used in the sentence decoder for multimodal reasoning. A new type of attention in the form of a unified block called "X-Linear Attention Block" is introduced, which uses bilinear pooling to emphasize salient image features and multimodal reasoning. This structure uses spatial and channel-wise bilinear attention to extract second-order interactions. The second-order interaction is obtained by calculating the outer product of the key (mapped image features) and the query (internal state of the sentence decoder) using bilinear pooling to consider all second-order interactions between keys and queries. After bilinear pooling, two embedding layers are used to predict the attention weights belonging to each region, and a softmax layer is then used to normalize the spatial attention vector. Also, a "squeeze-excitation" operation is performed on the embedded outer product (feature map). The squeezing process aggregates the feature map across spatial regions to produce a channel descriptor. The excitation process performs the self-gating mechanism with a sigmoid on the channel descriptor to obtain the channel-wise attention vector. Finally, the outer product of the key and query and the value from bilinear pooling is weighted summated with the spatial attention vector. Then, the channel-wise multiplication of this weighted sum and the channel attention vector is calculated and taken as the attended features. Higher-order interactions can be computed by combining the X-linear attention blocks. This research work has used Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster} to detect a set of regions. A stack of X-linear attention blocks is then used to encode region-level features of the image and the higher-order interactions between them to produce a set of enhanced region-level and image-level features. These attention blocks are used in the sentence decoder for multimodal reasoning.
Liu et al. \cite{liu2020exploring}
introduce the "Global-and-Local Information Exploring-and-Distilling (GLIED)" approach that explores and distills the cross-modal source information. The structure globally captures the inherent spatial and relational groupings of the individual image regions and attribute words for an aspect-based image representation. Afterward, it extracts fine-grained source information locally for precise and accurate word selection. They used the RCNN-based visual features provided by Anderson et al. \cite{anderson2018bottom} for image regions extracted by Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster}. For attributes, they have used the attribute prediction model pre-trained by \cite{fang2015captions}. They trained their model with both cross-entropy loss and CIDEr optimization using reinforcement learning.
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2020meshed} introduce a fully attentive model called $M^2$- a Meshed Transformer with Memory for Image Captioning. The architecture is inspired by the Transformer model for machine translation and learns a multi-level representation of the relationships between image regions integrating learned a priori knowledge. The model incorporates two novelties: (1) image regions and their relationships are encoded in a multi-level fashion, in which both low-level and high-level relations are considered. The model learns and encodes a priori knowledge using persistent memory vectors. (2) The sentence generation -done with a multi-layer architecture- exploits both low- and high-level visual relationships via a learned gating mechanism, which weights multi-level contributions at each stage. This creates a mesh-like connection between the encoder and decoder layers. The encoder is in charge of processing regions in the input image and the relationships between them. Simultaneously, the decoder reads the output of each encoding layer and generates the caption word by word. All interactions between word and image-level features are modeled via scaled dot-product attention without using recurrence.
Li et al. \cite{li2020oscar} have proposed a pre-training method that leverages salient objects, which are usually present in both image and caption as anchor points. The method uses object tags as anchor points to align image and language modalities in a shared semantic space. The training samples are defined as triplets, each consisting of a word sequence, a set of object tags, and a set of image region features. This pre-training method can be applied to many vision-language tasks, including image-text retrieval, Visual Question Answering (VQA), and image captioning.
Many vision-language pre-training methods, including \cite{li2020oscar}, are built upon Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) \cite{devlin2018bert}. These models use a two-stage training scheme in which the model first learns the contextualized vision-language representations by predicting the masked words or image regions based on their intra-modality or cross-modality relationships on large amounts of image-text pairs. To counteract the problem of pre-training a single, unified model that is applicable to a wide range of vision-language tasks via fine-tuning, Zhou et al. \cite{zhou2020unified} have introduced a new pre-training method for a unified representation for both encoding and decoding. The unified encoder-decoder model, called the Vision-Language Pre-training (VLP) model, can be fine-tuned for both vision-language generation (e.g., image captioning) and understanding tasks (e.g., visual question answering). This model uses a shared multi-layer Transformer network for encoding and decoding, which is pre-trained on large amounts of image-caption pairs. The VLP model is optimized for two unsupervised vision-language prediction tasks: bidirectional and sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) masked language prediction. These two tasks only differ in what context the prediction conditions are on, which is controlled by specific self-attention masks for the shared Transformer network. The context of the masked caption word, which is the target of prediction, consists of all the image regions and all words on its right and left in the caption in bidirectional prediction. In contrast, in the seq2seq task, the context consists of all the image regions and the words on the left of the to-be-predicted word in the caption.
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2019show} presented a method capable of describing an image by focusing on different regions in different orders following a given conditioning. By means of analyzing the syntactic dependencies between words, a higher level of abstraction can be recovered in which words can be organized into a tree-like structure. In a dependency tree, each word is linked together with its modifiers. Given a dependency tree, nouns can be grouped with their modifiers, thus building \emph{noun chunks}. The proposed model is built on a recurrent architecture which considers the decomposition of a sentence into noun chunks and models the relationship between image regions and textual chunks to ground the generation process on image regions explicitly. The model is conditioned on the input image $I$, and an ordered sequence of region sets $R$, which acts as a control signal and jointly predicts two output distributions corresponding to the word-level and chunk-level representation of the sentence. During the generation, the model keeps a pointer to the current region and can shift to the next element in $R$ using a boolean chunk-shifting gate $g_t$. To generate the output caption, a recurrent neural network with adaptive attention is used. The probability of switching to another chunk $p(g_t|R)$ is calculated in an adaptive mechanism in which an LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} computes a compatibility function between its internal state and a latent representation modeling the state of memory at the end of a chunk. The compatibility score is compared to that of attending one of the regions $r_t$, and the result is used as an indicator to switch to the next region set in $R$.
The addition of spatial and semantic relations to the attention-based framework has significantly improved the quality of the captions generated by the models. Despite the improvements achieved by this addition, some problems still remain, including the ambiguity of the captions, the lack of grounding, heavy computations associated with the object detectors, and the requirement of bounding-box annotations. In order to resolve some of these issues, other approaches to the image captioning problem have been introduced, which are explained and discussed in the following sections.
\subsection{Graph-Based Methods for Spatial and Semantic Relations between Image Elements}\label{section_graph_and_spatial_semantic}
Due to their ability to represent relations between elements, graphs are used in applications in which the relations between elements are important \cite{bondy1976graph,wang2019role}. Studies have shown the effectiveness of incorporating semantic information and object attributes in generating captions of higher quality \cite{you2016image, wu2016value, gan2017semantic, yao2017boosting, zhou2016image}. Some research works on image captioning have used graphs to incorporate the spatial and semantic relations between the elements inside an image. In order to utilize graphs in caption generation, two types of graph extraction are usually used: scene graph extraction from images \cite{xu2017scene, yang2018graph, zhang2017visual, li2017scene, tang2019learning, gu2019scene, dai2017detecting} and scene graph extraction from textual data \cite{wang2018scene, anderson2016spice}.
Once a scene is abstracted into symbols, the language generation is almost independent of visual perception.\cite{yang2019auto} Given scene abstractions "helmet-on-human" and "road dirty," humans can infer "a man with a helmet in the countryside" by using common sense knowledge like "countryside road dirty." This can be considered as the inductive bias that enables humans to perform better than machines.
Yang et al. \cite{yang2019auto} have integrated the inductive bias of language generation into the encoder-decoder framework commonly used in image captioning. The proposed method uses scene graphs to connect the image and text modalities. A scene graph $\mathcal{G}$ is a unified representation that connects the objects, their attributes, and their relationships in an image $\mathcal{I}$ or a sentence $\mathcal{S}$ by directed edges. To encode the language prior, Yang et al. \cite{yang2019auto} proposed the Scene Graph Auto-Encoder (SGAE), which is a sentence self-reconstruction network used in the $\mathcal{I} \rightarrow \mathcal{G} \rightarrow \mathcal{D} \rightarrow \mathcal{S}$ training pipeline. The $\mathcal{I} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}$ module is a visual scene graph detector. A multi-modal GCN is introduced and used in the $\mathcal{G} \rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ module to complement the visual cues that may be ignored due to imperfect visual detection. $\mathcal{D}$ can be considered as a working memory \cite{vinyals2016matching} that assists in re-keying the encoded nodes from $\mathcal{I}$ to $\mathcal{S}$ to a more generic representation with smaller domain gaps. The proposed SGAE-based image captioning model is implemented using Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster}, and the language decoder proposed by \cite{anderson2018bottom} with RL-based training strategy \cite{rennie2017self}. The proposed framework is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq_autoencoding}
\begin{gathered}
\bm{Encoder:} \mathcal{V} \leftarrow \mathcal{I}, \\
\bm{Map}: \hat{\mathcal{V}} \leftarrow \mathcal{R(V,G;D)}, \mathcal{G} \leftarrow \mathcal{V},\\
\bm{Decoder:} \mathcal{S} \leftarrow \hat{\mathcal{V}}.
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
Where $\mathcal{V}$ denotes the extracted image features (usually extracted by a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)). The mapping module frequently used in the encoder-decoder framework for image captioning is the module that encodes the visual features from the image into a representation which is later taken as input by the language decoder. This mapping module has been modified according to the formulation in \ref{eq_autoencoding} by introducing the scene graph $\mathcal{G}$ into a re-encoder $\mathcal{R}$ parametrized by a shared dictionary $\mathcal{D}$. The Scene Graph Auto-Encoder (SGAE) learns the dictionary $\mathcal{D}$, which embeds the language inductive bias from sentence-to-sentence reconstruction. Next, the encoder-decoder framework is equipped with SGAE to form the overall image captioner.
Gu et al. \cite{gu2019unpaired} have introduced a particular framework for training an image captioning model in an unsupervised manner and without image-caption pairs. The framework uses a scene graph to generate an intermediate representation of images and captions and maps these scene graphs to their feature space using "Cycle-Consistent Adversarial Training" \cite{zhu2017unpaired}. This paper has used an image scene graph generator, a sentence scene graph generator, and a feature mapping module in charge of mapping image features and captions modalities together. To align scene graphs and captions, CycleGAN \cite{zhu2017unpaired} is used. The unrelated image and sentence scene graphs are first encoded using the scene graph encoder trained on the sentence corpus. Next, unsupervised cross-modal mapping is performed for feature alignment with CycleGAN. This work is closely related to \cite{yang2019auto}. The main difference is that the framework in \cite{yang2019auto} is based on paired settings. CycleGAN is generally used to transform two images together, and one of its applications is transforming two image elements together (For example, transforming an apple into an orange or a horse into a zebra.).
Gao et al. \cite{gao2018image} proposed a scene-graph-based semantic representation method by embedding the scene graph as an intermediate state. The task of image captioning is divided into two phases termed: concept cognition and sentence reconstruction. In the first phase, a vocabulary of semantic concepts is built, and a novel CNN-RNN-SVM framework is used to generate a scene-graph-based semantic representation, which is used as the input for an RNN generating captions in the second phase. The CNN part extracts visual features, the RNN part models image/concept relationships and concept dependency, and the SVM part classifies the semantic concepts and outputs the relevant concepts for the scene-graph-based sequence.
The general workflow of the graph-based methods is displayed in Figure \ref{fig_graph_based}. Usually, a Convolutional Neural Network is used to extract visual features from the image, and the semantic and spatial graph is built on the detected regions. The vertices denote regions, and the edges denote the relationships between the regions. Next, Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) \cite{kipf2016semi} encode the regions and relationships in the scene graph. The obtained feature vector is then passed to LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} decoders to generate captions.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/graph-based.pdf}
\caption{The general workflow of graph-based methods.}
\label{fig_graph_based}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Combining Attention-Based Methods and Graph-Based Methods} \label{section_combining_attention_graph}
In order to solve some of the issues revolving around image captioning problems and the problems regarding attention-based and graph-based methods, some recent research works have introduced structures that combine the two methodologies.
As previously mentioned, the visual relations between image elements give insight into their relative positions or interactions. To detect the visual relations between image elements, one not only needs to detect object locations inside the image, but also needs to detect all sorts of interaction between pairs of elements. Using these visual relations will allow for a more in-depth comprehension of images. However, the considerable diversity in object sizes and their locations will make the interaction detection task more difficult.
Yao et al. \cite{yao2018exploring} use a combination of Graph Convolutional Networks \cite{kipf2016semi} and LSTMs \cite{hochreiter1997long} to incorporate the relations between image elements while also taking the attention-based encoder-decoder framework into account. Spatial and semantic relations have been integrated to enrich image representations in the image encoder, and learning the relationships has been considered a classification problem. Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster} has been used for region proposals. Two spatial and semantic graphs are built to represent spatial and semantic relations between image contents. These two graphs are generated from the detected image regions, with regions being graph nodes and the relations between them as the edges of the graph. In the spatial graph, spatial relations are considered as edges, and in the semantic graph, the semantic relations are considered as edges. The semantic graph is trained using the Visual Genome \cite{krishna2017visual} dataset. To represent the image, Graph Convolutional Networks \cite{kipf2016semi} are used which incorporate the semantic and spatial relations obtained from their corresponding graphs. The combination of the enhanced image region representations and their semantic and spatial relations are then fed into an LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} decoder to generate the caption sentences. During inference, to combine the output of the two spatial and semantic decoders, the distribution over the words generated by the two decoders is linear weight summated at each time step, and the word with the highest probability is extracted.
The proposed model by Zhong et al. \cite{zhong2020comprehensive} decomposes the image scene graph into a set of sub-graphs. Each sub-graph captures a semantic component of the input image. Zhong et al. \cite{zhong2020comprehensive} designed a sub-graph proposal network (sGPN) that learns to detect meaningful sub-graphs. An attention-based LSTM then decodes the selected sub-graphs for generating sentences. Given an input image $I$, a scene graph $G=(V,E)$ is extracted from $I$ using MotifNet \cite{zellers2018neural}, where $V$ represents the nodes corresponding to the detected objects in $I$ and $E$ represents the set of edges corresponding to the relationships between object pairs. The goal is to generate a set of sentences $S=\{S_j\}$ to describe different components of the image using the scene graph $G$. Sub-graphs are defined as $\{G_i^c=(V_i^c,E_i^c)\}$ where $V_i^c \subseteq V$ and $E_i^c\subseteq E$. The method aims to model the joint probability $P(C_{ij}=(G,G_i^c,C_j)|I)$, where $P(C_{ij}|I)=1$ when the sub-graph $G_i^c$ can be used to decode the sentence $S_j$ and $P(C_{ij}|I)=0$ otherwise. $P(C_{ij}|I)$ can be decomposed into three parts:
\begin{equation}
P(C_{ij}|I)=P(G|I)P(G_i^c|G,I)P(S_j|G_i^c,G,I)
\end{equation}
$P(G|I)$ can be interpreted as the scene graph extraction phase, $P(G_i^c|G,I)$ as the scene graph decomposition phase and the selection of important sub-graphs for sentence generation, and $P(S_j|G_i^c,G,I)$ as the decoding phase in which a selected sub-graph $G_i^c$ is decoded into its corresponding sentence $S_j$, and the tokens in $S_j$ are associated to the nodes $V_i^c$ of the sub-graph $G_i^c$(the image regions in $I$).
Wang et al. \cite{wang2020learning} have used a Graph Neural Network \cite{scarselli2008graph} to represent the relation between image elements and have used a novel content-based attention framework to store image regions previously attended by the attention module as well. A ResNet-101 \cite{he2016deep} network trained on the ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet} dataset is first used to extract image features. The non-linear activations of the last convolutional layer of this network are used as the image representation and are denoted as:
\begin{equation}
V=\left\{v_{1}, v_{2}, \ldots, v_{n} \mid v_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{m}\right\}
\end{equation}
Where $v_i$ represents each of the non-linear activations of the last convolutional layer. A Graph Convolutional Network \cite{kipf2016semi} $f_{gnn}$ is initialized using the image features belonging to different image regions to explore relations between the visual objects in the image. This graph initializes each node inside the graph with a spatial representation and to derive the implicit relation-aware representation $R=\left\{r_{1}, r_{2}, \ldots, r_{n} \mid r_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{m}\right\}$ (where $r_i$ represents the nodes inside the graph), updates the value of the nodes with hidden representation from other nodes recursively. The visual representations $R$ are forwarded into context-aware attention model $f_{att}$. Unlike some other attention-based models, this novel attention framework uses LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} to store the previously attended regions. Storing these regions will aid the attention module in its future region selections. Next, a language model based on LSTM, $f_{lstm}$, uses the previous hidden state $h_{(t-1)}$, the previously generated word embedding $X_t$ and the output $\bar{v}_{t}$ from the attention model as input and produces the current hidden state $h_t$ as the output to predict the next word.
Chen et al. \cite{chen2020say} have proposed a model to generate controllable image captions which actively consider user intentions. The paper introduces a more fine-grained control signal called Abstract Scene Graph (ASG), a directed graph composed of three types of abstract nodes grounded in the image: object, attribute, and relationship. The caption generation model is based on the encoder-decoder framework, consisting of a role-aware graph encoder and a language decoder that considers both the context and structure of nodes for attention. The decoder utilizes a two-layer LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} structure, including an attention LSTM and a language LSTM. The model gradually updates the graph representation during decoding to fully cover information in ASG without omission or repetition and keep track of graph access status. The role-aware graph encoder contains a role-aware node embedding to distinguish node intentions and a multi-relational Graph Convolutional Network for contextual encoding.
Aiming to employ knowledge in scene graphs for image captioning explicitly, Li et al. \cite{li2019know} introduce a framework based on scene graphs. First, the scene graph for the input image is generated using the method proposed in \cite{xu2017scene}. A set of initial bounding boxes should be produced to generate the scene graph. Li et al. have used the region proposal network (RPN) proposed by Girshick et al. \cite{girshick2015fast} to produce a set of object proposals for the image. To capture the visual features, the VGG-16 network is used to extract CNN features from the corresponding regions of object entities. Semantic features are also obtained by extracting triplets, which are lexeme sequences that describe object relationships from the graph and embed them into fixed-length vectors. To utilize both types of information, a hierarchical attention-based fusion module is introduced which determines when and what to attend to during sentence generation.
Xu et al. \cite{xu2019scene} proposed a framework to embed the scene graph into a compact representation capable of capturing explicit semantic concepts and graph topology information. An input image $I$ is processed by a CNN to generate the image features. A set of modules detect the objects, attributes, and related components to infer the scene graph. Next, an external vocabulary compiles the scene graph into the vector $V_{con}(I)$. An adjacent matrix is presented where the objects and relationships of the graphs are used as vertices and edges. A fixed-length vector $V_{topo}(I)$ is extracted to capture the topological information from the adjacent matrix. Xu et al. proposed an attention extraction mechanism that extracts sub-graphs and selects an attention graph with the corresponding region by computing cluster nodes in the adjacency matrix. The attention region is denoted as $V_{att}(I)$. The four vectors are combined into a single representation for the scene graph, which is fed into the LSTM-based \cite{hochreiter1997long} language model.
Lee et al. \cite{lee2019learning} have extended the top-down captioner introduced in \cite{anderson2018bottom} and have added an attention component for relation features. No graph convolutions are used in the proposed model. The authors state that using visual relations from scene graphs directly is an alternative to Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), and avoids expensive graph convolutions.
There is a different set of challenges associated with the use of scene-graphs. Scene graph extraction is a difficult task on its own, and the relations between the elements are not always as simple as pairwise relationships. Graph parsers still need improvement as well.
\subsection{Convolutional-Based Methods}\label{convolutional}
Thanks to the recent advances in convolutional architectures on other sequence-to-sequence tasks such as convolutional image generation \cite{oord2016conditional} and machine translation \cite{gehring2016convolutional, gehring2017convolutional}, it is possible to consider CNNs as an effective solution to many vision-language tasks. The methods discussed in this section have incorporated CNNs into their proposed systems.
Inspired by the advances of CNNs in vision-language tasks, Aneja et al. \cite{aneja2018convolutional} have presented a convolutional model containing three main components. The first and the last components are input/output word embeddings, respectively. While the middle component contains LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} or GRU \cite{cho2014learning} units in other methods, masked convolutions are used in the proposed approach. This component is feed-forward without any recurrent functions, unlike the RNN approaches.
Wang et al. \cite{wang2018cnn} proposed a framework relying on Convolutional Neural Networks only to generate captions.
The framework consists of four modules: a vision module, a language module, an attention module, and a prediction module. The vision module is a CNN without the fully connected layer, for which VGG-16 has been used. The language module is based on a CNN without pooling. RNNs use a recurrent path to memorize context, whereas CNNs use kernels and stack multiple layers to model the context. The prediction module is a one-hidden layer neural network as well. Since different levels of the language CNN represent different levels of concept, a hierarchical attention module has been employed where attention vectors are calculated at each level of the language model and fed into the next level. Since the attention maps are computed in a bottom-up manner as opposed to the RNN-based model, it is possible to train the model in parallel over all words in the sentence. The authors observed the effect of several hyper-parameters, such as the number of layers and the width of the kernel belonging to the language CNN. The receptive field of the language CNN can be increased by stacking more layers or increasing the width of the kernel. The experiments showed that increasing the kernel width is a better choice.
Less attention has been paid to convolutional-based methods compared to the categories discussed above. Convolutional-based models help generate more entropy and as a result, more caption diversity. Also, they perform better in classification tasks and do not suffer from vanishing gradients. However, these methods still need improvement in terms of performance according to the evaluation metrics.
\subsection{Transformer-Based Methods}
RNNs and LSTMs have been criticized due to their inflexibility, limitations regarding expression ability, and other complexities. Due to their recurrent nature, RNNs have difficulty memorizing inputs many steps ago, which leads to high-frequency phrase fragments without regard to the visual cues \cite{li2019entangled}.
The limitations posed by LSTMs and RNNs as language models have led researchers to use alternatives such as Transformers.
Some recent works have studied the application of Transformers \cite{vaswani2017attention} -mainly as the language model. Herdade et al. \cite{herdade2019image} utilized Transformers in the proposed "Object Relation Transformer" model, which incorporates spatial relations between detected objects using geometric attention. Huang et al. \cite{huang2019attention} used a Transformer-like encoder paired with an LSTM decoder. Li et al. \cite{li2019entangled} investigated a Transformer-based sequence modeling framework named "ETA-Transformer ."They have proposed EnTangled Attention (ETA) that enables the Transformer to benefit from both semantic and visual information simultaneously. Liu et al. \cite{liu2021cptr} introduce CaPtion TransformeR (CPTR), which takes sequentialized raw images as input to the Transformer. As an encoder-decoder framework, CPRT is a full Transformer network that replaces the commonly used CNN in the encoder part with the Transformer encoder. A purely Transformer-based architecture, PureT, is designed by Wang et al. \cite{wang2022end}. In PureT, SwinTransformer \cite{liu2021swin} replaces Faster-RCNN, and the architecture features a refining encoder and decoder.
Fang et al. \cite{fang2022injecting} introduce a fully VIsion Transformer-based image CAPtioning mode (ViTCAP) along with a lightweight Concept Token Network (CTN), which is used to produce concept tokens. The structure uses a vision transformer backbone as the stem image encoder, which produces grid features. CTN is then applied to predict semantic concepts. A multi-modal module uses grid representations and Top-K concept tokens as input to perform the decoding process. Pseudo ground-truth concepts are extracted from the image captions using a simple classification task, and CTN is optimized to predict them during training. Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending} designed a Transformer-style encoder-decoder structure called Comprehending and Ordering Semantics Networks (COS-Net). A CLIP model (image encoder and text encoder) \cite{radford2021learning} is used as a cross-modal retrieval model which retrieves sentences semantically similar to the input image. The semantic words in retrieved sentences are treated as the primary semantic cues. A novel semantic \textit{comprehender} is also introduced by the authors, which removes the irrelevant semantic words in those primary cues and simultaneously infers missing words visually grounded in the image. Afterward, a semantic ranker sorts the semantic words in linguistic order. Zeng et al. \cite{zeng2022s2} propose a Spatial-aware Pseudo-supervised (SP) module which uses a number of learnable semantic clusters to quantize grid features with multiple centroids without direct supervision. These centroids aim to integrate grid features of similar semantic information together. In addition to the SP module, a simple weighted residual connection is introduced, named Scale-wise Reinforcement (SR) module. This module explores both low and high-level encoded features concurrently.
\subsection{Combining Transformers and Scene Graphs}
A number of the works have experimented with model designs that incorporate both Transformers and scene graphs.
He et al. \cite{he2020image} aimed to employ the spatial relations between detected regions inside an image. In their proposed model, each Transformer layer implements multiple sub-transformers to encode relations between regions and decode information. The encoding method combines a visual semantic graph and a spatial graph. In another architecture introduced by Chen et al. \cite{chen2021captioning}, the encoder consists of two sub-encoders for visual and semantic information. Faster-RCNN proposes image regions, and a scene graph is built using the detected regions. GCN is then used to enrich the graph representation. A semantic matrix is learned from the scene graph and fed into a multi-modal attention module in the decoder. This module is used to leverage multi-modal representation in caption generation. Yang et al. \cite{yang2022reformer} have proposed an architecture called ReFormer, which generates features with relation information embedded. ReFormer explicitly expresses the pair-wise relationships between objects present inside an image. ReFormer combines scene graph generation and image captioning using one modified Transformer model.
\subsection{Vision Language Pre-Training Methods for Image Captioning}
Some recent works have attempted pre-training paradigms to lessen the reliance of the models on fully-supervised learning. A large-scale model is pre-trained on a dataset with an enormous amount of data by self-supervised learning. The pre-trained model is then generalized to various downstream tasks. One widely used pre-trained model is CLIP (Contrastive Language-Image Pre-Training). CLIP is designed to provide a shared representation for both image and text prompts \cite{mokady2021clipcap}. It has been trained on numerous images and captions using a contrastive loss, allowing for more consistency and correlation between its visual and textual representations. One of the recent works utilizing CLIP in the proposed method is ClipCap by Mokady et al. \cite{mokady2021clipcap}. The authors introduce a model that produces a prefix for each caption by applying a mapping network over the CLIP embeddings. Next, a pre-trained language model (GPT-2 \cite{radford2019language}) is fine-tuned to generate captions. This approach is inspired by Li et al. \cite{li2021prefix}, who discussed the possibility of adapting a language model for new tasks by concatenating a learned prefix. Barraco et al. \cite{barraco2022unreasonable} investigate the role of CLIP features in image captioning by devising an architecture composed of an encoder-decoder Transformer architecture. Hu et al. \cite{hu2021vivo} present the Visual VOcabulary pre-training (VIVO), which aims to learn a joint presentation of visual and text input. Unlike existing VLP models, which use image-caption pairs to pre-train, VIVO uses image-tag pairs for pre-training. In the pre-training stage, an image captioning model first learns to label image regions using image-tag pairs as training data. In the fine-tuning stage, the model learns to map an image to a sentence conditioned on the detected objects using image-caption pairs and their corresponding object tags. The sentences are learned from image-caption pairs, while object tags may refer to novel objects that do not exist in image-caption pairs. The addition of object tags allows for zero-shot generalization to novel visual objects for image captioning. Xia et al. \cite{xia2021xgpt} highlight that while recent pre-training methods for vision-language (VL) understanding tasks have achieved state-of-the-art performance, they cannot be directly applied to generation tasks. Xia et al. present Cross-modal Generative Pre-Training for Image Captioning (XGPT), which uses a cross-modal encoder-decoder architecture and is directly optimized for generation tasks.
\subsection{Unsupervised Methods and Reinforcement Learning}
Resolving the strong dependency between images and captions in the datasets and the quality of the trained model is an open problem that is the subject of many current research works. Many of them employ reinforcement learning methods due to their unsupervised nature. There has been a recent trend toward relaxing the reliance on paired image-caption datasets for image captioning. One early work by Gu et al. \cite{gu2018unpaired} involved generating captions in a pivot language and translating the caption to a target language. This method requires a paired image-caption dataset for the pivot language but does not use a paired dataset with captions being in the target language. Another research paper in this field used reinforcement learning with gradient policy along with RNNs in 2016 \cite{ranzato2015sequence}. Shetty et al. \cite{shetty2017speaking} proposed the first study that explored using conditional GANs \cite{mirza2014conditional} to generate human-like and diverse descriptions.
Feng et al. \cite{feng2019unsupervised} use a set of images, a sentence corpus, and a visual concept detector for unsupervised training. The images and the sentence corpus are projected into a common latent space such that they can reconstruct each other. The sentence corpus is prepared using the captions available on Shutterstock \cite{shutterstock}, which is a photo-sharing platform. On this platform, each image is uploaded with a caption. This corpus is not related to the images and is independent. The proposed structure comprises an image encoder, a sentence generator, and a discriminator. The Inception-V4 \cite{szegedy2017inception} is used as the image encoder, and the sentence generator and discriminator are both LSTMs \cite{hochreiter1997long}.
Since no image-caption pairs exist, three new metrics have been introduced as three discriminators to evaluate the model's performance. The discriminator first distinguishes a real sentence from the sentence corpus from a sentence generated by the model, and the generator is rewarded at each time step. By maximizing this reward, the generator tries to produce plausible sentences. However, more than this discriminator is needed since the quality of the generated sentence, and its relevance to the image must also be evaluated. To do so, the model must learn the visual contents of the image. The generated words are rewarded if the generated caption contains words whose corresponding visual concept is detected inside the image. This reward is called a "concept reward." Finally, since the performance of the model is much dependent on the performance of the visual concept detector and these detectors only detect a limited number of objects, images and captions are projected into a common latent space such that they can reconstruct each other.
Chen et al. \cite{chen2019improving} proposed an image captioning framework based on conditional generative adversarial nets as an extension of the reinforcement learning-based encoder-decoder architecture. Highlighting that the conventional encoder-decoder structures directly optimize one metric, which cannot guarantee improvement in all metrics, the paper designed a discriminator network to decide if a caption is human-described or machine-generated based on the idea of GANs. Two discriminator models have been designed and tested: a CNN-based discriminator model that uses the conditional CNN for real or fake sentence classification, and an RNN-based discriminator model that consists of the standard LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long}, a fully connected linear layer, and a softmax output layer. The CNN-based framework was shown to improve the performance more than the RNN-based framework, while the RNN-based framework can save 30\% training time. It was finally concluded that the ensemble results of 4 CNN-based (denoted as CNN-GAN) and 4 RNN-based (denoted as RNN-GAN) models could noticeably improve the performance of a single model.
Liu et al. \cite{liu2018show} have introduced an image captioning module and a self-retrieval module. A Convolutional Neural Network extracts image features, and an LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} decodes a sequence of words based on these features.
The self-retrieval module evaluates the similarity between the generated captions, the input image, and some "distractors." If the caption generator module generates distinct and proper captions, the relevance between these captions and their corresponding images must be more than the relevance between the generated captions and unrelated, distracting images. This condition is represented as the text-to-image retrieval error and improves the performance of the image captioning module with back-propagation and the REINFORCE algorithm.
Guo et al. \cite{guo2019mscap} used a discriminator structure similar to that of \cite{feng2019unsupervised}. The discriminator distinguishes whether the generated sentence is real and rewards the learner based on how real the sentences seem. Another discriminator distinguishes the style of the generated captions. Also, the LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} decoder used in \cite{gu2018stack} has been used as a reinforcement learning agent making an action (prediction of the next word). After a sentence is completed, the agent will observe a sentence-level reward and update its internal state.
A block diagram of the general workflow of the unsupervised methods is shown in Figure \ref{fig_unsupervised}. VGGNet \cite{simonyan2014very} has been used as the image encoder, and the caption generator is an LSTM network \cite{hochreiter1997long}. Therefore, the overall design follows the typical encoder-decoder structure. The discriminator is also an LSTM network, which determines if the given caption is real (from the sentence corpus) or generated by the model. The generator is rewarded accordingly by the discriminator.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{figures/unsupervised-mechanism.pdf}
\caption{The general workflow of unsupervised methods.}
\label{fig_unsupervised}
\end{figure}
Taking the issues related to supervised settings into account, such as the tedious process of dataset preparation and the difficult training process, the unsupervised setting has been the focus of many recent works and is expected to become more favored in the future as well.
\subsection{Generating Multi-Style Captions}\label{section_multistyle}
The papers discussed so far generate captions with a neutral tone. These generated captions usually describe factual data about image contents. Meanwhile, humans use many styles and tones in their daily speech to communicate with one another. Some of these styles and tones are humorous, hostile, and poetic. Incorporating these styles can help humans interact with the caption more and make the captions more attractive. Stylized captions can also be used in applications such as photo-sharing and Chatbots.
Shuster et al. \cite{shuster2019engaging} have added tone and style as a feature to their dataset, as well as images and their appropriate captions. This paper has introduced a novel structure called TransResNet, which projects images, captions, and their corresponding personality traits into a shared space using an encoder-decoder framework. Two classes of models have been considered: retrieval models and generative models. The retrieval model considers any caption in the entire dataset as a possible candidate response, whereas the generative model produces captions word by word via the aforementioned structure. The retrieval model has given better results.
A structure consisting of five modules for caption generation in different styles has been introduced \cite{guo2019mscap} by Guo et al. . The first module is a plain image encoder. Next is a caption generator module that outputs a sentence conditioned on a specific style. The following module is a caption discriminator that distinguishes a real sentence from a generated sentence. This discriminator is trained in an adversarial manner to encourage the learner to generate more convincing captions closer to the human language. Afterward, a style discriminator module that determines the style of the generated caption is used. Inspired by the fact that there is some content consistency between neutral captions and stylized captions, another module called "The Back-Translation Module" is also used. This module translates a stylized caption into a neutral one. (If a stylized caption is generated and translated to a factual and neutral caption, we should arrive at the real factual caption.) This process is implemented using multi-lingual neural machine translation (NMT), in which the stylized captions are considered input and neutral captions are considered output.
A figure consisting of some example captions from sections \ref{section_attention}, \ref{section_attention_spatial_semantic}, \ref{section_combining_attention_graph}, and \ref{section_multistyle} in this survey is shown in Figure \ref{fig_sample_all}. Each row belongs to a specific category in which two images are displayed, along with the captions describing them. For each image, the ground-truth caption and the generated caption are shown.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{figures/fig-all-samples-reduced.pdf}
\caption{Sample captions generated by multiple methods in different categories. "GT" indicates "Ground Truth Caption," and "G" indicates "Generated Caption." The captions are generated by Huang et al. \cite{huang2019attention} (top-left), Wang et al. \cite{wang2020learning} (top-right), Li et al. \cite{li2020oscar} (bottom-left), and Shuster et al. \cite{shuster2019engaging} (bottom-right)}
\label{fig_sample_all}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Problems in Image Captioning}
In image captioning, researchers are usually confronted with a set of problems. These problems are usually created as a result of the specific solution chosen for the problem. In this section, we discuss some of these problems and some of the research works that have tried to provide a solution for them.
\subsubsection{The Exposure Bias Problem}
This problem occurs in language models when the model is only exposed to the training data and not its own predictions. The standard RNN models are trained to predict the next word according to the previous words in the ground truth sequence. In contrast, in testing time, the ground truth data is no longer available, and the model uses its own previous predictions for its following predictions. This problem will gradually produce more errors in the model’s output \cite{ranzato2015sequence}.
The structure proposed by Gu et al. \cite{gu2018stack} has employed reinforcement learning for optimization. This structure uses each intermediate decoder’s output in testing time and also the output of the previous decoder to normalize the reward, which solves the exposure bias and the loss-evaluation mismatch problem at the same time.
\subsubsection{The Loss-Evaluation Mismatch Problem} The language models are usually trained to minimize the cross-entropy loss at each time step. Meanwhile, during testing, the generated captions are evaluated using sentence-level metrics (discussed in "Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning Methods"). These metrics are non-differentiable and cannot be used directly as a test-time error \cite{gu2018stack}. Multiple efforts have been made to optimize these metrics using reinforcement learning \cite{liu2017improved, rennie2017self, xu2019multi}.
\subsubsection{The Vanishing Gradient Problem}
The vanishing gradient problem happens in neural networks that train with gradient methods and back-propagation. In these methods, each of the neural network's weights is updated according to the partial derivative of the error function based on the current value inside the weight at each iteration. In some cases, the value of the gradient is so minuscule that there is no change in weights. In the worst case, this might halt the training process completely \cite{hochreiter2001gradient}.
\subsubsection{The Exploding Gradient Problem}
Another problem associated with gradients is the "exploding gradient" problem. In deep or recurrent neural networks, error gradients can build up and accumulate during an update, resulting in enormous values of gradients. Consequently, the network's weights receive large updates, and as a result, the network will become very unstable. In the best case, the deep multilayer Perceptron network cannot learn from the training data and results in NaN (Not a Number) weight values that can no longer be updated. Also, in recurrent networks, exploding gradients can result in an unstable network that is unable to learn from training data. In the best case, it will result in a network that cannot learn over long input sequences of data \cite{pascanu2013difficulty,goodfellow2017deep}.
\subsubsection{Object Hallucination}
Image captioning models are still prone to detecting objects not present in the scene. Such a problem is referred to as "object hallucination" \cite{rohrbach2018object}. According to a study by MacLeod et al. \cite{10.1145/3025453.3025814}, for many visually impaired people who prefer correctness over coverage, hallucination is a severe disadvantage for a captioning model and an obvious concern. Furthermore, object hallucination indicates an internal issue of the model. Rohrbach et al. have proposed a new metric to measure object hallucination, CHAIR (Caption Hallucination Assessment with Image Relevance), which computes the proportion of generated words that are actually in the image according to the ground truth sentences and object segmentations. The CHAIR metric has two variants: per-instance, meaning what fraction of object instances is hallucinated and is denoted as $CHAIR_i$ (equation \ref{eq_chair_i}), and per-sentence, meaning what fraction of sentences includes a hallucinated object and is denoted as $CHAIR_s$ (equation \ref{eq_chair_s}).
\begin{equation}\label{eq_chair_i}
CHAIR_i=\frac{|\text{Hallucinated objects}|}{|\text{All objects mentioned}|}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq_chair_s}
CHAIR_s=\frac{|\text{Sentences with hallucinated objects}|}{|\text{All sentences}|}
\end{equation}
According to the study performed by Rohrbach et al., models that perform better on standard evaluation metrics (Such as BLEU \cite{papineni2002bleu} and SPICE \cite{anderson2016spice}) perform better on CHAIR. However, this is not always true. It was found that the models which were optimized for CIDEr frequently hallucinated more. Also, models with attention tended to perform better on the CHAIR metric than models that did not incorporate attention. However, this gain was primarily due to these models' access to the underlying convolutional features and not the actual attention mechanism. Also, GAN-based models decreased hallucination, implying that GAN loss is beneficial in decreasing hallucination. This is due to the fact that the GAN loss encourages sentences to resemble human-generated captions. The presence of a hallucinated object likely suggests that a sentence is generated, and the discriminator dismisses the caption containing the hallucinated object.
\section{Discussion}
This section provides a comprehensive critical analysis of the methods falling in the different categories overviewed in section \ref{deep_learning_based_image_captioning}. Each method-inevitably-possesses advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless, considering these characteristics aids researchers in adopting a suitable solution. The technical details of the structures and methods discussed in this section have been explained in section \ref{deep_learning_based_image_captioning}.
\subsection{Using Attention}
Attention-based methods attempt to imitate the human attention mechanism by showing the model "where to look at" during the training process. Attention is widely used in encoder-decoder architectures where CNNs are typically used in combination with LSTMs to produce a representation for the given image and generate captions, respectively.
Some of the papers focusing on attention-based methods have mentioned low precision in region selection for attention as a flaw of the attention-based methods. They claim that most of the attention-based methods presented choose regions of the same size and shape without considering image contents. They have also mentioned that determining the optimal number of region proposals will bring about an unresolvable trade-off between small or large amounts of detail (or, representing the image coarsely or finely). One solution to this problem was proposed by Anderson et al. in \cite{anderson2018bottom} as the "bottom-up and top-down" method. Another problem of the attention-based methods is the "single-stage" structure. Most of these methods are only a single encoder-decoder attention structure, which cannot provide rich captions for the images. In the multi-stage coarse-to-fine structure proposed by Gu et al. \cite{gu2018stack}, at each stage, attention weights and hidden vectors generated by the previous stage decoder are used as input to the next stage decoder, reducing ambiguity in the captions. This structure allows for a richer caption at each stage. Another problem associated with attention-based methods for image captioning is that a proper correlation between the vectors obtained from attention and caption is not guaranteed, and it might lead to improper results. If feature vectors do not contain valuable information, the attention model still generates a vector that is a weighted sum over candidate vectors and is unrelated to the correct caption. To solve this issue, Huang et al. \cite{huang2019attention} have introduced an attention-based structure (Attention on Attention- or AoA) which contains one more level of attention. The authors have compared AoA with LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} and GRU networks \cite{cho2014learning}: internal states, memories, and gates are used in LSTMs and GRUs to implement the attention mechanism. AoA only performs two linear transformations and does not require hidden states, making it computationally reasonable while outperforming LSTM. The combination of LSTM and AoA has been reported to be unstable since it can reach a sub-optimal point. This means that increasing the volume of the stack and the number of gates to improve the performance is futile. Jiang et al. \cite{jiang2018recurrent} state that the existing encoder-decoder models employ only one kind of CNN to describe image content. Consequently, the image contents will be described from only one specific viewpoint, and the semantic meaning of the input image cannot be comprehensively understood, which will restrict the performance. In order to improve the image captioning model, the model introduced by Jiang et al. \cite{jiang2018recurrent} extracts diverse representations from multiple encoders. The novel recurrent fusion network (RFNet) proposed in the paper uses multiple CNNs as encoders. Each representation extracted from an individual CNN can act as an individual view of the image content.
\subsection{Using Attention and Spatial and Semantic Relations}
One of the significant downsides of the methods that only use the attention mechanism as their main solution for image captioning is that these methods fail to consider the spatial and semantic relations between image elements. Spatial and semantic relations in an image are integral to comprehension of the image contents \cite{you2016image, wu2016value, gan2017semantic, yao2017boosting, zhou2016image}. For example, spatial relations in an image could help differentiate between "a person riding a horse" and "a person standing on a horse's back." Also, relative size can help differentiate between objects with their most significant difference being their size, like violins and cellos. In addition to that, incorporating these relations makes the object detection task more precise. As a possible solution, Herdade et al. \cite{herdade2019image} have introduced the "Object Relation Transformer". Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x} have mentioned another problem about the attention-based image captioning methods: in most of these methods, only the first-order interactions between objects inside the image are observed. Their paper has claimed that since the image captioning problem involves multi-modal data (image and text), multi-modal reasoning is needed, and observing the first-order interaction between features only will render more in-depth reasoning impossible. The structure proposed by Pan et al. uses spatial and channel-wise bilinear attention to extract second-order interactions.
Liu et al. \cite{liu2020exploring} claim that there is still great difficulty in deep image understanding; because the systems tend to view one image as unrelated individual segments and are not guided to comprehend the relationships between the objects inside the image. They argue that such understanding requires adequate attention to correlated image regions and coherent attributes of interest. To do so, they have presented the "Global-and-Local Information Exploring-and-Distilling (GLIED) approach.\newline
To pre-train the models and methods discussed so far, existing methods mostly concatenate detected regions and textual features and use self-attention to learn the semantic alignments between the two modalities. These methods suffer from two main issues: ambiguity and a need for more grounding \cite{li2020oscar}.
\textbf{Ambiguity: }The methods that utilize the spatial and semantic relations between objects in images use object detectors to locate salient objects. These detectors usually generate redundant regions, and the visual features extracted using these detectors are extracted from overly sampled regions. The regions belonging to multiple objects might overlap heavily and cause ambiguity in the extracted visual embeddings.
\textbf{Lack of grounding: }the object tags used in previous methods are not associated with both object regions and word embeddings, resulting in a lack of grounding. Also, the attention models so far do not focus on the same regions as a human would when looking at an image \cite{das2017human}. However, salient objects are usually present in both image and the corresponding caption, which can be used as anchor points to ease the process of training in the vision-language tasks. The pre-training method proposed by Li et al. \cite{li2020oscar} leverages these anchor points to tackle the mentioned issues.
In many vision-language pre-training methods, the pre-trained model is fine-tuned for downstream tasks. However, it is challenging to pre-train a single, unified model that is universally applicable to a wide range of vision-language tasks via fine-tuning. Zhou et al. presented a pre-training method for a unified representation for encoding and decoding in \cite{zhou2020unified}. The Vision-Language Pre-training (VLP) model proposed in this paper has the advantage of unifying the encoder and decoder and learning a more universal contextualized vision-language representation, which can be fine-tuned for generation and understanding tasks easily. This unified procedure results in a single model architecture for the two distinct vision-language prediction tasks (bidirectional and seq2seq). This alleviates the need to train multiple pre-training models for different tasks without significant performance loss. In order to fine-tune for the image captioning task, the VLP model is fine-tuned on the target dataset using the seq2seq objective. Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2019show} claim that an attention-based architecture implicitly selects which regions to focus on, but it does not provide a way of controlling which regions are described and what importance is given to each region. The model suggested in their paper is able to focus on different regions in different orders following a given condition. Words can be organized into a tree-like structure, and a higher level of abstraction can be recovered considering the syntactic dependencies between words.
\subsection{Using Graphs for Spatial and Semantic Relations}
Graphs have been used extensively in many image captioning methods due to their ability to cohesively represent the relation between multiple elements. These methods have utilized graphs in two ways: scene graphs extracted from images and scene graphs extracted from textual data. Scene graphs have been used as a component inside encoder-decoder-based or unsupervised frameworks, and some have employed scene graphs along with Transformers. Graph-based methods pose challenges of their own.
Yang et al. \cite{yang2019auto} rightfully state that an ever-present problem has never been substantially resolved: the different variants of the encoder-decoder-based framework, when fed an unseen image, usually produce a simple and trivial caption about the salient objects in the image, which is no better than a list of object detection. The model presented by Yang et al. adds the inductive bias of language generation to the encoder-decoder framework and uses scene graphs to connect the image and text modalities.
Gu et al. \cite{gu2019unpaired} argue that the majority of image captioning studies are conducted in English, and preparing image-caption paired datasets in other languages requires human expertise and is time-consuming. The method introduced in their paper uses scene graphs as an intermediate representation of the image and sentence and maps the scene graphs in their feature space using cycle-consistent adversarial training.
\subsection{Using Attention and Graphs}
Considering how mutual correlations or interactions between objects are the natural basis for image description, Yao et al. \cite{yao2018exploring} study the visual relationships between objects and how they can be utilized for this matter. They have built semantic and spatial correlations on image regions and used Graph Convolutions to learn richer representations. One major challenge of image captioning is the problem of grounded captioning. Most models do not focus on the same image regions as a human would while observing an image, which may lead to object hallucination \cite{rohrbach2018object}. Zhong et al. \cite{zhong2020comprehensive} addressed this problem by revisiting the representation of image scene graphs. The key idea is to select essential sub-graphs and only decode a single target sentence from a chosen sub-graph. The model can link the decoded tokens back into the image regions, demonstrating noticeable results for caption grounding. Another downside of the attention-based methods is that they do not incorporate the regions previously attended by the attention model. These regions can be used in the module’s following region selections. Wang et al. \cite{wang2020learning} have integrated this point as well as the semantic relations between image elements in their proposed structure, which uses a novel content-based attention framework to store previously attended image regions. Chen et al. have discussed in \cite{chen2020say} that even though some methods focus on controlling expressive styles or attempt to control the description contents (discussed in section \ref{section_multistyle}), they can only handle a coarse-level signal. Their method uses a directed graph consisting of three node types grounded in the image, which allows for incorporating user intentions. Li et al. \cite{li2019know} argue that most methods that devise semantic concepts treat entities in images individually and lack helpful, structured information. Therefore, they have utilized scene graphs along with CNN features from the bounding box offsets of object entities. Another work by Xu et al. \cite{xu2019scene} also addresses the lack of structured information in current systems. The authors propose the Scene Graph Captioner (SGC), which is divided into three major components: The graph embedding model, the attention extraction model, and the language model. The attention extraction model is inspired by the concept of \textit{small world} in the human brain.
The work proposed by Lee et al. \cite{lee2019learning} uses visual relations from scene graphs directly instead of GCNs, claiming that it will avoid expensive graph convolutions. While the performance of some GCN-based models is slightly better, evading graph convolutions may be reasonable in some frameworks.
\subsection{Using Convolutional-based Methods}
LSTM networks \cite{hochreiter1997long} have been considered the standard for vision-language tasks such as image captioning and visual question answering due to their impressive ability to memorize long-term dependencies through a memory cell. However, training such networks can be considerably challenging due to the complex addressing and overwriting mechanism combined with the required processing being inherently sequential, and the significant storage required in the process. LSTMs \cite{hochreiter1997long} also require more careful engineering when considering a novel task \cite{aneja2018convolutional}. Earlier, CNNs could not perform as well as LSTMs on vision-language tasks. The recent advances in convolutional structures on other sequence-to-sequence tasks have enabled researchers to use CNNs in many other vision-language tasks. Also, CNNs produce more entropy \cite{aneja2018convolutional}, which can be helpful for diverse predictions, have better classification accuracy, and do not suffer from vanishing gradients. Aneja et al. \cite{aneja2018convolutional} proposed a convolutional model which uses masked convolutions instead of LSTM or GRU units. This work also experimented with attention by forming an attended image vector and adding it to the word embedding at every layer. Doing so, the model has outperformed the attention baseline \cite{xu2015show}. With attention, the model could identify salient objects for the given image. Arguing that RNNs or LSTMs \cite{hochreiter1997long}, which are widely used in image captioning, cannot be computed in parallel and also ignore the underlying hierarchical structure of the sentences, Wang et al. \cite{wang2018cnn} designed a framework entirely relying on CNNs. The proposed model can be computed in parallel and is faster to train. However, convolutional-based methods still need improvement in terms of performance.
\subsection{Using Transformers}
The encoder-decoder framework continues to dominate the image captioning world, with the models only varying in details and sub-modules. The recent success of Transformers in natural language processing tasks has inspired many researchers to replace the RNN model with Transformer in the decoders, aiming to benefit from its excellent performance and the possibility of parallel training. Transformers have been the center of attention in the computer vision field as well, with models such as DETR \cite{carion2020end}, ViT \cite{dosovitskiy2020image}, SETR \cite{zheng2021rethinking}, and IPT \cite{chen2021pre}.
Liu et al. \cite{liu2021cptr} have proposed the CaPtion TransformeR (CPTR), a full Transformer network to replace the widely used CNN in the encoder part of the encoder-decoder framework.
Fang et al. \cite{fang2022injecting} criticize the use of object detectors as a tool to provide visual representation, stating that it may lead to heavy computational load and that they require box annotations. Fang et al. \cite{fang2022injecting} have introduced the detector-free ViTCAP model with a fully Transformer architecture, which uses grid representations without regional operations.
The COS-Net model (Comprehending and Ordering Semantics Network) proposed by Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending} aims to unify semantic comprehending and ordering. COS-Net uses a CLIP model (image encoder and text encoder) \cite{radford2021learning} is utilized as a cross-modal retrieval model which retrieves sentences semantically similar to the input image.
Zeng et al. \cite{zeng2022s2} argue that directly operating at grid features may lead to the loss of spatial information caused by the flattening operation. The objective of the Pseudo-supervised (SP) module designed by the authors is to resolve this issue. Also, the Scale-wise Reinforcement (SR) module has been introduced to maintain the model size and improve performance.
Wang et al. \cite{wang2022end} argue that using a network such as Faster-RCNN as the encoder divides the captioning task into two stages and thus limits it. The PureT model built by the authors is a pure Transformer-based structure that integrates the captioning task into one stage and enables end-to-end training.
\subsubsection{Using Graphs and Transformers}
Some current captioning encoders use a GCN to represent the relation information. Yang et al. \cite{yang2022reformer} highlight that these encoders are ineffective in image captioning due to the use of methods such as Maximum Likelihood Estimation rather than a relation-centric loss and the use of pre-trained models to obtain relationships instead of the encoder to improve model explainability. Yang et al. propose the ReFormer architecture, which applies the objective of scene graph generation and image captioning by means of one modified Transformer.
Chen et al. \cite{chen2021captioning} use the Transformer as their base architecture in the model SGGC (Scene Graph Guiding Captioning). The encoder is composed of two sub-encoders named visual encoder and semantic encoder. In the visual encoder sub-component, a Transformer encoder consisting of $N$ identical encoding layers has been used instead of the general CNN-based encoder to capture the relationships between visual regions better. Scene graphs have been used as additional guidance for decoder generation.
While Transformers are suitable for self-supervised pretext tasks on large-scale data, training can become expensive and burdensome. There is a need for more economic Transformer-based large-scale multi-modal models which can be achieved by means of incorporating more inductive bias about vision and language data \cite{xu2022image}.
\subsection{Using Vision-Language Pre-Training for Image Captioning}
Vision-language pre-training (VLP) has remarkably contributed to the recent advances in image captioning and is currently the dominant training method for vision-language (VL) tasks. In VLP approaches, a large-scale model is usually pre-trained on massive amounts of data using self-supervised learning, and then generalized to adapt to downstream tasks. Studies by \cite{li2020oscar, zhang2021vinvl, zhou2020unified} have extensively observed the effect of pre-training objective methods and architectures. The scale of the pre-training dataset is also believed to be a crucial factor in outstanding performance. VLP helps alleviate some of the problems experienced in conventional image captioning methods. The conventional methods typically need to minimize the gap between the visual and textual modals and are therefore resource-hungry \cite{mokady2021clipcap}. Excessive training time and numerous trainable parameters are also required, reducing their practicality. On the other hand, given new samples, the models need to be updated to adapt to new inputs. This brings about the need for lightweight models with faster training times and fewer parameters.
It has recently been observed that powerful vision-language pre-trained models improve zero-shot performance dramatically and reduce training time. One such pre-trained model is CLIP (Contrastive Language-Image Pre-Training).
Mokady et al. \cite{mokady2021clipcap} have leveraged CLIP encoding as prefix to the captions in their ClipCap model. A lightweight Transformer-based mapping network is trained from the CLIP embedding space and a learned constant. The GPT-2 network is used as the language model to generate captions given the prefix embeddings.
Hu et al. \cite{hu2021vivo} point out that while many VLP methods have been introduced that learn vision-language representations through training large-scale Transformer models, most are designed for understanding tasks. The few solutions that can be applied to image captioning \cite{li2020oscar, zhou2020unified} use paired image-caption data for pre-training, which cannot improve zero-shot performance. VIVO (VIsual VOcabulary pre-training), proposed by Hu et al., learns vision-language alignment on image-tag pairs. Since caption annotations are not needed, many existing vision datasets originally prepared for tasks such as image tagging or object detection can be used.
Xia et al. \cite{xia2021xgpt} emphasize that VL generation tasks necessitate the ability to learn generation capabilities as well as the ability to understand cross-modal representations. Also, Xia et al. explain that the pre-trained models developed for understanding tasks only provide the encoder, and separate decoders need to be trained to enable generation. In addition to this deficiency, none of the pre-training tasks are designed for the whole sentence generation. The XGPT (Cross-modal Generative Pre-Training for Image Captioning) takes advantage of a cross-modal encoder-decoder architecture and is directly optimized for VL generation tasks. Three generative pre-training tasks have been designed to countervail the lack of pre-training objectives for generation tasks, namely: Image-conditioned Masked Language Modeling (IMLM), Image-conditioned Denoising Autoencoding (IDA), and Text-conditioned Image Feature Generation (TIFG).
\subsection{Using Unsupervised Methods and Reinforcement Learning}
The research works discussed in the aforementioned categories used a combination of images and their corresponding captions to train the structures they introduced and generated captions for new images while optimizing metrics. Training these supervised methods is challenging and involves some problems. One problem is that most of the research on image captioning has only worked on generating captions in the English language, and a proper dataset consisting of captions in multiple languages is not available. Preparing such a dataset requires the skills of human experts and is very time-consuming. Preparing a dataset of images and their corresponding captions is generally a difficult task. The Microsoft COCO dataset \cite{lin2014microsoft}, which is widely used in image captioning is much smaller than other datasets specifically designed for the object detection task, such as ImageNet and Open Images \cite{cornia2020meshed}. Microsoft COCO dataset \cite{lin2014microsoft} has 100 object classes only; consequently, the models trained on this dataset fail to generalize for new images that were not covered in the dataset. A considerable part of image captioning research is moving towards unsupervised methods to solve these issues. The early works improved the diversity of the captions; however, they sacrificed overall performance. Feng et al. \cite{feng2019unsupervised} have used a sentence corpus, a visual concept detector, and a set of images for unsupervised training. The model is composed of an image encoder, a sentence generator, and a discriminator. The results obtained from this research work have been criticized by Gu et al. \cite{gu2019unpaired} (discussed in section \ref{section_graph_and_spatial_semantic}). It has been explained that considering the limitations imposed by supervised learning, this research work has not achieved significant results, and the performance of the proposed model is not satisfactory. Gu et al. \cite{gu2019unpaired} use an unsupervised method (CycleGAN) to align the scene graph and the captions. Chen et al. \cite{chen2019improving} point out one issue with conventional encoder-decoder structures: many directly optimize one or a combination of metrics. This can not guarantee consistent improvement over all metrics. As a solution, Chen et al. have designed a discriminator network based on the idea of GANs, which judges if a caption is human-generated or produced by a machine. Liu et al. \cite{liu2018show} have introduced a system consisting of a captioning module and a self-retrieval module. The notable part of this work is the self-retrieval module (which uses the REINFORCE algorithm) that improves the performance of the aforementioned structure while only training on partially labeled data.
\subsection{Captioning in Multiple Styles}
Some of the papers covered in this survey generate captions in multiple styles, with some of these styles being humorous or hostile. The structure called "TransResNet" presented by Shuster et al. \cite{shuster2019engaging} considers two classes of models: retrieval and generative. While the retrieval model has given better results, a disadvantage of the retrieval models for caption generation is that these models do not produce a new caption and only choose a caption from a massive dataset. The retrieval models usually generate general and repetitive captions. This pushes many researchers to use unsupervised methods. Guo et al. \cite{guo2019mscap} have stated that incorporating appropriate styles into captions will enrich their clarity and appeal and allows for user engagement and social interactions. The structure presented by Guo et al. is composed of five modules for caption generation in different styles.
Stylized captions can help improve user interaction. However, since neutral captions that report factual data are more appropriate for visually impaired individuals, stylized captions may not be the best choice to utilize in assistive technologies.
\section{Datasets and Performance Comparison}
The methods discussed in previous sections use various datasets and are evaluated with multiple evaluation metrics. In this section, we review the datasets and metrics widely used in recent research works in depth. The available datasets for the image captioning task are still small compared to that of object detection, and the evaluation metrics have many limitations. Considering the increasing importance of the image captioning task, preparing richer datasets and more accurate metrics can be vital to the growth and improvement of the task.
\subsection{Datasets Used by Recent Works}
\subsubsection{Microsoft COCO}
The MS COCO dataset \cite{lin2014microsoft} is a vast dataset for object detection, image segmentation, and image captioning. This dataset contains many features, such as image segmentation, 328,000 images, 91 object classes, and five captions for each image.
\subsubsection{Flickr30K}
This dataset \cite{young2014image} is introduced for the automatic image captioning and grounded language understanding task. This dataset contains 31,000 images collected from the Ficker website, along with 158 thousand captions written by humans. This dataset contains a detector for everyday objects, a color classifier, and a bias toward selecting larger objects. This dataset has not specified any split settings for training, testing, and evaluation, and researchers use any split settings they desire when using this dataset.
\subsubsection{Flickr30K Entities}
The Flickr30K Entities dataset \cite{plummer2015flickr30k} is based on the Flickr30K dataset and contains 158k captions from Flickr30K with 244k coreference chains which link mentions of the same entities in images. The dataset also contains 276k manually annotated bounding boxes corresponding to each entity.
\subsubsection{Visual Genome}
Unlike the other dataset discussed which only had one caption for the entire image, this dataset \cite{krishna2017visual} presents a separate caption for each image region. This dataset comprises seven parts: region descriptions, attributes, relationships, region graphs, scene graphs, and question-answer pairs. The Visual Genome dataset contains more than 108 thousand images, with each image having an average of 35 objects, 26 attributes, and 21 pairwise relationships between objects.
\subsubsection{FlickrStyle10k}
This dataset \cite{gan2017stylenet} contains 10 thousand images with captions of varying styles. Training data consists of 7 thousand images, and the testing and evaluation data consist of 2 thousand and 1 thousand images, respectively. Each image has captions in different styles, such as poetic, humorous, and neutral (factual).
In addition to the datasets commonly used by many research works, some have collected and prepared their own dataset.
\subsubsection{TextCaps}
This dataset \cite{sidorov2020textcaps} aims to help train visual assistants for visually impaired individuals, focusing on presenting captions for images with written text inside them. According to the data reported in \cite{bigham2010vizwiz}, 21 percent of the questions asked by visually impaired individuals involved written texts inside images. This dataset presents 145 thousand captions for 28 thousand images.
\subsubsection{VizWiz-Captions}
This dataset \cite{gurari2020captioning} has been introduced as a dataset appropriate for image captioning for visually impaired individuals. This dataset consists of 23,431 training images and 117,155 training captions, 7,750 validation images, 38,750 evaluation captions, 8,000 images, and 40,000 testing captions. The images have been taken directly by visually impaired individuals.
There are some datasets recently introduced that are not used by many works yet are potential choices for future research works.
\subsubsection{Google's Conceptual Captions}
This dataset \cite{sharma2018conceptual} consists of approximately 3.3 million images and captions. The images have been collected from the Internet first, along with the "alt-text" associated with them. These image-caption pairs have been then filtered and processed to extract appropriate captions for the images that describe image contents. This dataset is split into training and evaluation splits. There are 3,318,333 image-caption pairs in the training split and 15,840 image-caption pairs in the evaluation split.
\subsubsection{nocaps}
The "Novel Object Captioning at Scale (nocaps)" dataset \cite{agrawal2019nocaps} has been presented to encourage the development of captioning models that can surpass the limitation of visual concepts in existing datasets. The introduced benchmark is composed of 166,100 human-generated captions describing 15,100 images from the Open Images validation and test sets. The training data consists of Open Images image-level labels and object bounding boxes in addition to COCO image-caption pairs. Considering that Open Images contains many more object classes not present in COCO, about 400 object classes in test images have almost no associated training captions.
\subsubsection{Open Images V6: Visual Relationships}
The Open Images dataset \cite{OpenImagesv4} contains various sections for object detection, image segmentation, object relationships, and more. The dataset includes approximately 9 million images in 600 different classes. Each image contains an average of 8.4 objects. One section of this dataset is the Visual Relationships section which contains 329 tertiary relationships for 375 thousand images. These relationships are in the forms of human-object (for example, "a person holding a microphone"), object-object (for example, "a dog inside a car"), and object-attribute (for example, "bench is wooden," "handbag is made of leather"). The most recent version of this dataset is available at \cite{openimagesv6}.
\subsubsection{Open Images V6: Localized Narratives}
In 2020 and the sixth version of the Open Images dataset, a new section under the name of "Localized Narratives" was added \cite{PontTuset_eccv2020}. This new section contains 1 million and 671 thousand images from the Open Images Dataset. A human describer has described each image in the dataset via a voice recording while moving their computer mouse on the regions they were describing. Since the words of the caption are in sync with the mouse movements, the location associated with each word is available.
\subsubsection{SentiCap}
SentiCap \cite{mathews2016senticap} is a sentiment captioning dataset based on the MS COCO dataset \cite{lin2014microsoft}. There are three positive and three negative sentiment captions for each image. The positive sentiment subset consists of 2,873 sentences and 998 images for training and another 2,019 sentences over 673 images for testing. The negative sentiment subset consists of 2,468 sentences and 997 images for training and another 1,509 sentences over 503 images for testing.
\subsubsection{SBU Captions Dataset}
The SBU dataset \cite{ordonez2011im2text} consists of 1 million images and their corresponding descriptions given by individuals as they upload an image to Flickr. The captions are not guaranteed to be visual or unbiased. Therefore this dataset has more noise compared to other datasets.
\subsubsection{The Karpathy Split }
In order to train machine learning learners, the dataset is usually split into training, evaluation, and testing split. One typical split for the datasets widely used in recent works is a split called Karpathy \cite{karpathy2015deep}, which splits the dataset into 5000 images for offline testing, and 5000 images for offline evaluation and uses the rest for training. Most research works use this splitting method to be more consistent with other works.
The details regarding datasets discussed in this section have been summarized in table \ref{table:1}.
\begin{table*}[hbt!]
\caption{Most common datasets: details (R.D. indicates "Region Descriptions", L.N. indicates "Localized Narratives", and V.R. indicates "Visual Relationships)}
\centering
\label{tab:datasetsAndEvals}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} &\textbf{Total Images} & \textbf{Objects/Image} & \textbf{Object Classes} & \textbf{Captions/Image}\\
\midrule
Visual Genome \cite{krishna2017visual} & 108,077 & 36.17 & 80,138 & 5.4m R.D.\\
MS COCO\cite{lin2014microsoft} & 330,000 & 7.57 &91 & 5 \\
Flickr30K Entities\cite{plummer2015flickr30k} & 31,783 & 8.7 & 44,518 & 5\\
OpenImagesV6:V.R.\cite{openimagesv6} & 375,000 & 8.4 & - & 1\\
Flickr30K\cite{young2014image}& 31,000 & - & - & 5 \\
FlickrStyle10K\cite{gan2017stylenet} & 10,000 & - & - & 2 \\
OpenImagesV6:L.N.\cite{PontTuset_eccv2020} & 849,000 & - & - & 1\\
SBU Captions\cite{ordonez2011im2text} & 1 mil & - & - & 1\\
SentiCap\cite{mathews2016senticap} & 3171 & - & - & 6\\
TextCaps\cite{sidorov2020textcaps} & 28,408 & - & - & 5\\
VizWiz-Captions\cite{gurari2020captioning} & 39,181 & - & - & 5\\
nocaps\cite{agrawal2019nocaps} & 15,100 & - & 680 & 11\\
Conceptual Captions\cite{sharma2018conceptual}&3 mil< & - & - & 1\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table:1}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning Methods}
The metrics discussed below fall into two categories: the \emph{text evaluation} metrics and the \emph{caption evaluation} metrics. The text evaluation metrics evaluate machine-generated text portions independently. Most of these metrics were introduced for evaluating the text generated by machine translation models. The caption evaluation metrics evaluate the captions generated by the models and have been designed specifically for the image captioning task.
\subsubsection{BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy)}
BLEU \cite{papineni2002bleu} is an evaluation metric for machine-generated texts. Separate parts of a text are compared against a set of reference texts, and each part receives a score. The overall score is an average over these scores; however, the syntactical correctness is not evaluated. The performance of this metric varies based on the references used and the size of the generated text. The BLEU metric is a widely used metric due to being a pioneer in evaluating machine-generated texts, being independent of language, their simplicity, high speed, low cost, and being quite comparable with human judgment. BLEU counts the consistent $n$-grams in the machine-generated text and the reference text. $n$-grams are a contiguous sequence of n items in a text in the field of computational linguistics and probability. These items can be phonemes, syllables, letters, words, or base pairs. The number "n" determines the number of grams that will be compared against each other. Usually, BLEU-1, BLEU-2, BLEU-3, and BLEU-4 are computed using the BLEU metric. To compute BLEU-n, the $n$-grams of 1 to "n" are computed, and each is assigned one single weight. Next, the geometric mean of these $n$-grams is calculated according to these weights. For example, when computing BLEU-4, the $n$-grams of 1 to 4 are calculated, and each is given the value 0.25 as their weight, followed by the geometric mean being computed over these values. This metric does have some disadvantages, such as the fact that the computed scores are only high when the generated text is short. Also, in some cases, a high score achieved using this metric is unreliable and does not mean a higher-quality text.
\subsubsection{ROUGE (Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation)}
ROUGE \cite{lin2004rouge} is a set of metrics that evaluate the quality of text summarization. This metric determines the quality of a summary by comparing it to other ideal human-created summaries: the number of overlapping units, like $n$-grams, word sequences, and word pairs between the machine-generated summary and the ideal summaries are counted. Multiple measures are introduced: ROUGE-N (which counts the overlap of $n$-grams between the machine-generated summary and the ideal summary. ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-2 are subsets of ROUGE-N), ROUGE-L (which is essentially longest common subsequence based statistics, and considers sentence level structure similarity naturally and automatically finds the longest co-occurring in sequence $n$-grams), ROUGE-W (which is based on weighted longest common subsequence that prefers consecutive longest common subsequences), ROUGE-S (which is based on skip-bigram co-occurrence, with skip-bigram being any pair of words in their sentence order), and ROUGE-SU (which is based on skip-bigram plus unigram co-occurrence), with each being used in a specific application. This metric does not perform well for evaluating summaries in more than one text.
\subsubsection{METEOR (Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit Ordering)}
This metric \cite{banerjee2005meteor} compares word segments against reference texts. This method is based on the harmonic mean of unigram precision and recall (recall is weighted higher than precision). METEOR has features such as stemming and synonymy matching in addition to the standard exact word matching. This metric makes a better correlation at the sentence level or segment level.
\subsubsection{CIDEr (Consensus-based Image Description Evaluation)}
This metric \cite{vedantam2015cider} is explicitly designed for evaluating image captions and descriptions. In contrast to other metrics working with only five captions per image-which makes them unsuitable for evaluating the consensus between the generated captions and human judgments- CIDEr reaches this level of consensus using term-frequency inverse document frequency (TF-IDF). CIDER is technically an annotation modality for automatically computing consensus. A measure of consensus encodes how often $n$-grams in the candidate sentence are present in the reference sentences. Also, $n$-grams not present in the reference sentences must not exist in the candidate sentences.
Furthermore, lower weight must be given to $n$-grams frequently appearing across all images in the dataset since they are likely to contain less information. To encode this, Vedantam et al. \cite{vedantam2015cider} performed a Term-Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) weighting for each $n$-gram. A version of CIDEr called CIDEr-D exists as a part of the Microsoft COCO evaluation server.
\subsubsection{SPICE (Semantic Propositional Image Caption Evaluation)}
The SPICE metric \cite{anderson2016spice} is a metric for evaluating image captions based on semantic context. This metric measures how well objects, attributes, and the relations between them are covered in image captions. A scene graph is used to extract the names of different objects, attributes, and the relationships between them from image captions. The metric utilizes semantic representations produced by this graph.
The discussed methods are far from human judgment in terms of quality due to various factors. Using external knowledge databases along with evaluation metrics can help improve evaluation quality.
\subsection{Performance Comparison Based on MSCOCO Test Servers}
Microsoft COCO has presented an online server for testing and evaluation purposes to enable a more fair and uniform testing platform. In Tables \ref{table:2} and \ref{table:3}, the results from the research works which have used the Microsoft COCO test servers have been listed. The Microsoft COCO test servers report two numbers for each evaluation metric: c5 and c40. c5 is computed using five reference captions, and c40 is computed using 40.
The best performances are highlighted with boldface font.
\begin{table*}[hbt!]
\caption{The reported results obtained from Microsoft COCO servers - Top 10 methods (B:BLEU \cite{papineni2002bleu})}
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\toprule
\textbf{Reference}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{B-1}}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{B-2}}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{B-3}}&\multicolumn{2}{|c}{\textbf{B-4}}\\
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{c5\;\;\;\;\;\;c40}
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{c5\;\;\;\;\;\;c40}
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{c5\;\;\;\;\;\;c40}
&\multicolumn{2}{|c}{c5\;\;\;\;\;\;c40}\\
\midrule
Anderson et al. \cite{anderson2018bottom}&
80.2& 95.2& 64.1& 88.8& 49.1& 79.4& 36.9& 68.5\\
Aneja et al. \cite{aneja2018convolutional}&
71.5& 89.6& 54.5& 80.5& 40.8& 69.4& 30.4& 58.2\\
Chen et al. \cite{chen2019improving}&
81.9& 95.6& 66.3& 90.1& 51.7& 81.7& 39.6& 71.5\\
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2020meshed}&
81.6& 96.0& 66.4& 90.8& 51.8& 82.7& 39.7& 72.8\\
Guo et al. \cite{guo2019mscap}&
-& -& 54.3& 81.9& 40.7& 71.0& 30.8& 60.1\\
Jiang et al. \cite{jiang2018recurrent}&
80.4& 95.0& 64.9& 89.3& 50.1& 80.1& 38.0& 69.2\\
Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending} & \textbf{83.3} & \textbf{96.8} & \textbf{68.6} & \textbf{92.3} & \textbf{54.2} & \textbf{84.5} & \textbf{42} & \textbf{74.7}\\
Liu et al. \cite{liu2020exploring}&
80.1& 94.6& 64.7& 88.9& 50.2& 80.4& 38.5& 70.3\\
Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x} (X-LAN)& 81.4& 95.7& 66.5& 90.5& 52.0& 82.4& 40.0& 72.4\\
Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x} (X-Transformer)& 81.9& 95.7& 66.9& 90.5 & 52.4& 82.5& 40.3& 72.4\\
Yang et al. \cite{yang2019auto}& -& -& -& -& -& -& 38.5& 69.7\\
Yao et al. \cite{yao2018exploring}&
-& -& 65.5& 89.3& 50.8& 80.3& 38.7& 69.7\\
Zeng et al. \cite{zeng2022s2} & 82.2 & 96.5 & 67 & 91.4 & 52.4 & 83.3 & 40.1 & 73.5\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:2}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[hbt!]
\caption{The reported results obtained from Microsoft COCO servers (M:METEOR \cite{banerjee2005meteor}, R:ROUGE \cite{lin2004rouge}, C:CIDEr \cite{vedantam2015cider}, S:SPICE \cite{anderson2016spice})}
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\toprule
\textbf{Reference}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{R}}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{M}}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{C}}&\multicolumn{2}{|c}{\textbf{S}}\\
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{c5\;\;\;\;\;\;c40}
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{c5\;\;\;\;\;\;c40}
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{c5\;\;\;\;\;\;\;c40}
&\multicolumn{2}{|c}{c5\;\;\;\;\;\;c40}\\
\midrule
Anderson et al. \cite{anderson2018bottom}&
57.1& 72.4& 27.6& 36.7& 117.9& 120.5& \textbf{21.5}& \textbf{71.5}\\
Aneja et al. \cite{aneja2018convolutional}&52.5& 67.3& 24.6& 33.3& 91.0& 91.4& -& -\\
Chen et al. \cite{chen2019improving}&
59.0& 74.4& 28.7& 38.2& 123.1& 124.3& -& -\\
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2020meshed}&
59.2& 74.8& 29.4& 39.0& 129.3& 132.1& -& -\\
Guo et al. \cite{guo2019mscap}& 52.6& 68.0& 24.8& 33.9& 93.1& 93.7& -& -\\
Huang et al. \cite{huang2019attention}&
58.9& 74.5& 29.1& 38.5& 126.9& 129.6& -& -\\
Jiang et al. \cite{jiang2018recurrent}&
58.2& 73.1& 28.2& 37.2& 122.9& 125.1& -& -\\
Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending} & \textbf{60.6} & \textbf{76.4} & \textbf{30.4} & \textbf{40.1} & \textbf{136.7} & \textbf{138.3} & - & -\\
Liu et al. \cite{liu2020exploring}&
58.3& 73.8& 28.6& 37.9& 123.3& 125.6& -& -\\
Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x} (X-LAN)& 59.5& 75.2& 29.7& 39.3& 130.2& 132.8& -& -\\
Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x} (X-Transformer)& 59.5& 75.0& 29.6& 39.2& 131.1& 133.5& -& -\\
Yang et al. \cite{yang2019auto}& 58.6& 73.6& 28.2& 37.2& 123.8& 126.5& -& -\\
Yao et al. \cite{yao2018exploring}&
58.5& 73.4& 28.5& 37.6& 125.3& 126.5& -& -\\
Zeng et al. \cite{zeng2022s2} & 59.5 & 75 & 29.6 & 39.3 & 132.6 & 135 & - & -\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:3}
\end{table*}
According to the results collected in Tables \ref{table:2} and \ref{table:3}, the model proposed by Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending} has achieved the best c5 and c40 results in most metrics. The model proposed by Aneja et al. \cite{aneja2018convolutional}-a convolutional-based model- has achieved the lowest results in both c5 and c40 for almost all metrics. The model designed by Guo et al. \cite{guo2019mscap} has achieved the worst results in BLEU-2 c5 and BLEU-3 c5. Achieving worse results is natural, considering that the model operates with unpaired text, as there is no total consistency between image and text. The model proposed by Wang et al. \cite{wang2018cnn} falls at the lower part of the performance list in most metrics as well, which shows that convolutional-based methods still need much more improvement to reach the performance of the other methods, such as the attention-based ones. Still, the benefits and advantages of convolutional-based methods, such as a more straightforward training process (discussed more thoroughly in "Convolutional-based methods," section \ref{convolutional}), encourage further research in this field.
\subsection{Comparing Independent Results}\label{comparing_independent_results}
Many research works have reported their results independently, as well as the results reported by the Microsoft COCO servers. A large number of these research works have used the code publicly available in \cite{cocoevaltool} to evaluate their performance. This codebase evaluates a models performance using BLEU \cite{papineni2002bleu}, METEOR \cite{banerjee2005meteor}, ROUGE \cite{lin2004rouge}, CIDEr \cite{vedantam2015cider} and SPICE \cite{anderson2016spice} metrics.
In this section, we list the results reported independently (not obtained by Microsoft COCO servers) by the works covered in this survey in Tables \ref{table:4}, \ref{table:5}, \ref{table:6}, and \ref{table:7}. We have listed the best results for the research works that reported results under different settings (for example, optimization using different loss functions). The best performances are highlighted with boldface font.
\begin{table*}[hbt!]
\caption{The independent results - Top 10 methods - BLEU-1 and BLEU-2 (B:BLEU \cite{papineni2002bleu}, Ref: Reference)}
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{cc|cc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{B-1}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{B-2}}\\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{ \quad \quad Ref \quad \;\quad \quad \quad Score}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{ \quad \quad Ref \quad \quad \quad \; Score}
\\
\midrule
Zhong et al.\cite{zhong2020comprehensive}& \textbf{90.7}&
Li et al.\cite{li2022comprehending} &\textbf{ 69.1}\\
Li et al.\cite{li2022comprehending} & 83.5&
Pan et al.\cite{pan2020x}& 66.8\\
Yang et al.\cite{yang2022reformer} & 82.3&
Liu et al.\cite{liu2021cptr}& 66.6\\
Cornia et al.\cite{cornia2020meshed}& 82.0&
Jiang et al.\cite{jiang2018recurrent}& 64.7\\
Liu et al.\cite{liu2021cptr}& 81.7&
Li et al.\cite{li2019know}& 63.2\\
Pan et al.\cite{pan2020x} & 81.7&
Liu et al.\cite{liu2018show}& 63.1\\
Huang et al.\cite{huang2019attention}& 81.6&
Gu et al.\cite{gu2018stack}& 62.5\\
Li et al.\cite{li2019entangled}& 81.5&
Chen et al.\cite{chen2021captioning}& 60.7\\
Zeng et al.\cite{zeng2022s2}& 81.1&
Wang et al.\cite{wang2020learning}& 60.3\\
Yang et al.\cite{yang2019auto}& 81.0 &
Aneja et al.\cite{aneja2018convolutional}& 55.3\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:4}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[hbt!]
\caption{The independent results - Top 10 methods (B:BLEU \cite{papineni2002bleu}, Ref: Reference)}
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{cc|cc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{B-3}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{B-4}}\\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{ \quad \quad Ref \quad \;\quad \quad \quad Score}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{ \quad \quad Ref \quad \quad \quad \; Score}
\\
\midrule
Li et al.\cite{li2022comprehending}&\textbf{ 54.9}&
Zhong et al.\cite{zhong2020comprehensive}& \textbf{59.3}\\
Pan et al.\cite{pan2020x}& 52.6&
Li et al.\cite{li2022comprehending}& 42.9\\
Liu et al.\cite{liu2021cptr}& 52.2&
Li et al.\cite{li2020oscar}& 41.7\\
Jiang et al.\cite{jiang2018recurrent}& 50.0&
Pan et al.\cite{pan2020x}& 40.7\\
Li et al.\cite{li2019know}& 48.3&
Cornia et al.\cite{cornia2020meshed}& 40.5\\
Liu et al.\cite{liu2018show}& 48.0&
Huang et al.\cite{huang2019attention}& 40.2\\
Gu et al.\cite{gu2018stack}& 47.9&
Liu et al.\cite{liu2021cptr}& 40.0\\
Wang et al.\cite{wang2020learning}& 46.5&
Yang et al.\cite{yang2022reformer}& 39.8\\
Chen et al.\cite{chen2021captioning}& 46.2&
Zeng et al.\cite{zeng2022s2}& 39.6\\
Aneja et al.\cite{aneja2018convolutional}& 41.8&
He et al.\cite{he2020image}& 39.5\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:5}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[hbt!]
\caption{The independent results - Top 10 methods ( M:METEOR \cite{banerjee2005meteor}, R:ROUGE \cite{lin2004rouge}, Ref: Reference)}
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{cc|cc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{M}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{R}}\\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{ \quad \quad Ref \quad \;\quad \quad \;\;\;\;\;\;Score}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{ \quad \quad Ref \quad \;\quad \quad \;\;\;\;\;\; Score}\\
\midrule
Zhong et al. \cite{zhong2020comprehensive}& \textbf{40.1}&
Zhong et al. \cite{zhong2020comprehensive}& \textbf{71.5}\\
Hu et al. \cite{hu2022scaling}& 31.4&
Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending}& 61.0\\
Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending} & 30.8&
Fang et al. \cite{fang2022injecting}& 60.1\\
Li et al. \cite{li2020oscar}& 30.6&
Barraco et al. \cite{barraco2022unreasonable}& 59.9\\
Fang et al. \cite{fang2022injecting}& 30.1&
Yang et al. \cite{yang2022reformer}& 59.8\\
Barraco et al. \cite{barraco2022unreasonable}& 30.0&
Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x}& 59.7\\
Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x}& 29.9&
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2020meshed}& 59.5\\
Yang et al. \cite{yang2022reformer}& 29.7&
Liu et al. \cite{liu2021cptr}& 59.4\\
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2020meshed}& 29.7&
Huang et al. \cite{huang2019attention}& 59.4\\
Zeng et al. \cite{zeng2022s2}& 29.6&
Zeng et al. \cite{zeng2022s2}& 59.1\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:6}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[hbt!]
\caption{The independent results - Top 10 methods (C:CIDEr \cite{vedantam2015cider}, S:SPICE \cite{anderson2016spice}, Ref: Reference)}
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{cc|cc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{C}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{S}}\\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{ \quad \quad \quad Ref \quad \;\quad \;\;\;\;\;\; Score}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{ \quad \quad \quad Ref \quad \;\quad \quad \; Score}\\
\midrule
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2019show}& \textbf{209.7}&
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2019show}& \textbf{48.5}\\
Chen et al. \cite{chen2020say}& 204.2&
Chen et al. \cite{chen2020say}& 42.1 \\
Zhong et al. \cite{zhong2020comprehensive}& 166.7&
Zhong et al. \cite{zhong2020comprehensive}& 30.1\\
Hu et al. \cite{hu2022scaling}& 145.5&
Hu et al. \cite{hu2022scaling}& 25.5\\
Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending}& 143.0&
Li et al. \cite{li2022comprehending}& 24.7\\
Li et al. \cite{li2020oscar}& 140.0&
Li et al. \cite{li2020oscar}& 24.5\\
Barraco et al. \cite{barraco2022unreasonable}& 139.4&
Fang et al. \cite{fang2022injecting}& 24.1\\
Fang et al. \cite{fang2022injecting}& 138.1&
Barraco et al. \cite{barraco2022unreasonable}& 23.9\\
Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x}& 135.3&
Pan et al. \cite{pan2020x}& 23.8\\
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2020meshed}& 134.5&
Cornia et al. \cite{cornia2020meshed}& 23.5\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:7}
\end{table*}
Among the research works covered in this survey paper, \cite{zhong2020comprehensive} has had the best results in BLEU-1 (90.7) and BLEU-4 (59.3), as well as METEOR \, cite{banerjee2005meteor} (40.1) and ROUGE \cite{lin2004rouge} (71.5), while \cite{li2022comprehending} has had the best results in BLEU-2 (69.1) and BLEU-3 (54.9). Also, \cite{cornia2019show} has achieved the best CIDEr and SPICE results (209.7 and 48.5, respectively).
According to the independent results reported by the works, it is apparent that \cite{guo2019mscap}, \cite{feng2019unsupervised}, and \cite{gu2019unpaired} have achieved the lowest scores in most of the metrics. This may stem from the fact that all three works use unsupervised learning. Currently, unsupervised learning methods perform worse than supervised methods that use datasets with image-caption pairs. Still, considering the massive amount of data and the lack of appropriate datasets with image-caption pairs, unsupervised methods and vision-language pre-training have been the focus of a significant portion of recent works and are likely to become even more popular in future research.
\section{Challenges and the Future Directions}\label{challenges_future_directions}
Despite the abundance of solutions and methods presented to solve the image captioning problem, some challenges and open problems remain. The performance of the supervised methods relies significantly on the quality of the datasets. However, datasets can not cover the real world regardless of how massive they are, and the applicability of supervised methods is limited to the set of objects the detector is trained to distinguish. On the other hand, datasets with image-caption pairs inevitably contain more examples of a specific situation (one example being: "man riding a skateboard"). These examples in the training data falsely bias the model towards generating more captions similar to those examples rather than including actual detected objects \cite{li2019know}. The supervised paradigm overly relies on the language priors, which can lead to the object-hallucination phenomenon as well \cite{li2022comprehending}.
The problems associated with the supervised methods encourage researchers to devise unsupervised techniques. On the other hand, due to the different properties of image and text modalities, the encoders of image and sentence cannot be shared. Therefore, the critical challenge in an unpaired setting is the gap of information misalignment in images, and sentences \cite{gu2019unpaired}. The current unsupervised image captioning methods still need to catch up in performance rankings. One promising direction of research is using scene graphs for image captioning.
Even scene graphs unveil many possibilities discussed extensively in the previous sections; utilizing them comes with challenges. Constructing scene graphs is a complicated task in itself, and due to the interactions between objects being beyond simple pairwise relations, integrating scene graphs is quite tedious \cite{xu2019scene}. Also, scene graph parsers are still not as powerful \cite{yang2019auto, wang2019role}. According to some of the works which studied the impact of scene graphs on the quality of the captions, scene graphs are effective only if pre-training of the scene graph generators is done with visually relevant relation data \cite{lee2019learning}.
VLP methods have been used to resolve some of the flaws with supervised methods and object detector-based designs. However, most VLP approaches are catered to understanding tasks, and generation tasks such as image captioning demand more capabilities. A number of the recent works covered in this paper have aimed to fulfill this need. However, this field needs more investigation and analysis.
Moreover, detector-free designs have a rising popularity. In these designs, the detector is removed for the vision-language pre-training in an end-to-end fashion \cite{fang2022injecting}. Also, a general visual encoder replaces the detector and is used to produce grid features for later cross-modal fusion. Nevertheless, the construction of a stronger detector-free image captioning model still needs investigation.
Another gap in the literature is the lack of focus on the application of image captioning for the visually impaired. Describing images can be the core of a vision assistant designed to aid the visually impaired in their daily lives: one can be informed of potential dangers in their environment and have a general understanding of what is happening around them.
Considering the issues mentioned earlier and gaps, unsupervised learning, and unpaired setting are of great potential. Also, the graph-based approach is expected to become even more popular in the near future. Transformers in combination with vision-language pre-training methods are also very likely to become standard practice.
\section{Conclusion}
This paper has covered recent image captioning methods, provided a taxonomy of the approaches, and mentioned their features and properties. We also discussed the common problems in image captioning, reviewed datasets and evaluation metrics, compared the performance of the covered methods and algorithms in terms of experimental results, and highlighted the challenges and future directions in image captioning.
Despite the numerous methods and solutions presented for the image captioning problem, there are still some major problems and challenges for which few solutions have been suggested. On the other hand, the generated captions still need to be higher in quality and are far from human-generated captions. Also, the datasets cannot cover the infinite real world. The evaluation metrics still need to be improved and are still not ideal for evaluating the precise performance of the models. However, Vision-Language Pre-Training (VLP) methods are frequently used in recent works and have shown promising performance. VLP methods and Transformers are likely to be inseparable components of models in the future of image captioning.
Moreover, more research needs to be done on visual assistants for visually impaired individuals. Preparing such an assistant requires certain features to be implemented, making it different from the other applications of image captioning. The best models presented by the research works do not perform well as visual assistants and do not consider the specific demands and needs of visually impaired people. A proper caption for a visually impaired person includes the most important aspects of the image first and the other noticeable details afterward. The surroundings and finer details must also be described, such as details about the textures and the position of objects relative to each other. Therefore, a caption appropriate for the needs of visually impaired individuals is denser and contains much more detail compared to the captions generated by conventional methods and models. Also, the caption generation process may be altered in a way that the initial caption provided to the user can be more general and shorter. The caption may become denser and more detailed upon the user asking more questions about the image.
Considering the importance of the aforementioned issues and the growing number of visually impaired individuals, a noticeable lack of an efficient solution remains. Valuable research work in this field would be automatic image captioning with a particular focus on creating a visual assistant for visually impaired individuals.
\setcitestyle{numbers}
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
The empirical coupling between the luminosities of spiral galaxies and their rotation rates \citep{1977A&A....54..661T} (TFR) has an evident zeroth order explanation: more intrinsically luminous galaxies tend to be more massive and more massive galaxies rotate faster under equilibrium conditions. \citet{2000ApJ...533L..99M} recognized that optical or infrared light represents only the stellar component of mass, that contributions from interstellar gas could be important, and the star and gas together give representation of the total baryonic mass of a galaxy.
The correlation between the baryonic mass and the rotation rate of a galaxy has become known as the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation (BTFR). The mainstream opinion is that a third component besides stars and gas, dark matter, generally dominates the mass budget, creating a challenge to theorists of galaxy formation as to why the correlation between baryons alone and kinematics should be so tight \citep{2005MNRAS.363.1299O, 2007MNRAS.374.1479G, 2011ApJ...742...16T, 2011ApJ...742...76G, 2014MNRAS.437.1750M, 2020MNRAS.498.3687G}.
Indeed, most of the interest in the BTFR by both theorists and observers has been on the constraints it provides to our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution.
By contrast, the limited concern of this paper, one that has only received slight attention \citep{2020AJ....160...71S}, is not to fully understand the physics of the BTFR but just to use the empirically tight BTFR to measure galaxy distances.
This study follows an investigation of the strictly stellar TFR at {\it Sloan Digital Sky Survey} (SDSS) optical and {\it Wide-field Infrared Space Explorer} (WISE) passbands \citep{2020ApJ...902..145K}.
The galaxy samples used then and now, the photometry, the inclinations, the reddening assumptions, and the H{\sc\,i} linewidths, are the same.
The additional component, neutral hydrogen fluxes, is gathered both from observations within our collaboration and from those by others as discussed in $\S$\ref{sec:gas}.
Until now, we had favored the optical or infrared luminosity correlation with rotation velocity, the TFR, for the measurement of distances because of its two parameter simplicity (although multi-band couplings have been exploited to reduce scatter by \citet{2019ApJ...884...82K, 2020ApJ...896....3K, 2020ApJ...902..145K}). It was our impression that gas contributions would only be important with relatively faint galaxies that drop out at systemic velocities in the range
$2,000-15,000$~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ that are of particular interest for BTFR distance applications.
However, as will be shown, that impression is misplaced. Gas contributions can be significant over a wide range of spiral luminosities. The impetus for the present study, though, was finding a trend in the Hubble parameter, $H_j = cz_j /d_j$, with apparent magnitudes in the \citet{2020ApJ...902..145K} study, where $d_j$ are distances determined by the photometric correlations with rotation.
The mean Hubble parameter $<H_j>$ decreases to lower values in the faintest apparent magnitude bins, even though $<H_j>$ holds satisfactorily constant in redshift bins.
The trend could be traced to curvature in the TFR.
Curvature has been suspected from early days \citep{1982ApJS...50..241A,1993ApJ...418..626P,2007MNRAS.381.1463N,2011ApJ...742...16T}. In our own work, we have treated curvature as a bending at the bright end and applied bias corrections to distance estimates derived from simulations of a bent TFR with assumed errors
\citep{2014ApJ...792..129N, 2020ApJ...902..145K}. Our procedure has been to determine distances to galaxies in the field using a fiducial relation formed from a calibration sample drawn from galaxies in a modest number of well studied clusters \citep{2020ApJ...896....3K}. This cluster calibration sample, though it has grown to contain 600 galaxies in 20 clusters, only hints at the curvature problem. Plausibly it could be taken to be only a bright end effect. However, we now see that the curvature must be viewed as a continuous bending with intrinsic luminosity.
This reality is demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig:tf75}. The $i$-band TFR for our entire SDSS sample (with a $3.5\sigma$ clip) is plotted at Hubble flow distances assuming
the mean observed velocity of a galaxy's group and $H_0 = 75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}.
Curvature in the TFR is evident. Procedures could be explored to compensate for the curvature in the measurement of distances. However, the addition of a gas mass term preferentially boosts the fainter galaxies
that tend to have large gas fractions \citep{2006ApJ...653..240G} and has been demonstrated to produce a relatively power law relation between baryonic mass and rotation rate \citep{2005ApJ...632..859M, 2016ApJ...816L..14L, 2019MNRAS.484.3267L}. Here, we exploit the usefulness of the BTFR to determine distances to $\sim10^4$ galaxies.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/TFi_H75_raw.png}
\caption{Correlation between SDSS $i$ magnitudes and linewidths with absolute magnitudes calculated assuming $H_0=75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}. Extreme outliers (1.4\% of sample) have been rejected.
\label{fig:tf75}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Outline of the Discussion}
The BTFR invokes a correlation between the combined contributions of the stars and gas in a galaxy with rotation rate, a measure of the total mass of the system. The observational extension on the TFR is the incorporation of H{\sc\,i} fluxes. The sources of this information are discussed in \S \ref{sec:gas}.
Issues regarding the inference of stellar mass from observed luminosities are discussed in \S \ref{sec:stellar_mass}. Luminosities are acquired at both optical and infrared bands and consistency is required in mass inferences across bands. The formulations derived in this section are tentative. Refined relations are given by the Bayesian analysis discussed in \S \ref{sec:optimizeOP} and \S \ref{sec:optimizeIR}. The dominant source of bias in the BTFR procedure arises from a faintness detection limit on H{\sc\,i} fluxes. The nature of this bias is discussed in \S \ref{sec:hifluxbias}. The impact of this bias on the summation of gas and stellar contributions to total baryonic mass are discussed in \S \ref{sec:relativemasses}. Our treatment of the bias is validated through tests with a mock catalog in \S \ref{sec:mock-test}. With the general properties of the BTFR now established, we carry out a Bayesian analysis to refine parameters, first at optical bands in \S \ref{sec:optimizeOP}, and then the coupling to the infrared in \S \ref{sec:optimizeIR}.
The core product of \S \ref{sec:btfr-formalism} is the formulation of the BTFR across three optical bands and one infrared band with an arbitrary absolute scale set by assuming Hubble expansion with $H_0=75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}. In \S \ref{sec:zp}, the scale is shifted (slightly) to match constraints imposed by BTFR values for samples of galaxies with Cepheid and Tip of the Red Giant Branch distance measurements. Our method for determining distances to individual galaxies is discussed in \S \ref{sec:distMeasure}, with uncertainties the topic of \S \ref{sec:uncertaintyMeasure}. The message in this latter section is that the sum of error estimates on observed and derivative parameters does not fully explain the BTFR scatter; ie, an unexplained or intrinsic component contributing to scatter is significant.
Given distance estimates for the $\sim 10,000$ galaxies in our sample, in \S \ref{sec:H0} we derive a best value for $H_0$ consistent with our data. Various tests are carried out in \S \ref{sec:tests} that the sample must reasonably pass if there is to be confidence in the relative (not absolute) distances that are derived. A tabulation of our results is presented in \S \ref{sec:table}.
The BTFR distances derived here are a component of the ensemble of distances that will be assembled in an upcoming {\it Cosmicflows-4} publication. The absolute scale of the BTFR distances and associated determination of $H_0$ given here should be considered preliminary.
\section{The BTFR Formalism}
\label{sec:btfr-formalism}
The baryonic version of the TFR is described by the equation
\begin{equation}
{\rm log} M_b = Slope ({\rm log}W^i_{mx}-2.5) + ZP,
\label{eq:BTFR}
\end{equation}
where baryonic mass $M_b$ replaces luminosity, whether optical or infrared. Here, $W^i_{mx}$ is the H{\sc\,i} line width corrected for inclination, $i$, following $W^i_{mx}=W_{mx}/{\rm sin}(i)$.
The baryonic mass is defined as the combination of gas and stellar mass through the equation
\begin{equation}
M_b = K_g M_{HI} + \Upsilon^*_{\lambda} L_{\lambda}
\label{eq:Mb}
\end{equation}
where $M_{HI}$ is the mass in neutral Hydrogen,
$K_g$ is a multiplier that accounts for interstellar gas in forms other than neutral Hydrogen,
$L_{\lambda}$ is the absolute luminosity in the passband $\lambda$, and $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ is the stellar mass-to-light ratio appropriate to the passband $\lambda$.
A substantial complexity arises because our sample ({\it any} large BTFR sample) is neutral Hydrogen flux limited, creating a bias that must be addressed. We take an iterative approach to the problem. Initially, we formulate the BTFR disregarding the bias and with simplistic assumptions. We then demonstrate the bias and a procedure to build a pseudo-BTFR that annuls the bias for the purpose of measuring distances. The procedure is tested against a mock catalog. The full formulation involves the parameters governing the translations from luminosities to stellar masses and H{\sc\,i} fluxes to gas masses, the H{\sc\,i} flux bias adjustment, and the slopes and zero points in the separate optical and infrared BTFR equations. Solutions for these parameters are derived through a Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/BTFR_W1.png}
\caption{Correlation between baryonic mass and H{\sc\,i} profile linewidth with WISE $W1$ photometry assuming $H_0=75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}.
The red line is the least-square fit with errors taken in the linewidth.
}
\label{fig:WBTFR}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/Ms2L_lambda.png}
\caption{
Stellar mass to light ratio versus color. Stellar mass, $M_*$, is determined using $W1$-band photometry assuming $\Upsilon^*_{W1} = 0.5~M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$, while the light is measured at $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands. The blue line is the best fit that is determined by minimizing the orthogonal distances of data points from the line. Here, we used Python package {\tt LtsFit} developed by \citet{2013MNRAS.432.1709C} that incorporates uncertainties on all variables, removes large outliers and accounts for the unknown intrinsic scatter.
The typical error bar of the scattered points is given at the bottom right corner of each panel in the top row.
\label{fig:linkopir}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Gas Mass}
\label{sec:gas}
The mass in neutral Hydrogen gas is \citep{1984AJ.....89..758H}
\begin{equation}
M_{HI} = 2.36 \times 10^5 d^2 F_{21}
\label{eq:MHI}
\end{equation}
where $F_{21}$ is the integrated flux in the 21cm H{\sc\,i} signal in Jy \mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ and $d$ is the distance of the target in Mpc.
Taking the factor $K_g=1.33$ in Equation~\ref{eq:Mb} accounts for the contribution from interstellar Helium that must accompany Hydrogen. In the literature \citep{2016ApJ...832...11B} the value $K_g=1.4$ has been used to account for molecular, ionized, and metal enriched constituents of interstellar gas. We have evaluated results based on these alternative gas multipliers and not found a significant effect. We assume $K_g=1.33$.
Values for the integrated H{\sc\,i} flux $F_{21}$ are drawn from two sources. One is the {\it All Digital H{\sc\,i} } file posted in the {\it Extragalactic Distance Database}\footnote{\url{https://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu}} \citep{2009AJ....138.1938C, 2021A&A...646A.113D}. This compilation for more than 20,000 galaxies draws on observations from the Green Bank 100-meter, 300-foot, and 140-foot telescopes, the Arecibo Telescope, the Parkes Telescope, the Nancay Telescope, and the Effelsberg Telescope. All observations summarized in this file, whether originating from our own observations or from others, have been analyzed in a coherent fashion by drawing raw material from the various archives. The other source is the {\it ALFALFA 100\%} compilation \citep{2018ApJ...861...49H}, available from the {\it Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA Survey} website\footnote{\url{http://egg.astro.cornell.edu}} or at the {\it Extragalactic Distance Database}.\footnote{EDD fully includes material from the ALFALFA 40\% compilation \citep{2011AJ....142..170H} analyzed in a consistent way with data from other sources.} An unweighted average is taken if fluxes are available from both sources. In all cases, the observations are made with single beam radio telescopes. In the vast majority of cases, the beams are substantially larger than the optical images of the targeted galaxies. Flux could be lost with particularly extended gas-rich galaxies or with very nearby galaxies of large angular extent.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/FHI_V.png}
\caption{Mass in H{\sc\,i} from H{\sc\,i} fluxes as a function of systemic velocity.
\label{fig:VHI}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/Mhi_logW.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/dMhi_Vcmb.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/rms_vls.png}
\caption{
{\bf Top: } The stellar to H{\sc\,i} gas ratio versus linewidth. Open symbols are the average of data points within bins of 0.1 in log~$W_{mx}^i$. The black dashed line is the least-square fit
to galaxies with $V_{ls}< 2000$ \mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ and $\rm{log}W^i_{mx}>2.2$ \mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}. $m$ and $b$ are the slope and zero point of the black dashed line. The black error bars on the top left corner of this panel indicate the typical uncertainty of the black data points.
{\bf Middle:} The vertical deviation of black data points from the dashed line in the top panel versus radial velocity, $V_{ls}$. Open symbols represent the average of data points in velocity bins of 1000 \mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}, and error bars show the $1\sigma$ scatter of the average values. The red solid line is the result of a least-square fit minimizing the residuals along the vertical axis with $m$ being the slope of the line.
{\bf Bottom:} The rms scatter of the black data points about the red linear correlation in the middle panel. Blue points represent the median scatter values within the velocity bins of $1000$ \mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}. Black dashed line represents the least-square fitted curve, which has a quadratic form on the left side (small velocities) and remains constant after a specific velocity determined in the fitting process.
\label{fig:delHI}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stellar Mass}
\label{sec:stellar_mass}
The relationship between stellar mass and luminosity has been extensively studied at infrared bands where flux is dominated by evolved stars on the red giant branch and optimal correlations are anticipated between light and mass. Particular attention has been given to the L-band where observations have been carried out with the space telescopes Spitzer ([3.6] filter) and WISE (adjacent W1 filter).
Stellar population synthesis or star formation history models can inform the value and scatter of the parameter $\Upsilon^* = M^*/L$ at the closely similar [3.6] and W1 bands \citep{2012AJ....143..139E, 2014AJ....148...77M, 2014ApJ...782...90C, 2014ApJ...788..144M, 2015ApJS..219....5Q, 2018ApJ...865..154H, 2019MNRAS.483.1496S, 2019MNRAS.484.3267L}. There is general agreement from models suggesting $\Upsilon^*_{W1} \simeq 0.5~M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$. The choice of stellar initial mass function is a dominant source of systematic uncertainty. As \citet{2015ApJ...802...18M} have pointed out, constraints on $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$ based on the minimization of scatter of the BTFR provides constraints on systematics in the stellar mass distribution models.
With an initial assumption $\Upsilon^*_{W1} = 0.5~M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$, with observed H{\sc\,i} and WISE $W1$ fluxes, and taking distances\footnote{Hubble flow distances are derived from velocities in the Local Sheet rest frame \citep{2008ApJ...676..184T}, assuming group mean velocities for galaxies identified to be in a group. The Local Sheet frame is preferred over the cosmic microwave background frame nearby because of a coherence in galaxy flows that extends over at least 40~Mpc. Velocities in alternate reference frames converge at large distances.} from the Hubble law assuming $H_0 = 75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}, we generate Figure~\ref{fig:WBTFR}. The value of $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$ is the single free parameter in this plot.
Scatter arises from variance in $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$ and a multitude of other sources (uncertainties in H{\sc\,i} fluxes, line widths, inclinations, photometry, and obscuration, distance deviations from the Hubble law, and intrinsic scatter).
At optical bands, where Population~I components compete with Population~II, $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ have color terms \citep{2011MNRAS.418.1587T}. The dependence with SDSS $g - i$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:linkopir} for the cases of the $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands.
On the ordinate, we plot stellar mass to light ratios (assuming Hubble flow distances based on $H_0 = 75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}).
Here, where we require both optical and infrared information to be available, the stellar mass is based on photometry at the WISE $W1$ band, as discussed in the previous paragraph, while the absolute luminosity, $L_{\lambda}$, is derived from SDSS $\lambda=r$, $i$ or $z$ photometry.\footnote{All $SDSS$ optical and $WISE$ infrared photometry used in this study has been carried out from raw archival material and inclinations and obscuration issues have been given detailed attention as discussed exhaustively by \citet{2019ApJ...884...82K, 2020ApJ...896....3K, 2020ApJ...902..145K}}.
This mixed photometry provides a linkage between the infrared and optical, assuring that $<\Upsilon^*_{\lambda} L_{\lambda}> \simeq <\Upsilon^*_{W1} L_{W1}>$. The linkage is accomplished through the relations demonstrated by the blue lines in Figure~\ref{fig:linkopir}
\begin{equation}
{\rm log}{\Upsilon^*_{\lambda} = {\rm log} (M_*/L_{\lambda})=\alpha_{\lambda}(g-i)+\beta_{\lambda} }.
\label{eq:colorterm}
\end{equation}
where $M_*$ is the stellar mass, and $\lambda$ is any of $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands. In this study, for the absolute magnitude of the Sun we adopt the values $4.64$, $4.53$, and $4.50$ mag in the AB system at SDSS $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands, respectively \citep{2018ApJS..236...47W}. Our derived color dependencies are in a good agreement with the predictions of stellar population models \citep{2003ApJS..149..289B, 2014AJ....148...77M}.
A tentative distance to a galaxy is given by its deviation from the fit to the data in Figure~\ref{fig:WBTFR}.
Scatter about the fitted line arises for many reasons beyond unknowns that could be called intrinsic. Horizontal scatter arises from uncertainties in line width measurements and inclination adjustments. Vertical scatter arises from photometry errors (small), obscuration (small in the infrared), variations in $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$, and uncertainties in H{\sc\,i} flux. Vertical scatter also arises from departures in distance from the expectations of uniform cosmic expansion. These distance components have a unique signature. Galaxies at distance $d$ that are greater than given by the Hubble law are intrinsically brighter than assumed, whence $M^d_b > M^{75}_b$ where these galaxies are given representation by $M^{75}_b$ in Figure~\ref{fig:WBTFR}. Such galaxies lie lower in this figure than they would if baryonic mass on the ordinate was based on their correct distance. The inverse is the case for galaxies nearer than distances given by the Hubble law; the baryonic masses of such galaxies will lie high with respect to what their placement would be if they were given correct distances.
If the only reason for scatter in the BTFR were variations in distance at a given systemic velocity then the distance for a galaxy, $j$, with respect to the arbitrary $H_0=75$ scale would be
\begin{equation}
d_j/d_{75}=(M^{fid}_{b,j}/M^{75}_{b,j})^{1/2},
\label{eq:d_est}
\end{equation}
where $d_{75}$ is the distance given by the Hubble law, and $M^{fid}_{b,j}$ is the baryon mass on the fiducial relation at the observed linewidth of the galaxy.
Of course, only a small part of the scatter in the BTFR is attributable to distance deviations; indeed, is a component that diminishes roughly linearly with redshift. Assuming the scatter that is not associated with distance variations is randomly distributed about the fiducial relation, then measures of distances are embedded in deviations from the fiducial relation as systematics but buried in the substantial random uncertainties of non-distance causes.
A more sophisticated recovery of distance estimates than offered by the simple application of Eq.~\ref{eq:d_est} will be described in \S \ref{sec:distMeasure}.
\subsection{H{\sc\,i} Flux Bias} \label{sef:HI_Flux_Bias}
\label{sec:hifluxbias}
Although the BTFR seen in Figure~\ref{fig:WBTFR} looks promising, it contains a bias that is revealed by considering the run of the Hubble parameter
\begin{equation}
H_j = f_j V_{ls,j} / d_j
\label{eq:hubbleparameter}
\end{equation}
given systemic velocity, $V_{ls,j}$, for galaxy $j$ with distance $d_j$. The function $f_j$ accounts for cosmic curvature\footnote{$f_j=1+1/2(1-q_0)z_j-1/6(1-q_0-3q_0^2+j_0)z_j^2$ where $z_j$ is the redshift of the galaxy, $j_o\simeq1$, and $q_0=0.5(\Omega_m-2\Omega_{\Lambda})=-0.595$ assuming $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$. \citep{2004CQGra..21.2603V}} which is slight within the range of the current sample. The bias is in the sense that $H_j$ values drift lower (distances tending to overestimation) with increasing redshift. The bias arises because the primary selection of targets comes from H{\sc\,i} surveys that are flux limited, particularly the dominant ALFALFA survey \citep{2018ApJ...861...49H}. See Figure~\ref{fig:VHI} and \citet{2021A&A...646A.113D} Figure 3. Photometry is comfortably available for any galaxy that meets the H{\sc\,i} detection criterion. Nearby, H{\sc\,i} is easily detected in any galaxy relevant to our interests. However, at increasingly great redshifts galaxies with lesser H{\sc\,i} flux drop out of the sample. The consequence is manifested in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:delHI} which plots the differential stellar and gas components vs. linewidth overlain with binned differences in increasing redshift intervals. It is clear that the measured H{\sc\,i} component of mass becomes increasingly important at larger redshifts. The observed ratio $M_{\star}/M_{HI}$ decreases with increasing systemic velocity.
The bias against candidates with lesser H{\sc\,i} flux is given quantitative expression in the middle panel of Figure~\ref{fig:delHI}. The difference, $\Delta$, gives the departure from the dashed straight line at a given ${\rm log}W^i_{mx}$ in the top panel. Letting $\Delta \equiv {\rm log}\widetilde{M}_{HI}-{\rm log}{M}_{HI}$, the linear relation in the middle panel is expressed as
\begin{equation}
{\rm log}\widetilde{M}_{HI} = {\rm log}{M}_{HI}-5.64\pm0.06\times 10^{-5}~V_{ls}.
\label{MHIcorrection}
\end{equation}
What we will call the pseudo-gas mass parameter, $\widetilde{M}_{HI}$, is reduced from observed $M_{HI}$ values such that $<M_{\star}/\widetilde M_{HI}> \simeq constant$ with redshift. With this new parameter we can formulate a pseudo-baryonic mass, $\widetilde{M}_b$, that obeys a pseudo-BTFR
\begin{equation}
{\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b = Slope ({\rm log}W^i_{mx}-2.5) + ZP.
\label{eq:cBTFR}
\end{equation}
In \S \ref{sec:mock-test}, it will be demonstrated with mock data that unbiased distance estimates can be recovered based on Equation~\ref{eq:cBTFR}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/3masses_vs_linewidth_esn.png}
\caption{Separate mass components. Top: Stellar mass vs. linewidth for entire sample. Middle: Gas mass vs. linewidth for entire sample. Bottom: Ratio of stellar mass to gas mass for galaxies with velocities less than 4,000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ (blue) and greater than 10,000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ (red). Stellar mass dominates in cases above the dotted line in the bottom panel; gas mass dominates in cases below the dotted line.
\label{fig:3masses}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/Ms_Mhi_Vls_logWimxbins.png}
\caption{
The stellar to H{\sc\,i} gas ratios versus systemic velocity, within different linewidth ranges. Raw and adjusted H{\sc\,i} gas mass are used to generate the top and bottom panels, respectively.
Each black point represents a galaxy. Filled symbols are the average of data points within the velocity bins of $2000$ \mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}, with error bars indicating $1\sigma$ scatter within each bin. The black error bars on the top left corner show the typical error bar of the black dots.
\label{fig:Ms_Mhi_vs_Velocity_WimxBins}
}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Relative Stellar and Gas Mass contributions}
\label{sec:relativemasses}
The separate mass contributions from stars and gas are shown as a function of H{\sc\,i} profile linewidths in the top two panels of Figure~\ref{fig:3masses}. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the two for selections of the sample. The stellar mass has by far the tighter correlation with rotation. Gas masses peak abruptly at $M_g \simeq 4\times10^{11}~M_{\odot}$ while stellar masses reach $M_* \simeq 2\times10^{12}~M_{\odot}$. Gas masses are relatively unimportant for the largest galaxies.
In the bottom panel, a variant of the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:delHI}, stellar to total gas mass ratios are shown for galaxies at the velocity extremes of our sample: those with velocities less than 4,000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ are identified in blue while those with velocities greater than 10,000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ are identified in red. The displacement toward lower $M_*/M_g$ values at higher velocities, the consequence of the H{\sc\,i} flux bias, is evident. However another point can be made. The horizontal dotted line separates between an upper zone of stellar mass dominance and a lower zone of gas mass dominance. Our sample includes all manor of galaxies within the low velocity (distance) cutoff of 4,000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}. Galaxies with large systemic velocities (distances) such as those represented in red in the figure are massive galaxies with the stellar component dominant. This situation somewhat mitigates the H{\sc\,i} flux bias problem. The H{\sc\,i} detection bias is aggravated at large distances but most sample targets at large distances have only minor gas contributions. Nearby, the gas contributions can be substantial but well formulated because the bias is small.
The redshift dependency of the stellar to H{\sc\,i} gas ratios is also evident in the top row panels of Figure \ref{fig:Ms_Mhi_vs_Velocity_WimxBins}.
Several trends are evident. For one, there is an upward shift in stellar to H{\sc\,i} mass with increasing linewidths. Second, the preponderance of samples shifts to higher velocities with increasing linewidth intervals. But third and a direct consequence of the H{\sc\,i} flux bias, there are downward trends in stellar to H{\sc\,i} mass ratios with systemic velocity across all the upper panels.
The bottom row panels of Figure \ref{fig:Ms_Mhi_vs_Velocity_WimxBins} are generated in a similar fashion using the H{\sc\,i} pseudo-mass, $\widetilde{M}_{HI}$. The consequence of the adjustments is a flattening of the slope of the stellar to H{\sc\,i} gas mass ratios with redshift. Utilizing $\widetilde{M}_{HI}$ minimizes the redshift dependent scatter about the pseudo-BTFR and results in distances free of the H{\sc\,i} flux bias.
\subsection{A Mock Catalog Test}
\label{sec:mock-test}
The adjustments made to compensate for the bias caused by the H{\sc\,i} flux cutoff can be evaluated through the study of a mock catalog of objects with known distances and otherwise similar observed properties as our real sample. We construct a mock catalog with the following recipe.
(1) Create a sample that populates the fiducial BTFR assuming distances based on $H_0=75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}\ and assuming a Schechter function that is appropriate for H{\sc\,i} selection \citep{2020ApJ...902..145K}. The construction assumes the gas to stellar mass fraction given by \citet{2012MNRAS.425.2741H} with the scatter prescribed in that paper.
(2) Create Gaussian scatter in both log linewidth and log baryon mass.
(3) Translate this sample to a multitude of distance shells so now the operational parameters are apparent magnitudes and observed H{\sc\,i} fluxes. Populate the shells such that after imposing an H{\sc\,i} flux limit there is rough agreement with the histogram with redshift of the observed sample.
(4) Only retain candidates that exceed an H{\sc\,i} flux limit.
(5) Determine the distances that would be measure for the candidates that are retained and compare those distances with the known input distances.
The analysis of the mock material follows what was done with the real data. The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:mockdelHI} shows the stellar to gas mass fractions as a function of linewidths with superimposed symbols giving binned averages within systemic velocity intervals. In the bottom panel of this figure, individual points record the vertical position of a candidate with respect to the dashed line in the top panel as a function of systemic velocity. Mean values in velocity intervals are represented by open symbols and a linear fit is given to the distribution. The slope of this line of $-5.79\pm0.05 \times 10^{-5}$ is very close to that of Eq.~\ref{MHIcorrection} describing the real data.
The fit in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:mockdelHI} provides the information needed for adjustments to mock distance moduli. Figure~\ref{fig:mockdelD} illustrates the results with respect to input values scattered around $H_0=75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}\ for the raw observed moduli in red and the adjusted moduli in green. The raw observed moduli drift to higher distances at larger velocities as expected from the bias. The adjustment returns distances that are close to the mean values that would be recovered if there were no H{\sc\,i} flux cutoff. These same results are seen in Figure~\ref{fig:mockHV} where the ordinate is now the Hubble parameter $V_j/d_j$, with means in velocity bins and horizontal fits represented by the dashed lines for values at $V>4000$~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}. In the lower panel adjusted case, the input value of $H_0$ is recovered and beyond 4,000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ the averaged values are stable about constant $H_0$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/gasstar_Wmx_Vwindows.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/delMHI_V.png}
\caption{
{\bf Top: } The stellar to H{\sc\,i} gas ratio versus linewidth similar to the presentation in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:delHI} but for the mock data. The symbols and dashed lines have the same representations in the two figures.
{\bf Bottom:} Vertical offset of mock data from the dashed line of the left panel as a function of systemic velocity. The pattern seen in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:delHI} is recovered.
\label{fig:mockdelHI}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/delD_V.png}
\caption{
Deviations of recovered (observed) distance moduli from input moduli for the mock data as a function of systemic velocity. The directly measured (raw) moduli are coded in red and the adjusted values are in green.
\label{fig:mockdelD}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/H_V_2panels.png}
\caption{
Hubble parameter vs systemic velocity for the mock data for directly measured values in the top panel and the adjusted values in the bottom panel.
\label{fig:mockHV}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{figures/MCMC_i_gi_rz.png}
\caption{
The posterior distribution of the optimized parameters of the BTFR model as described in Equations \ref{eq:cBTFR} and \ref{eq:colorterm}, with $i$-band photometry as the primary source of the derived stellar mass.
Contours represent $\sigma/2$, $\sigma$, $3\sigma/2$ and $2\sigma$ levels of the 2-dimensional distributions and they enclose 12\%, 39\%, 68\% and 86\% of the distributed points, respectively.
\label{fig:mcmc_i_gi_rz}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/BTFR_adj_r.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/BTFR_adj_i.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/BTFR_adj_z.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/BTFR_adj_riz.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/BTFR_adj_W1.png}
\caption{
BTFR after compensation for the H{\sc\,i} selection bias using $\widetilde{M}_b=1.33\widetilde{M}_{HI}+M_*$. Black lines illustrate fits with errors taken in linewidths.
The slopes and zero points referenced to log $W^i_{mx} = 2.5$ are given in the legends. The BTFR models are based on stellar mass to light ratios given by ${\rm log} (M_*/L_{\lambda})=\alpha_\lambda(g-i)+\beta_\lambda$ (see Table \ref{tab:mcmc-params}).
{\bf Top:} BTFR with SDSS $r$ photometry (left), $i$ photometry (middle) and $z$ photometry (right) after compensation for the H{\sc\,i} selection bias.
Bottom: Similar to the top row but for BTFR with SDSS averaged $r$, $i$ and $z$ photometry (left) and WISE infrared $W1$ photometry (right). Error bars in the bottom right corner of each panel show the typical uncertainty on the scattered points.
\label{fig:BTFR-nonCalibrated}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Rigorous Parameter Constraints: Optical Bands}
\label{sec:optimizeOP}
We carried out SDSS photometry at $u,g,r,i,z$ bands \citep{2020ApJ...896....3K, 2020ApJ...902..145K}. The $u$ material will not be considered further because measurement uncertainties are larger in that band. The TFR at $g$ has increased scatter because of stochastic contributions from young populations. The utility of $g$ photometry is its service in identifying such contributions, as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:linkopir}. On the other hand, the TFR at $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands have comparable scatter, although color terms are slightly different.
Our aim in this section is to explore the space of the model free parameters to find the best set of parameters that minimize the scatter about the linear relation between baryonic mass and H{\sc\,i} linewidth in Equation~\ref{eq:cBTFR}
where $\widetilde{M}_b$ is the pseudo-baryonic mass and is derived using the adjusted H{\sc\,i} mass, ${\rm log}\widetilde{M}_{HI} = {\rm log}{M}_{HI}-C_{adj}V_{ls}$. Here, $C_{adj}$ is the adjustment factor and one of the model parameters. In this section, we relax the assumption we made in Section \ref{sec:btfr-formalism} about the non-variability of $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$ across all of our sample.
We attempt to initially determine the functional form of the $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ at optical wavebands and then find an equivalent version at infrared bands.
Accordingly, we define $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ as a linear function of the optical colors $g-i$ given by Equation \ref{eq:colorterm}.
In our optimization process, the objective is to construct the posterior distribution of the model parameters, $\mathcal{P}(\Theta|\mathcal{D})$, where $\Theta$ is the vector that holds all model parameters (i.e. $Slope$ and $ZP$ of the BTFR, $\alpha_\lambda$ and $\beta_\lambda$, and the bias factor $C_{adj}$.
The observed data, $\mathcal{D}$, consist of linewidths and galaxy luminosities at different wavebands.
The posterior distribution can be determined following the conditional probability law, $\mathcal{P}(\Theta|\mathcal{D}) \propto \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{D}|\Theta)\mathcal{P}(\Theta)$. We set $\mathcal{P}(\Theta)=1$ given a lack of any prior knowledge on the distribution of the model parameters.
This assumption reduces our problem to finding a set of optimum parameters that maximize the likelihood function.
Having adopted the likelihood function we take advantage of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to explore the parameter space and sample the posterior distribution. This process allows us to incorporate all uncertainties of the observables upon which our model is constructed. Data points are mutually independent since they represent different galaxies. Moreover, it is a reasonable assumption that all uncertainties on the measured observables are almost Gaussian implying the following likelihood function
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:likelihood}
\mathcal{L}= \prod_{n=1}^{N} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_n^2}} ~\exp\Big(\frac{\mathcal{D}_n-\mathcal{M}_n(\Theta)}{\sigma_n} \Big)^2 ~,
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the galaxy index and $N$ is the total number of galaxies in our analysis.
To minimize the effect of the Malmquist bias, the data$-$model residuals ($r_n = \mathcal{D}_n-\mathcal{M}_n(\Theta)$) are calculated along the linewidth parameter \citep{1995PhR...261..271S,2000ApJ...533..744T}.
Here, $\sigma_n$ is the uncertainty of the residual parameter, $r_n$, which penalizes a model based on the uncertainty of the real measurements and predictions, and is calculated using $\sigma_n^2=\sigma_{D_n}^2+\sigma_{\mathcal{M}_n}^2$. For each galaxy $\mathcal{D}_n={\rm log}W^i_{mx,n}$ and $\sigma_{D_n}$ is the uncertainty on the measured linewidths. For any model with given parameters, $\Theta$, the model uncertainty $\sigma_{\mathcal{M}}$ is calculated through a propagation of uncertainties of the model observables, i.e. H{\sc\,i} flux, magnitudes, and color indices.
In this study, we sample the posterior distribution using Python package {\it emcee} \citep{2013PASP..125..306F}, {\it emcee} leverages fast linear algebra routines to accelerate the process and takes the logarithm of the posterior likelihood
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:likelihood1}
\log \mathcal{L}({\bf r})= -\frac{1}{2}{\bf r}^T\Sigma^{-1}{\bf r}-\frac{1}{2}\log |\Sigma|-\frac{N}{2}\log (2 \pi) ,
\end{equation}
where ${\bf r}$ is the $N\times1$ data$-$model residual as define earlier, and $\Sigma$ is the $N\times N$ diagonal covariance matrix where $\Sigma_{n,n}=\sigma^2_n$.
We adopt this likelihood for each of $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands and generate 64 chains each with the length of 10,000 samples. Each chain initially starts from a random location in the parameter space. This allows to expand the exploration area and obtain more robust results.
Mostly after the first 500 burn in steps, each chain converges and follows the Markov statistics.
However, to be more conservative, we remove the first 1,000 steps of each MCMC sample and combine all 64 walkers to generate the posterior distribution of model parameters.
The corner plot for the posterior distribution of model parameters based on the $i$ band photometry is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:mcmc_i_gi_rz}. In this diagram, the top-most panel of each column displays the one dimensional distribution of the corresponding sampled parameter, with the overplotted red solid line representing the median values, and the lower/upper bounds corresponding to 16/84 percentiles (black dashed lines). Horizontal and vertical red lines are drawn at the location of the median values that we adopt as the optimum values of our model parameters. The shape of the posterior distribution looks almost the same if either $r$ or $z$ band photometry is used to build the BTFR.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Optimized parameters of the BTFR and $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ model.
\label{tab:mcmc-params}}
\begin{tabular}{c ccccc c}
\hline \hline
waveband ($\lambda$) & $\alpha_\lambda$ & $\beta_\lambda$ & $Slope$ & $ZP_{75}^\dag$ & $ZP_{calib}^\ddag$ & $C_{adj}$ $[\times10^{-5}]$ \\
\hline
$r$ & $0.650\pm0.006$ & $-0.243\pm0.010$ & $3.407\pm0.010$ & $10.360\pm0.007$ & $10.407\pm0.032$ & $-6.17\pm0.21$ \\
$i$ & $0.509\pm0.006$ & $-0.200\pm0.010$ & $3.433\pm0.010$ & $10.366\pm0.007$ & $10.411\pm0.033$ & $-6.16\pm0.86$ \\
$z$ & $0.461\pm0.007$ & $-0.190\pm0.010$ & $3.424\pm0.010$ & $10.365\pm0.007$ & $10.411\pm0.033$ & $-6.01\pm0.86$ \\
$<riz>$ & $0.536\pm0.010$ & $-0.206\pm0.010$ & $3.418\pm0.010$ & $10.359\pm0.007$ & $10.405\pm0.033$ & $-6.12\pm0.85$ \\
$W1$ & $-$ & $-$ & $3.338\pm0.008$ & $10.390\pm0.001$ & $10.408\pm0.026$ & $-6.20\pm0.82$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{l}{$^\dag$ Zero point based on distances assuming $H_0=75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}.} \\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{$^\ddag$ Zero point after calibration based on distances from TRGB and Cepheid methodologies.}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Table \ref{tab:mcmc-params} lists the optimized parameters of our model with the use of different optical bands and color combinations to calculate the stellar to mass ratios (Equation \ref{eq:colorterm}). The most probable $Slope$ and $ZP$ that we find through the MCMC simulations are in good agreement with each other at different wavebands. We tested that adding an extra linear dependency on the $r-z$ color term does not significantly alter the BTFR parameters.
The top row panels of Figure~\ref{fig:BTFR-nonCalibrated} illustrate the BTFR after adjustments for the H{\sc\,i} flux selection bias, for $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands, where for each waveband the model parameters are given in the corresponding row for the band in Table~\ref{tab:mcmc-params}.
Our tools for measuring galaxy distances can be slightly sharpened by using a combination of $r,i,z$ material.
This unification can be accomplished in two ways. One is to extract the stellar mass of galaxies from the best fits of $\Upsilon^*_\lambda$ at different wavebands (Table \ref{tab:mcmc-params}). The other way is define an average linear relation
\begin{equation}
{\rm log}\Upsilon^*_{riz} = {\rm log} (M_*/L_{riz})=\alpha_{riz}(g-i)+\beta_{riz}
\label{eq:colortermRIZ}
\end{equation}
where $L_{riz}$ is the average of the absolute luminosities of a galaxy at $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands. We fit the parameters of this relation together with the BTFR coefficients through the same MCMC procedure presented in Section \ref{sec:optimizeIR}. Table~\ref{tab:mcmc-params} lists the output of our analysis and the bottom left panel of Figure \ref{fig:BTFR-nonCalibrated} illustrates the fitted straight line of the corresponding BTFR model.
\subsection{Extension to the Infrared Band}
\label{sec:optimizeIR}
The same methodology can be used to find model parameters at the infrared WISE $W1$ band. However, optical color indices are not available for galaxies in our sample that only have infrared photometry coverage. Therefore, we need a formulation that only uses infrared information to establish empirical functions involving $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$. At the same time, though, we need to maintain a coherence between the optical and infrared measurements. Consequently, in deriving the functional form of the infrared parameter $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$, we restrict to galaxies with both optical and infrared data coverage. We derive their stellar masses, $M^*_{riz}$, following Equation \ref{eq:colorterm} and the optimized parameters listed in Table \ref{tab:mcmc-params} using combined $<riz>$ optical measurements.
The optical$-$infrared coupling is achieved by requiring
\begin{equation}
<\Upsilon^*_{riz} L_{riz}> \simeq <\Upsilon^*_{W1} L_{W1}>
\label{eq:op_ir_coupled}
\end{equation}
which results in $M^*_{riz}/L_{W1} \simeq \Upsilon^*_{W1}$.
Figure \ref{fig:ms_w1_w2} plots the optical stellar mass to $W1$-band luminosity versus the $W1-W2$ color.
Compared to $g-i$ color with a dynamical range of $\sim 1.5$ mag, $W1-W2$ of most galaxies falls in a very short range $\sim 0.2$ mag. Still, a reasonable correlation pattern is identified when we bin data points. $M^*_{riz}/L_{W1}$ decreases toward redder $W1-W2$ colors at intermediate $W1-W$ values. Statistics at blue and red extremes are poor where dependencies are taken to be approximately constant. The purple dashed line in Figure \ref{fig:ms_w1_w2} shows the best fit given by the maximum likelihood method. $M_*/L_{W1}$ takes the constant values of $0.66\pm0.09$ on the blue side of $W1-W2=-0.63\pm0.01$ mag. As the $W1-W2$ color gets redder, $M_*/L_{W1}$ linearly decreases with color until reaching the value of $0.51\pm0.08$ at $W1-W2 =-0.46\pm0.04$ mag. Redward, the value is taken to be constant at $0.52\pm0.08$.
The scatter about this formulation is shown in the lower panel of Figure~\ref{fig:ms_w1_w2}. The rms scatter in $M^*/L_{W1}$ of $0.11$ about a median value of $0.59$ corresponds to $19\%$ uncertainty on the stellar mass to light ratios.
Figure \ref{fig:ms_w1_w2_literature} shows our model of $M_*/L_{W1}$ together with three theoretical models that are constructed by adopting various initial mass functions and stellar evolution scenarios \citep{2018ApJ...865..154H}. These models describe different galactic environments and are only valid for restricted ranges of $W1-W2$.
As seen, our fitted function for the $M_*/L_{W1}$ color dependency (purple line) is in general consistent with those advocated by \citet{2014ApJ...782...90C}, and \citet{2012AJ....143..139E}. Most of our data points are located on the right side of the applicability zone of the \citet{2014ApJ...788..144M} curve. Our constraints on $M_*/L_{W1}$ at both $W1-W2$ color extremes are weak.
Adopting this multi-linear model for $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$, we follow the same MCMC procedure to map the posterior distributions of the BTFR parameters using $W1$ band photometry. Results are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:mcmc_w1}. Here, only Slope and ZP are adopted as free parameters, because the parameters describing $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$ have been already found by the analysis of the galaxies that are in common between our optical and infrared sub-samples. Fixing the $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$ parameters guarantees that the estimated stellar mass to light ratios are in agreement with those estimated using the optical data and improves the consistency between the BTFR parameters we find in different scenarios.
The parameters of the fitted BTFR with the $W1$ band photometry are included in Table~\ref{tab:mcmc-params}. The infrared correlation is illustrated in the bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:BTFR-nonCalibrated}. The WISE infrared and SDSS optical versions are consistent with each other thanks to the coupling imposed through Equation~\ref{eq:op_ir_coupled}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figures/Ms_W1_W2.png}
\caption{
{\bf Top:} $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$ versus $W1-W2$ color for galaxies with both optical and infrared data. Each black point represents a galaxy. Open red points show the average of data within bins of $0.05$ mag, with error bars showing the $1\sigma$ scatter of data points.
Purple dashed line represents the best model that is constructed using two constant color independent regions and a linear correlation in the middle. Numerical labels and the vertical dotted lines illustrate the boundaries of the slant line. Black error bars on the top right corner show the typical uncertainty of the black points.
{\bf Bottom:} Residuals after subtracting the multi-linear model, displayed by the dashed line in the upper panel. The root mean square of residuals, rms, translates to $\sim19\%$ uncertainty in the values of $M_*/L_{W1}$.
}
\label{fig:ms_w1_w2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figures/Ms_W1_W2_literature.png}
\caption{
Similar to Figure \ref{fig:ms_w1_w2}. The solid purple line traces $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$ as empirically derived in this study. The blue, orange and green curves are the stellar transformation functions of $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$, developed by \citet{2014ApJ...782...90C}, \citet{2014ApJ...788..144M} and \citet{2012AJ....143..139E}, respectively, over the range of their applicability.
All magnitudes and colors are in the AB system.
}
\label{fig:ms_w1_w2_literature}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{figures/MCMC_W1.png}
\caption{
The posterior distribution of the $Slope$ and $ZP$ of the BTFR based on the $W1$-band photometry, with $M_*/L_{W1}$ given the fitted multi-linear form presented in Figure \ref{fig:ms_w1_w2}. Other details are the same as in Figure \ref{fig:mcmc_i_gi_rz}.
}
\label{fig:mcmc_w1}
\end{figure*}
\section{Zero Point Calibration}
\label{sec:zp}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{figures/BTFR_ZPcalib_riz.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{figures/BTFR_ZPcalib_W1.png}
\caption{BTFR with SDSS optical photometry (left) and WISE infrared photometry (right) after compensation for the H{\sc\,i} selection bias. Zero point calibrators are represented by filled symbols where $\widetilde{M}_b > 10^9$ $M_\odot$, and by open symbols otherwise. The legend in each panel identifies the components of the calibration in each instance. The main sample galaxies are shifted vertically to be consistent with the calibrated zero point. The typical uncertainty of the scattered points is displayed on the top left corner.
}
\label{fig:BTFRZP}
\end{figure*}
To this point, the construction of the BTFR has been based on distances assuming $H_0=75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}. Now, the scaling of (pseudo) baryonic mass is shifted to match values for galaxies with measured distances from either the Cepheid Period-Luminosity Relation (CPLR) or the magnitudes of stars at the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB). The galaxies used here and their measured distances are the same as those providing the absolute calibration in \citet{2020ApJ...896....3K, 2020ApJ...902..145K}.
To summarize, in the case of the CPLR the dominant sources of distance information are \citet{2001ApJ...553...47F} and \citet{2016ApJ...826...56R} rescaled slightly as described by \citet{2019ApJ...876...85R} for consistency with the LMC detached eclipsing binary distance by \citet{2019Natur.567..200P} and the NGC\,4258 maser distance by \citet{2013ApJ...775...13H}. In the case of the TRGB the source in all cases is the compilation maintained in the Color-Magnitude Diagrams/TRGB file in the Extragalactic Distance Database (https://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu) that was described most recently by \citet{2021AJ....162...80A}, with the zero-point calibration established by \citet{2007ApJ...661..815R}. The distances given there are demonstrated by \citet{2021arXiv210800007A} to be compatible within uncertainties with those discussed by \citet{2021ApJ...919...16F}. Any CPLR or TRGB measurement available from these sources is used if it is associated with a spiral galaxy that meets BTFR criteria. At optical bands these give 39 calibrators: 19 CPLR and 29 TRGB with 9 in common. In the infrared there are 64 calibrators: 29 CPLR and 52 TRGB with 17 in common. There are more calibrators available in the infrared because of the full sky coverage.
Figure~\ref{fig:BTFRZP} presents the BTFR relations shifted to match the constraints of the calibrator systems. In the right panel, baryonic masses are determined from WISE $W1$ magnitudes and gas masses. This plot corresponds to the bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:BTFR-nonCalibrated} except now zero point calibrators are superimposed and the underlying sample is slightly shifted vertically to match the calibrators. The panel to the left is similar but the BTFR constitutes an average of the SDSS optical material as in the lower left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:BTFR-nonCalibrated}.
The infrared and optical calibrations seen in Figure~\ref{fig:BTFRZP} are in statistical agreement in both slopes and zero points.
Concerning the slopes, in the absence of dissipative or feedback effects, the response of motions to mass in a virialized structure in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology should have the dependence $M \propto V^3$ \citep{1997gsr..proc....3W, 2010AJ....140..663G}. The interplay between baryons and dark matter during the process of galaxy formation evidently causes the relation between mass and motion to steepen. Constraints on the BTFR slope provide constraints on semi-analytic models of galaxy formation although details depend on interpretations of the observed parameters, in particular line widths as a proxy for motions \citep{2016ApJ...832...11B, 2019MNRAS.484.3267L}. Slopes in the logarithmic relation between baryonic mass and rotation rates in the literature have tended to lie around 3.9 if rotation curves are resolved and 3.3 if the rotation estimator is a global profile. Our results are consistent with the latter, as we find a slope of 3.34 at the infrared W1 band and 3.42 with the combined $r,i,z$ optical bands.
Since optical and infrared $ZP$ and $Slope$ are slightly different, measured distances will be slightly deviant between the two (evaluated in detail further along).
It is to be recalled that the sky coverage of the WISE infrared and SDSS optical components of our sample are overlapping but not contiguous. Streaming motions could cause small offsets. Consequently, we retain the separate WISE and SDSS calibrations for the measurements of individual galaxy distances. If both are available, a straight average of the two is taken.
Our formulation of the BTFR is poorly defined at masses below $10^9 M_{\odot}$ so galaxies less massive than this limit are excluded.
\section{Calculation of Distances}
\label{sec:distMeasure}
Input observables are SDSS optical and/or WISE infrared apparent magnitudes, H{\sc\,i} fluxes ($F_{21}$), H{\sc\,i} linewidths (${\rm log} W^i_{mx}$) and radial velocities that are used to make the gas bias adjustments.
The calculation of the distance modulus of each galaxy incorporates the optimized parameters for the construction of the BTFR given in Table~\ref{tab:mcmc-params} and ${\rm log} \Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ as described in $\S \ref{sec:optimizeOP}$ and $\S \ref{sec:optimizeIR}$. The calculations will be described in a reverse order compared to what we presented earlier.
Given an H{\sc\,i} linewidth, the BTFR allows calculation of the galaxy quasi baryonic mass
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{M}_b = 10^{(Slope ({\rm log}W^i_{mx}-2.5) + ZP)}.
\label{eq:INVcBTFR}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, if the galaxy distance is given, one can alternatively determine the baryonic mass by calculating its components, gas and stellar mass, through Equation \ref{eq:Mb}. We denote this distance dependent estimated mass by $\widetilde{M}_b(d)$. The dependency of the gas mass estimation with distance is obvious in Equation \ref{eq:MHI}. The stellar mass is derived using $M_*=\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}L_{\lambda}$, where $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ is derived from color terms that are distance independent (Equation \ref{eq:colorterm} and Figure \ref{fig:ms_w1_w2}). However, $L_{\lambda}$, the galaxy absolute luminosity, is derived from its apparent luminosity and a specified distance. Accordingly, for each galaxy there is only one distance that results in the same $\widetilde{M}_b(d)$ as that given by the BTFR, $\widetilde{M}_b$. For each galaxy, we numerically examine all distances in the range of $0.5$ and $500$ Mpc with step sizes $0.5$~Mpc. To solve for the distance, we interpolate between two adjacent distances, $d_1$ and $d_2$, for which $\widetilde{M}_b(d)-\widetilde{M}_b$ takes opposite signs.
In the vocabulary of Eq.~\ref{eq:d_est}, $\widetilde{M}_b$ encodes the expectation baryonic mass along the fiducial BTFR relation at its proper distance while $\widetilde{M}_b(d)$ is the observed baryonic mass at the distance required to place the target on the fiducial relation. The shift of $\widetilde{M}_b(d)$ from $\widetilde{M}_b(d_{H_0})$ (where $H_0 \simeq 75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}\ as discussed in \S \ref{sec:H0}) varies with mass as $d^2$.
It is to be recalled that the BTFR measurements are in the logarithm of mass and we are looking for offsets from fiducial with roughly symmetric scatter in distance moduli, proportional to the log of distances. The consequence is an asymmetry in the scatter of distance estimates about unbiased values, which propagates into bias in estimates of deviations from Hubble flow: peculiar velocities. Translation of our raw distances (properly, distance moduli) into peculiar velocity constructs is beyond the scope of this study. Various procedures have been developed to infer peculiar velocities from estimated distance moduli with large uncertainties \citep{2015MNRAS.450.1868W, 2019MNRAS.488.5438G, 2021MNRAS.505.3380H,2021MNRAS.507.1557L}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/H0.png}
\caption{Hubble parameter as a function of radial velocity. Galaxies are represented by black points.
Blue horizontal line shows the log average of the Hubble parameter of galaxies beyond 4000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}. Red points display the average of the Hubble parameter within velocity intervals of 1000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}, with open points representing the the averages at intervals less than 4000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}. Top and middle panels correspond to distances that are obtained from the BTFRs in the left and right panels of Figure \ref{fig:BTFRZP}, respectively. In the bottom panel, the optical and infrared distances are averaged where they are both available.
Zero points uncertainties are not incorporated in the reported errors in legends.
\label{fig:H0}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{figures/dDM_Vcmb_riz.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{figures/dDM_Vcmb_w1.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{figures/dDM_i.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{figures/dDM_w1.png}
\caption{{\bf Top:} Deviations from Hubble law distances as a function of systemic velocity. SDSS optical photometry case at left and WISE infrared photometry case at right. Open symbols represent galaxies with $V_{ls}<4000$ \mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}, where Hubble law distances are not reliable distance proxies.
{\bf Bottom:} Demonstration that there are no systematic effects as functions of either SDSS optical photometry (left) or WISE infrared photometry (right) for galaxies with $V_{ls}>4000$ \mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}.
}
\label{fig:2Vdeld}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Uncertainties}
\label{sec:uncertaintyMeasure}
In the previous section, we described how a galaxy distance is calculated for a given set of observables and model parameters. Here, prior to calculating the uncertainty of the measured distances, we study the contribution of each error term in the scatter of data points about the BTFR and subsequent distance measurement uncertainties. The 1$\sigma$ scatter of our sample galaxies is $0.18$ dex about the direction of baryonic mass in the BTFR diagram.
This scatter is roughly equivalent to an uncertainty of $0.45$ mag in the distance modulus measurements. We want to evaluate the contribution of different sources of uncertainty to the ensemble value.
In our study, uncertainties have mainly four sources: (1) uncertainties associated to the model parameters that describe correlations between different quantities, i.e. the errors on the fitted coefficients, (2) errors that are related to the scatter of the model residuals that basically monitors how well the constructed model performs, (3) uncertainties of the observables that are used in the model, and (4) the unknown uncertainties that are related to the underlying physical processes that govern the dynamic and composition of our sample galaxies.
To estimate the effect of each error term, first we generate an ensemble of 10,000 galaxies by randomly drawing from the original sample. In this process, a galaxy may appear multiple times in the ensemble, however its parameters would be dispersed differently.
For each galaxy in the ensemble, we adopt the corresponding baryonic mass and distance from the original sample. Assuming that the simulated galaxies completely obey the BTFR gives us a way to compute their linewidths. By introducing uncertainties of different natures to the parameters of the ensemble galaxies, we measure how galaxies are dispersed along the vertical axis of BTFR which is then translated to the error in the distance modulus by $d\/DM = 2.5\/ d {\rm log}M_b$.
Below, we calculate the contribution of various uncertainties in the total scatter of the BTFR. For the sake of discussion, the BTFR and other relevant parameters are taken from our $riz$ model. The error budget is roughly the same if we consider other BTFRs at different wavebands. In this analysis the values and uncertainties of the H{\sc\,i} flux ($F_{21}$) and linewidth (${\rm log}W^i_{mx}$) are taken from Table 1 of \citet{2020ApJ...902..145K} and given again in \S \ref{sec:table} Table~\ref{tab:catalog}. The uncertainties on the apparent magnitudes at SDSS optical ($r$, $i$, and $z$) and WISE infrared ($W_1$ and $W_2$) bands are less than $0.05$ mag, the value we conservatively adopt in this analysis.
\begin{itemize}
\item Uncertainties in the calculated stellar mass to light ratios that have three sources. One originates from the errors in the coefficients $\alpha_{\lambda}$ and $\beta_{\lambda}$ in Equation \ref{eq:colorterm}. The other is related to the uncertainty of the $g-i$ color, which is $\sim 0.07$ mag considering that the uncertainties on the apparent magnitudes at SDSS optical ($r$, $i$, and $z$) and WISE infrared ($W_1$ and $W_2$) bands are less than $0.05$ mag. Given the rms scatter of the residuals of the $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ models, we associate an uncertainty of $0.1$ dex on the logarithm of the calculated stellar mass to light ratios, $\rm{log} \Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ $[M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}]$ (see Figures \ref{fig:linkopir} and \ref{fig:ms_w1_w2}). This level of uncertainty is equivalent to an average of $\sim 20\%$ error on the derived $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$. Dispersing the stellar mass to light ratios of the ensemble test galaxies and recalculating their total baryonic mass, results in an scatter of $0.08$ dex on the ${\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b$ which implies an uncertainty of $0.2$ mag on the distance modulus.
\item Uncertainty of the gas mass. Assuming a Gaussian error of $0.1$ on $K_g$ and in calculation of the baryonic mass from Equation~\ref{eq:Mb} generates a scatter of 0.01 dex on ${\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b$ which is equivalent to the moduli uncertainty of $0.02$ mag. Another error factor in the calculation of the gas mass is the error of the measured H{\sc\,i} flux. Dispersing the data points based on the error of the H{\sc\,i} flux generates a dispersion of less than $0.01$ dex along ${\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b$, equivalent to an error of $0.02$ mag in distance modulus. The combined error of 0.03 is minor.
\item The error of the velocity multiplier $C_{adj}$ in Equation \ref{MHIcorrection} and the scatter of residuals about the linear correlation shown in the middle panel of Figure \ref{fig:delHI}. This scatter has been modeled by the dashed line in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:delHI}. Considering these two types of errors introduces an scatter of $0.08$ dex along ${\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b$, an error of $0.2$ mag on distance modulus.
\item Uncertainty of the H{\sc\,i} line width, ${\rm log}W^i_{mx}$. We randomly disperse the linewidth of the simulated galaxies according to the error on the ${\rm log}W^i_{mx}$ parameter which already includes the uncertainty of the linewidths and inclinations measurements. A dispersion of $0.1$ dex on ${\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b$ is implied which is translated to $\sim 0.25$ mag error on the distance modulus.
\item Adding all mentioned known uncertainties we end up with a scatter of $0.15$ dex in ${\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b$ which is smaller than the 0.18 dex that we observe overall. Following the quadratic rule of addition of Gaussian errors, this unexplained scatter is equivalent to $0.1$ dex in ${\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b$ that translates to $23\%$ uncertainty on the calculated baryonic mass from the BTFR correlation. We attribute this residual to the intrinsic uncertainty of the BTFR correlation which could originate from unknown physical processes such as variations between the distributions of baryonic and dark matter. We include this unknown uncertainty in our analysis to get more reasonable errors on the measured distances.
\end{itemize}
Now that we have estimated the sources and ensemble contributions of different uncertainties in the final measurements, we can focus on each galaxy individually. In practice, we measure the distance of each galaxy using an ensemble of 10,000 sets of parameters that are generated by randomly dispersing the input observables based on their reported Gaussian errors. In addition to accounting for the uncertainties of the galaxy observables, each measurement adheres to the BTFR and $\Upsilon^*_{\lambda}$ models whose parameters are drawn from either their posterior distributions or the covariance matrices that are generated in the maximum likelihood fitting processes. The scatter about the fitted correlations is considered in the same process as explained above. In the end, we add an additional uncertainty of $0.1$ dex on ${\rm log} \widetilde{M}_b$ when measuring distances of the ensemble galaxies. For each galaxy, we perform 10,000 measurements using the simulated parameters and we report the median of all deduced distances as the final galaxy distance and adopt the $1\sigma$ scatter as the statistical error.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{The BTFR zero points and corresponding $H_0$ values for different calibrator samples
\label{tab:calibrators_zp_H0}}
\begin{tabular}{c | c c | c c c}
\hline \hline
Calibrator & $ZP_{<riz>}$ & $ZP_{<W1>}$ & $\langle H_0\rangle_{<riz>}$ & $\langle H_0\rangle_{<W1>}$ & $\langle H_0\rangle_{av}$ \\
Sample & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\tt BTFR Zero Point} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\tt [\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}]} \\
\hline
CPLR & $10.401\pm0.037$ & $10.406\pm0.030$ & $74.5\pm3.2$ & $75.8\pm2.6$ & $75.8\pm2.8$ \\
TRGB & $10.406\pm0.041$ & $10.409\pm0.030$ & $74.1\pm3.6$ & $75.6\pm2.6$ & $75.5\pm3.0$ \\
\hline
CPLR+TRGB & $10.405\pm0.033$ & $10.408\pm0.026$ & $74.1\pm2.8$ & $75.6\pm2.3$ & $75.5\pm2.5$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{The Hubble Constant}
\label{sec:H0}
The zero point fits enable a determination of the Hubble Constant consistent with this data. The arbitrary value of $H_0=75$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}\ was taken to study relative properties of the BTFR in $\S2$ because our studies with the same data \citep{2020ApJ...896....3K, 2020ApJ...902..145K} favored approximately this value.
The zero point fits shown in Figure~\ref{fig:BTFRZP} are consistent with this initial choice of $H_0$ to within one Hubble unit.
Individual galaxy Hubble parameter values following Eq.~\ref{eq:hubbleparameter} with
distances derived from deviations from the separate $W1$ and $<riz>$ relations in Figure~\ref{fig:BTFRZP} are displayed as a function of systemic velocity in Figure~\ref{fig:H0}. The fits shown by dashed blue lines are averaged over velocities greater than 4,000~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ where deviations due to peculiar velocities are expected to be small. The Hubble parameters are averaged in logarithmic space, where the uncertainties are approximately Gaussian, and are weighted using the moduli uncertainties discussed in the previous section.
The rms scatter corresponds to a scatter of 22\% in distances.
The uncertainties quoted in the figure legends are statistical given the absolute calibration. The statistical uncertainties associated with the zero point calibration are larger: $\Delta H_0=\pm2.3$ and $\pm2.8$ at $W1$ and $<riz>$ respectively.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:H0}, we find
$H_0^{W1}=75.6\pm2.3$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}\ and $H_0^{<riz>}=74.1\pm2.8$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}\ where the errors are the quadrature sum of the scatter seen in Figure~\ref{fig:H0} and the zero point scale uncertainties of Figure~\ref{fig:BTFRZP}. The errors do not include uncertainties in the Cepheid and TRGB absolute scales. Combining the optical and infrared measures we find $H_0^{av}=75.5\pm2.5$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}. This value differs from a straight average of the optical and infrared values because the sky coverages in the separate bands are different.
We pursue the same methodology for determining the BTFR zero point and Hubble constant using each set of calibrator separately. Table \ref{tab:calibrators_zp_H0} lists the BTFR zero points and their associated Hubble constants. The deduced values for different calibrator samples are in agreement considering the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties. The reported distances in this study are constructed based on the zero points we found for the $TRGB+CPLR$ sample.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/dDM_Vcmb_rizw1.png}
\caption{Comparison of distance moduli derived alternatively from optical and infrared photometry as a function of systemic velocity.
\label{fig:Vdif}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figures/H0av_notCorrected_HI.png}
\caption{
NO H{\sc\,i} CORRECTION. The treatment leading to this plot is identical to that giving the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:H0} except the adjustment for the H{\sc\,i} flux bias has {\it not} been applied.
\label{fig:nocorrection}}
\end{figure}
\section{Tests}
\label{sec:tests}
There are necessary, though not sufficient, tests that a sample must pass. For example, at systemic velocities greater than $\sim4,000$~\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}\ deviant velocities are expected to be small compared with Hubble expansion velocities. The log of distance estimates should scatter around the Hubble expansion expectation.\footnote{
There is a long history of the discussion of biases that can arise with distance measurements suffering substantial uncertainties. An acute example is a potential sample selection bias, discussed in the context of luminosity$-$linewidth measurements by, among others, \citet{1994ApJ...430...13S, 1999AJ....117..157S} and \citet{1994ApJS...92....1W}.
\citet{2000ApJ...533..744T} provide a substantial review. In the current application, the dominant selection effect is imposed by the H{\sc\,i} flux limit. Our procedure for negating the bias that could arise is tested by simulations as discussed in \S \ref{sec:mock-test}. A characteristic signature of bias is a variation of Hubble parameter with redshift or another independent variable such as apparent magnitude or inclination.
}
The top panels of Figure~\ref{fig:2Vdeld} illustrates the constancy of the ratio, observed distances to Hubble flow expectation, in bins of observed velocity. Results are equally good with infrared and optical photometry (results with $r$ and $z$ are almost indistinguishable from those at $i$). Figure~\ref{fig:Vdif} provides a direct comparison between the infrared and $<riz>$ averaged optical material when all are available. There is a statistically insignificant offset of $0.8\%$ in average distances. The necessary test is passed.
Figure~\ref{fig:nocorrection} draws on data that are in all respects the same as that shown in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:H0} except the baryonic masses have {\it not} received the H{\sc\,i} flux bias adjustment. The problem without the adjustment is clear. Hubble parameter values drift higher with redshift, just as was seen with the mock sample in the upper panel of Figure~\ref{fig:mockHV}. For galaxies with the same apparent magnitudes at the same redshifts, those with greater H{\sc\,i} flux (larger relative baryonic mass) are retained while those with lesser H{\sc\,i} flux are lost. These retained galaxies tend to lie to the left of the fiducial BTFR, hence are given distances less than a case on the fiducial relation, leading to increased $H_0$ values. Without the H{\sc\,i} flux bias adjustment, any estimate of $H_0$ is compromised.
Another test is to evaluate the run of distance estimates normalized to Hubble flow expectations as a function of apparent infrared and optical magnitudes. Again, scatter about a constant ratio is expected. It has been demonstrated that measured distances in the compilation of \citet{2020ApJ...902..145K} failed this test. That analysis did not adequately account for the curvature in the TFR and motivated this study. As seen in the bottom panels of Figure~\ref{fig:2Vdeld}, the distances determined here pass this test with both infrared and optical photometry.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{figures/dDM_riz_cf3.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{figures/dDM_w1_cf3.png}
\caption{Comparison of distance moduli reported in {\it Cosmicflows-3} with BTFR distance moduli (left: SDSS optical photometry; right: WISE infrared photometry). There are small zero point differences.
\label{fig:2CF3}}
\end{figure*}
A further test is to compare the new BTFR distances with TFR distances reported in {\it Cosmicflows-3} \citep{2016AJ....152...50T}. It is seen in Figure~\ref{fig:2CF3} that there is constancy in the velocity bin averages with both infrared and the $<riz>$ optical photometry. There are zero point offsets but we leave reconciliation to the ensemble {\it Cosmicflows-4} compilation.
\section{Table of Distances}
\label{sec:table}
The distances of 10154 galaxies in our sample and their observed/inferred information that are used in this study are cataloged in Table \ref{tab:catalog}. See also the table {\it CF4 BTF-distances} maintained and updated in the {\it Extragalactic Distance Database} (https://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu).
Columns are
(1) The ID number of the galaxy in the Principal Galaxy Catalog (PGC; \url{http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/}).
(2) Flag: 1 = accepted; 0 = rejected as either $>3.5 \sigma$ deviant or below the mass limit of $10^9 M_{\odot}$ or if the modulus uncertainty is larger than $0.8$ mag.
(3) The average of distance moduli measured using optical and infrared data. The reported uncertainty is the maximum adjusted error of the optical and infrared moduli.
(4) The measured distance modulus from the averaged optical BTFR, $<riz>$ (refer to the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:BTFRZP}). The statistical error on the measured moduli using the optical data derived from the Gaussian propagation of uncertainties in the associated measured quantities (refer to \S \ref{{sec:uncertaintyMeasure}} for detailed discussion).
(5) The measured distance modulus from the $W1$ BTFR (refer to the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:BTFRZP}), and their uncertainties.
(6) The PGC ID of the dominant galaxy in the parent group \citep{2017ApJ...843...16K}.
(7) The parent group ID in the 2MASS group catalog \citep{2015AJ....149..171T}.
(8) The logarithm of the average stellar mass calculated based on SDSS photometry data at the $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands.
(9) The logarithm of the stellar mass calculated based on $W1$ band photometry data assuming the mass to light ratio, $\Upsilon^*_{W1}$, defined by the fit in Figure~\ref{fig:ms_w1_w2}.
(10) The logarithm of the galaxy gas mass calculated using $1.33M_{HI}$, where $M_{HI}$ is the atomic hydrogen mass.
(12) The logarithm of the total baryonic mass of a galaxy in stellar and gas forms.
(13) Heliocentric velocity from H{\sc\,i} observations.
(14) Radial velocity relative to the Local Sheet \citep{2008ApJ...676..184T}.
(15) Radial velocity in the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background.
(16) The cosmological correction factor
$f_j=1+1/2(1-q_0)z_j-1/6(1-q_0-3q_0^2+j_0)z_j^2$ where $z_j$ is the redshift of the galaxy, $j_o\simeq1$, and $q_0=0.5(\Omega_m-2\Omega_{\Lambda})=-0.595$ \citep{2004CQGra..21.2603V} assuming $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$ .
(17) The logarithm of the inclination-corrected H{\sc\,i} line width, calculated from $W^i_{mx}=W_{mx}/\sin(i)$, where $i$ is the inclination angle presented in column (18). The line width parameter $W_{mx}$ is derived from a measure of the 50 percentile width of an observed H{\sc\,i} profile, adjusted for instrumental resolution and redshift stretch effects, and statistically descriptive of the peak-to-peak maximum rotation velocity of a galaxy \citep{2009AJ....138.1938C, 2011MNRAS.414.2005C}, with uncertainty.
(18) H{\sc\,i} 21cm flux, with uncertainty.
(19) The inclination of the galaxy in degrees, with uncertainty.
(19-24) The {\it SDSS g,r,i,z} and {WISE \it W1,W2} magnitudes in the AB system, corrected for Milky Way obscuration, redshift $k-$correction, and the host dust attenuation. Please refer to \S 2.2.2 of \citet{2020ApJ...902..145K} for further details. The uncertainty of observed magnitudes is $0.05$ mag.
(23-24) The manually assigned quality for the photometry of SDSS and WISE images. The quality grade ranges from $0$ for the poorest quality (or missing data) to $5$ for the best quality.
(27-32) Galaxy coordinates in equatorial, galactic and supergalactic reference frames.
(33) Number of galaxies in the parent group identified in \citet{2017ApJ...843...16K}.
(34) Number of galaxies in the parent group identified in \citet{2015AJ....149..171T}.
(35-36) The coordinates of parent group in the supergalactic frame of reference.
(37-39) The average velocity of the parent group in the heliocentric, Local Sheet, and CMB rest frames.
(40) The cosmological correction factor described in column (17), calculated using the redshift of the parent group.
\clearpage
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Data Catalog$^{\dag}$}
\label{tab:catalog}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{r ccccccrrccccccccccc}
\hline \hline
PGC &
Flag &
$DM_{av}$ &
$DM_{riz}$ &
$DM_{W1}$ &
1PGC &
Nest &
$\log(M_*)^a$ &
$\log(M_*)^b$ &
$\log(M_g)^c$ &
$\log(M_b)^d$ &
$V_{h}$ &
$V_{LS}$ &
$V_{CMB}$ &
$f$ &
$\log (W^i_{mx)}$ &
$F_{21}$ & $Inc.$
\\
&
&
(mag) &
(mag) &
(mag) &
&
&
$[M_\odot]$ &
$[M_\odot]$ &
$[M_\odot]$ &
$[M_\odot]$ &
(km/s) &
(km/s) &
(km/s) &
&
& (deg)
Jy$\cdot$\mbox{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}
\\
(1) & (2) & (3) &
(4) & (5) & (6) &
(7) & (8) & (9) &
(10) & (11) & (12) &
(13) & (14) &
(15) & (16) & (17) &
(18) \\
\hline
2 & 1 & 34.51$\pm$0.46 & & 34.49$\pm$0.46 & 73150 & 200275 & & 11.154 & 9.910 & 11.178 & 5004 & 5296 & 4726 & 1.013 & 2.744$\pm$0.029 & 4.73$\pm$0.81 & 52$\pm$4 \\
4 & 1 & 33.49$\pm$0.49 & 33.43$\pm$0.48 & 33.72$\pm$0.49 & 120 & 202766 & 9.394 & 9.266 & 9.377 & 9.655 & 4458 & 4706 & 4109 & 1.011 & 2.189$\pm$0.014 & 1.91$\pm$0.07 & 85$\pm$2 \\
12 & 1 & 34.97$\pm$0.41 & & 34.99$\pm$0.41 & 12 & 210177 & & 10.647 & 9.939 & 10.724 & 6548 & 6685 & 6195 & 1.016 & 2.606$\pm$0.021 & 3.40$\pm$0.58 & 82$\pm$3 \\
16 & 1 & 34.63$\pm$0.45 & 34.62$\pm$0.45 & 34.66$\pm$0.42 & 16 & 211419 & 10.373 & 10.371 & 9.362 & 10.413 & 5667 & 5809 & 5312 & 1.014 & 2.515$\pm$0.025 & 1.19$\pm$0.20 & 65$\pm$4 \\
55 & 1 & 33.83$\pm$0.60 & 33.81$\pm$0.59 & 33.95$\pm$0.60 & 55 & & 9.344 & 9.276 & 9.791 & 9.915 & 4779 & 5052 & 4454 & 1.012 & 2.260$\pm$0.025 & 4.30$\pm$0.32 & 80$\pm$3 \\
68 & 1 & 34.71$\pm$0.56 & 34.82$\pm$0.56 & 34.71$\pm$0.53 & 68 & & 10.067 & 10.148 & 9.738 & 10.262 & 7664 & 7740 & 7338 & 1.019 & 2.390$\pm$0.043 & 1.61$\pm$0.27 & 57$\pm$4 \\
70 & 1 & 35.18$\pm$0.41 & 35.32$\pm$0.41 & 35.15$\pm$0.39 & 70 & 209949 & 10.603 & 10.691 & 10.369 & 10.831 & 6800 & 7040 & 6447 & 1.017 & 2.636$\pm$0.005 & 8.33$\pm$0.12 & 90$\pm$1 \\
76 & 1 & 34.76$\pm$0.41 & 34.72$\pm$0.41 & 34.83$\pm$0.39 & 76 & 209247 & 10.873 & 10.835 & 10.109 & 10.926 & 6920 & 7183 & 6583 & 1.017 & 2.624$\pm$0.013 & 4.42$\pm$0.11 & 68$\pm$4 \\
92 & 1 & 32.82$\pm$0.50 & 32.89$\pm$0.50 & & 92 & & 9.612 & & 9.818 & 10.028 & 5376 & 5592 & 5015 & 1.013 & 2.165$\pm$0.016 & 3.78$\pm$0.08 & 80$\pm$3 \\
94 & 1 & 33.83$\pm$0.58 & & 33.86$\pm$0.58 & 94 & & & 9.374 & 9.593 & 9.799 & 4098 & 4367 & 3995 & 1.011 & 2.274$\pm$0.032 & 3.61$\pm$0.62 & 90$\pm$1 \\
\dots \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\caption{Data Catalog (continued)$^{\dag}$}
\label{tab:catalog}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{c cccccccccrrrrrrccrrcccc}
\hline \hline
PGC &
$g^*$ & $r^*$ &
$i^*$ & $z^*$ & $W1^*$ & $W2^*$ &
$Q_{S}$ & $Q_{W}$ &
RA & Dec & Glon & Glat & SGL & SGB &
$N_{kt}$ & $N_{15}$ &
SGL$^{(g)}$ & SGB$^{(g)}$ & $V_{h}^{(g)}$ & $V_{LS}^{(g)}$ & $V_{CMB}^{(g)}$ & $f_g$
\\
&
(mag) & (mag) & (mag) &
(mag) & (mag) & (mag) &
& &
(deg) & (deg) & (deg) &
(deg) & (deg) & (deg) &
& &
(deg) & (deg) & (km/s) &
(km/s) & (km/s) &
\\
(1) & (19) & (20) & (21) &
(22) & (23) & (24) &
(25) & (26) & (27) &
(28) & (29) & (30) &
(31) & (32) & (33) &
(34) & (35) & (36) &
(37) & (38) & (39) &
(40) \\
\hline
2 & & & & & 11.89 & 12.52 & & 5 & 0.0005 & 47.2745 & 113.9553 & -14.6992 & 341.6440 & 20.7388 & 0 & 7 & 341.4922 & 20.7395 & 5194 & 5486 & 4916 & 1.013 \\
4 & 15.59 & 15.33 & 15.12 & 15.07 & 16.07 & 16.44 & 5 & 4 & 0.0010 & 23.0876 & 107.8322 & -38.2729 & 316.0587 & 18.4514 & 0 & 0 & 316.0587 & 18.4514 & 4458 & 4706 & 4109 & 1.011 \\
12 & & & & & 13.59 & 14.23 & & 5 & 0.0024 & -6.3739 & 90.1920 & -65.9300 & 286.4249 & 11.3511 & 0 & 1 & 286.4249 & 11.3510 & 6532 & 6669 & 6179 & 1.016 \\
16 & 14.36 & 13.86 & 13.58 & 13.40 & 13.99 & 14.70 & 5 & 5 & 0.0031 & -5.1587 & 91.6005 & -64.8656 & 287.6119 & 11.7030 & 0 & 1 & 287.6120 & 11.7030 & 5709 & 5851 & 5354 & 1.014 \\
55 & 15.53 & 15.32 & 15.22 & 15.17 & 16.20 & 16.63 & 5 & 4 & 0.0104 & 33.6009 & 110.9496 & -28.0857 & 327.0996 & 19.7763 & 0 & 0 & 327.0996 & 19.7763 & 4779 & 5052 & 4454 & 1.012 \\
68 & 14.93 & 14.61 & 14.52 & 14.34 & 15.03 & 15.54 & 5 & 5 & 0.0154 & -18.9589 & 65.4189 & -75.8101 & 274.3903 & 7.1770 & 0 & 0 & 274.3903 & 7.1770 & 7664 & 7739 & 7338 & 1.019 \\
70 & 13.87 & 13.46 & 13.24 & 13.02 & 13.54 & 14.11 & 5 & 5 & 0.0156 & 20.3380 & 107.1780 & -40.9837 & 313.2487 & 17.7662 & 0 & 1 & 313.2488 & 17.7663 & 6803 & 7043 & 6450 & 1.017 \\
76 & 13.80 & 13.21 & 12.91 & 12.73 & 13.23 & 13.81 & 5 & 5 & 0.0164 & 28.9115 & 109.8058 & -32.6709 & 322.1726 & 19.1316 & 0 & 1 & 322.1729 & 19.1316 & 6903 & 7166 & 6566 & 1.017 \\
92 & 15.64 & 15.30 & 15.09 & 14.94 & & & 5 & & 0.0208 & 13.1125 & 104.5148 & -47.9564 & 305.8667 & 16.2222 & 0 & 0 & 305.8667 & 16.2222 & 5376 & 5591 & 5015 & 1.013 \\
94 & & & & & 15.84 & 16.52 & & 4 & 0.0336 & 80.6417 & 120.8356 & 17.9718 & 16.8900 & 17.6394 & 0 & 0 & 16.8900 & 17.6394 & 4098 & 4367 & 3995 & 1.011 \\
\dots \\
\hline
\multicolumn{20}{l}{$^\dag$ The complete version of this table is available online and also as a catalog within the Extragalactic Distance Database (\url{https://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu}).} \\
\multicolumn{20}{l}{$^a$ Average stellar mass from the $r$, $i$ and $z$ bands.} \\
\multicolumn{20}{l}{$^b$ Stellar mass from the WISE $W1$-band data.} \\
\multicolumn{20}{l}{$^c$ The mass of gas includes the contributions from H{\sc\,i} and Helium contents.} \\
\multicolumn{20}{l}{$^d$ Baryonic mass includes the stellar and gas contributions.} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Summary}
Interstellar gas can be a significant component of the baryonic mass inventory of a spiral galaxy. \citet{2000ApJ...533L..99M} have long been advocates of the BTFR as providing a more complete representation of galaxy mass and for the empirical justification that it provides a closely power law dependence with Hydrogen profile linewidths.
Our sample of $10^4$ galaxies gives good definition of the fundamental correlation. As a tool for measuring galaxy distances, we had to overcome an evident bias. Our sample is selected through H{\sc\,i} detections which are flux limited. Photometry can be obtained for all candidates that pass the H{\sc\,i} bar. The evidence for the bias is clear, as demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig:delHI}. After accounting for this bias the distances that we measure are free of deleterious trends with redshift and pass the other tests of $\S\ref{sec:tests}$.
Our photometry is a mix of optical material from SDSS and infrared material from WISE, as discussed fully by \citet{2020ApJ...902..145K}. The L-band infrared photometry is most cleanly linked to stellar mass. We derived linkages to stellar mass for the optical photometry that involve color terms. There is good consistency between the optical and infrared material.
The optical and infrared observations that we use have different sky coverage. The SDSS optical coverage is confined to the celestial north while the WISE infrared coverage is all-sky. While the WISE photometry could be obtained for all our targets, in practice the coverage of objects with SDSS material is only partial. The Cepheid and TRGB absolute calibrations result in optical and infrared BTFR that are slightly ($0.8\%$) different. While this difference could be entirely statistical, it could arise from the difference in sky-coverage and differential departures from Hubble flow. Since the goal of the program is to map non-Hubble motions, the separate optical and infrared calibrations are retained. Of 10153 cataloged galaxies, 9984 are accepted with flag=1. Of these, 2095 galaxies have both optical and infrared measures, 4855 have only optical, and 3034 have only infrared. A straight average of the SDSS and WISE distance moduli are taken if both are available. Observed rms scatter in moduli is about $0.45$ mag corresponding to $\sim20\%$ in distance.
The separate zero point fits to the BTFR give values of the Hubble Constant of $75.6\pm2.3$ and $74.1\pm2.8$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}\ for the infrared and optical cases, respectively. An average of the optical and infrared distances gives $H_0=75.5\pm2.5$~\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}.
The uncertainties are dominated by the uncertainties of the zero point calibrations. The optical and infrared field galaxy samples are 80\% independent and the optical and infrared calibration samples are 40\% independent. This estimate of the Hubble Constant is provisional in the context of the {\it Cosmicflows-4} program. It remains for these BTFR distances to be integrated with the seven other methodologies of the program, yet to be reported.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank our anonymous referee for the constructive comments that certainly improved this presentation.
Special thanks to Cullan Howlett and Khaled Said for pointing out the trends in galaxy distances as functions of apparent optical and infrared magnitudes in \citet{2020ApJ...902..145K}, the impetus for the present study.
Support for the {\it Cosmicflows-4} program has been provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data Analysis Program through grant number 88NSSC18K0424.
\section*{Data Availability}
We presented all data underlying this article in Table \ref{tab:catalog}. The complete version of this table would be available within the public domain of Extragalactic Distance Database (EDD: \url{https://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu/dfirst.php}) under the title of {\tt "CF4 BTF-distances"}. The corresponding photometry catalog is provided in table {\tt "CF4 Initial Candidates"} on EDD. The underlying H{\sc\,i} data are available in multiple tables on EDD within the section {\tt "HI Linewidths"}. For further details on how the photometry and H{\sc\,i} data were assembled, please refer to Section 2 of \citet{2020ApJ...902..145K}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Randomized experiments have seen increasing use in economic research. In existing experiments, one of the popular randomization methods applied by economists to achieve balance between treatment and control is covariate-adaptive randomization (CAR) (\citep{B09}), in which subjects are randomly assigned to treatment and control within strata formed by a few key pre-treatment variables. However, subject compliance with random assignment is usually imperfect. Recent studies in economics using CAR and with imperfect compliance include, for example, \cite{hirshleifer2016}, \cite{Blattman2018}, \cite{dupasetal2018}, and \cite{banerjee2018}.
In CARs with imperfect compliance, the local average treatment effects (LATEs)--the average treatment effects among those who comply with the assignment, can be identified, as formulated in the seminal work by \cite{imbens1994}. To estimate the LATE, researchers usually run two-stage least squares (TSLS) with additional covariates as exogenous regressors and treatment assignment as instrumental variable, in which heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors is used for inference. Two issues arise with such practice. First, \cite{anseletal2018} and \cite{BG21} recently point out that, due to the cross-sectional dependence introduced by the CARs, the standard errors of various TSLS estimators are inconsistent. They then propose consistent alternatives. Second, \cite{F08b,F081} point out that simply including extra covariates as linear regressors may lead to degradation of the estimation precision. \cite{anseletal2018} address this issue by interacting additional covariates with stratum dummies and treatment assignment (the S estimator of \cite{anseletal2018} hereafter), which is guaranteed to be more efficient than various TSLS estimators discussed in their paper (their proposition 7).
However, is the S estimator proposed by \cite{anseletal2018} the most efficient among all linear adjusted LATE estimators? Can nonlinear, nonparametric, and regularized adjustments lead to further efficiency improvement? More profoundly, what is the semiparametric efficiency bound for the LATE estimation under CARs? What is a systematic but flexible method to use additional covariates that is guaranteed to improve the estimation precision and can potentially achieve the efficiency bound?
To answer these questions, after briefly analyzing existing methods, we first derive the semiparametric efficiency bound for the LATE under CARs with additional covariates. Such a bound is new to the literature because the treatment statuses generated by CARs are not independent. It complements the recent work by \cite{A22}, which derives the semiparametric efficiency bound for ATE without additional covariates under CARs. We also observe that \citeauthor{anseletal2018}'s (\citeyear{anseletal2018}) S estimator does not achieve the efficiency bound in general.
Second, we propose a flexible way to make regression adjustments in the estimation of LATE. The new method can accommodate linear, nonlinear, nonparametric, and regularized adjustments. Our theoretical analysis follows a new asymptotic framework that was recently established by \cite{BCS17} to study ATE estimators under CARs. This framework accounts for the cross-sectional dependence caused by the randomization. We thus develop an inference method that (1) achieves the exact asymptotic size under the null despite the cross-sectional dependence introduced by CARs, (2) is robust to adjustment misspecification, and (3) achieves the semiparametric efficiency bound when the adjustments are correctly specified.
Third, we further investigate efficiency gains brought by regression adjustments in parametric (both linear and nonlinear), nonparametric, and regularized forms. When adjustments are linear, we drive the most efficient estimator (denoted as LP) among all linearly adjusted LATE estimators, and in particular, show that it is weakly more efficient than the estimator without adjustment (denoted as NA, which coincides with \citeauthor{BG21}'s (\citeyear{BG21}) fully saturated estimator) and the commonly used TSLS estimator. We prove that the S estimator proposed by \cite{anseletal2018} is asymptotically equivalent to LP and thus linearly optimal. However, because the linear model is likely misspecified for the binary treatment status, it is expected that nonlinearly adjusted LATE estimator can be more efficient than the
one proposed by \cite{anseletal2018}. In fact, we further construct a new estimator (denoted as F) which combines the both linear and logistic adjustments (denoted as LG) and show it is weakly more efficient than both the optimally linearly-adjusted and the unadjusted estimators. The new estimator is also guaranteed to be weakly more efficient than the TSLS estimator. Last, we study the nonparametric (denoted as NP) and regularized adjustments (denoted as R) which are completely new to the literature and provide conditions under which the two methods achieve the semiparametric efficiency bound as if the adjustments are correctly specified. Figure \ref{fig:order} visualizes the partial order of efficiency for these estimators.
\begin{figure}[H]
\label{fig:order}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[->,>=stealth',shorten >=1pt,auto,node distance=2.8cm,
semithick]
\tikzstyle{every state}=[fill=white,draw=black,text=black]
\node[state,minimum size=1.5cm] (A) {NP,R};
\node[state,minimum size=1.5cm] (B) [right of=A] {F};
\node[state,minimum size=1.5cm] (C) [right of=B] {LP};
\node[state,minimum size=1.5cm] (D) [right of=C] {NA};
\node[state,minimum size=1.5cm] (E) [below right of=B] {LG};
\node[state,minimum size=1.5cm] (F) [below right of=C] {TSLS};
\path (A) edge node {} (B);
\path (B) edge node {} (C);
\path (C) edge node {} (D);
\path (B) edge node {} (E);
\path (C) edge node {} (F);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Efficiency of Various LATE Estimators (from the most efficient to the least)}
\end{figure}
The final contribution of the paper is to provide simulation evidence and empirical support for the efficiency gains achieved by our regression-adjusted LATE estimator. We compare it with both the one without any adjustment and the one obtained by the commonly used TSLS and confirm sizable efficiency gains that can be achieved by regression adjustments. In the empirical application, we revisit the experiment with a CAR design in \cite{dupasetal2018}. We find that by just using the same two covariates adopted in that paper, over nine outcome variables, the standard errors of our adjusted LATE estimators are on average around 7\% lower than those without adjustments. For some outcome variables, regression adjustments can reduce the standard errors by about 15\%. Compared with the TSLS estimators, the standard errors of our estimators are generally smaller as well, although by a smaller margin.
Our paper is related to several lines of research. \cite{HH12,MHZ15,MQLH18,O21,SY13,ZZ20,Y18,YS20} studied inference of either ATEs or QTEs under CARs without considering additional covariates. \cite{BCS17,BCS18,BL16,F18,L13,L16,LD20,LiD20,LTM20,LY20,NW20,SYZ10,YYS20,ZD20} studied the estimation and inference of ATEs using a variety of regression methods under various randomization. \cite{jiang2021b} examined regression-adjusted estimation and inference of QTEs under CARs. Based on pilot experiments, \cite{T18} and \cite{B19} devise optimal randomization designs that may produce an ATE estimator with the lowest variance. All the works above assume perfect compliance while we contribute to the literature by studying the LATE estimators in the context of CARs and regression adjustment, which allows for imperfect compliance. \cite{renliu2021} studied the regression-adjusted LATE estimator in completely randomized experiments for a \textit{binary} outcome using the finite population asymptotics. We differ from their work by considering the regression-adjusted estimator in \textit{covariate-adaptive} randomizations for a \textit{general} outcome using the \textit{superpoluation} asymptotics. We also derive the semiparametric efficiency bound of the LATE under CARs with additional covariates. Such a result is new to the literature of regression adjustments under various randomization schemes. Finally, our paper also connects to a vast literature on the estimation and inference in randomized experiments, including \cite{HHK11, athey2017, abadie2018, T18, BRS19, B19, JL20} among many others.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec setup} lays out our setup. Section \ref{sec:tsls} studies the existing methods to estimate LATE with additional covariates. Section \ref{sec:bound} derives the semiparametric efficiency bound for the LATE under CARs. Section \ref{sec:estimation} introduces our flexible regression-adjusted LATE estimator $\hat{\tau}$. We establish the asymptotic properties of $\hat{\tau}$ in Section \ref{sec:estimation} under high-level conditions. We then examine efficiency of $\hat{\tau}$ in contexts of parametric, nonparametric, and regularized adjustments in Sections \ref{sec:par}, \ref{sec:np} and \ref{sec:hd}, respectively. We conduct Monte Carlo simulations in Section \ref{sec:sim} and an empirical application in Section \ref{sec:app}. Section \ref{sec:conclu} concludes. Some implementation details for sieve and Lasso regressions
and the proofs of the theoretical results are included in the Online Supplement.
\section{Setup}
\label{sec setup}
Let $Y_i$ denote the observed outcome of interest for individual $i$; write $Y_i = Y_i(1)D_i + Y_i(0)(1-D_i)$, where $Y_i(1), Y_i(0)$ are the individual $i$'s hypothetical treated and untreated outcomes, respectively, and $D_i$ is a binary random variable indicating whether individual $i$ received the treatment ($D_i=1$) or not ($D_i=0$) in the actual study. One could link $D_i$ to the treatment assignment $A_i$ in the following way: $D_i = D_i(1)A_i + D_i(0)(1-A_i)$, where $D_i(a)$ is the individual $i$'s treatment decision upon receiving treatment status $A_i=a$ for $a=0,1$; $D_i(a)$ is a binary random variable. Define $Y_i(D_i(a)): = Y_i(1)D_i(a) + Y_i(0)(1-D_i(a))$, so we can write $Y_i=Y_i(D_i(1))A_i+Y_i(D_i(0))(1-A_i)$.
Consider a CAR with $n$ individuals; that is, a researcher can observe the data $\{Y_i,D_i,A_i,S_i,X_i\}_{i=1}^n$. The support of vectors $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is denoted $\text{Supp}(X)$. Define $[n]:=\{1,2,...n\}$, $p(s) := \mathbb{P}(S_i = s)$, $n(s) := \sum_{i \in [n]}1\{S_i = s\}$, $n_1(s) := \sum_{i \in [n]}A_i1\{S_i=s\}$, $n_0(s): = n(s) - n_1(s)$, $S^{(n)}:=(S_1,\ldots, S_n)$, $X^{(n)}:=(X_1,\ldots, X_n)$, and $A^{(n)}:=(A_1,\ldots, A_n)$. We make the following assumptions on the data generating process (DGP) and the treatment assignment rule.
\begin{ass}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $\{Y_i(1),Y_i(0),D_i(0),D_i(1),S_i,X_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is i.i.d. over $i$. For each $i$, We allow $X_i$ and $S_i$ to be dependent.
\item $\{Y_i(1),Y_i(0),D_i(0),D_i(1),X_i\}^{n}_{i=1} \perp\!\!\!\perp A^{(n)}|S^{(n)}$.
\item Suppose that $p(s)$ is fixed w.r.t. $n$ and positive for every $s \in \mathcal{S}$.
\item Let $\pi(s)$ denote the propensity score for stratum $s$ (i.e., the targeted assignment probability for stratum $s$). Then, $c<\min_{s \in \mathcal{S}}\pi(s) \leq \max_{s \in \mathcal{S}}\pi(s)<1-c$ for some constant $c \in (0,0.5)$ and $\frac{B_n(s)}{n(s)} = o_p(1)$ for $s \in \mathcal{S}$, where $B_n(s) := \sum_{i =1}^n (A_i-\pi(s))1\{S_i = s\}$.
\item Suppose $\mathbb{P}(D(1)=0, D(0)=1)=0$.
\item $\max_{a=0,1,s\in \mathcal{S}}\mathbb{E}(|Y_i(a)|^q|S_i=s) \leq C<\infty$ for $q \geq 4$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{ass:assignment1}
\end{ass}
Several remarks are in order. First, Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(ii) implies that the treatment assignment $A^{(n)}$ are generated only based on strata indicators. Second, Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(iii) imposes that the sizes of strata are balanced. Third, \cite{BCS17} show that Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(iv) holds under several covariate-adaptive treatment assignment rules such as simple random sampling (SRS), biased-coin design (BCD), adaptive biased-coin design (WEI), and stratified block randomization (SBR). For completeness, we briefly repeat their descriptions below. Note that we only require $B_n(s)/n(s) = o_p(1)$, which is weaker than the assumption imposed by \cite{BCS17} but the same as that imposed by \cite{BCS18} and \cite{ZZ20}. Fourth, Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(v) implies there are no defiers. Last, Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(vi) is a standard moment condition.
\begin{ex}[SRS]
\label{ex:srs}
Let $\{A_i\}_{i=1}^n$ be drawn independently across $i$ and of $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^n$ as Bernoulli random variables with success rate $\pi$, i.e., for $k=1,\cdots,n$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(A_k = 1\big|\{S_i\}_{i=1}^n, \{A_{j}\}_{j=1}^{k-1}\right) = \mathbb{P}(A_k = 1) = \pi.
\end{align*}
Then, Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(iv) holds with $\pi(s)=\pi$ for all $s$.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}[WEI]
\label{ex:wei}
This design was first proposed by \cite{W78}. Let $n_{k-1}(S_k) = \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}1\{S_i = S_k\}$, $B_{k-1}(S_k) = \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\left(A_i - \frac{1}{2} \right) 1\{S_i = S_k\}$, and
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(A_k = 1\big| \{S_i\}_{i=1}^k,\{A_i\}_{i=1}^{k-1}\right) = f\biggl(\frac{2B_{k-1}(S_k)}{n_{k-1}(S_k)}\biggr),
\end{align*}
where $f(\cdot):[-1,1] \mapsto [0,1]$ is a pre-specified non-increasing function satisfying $f(-x) = 1- f(x)$. Here, $\frac{B_0(S_1)}{n_0(S_1)}$ and $B_0(S_1)$ are understood to be zero. Then, \cite{BCS17} show that Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(iv) holds with $\pi(s) = \frac{1}{2}$ for all $s$. Recently, \cite{H16} generalized the adaptive biased-coin design to multiple treatment values and unequal target factions.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}[BCD]
\label{ex:bcd}
The treatment status is determined sequentially for $1 \leq k \leq n$ as
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(A_k = 1| \{S_i\}_{i=1}^k,\{A_i\}_{i=1}^{k-1}\right) = \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2} & \text{if }B_{k-1}(S_k) = 0 \\
\lambda & \text{if }B_{k-1}(S_k) < 0 \\
1-\lambda & \text{if }B_{k-1}(S_k) > 0,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $B_{k-1}(s)$ is defined as above and $\frac{1}{2}< \lambda \leq 1$. Then, \cite{BCS17} show that Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(iv) holds with $\pi(s) = \frac{1}{2}$ for all $s$.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}[SBR]
\label{ex:sbr}
For each stratum, $\lfloor \pi(s) n(s) \rfloor$ units are assigned to treatment and the rest are assigned to control. Then obviously Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(iv) holds as $n(s)\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{ex}
Throughout the paper, we are interested in estimating the \textit{local average treatment effect} (LATE) which is denoted $\tau$ and defined as
\begin{align*}
\tau := \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{Y(1) - Y(0)|D(1)>D(0)};
\end{align*}
that is, we are interested in the ATE for the compliers (\cite{angristimbens1994}).
\section{Existing Methods to Estimate LATE with Extra Covariates}
\label{sec:tsls}
\subsection{Two Stage Least Squares}
Empirical researchers using CARs usually estimate LATE via two stage least squares (TSLS) regressions with strata dummies and additional covariates (e.g. baseline variables) as exogenous regressors. Examples include \cite{bruhn2014}, \cite{mckenzie2017}, \cite{banerjee2018}, and \cite{dupasetal2018}.
The form of the TSLS regression commonly taken in empirical studies using CARs is
\begin{align*}
& D_i = \gamma A_i + \alpha_s + X_i^\prime \theta + e_i, \\
& Y_i = \tau D_i + \alpha_s + X_i^\prime \delta + \epsilon_i
\end{align*}
where $\{\alpha_s\}_{s\in \mathcal{S}}$ are the strata fixed effects, and $\{e_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ and $\{\epsilon_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ are the error terms in the first and second stage regressions, respectively.
Denote the TSLS estimator as $\hat{\tau}_{tsls}$. Under Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1} and \ref{ass:1iv} in the Online Supplement, we derive the probability limit of $\hat{\tau}_{tsls}$ in Theorem \ref{thm:tsls} in Section \ref{sec:aux_2sls} of the Online Supplement and show it equals $\tau$ when $\pi(s)$ is homogeneous across $s \in \mathcal{S}$. In this case, we further establish its asymptotic normality with an asymptotic variance $\sigma_{tsls}^2$.
\subsection{The S Estimator in \cite{anseletal2018}}
\label{sec:s}
\cite{anseletal2018} propose a LATE estimator adjusted with extra covariates. It takes the form
\begin{align*}
\hat{\tau}_S := \frac{\sum_{s \in \mathcal{S}}\hat{p}(s)(\hat{\gamma}_{1s}^Y - \hat{\gamma}_{0s}^Y + (\hat{\nu}_{1s}^Y - \hat{\nu}_{0s}^Y)^\top \bar{X}_s) }{\sum_{s \in \mathcal{S}}\hat{p}(s)(\hat{\gamma}_{1s}^D - \hat{\gamma}_{0s}^D + (\hat{\nu}_{1s}^D - \hat{\nu}_{0s}^D)^\top \bar{X}_s)},
\end{align*}
where $\hat{p}(s) := n(s)/n$, $\bar{X}_s := \frac{1}{n\hat{p}(s)}\sum_{i \in [n]}X_i1\{S_i=s\}$, and $(\hat{\gamma}_{as}^Y,\hat{\gamma}_{as}^D,\hat{\nu}_{as}^Y,\hat{\nu}_{as}^D)$ for $a=0,1$ are the estimated coefficients of four sets of cluster-specific regressions using only the $s$ cluster:
\begin{align*}
& (1-A_i)Y_i = (1-A_i)(\gamma_{0s}^Y+X_i^{\top}\nu_{0s}^{Y} + e_{0i}^Y), \quad A_iY_i = A_i(\gamma_{1s}^Y+X_i^{\top}\nu_{1s}^Y + e_{1i}^Y) \\
& (1-A_i)D_i = (1-A_i)(\gamma_{0s}^D+X_i^{\top}\nu_{0s}^D + e_{0i}^D), \quad A_iD_i = A_i(\gamma_{1s}^D+X_i^{\top}\nu_{1s}^D + e_{1i}^D).
\end{align*}
Under Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1} and Assumption \ref{ass:1iv} in the Online Supplement, \cite{anseletal2018} show that $\hat{\tau}_S$ is the consistent estimator of $\tau$ and the most efficient among the estimators studied in their paper. In Section \ref{sec:31} in the Online Supplement, we further derive the explicit expression for $\hat{\tau}_S$'s asymptotic variance in our notation, which is denoted as $\sigma_S^2$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:tau_tsls}
Suppose that Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1} and Assumption \ref{ass:1iv} in the Online Supplement hold. Moreover, suppose that $\pi(s)$ is the same across $s\in \mathcal{S}$. Then $\hat{\tau}_S$ is more efficient than $\hat{\tau}_{tsls}$ in the sense that $\sigma_S^2\leq \sigma_{tsls}^2$.
\end{thm}
Both $\hat{\tau}_{tsls}$ and $\hat{\tau}_S$ use linear adjustments of $X_i$, but Theorem \ref{thm:tau_tsls} states that $\hat{\tau}_S$ is more efficient than $\hat{\tau}_{tsls}$. In Theorem \ref{thm:linear2} below, we further show that $\hat{\tau}_S$ achieves the minimum asymptotic variance among the class of estimators with linear adjustments.
On the other hand, nonlinear adjustments may be more efficient than the optimal linear adjustment. In the next section, we establish the semiparametric efficiency bound for $\tau$, which has not been previously calculated in the literature. Comparing the semiparametric efficiency bound and the expression of $\sigma_S^2$ derived in Section \ref{sec:31} in the Online Supplement, we observe that the S estimator in general does not reach the efficiency bound. In Section \ref{sec:estimation}, we propose a general regression-adjusted LATE estimator which allows for more general forms of adjustments, and thus can potentially achieve the semiparametric efficiency bound.
\section{Semiparametric Efficiency Bound}
\label{sec:bound}
Define $\mu^D(a,s,x) := \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{D(a)|S = s, X=x}$ and $\mu^Y(a,s,x) := \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{Y(D(a))|S=s, X=x}$ for $a=0,1$ as the true specifications. In practice, the true specifications are unknown and empirical researchers employ working models $\overline{\mu}^D(a,s,x)$ and $\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,x)$, which may differ from the true specifications. Let $\mathcal{D}_i: = \{Y_i(1), Y_i(0), D_i(1), D_i(0), X_i\}$,
\begin{align*}
W_i & := Y_i(D_i(1)) , \quad Z_i :=Y_i(D_i(0)), \\
\tilde{W}_i& :=W_i-\mathbb{E}[W_i|S_i], \quad \tilde{Z}_i:=Z_i-\mathbb{E}[Z_i|S_i], \quad \tilde{X}_i:=X_i-\mathbb{E}[X_i|S_i]\\
\tilde{D}_i(a)& :=D_i(a)-\mathbb{E}[D_i(a)|S_i], \quad a=0,1.
\end{align*}
For $a=0,1$, further let
\begin{align}
\tilde{\mu}^Y(a, S_i, X_i)& :=\overline{\mu}^Y(a, S_i, X_i)-\mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{\overline{\mu}^Y(a, S_i, X_i)|S_i}, \label{eq:mutilde}\\
\tilde{\mu}^D(a, S_i, X_i)& :=\overline{\mu}^D(a, S_i, X_i)-\mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{\overline{\mu}^D(a, S_i, X_i)|S_i}, \notag \\
\Xi_{1}(\mathcal{D}_i, S_i) & := \left[\left(1- \frac{1}{\pi(S_i)} \right)\tilde{\mu}^Y(1,S_i,X_i) - \tilde{\mu}^Y(0,S_i,X_i) + \frac{\tilde{W}_i}{\pi(S_i)}\right]\notag \\
&\qquad - \tau \left[\left(1- \frac{1}{\pi(S_i)} \right)\tilde{\mu}^D(1,S_i,X_i) - \tilde{\mu}^D(0,S_i,X_i) + \frac{ \tilde{D}_i(1)}{\pi(S_i)}\right], \label{eq:Xi1}\\
\Xi_{0}(\mathcal{D}_i, S_i) & := \left[\left(\frac{1}{1-\pi(S_i)}-1 \right)\tilde{\mu}^Y(0,S_i,X_i) + \tilde{\mu}^Y(1,S_i,X_i) - \frac{\tilde{Z}_i}{1-\pi(S_i)}\right] \notag \\
&\qquad - \tau\left[\left(\frac{1}{1-\pi(S_i)}-1 \right)\tilde{\mu}^D(0,S_i,X_i) + \tilde{\mu}^D(1,S_i,X_i) - \frac{\tilde{D}_i(0)}{1-\pi(S_i) }\right], \label{eq:Xi0}\\
\Xi_{2}(S_i) & := \del[1]{\mathbb{E}[W_i-Z_i|S_i]-\mathbb{E}[W_i-Z_i]} - \tau \left(\mathbb{E}[D_i(1)-D_i(0)|S_i]-\mathbb{E}[D_i(1)-D_i(0)] \right). \label{eq:Xi2}
\end{align}
\begin{thm}
Suppose Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1} and \ref{ass:E} in the Online Supplement hold. For $a=0,1$, define $\underline{\Xi}_1(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)$, $\underline{\Xi}_0(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)$ and $\underline{\Xi}_2(S_i)$ as $\Xi_1(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)$, $\Xi_0(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)$ and $\Xi_2(S_i)$ in \eqref{eq:Xi1}--\eqref{eq:Xi2}, respectively, with the researcher-specified working model $\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,x)$ equal to the true specification $\mu^b(a,s,x)$ for all $(a,b,s,x) \in \{0,1\} \times \{D,Y\} \times \mathcal{SX}$, where $\mathcal{SX}$ is the joint support of $(S,X)$. Then the semiparametric efficiency bound for $\tau$ is
\begin{align*}
\underline{\sigma}^2 := \frac{\underline{\sigma}_1^2 + \underline{\sigma}_0^2 + \underline{\sigma}_2^2}{\mathbb{P}(D(1)>D(0))^2},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\underline{\sigma}_1^2 := \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{\pi(S_i)\underline{\Xi}_1^2(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)}, \quad \underline{\sigma}_0^2 := \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{(1-\pi(S_i))\underline{\Xi}_0^2(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)}, \quad \underline{\sigma}_2^2 := \mathbb{E}\underline{\Xi}_{2}^2(S_i).
\end{align*}
\label{thm:eff}
\end{thm}
Several remarks on in order. First, heuristically, Theorem \ref{thm:eff} implies that the asymptotic variance of any root-$n$ consistent and asymptotically normal semiparametric estimator of LATE is lower bounded by $\underline{\sigma}^2$. Second, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:eff} follows the argument in \cite{A22} which takes into consideration that $\{A_i\}_{i \in [n]}$ is cross-sectionally dependent. Third, the efficiency bound here is slightly different from what derived by \cite{F07late} under unconfoundedness for observational data because the additional covariates $X_i$ only enter the conditional mean models (i.e., $\mu^b(a,s,x)$ for $a=0,1$, $b =\{D,Y\}$) but not the ``propensity score" $\pi(\cdot)$. Fourth, Theorem \ref{thm:eff} implies that various CARs (with or without achieving strong balance) lead to the same efficiency for LATE estimation. Such a result is consistent with what is discovered for ATE under general randomization schemes by \cite{A22}. Fifth, \citeauthor{anseletal2018}'s (\citeyear{anseletal2018}) $\hat{\tau}_S$ with asymptotic variance defined in \eqref{eq:ansel_sigma} in the Online Supplement may not achieve this efficiency bound because the linear adjustments may be misspecified. In Section \ref{sec:estimation}, we propose a general regression-adjusted estimator which allows for nonlinear, nonparametric, and regularized adjustments and that can potentially achieves the efficiency bound.
\section{The General Estimator and its Asymptotic Properties}
\label{sec:estimation}
In this section, we propose a general regression-adjusted LATE estimator for $\tau$. Recall researchers specify working models $\overline{\mu}^D(a,s,x)$ and $\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,x)$, which may differ from the true specifications. They then proceed to estimate the working models with estimators $\hat{\mu}^D(a,s,x)$ and $\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,x)$. Again, as the working models are potentially misspecified, their estimators are potentially inconsistent to the true specifications.
In CAR, the propensity score is usually known or can be consistently estimated by $\hat{\pi}(s) := \frac{n_1(s)}{n(s)}$.\footnote{This is because
\begin{align*}
\hat{\pi}(s)-\pi(s) = \frac{1}{n(s)}\sum_{i =1}^n (A_i-\pi(s))1\{S_i = s\}=\frac{B_n(s)}{n(s)} = o_p(1).
\end{align*}}
Then our proposed estimator of LATE is
\begin{align}
\hat{\tau} & := \del[3]{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i \in [n]}\Xi_{H,i}}^{-1}\del[3]{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i \in [n]}\Xi_{G,i}}, \quad \text{where} \label{eq:tau0}\\
\Xi_{H,i} &:=\frac{A_i(D_i - \hat{\mu}^D(1,S_i,X_i))}{\hat{\pi}(S_i)} - \frac{(1-A_i)(D_i-\hat{\mu}^D(0,S_i,X_i))}{1-\hat{\pi}(S_i)} + \hat{\mu}^D(1,S_i,X_i)-\hat{\mu}^D(0,S_i,X_i), \label{eq:phi_H}\\
\Xi_{G,i} & :=\frac{A_i(Y_i - \hat{\mu}^Y(1,S_i,X_i))}{\hat{\pi}(S_i)} - \frac{(1-A_i)(Y_i-\hat{\mu}^Y(0,S_i,X_i))}{1-\hat{\pi}(S_i)} + \hat{\mu}^Y(1,S_i,X_i)-\hat{\mu}^Y(0,S_i,X_i). \label{eq:phi_G}
\end{align}
This estimator takes the form of doubly robust moments (see \cite{RobinsRotnitzkyZhao1994}, \cite{RR95}, \cite{ScharfsteinRotnitzkyRobins1999}, \cite{RobinsRotnitzkyvanderLaan2000}, \cite{hiranoimbens2001}, \cite{F07late}, \cite{wooldridge2007}, \cite{rothefirpo2019} etc; see \cite{sloczynskiwooldridge2018} and \cite{seamanvansteelandt2018} for recent reviews). To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to apply doubly robust methods to study the LATE under CARs. Our analysis takes into account the cross-sectional dependence of the treatment statuses caused by the randomization and is therefore different from the double robustness literature that mostly focuses on the observational data with independent treatment statuses.
We make the following high-level assumptions on the regression adjustments.
\begin{ass}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item For $a =0,1$ and $s \in \mathcal{S}$, define
\begin{align*}
\Delta^Y(a, s, X_i) &:= \hat{\mu}^Y(a, s, X_i)-\overline{\mu}^Y(a, s, X_i), \quad \Delta^D(a, s, X_i) &:= \hat{\mu}^D(a, s, X_i)-\overline{\mu}^D(a, s, X_i), \quad \text{and}\\
I_a(s)&:=\cbr[1]{i\in [n]: A_i=a, S_i=s}.
\end{align*}
Then, for $a=0,1$, $b=D,Y$, we have
\begin{align*}
\max_{s\in \mathcal{S}}\envert[3]{\frac{\sum_{i\in I_1(s)}\Delta^b(a,s,X_i)}{n_1(s)}-\frac{\sum_{i\in I_0(s)}\Delta^b(a,s,X_i)}{n_0(s)}}=o_p(n^{-1/2}).
\end{align*}
\item For $a =0,1$ and $b = D,Y$, $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Delta^{b,2}(a,S_i,X_i) = o_p(1)$.
\item Suppose $\max_{a=0,1,s\in \mathcal{S}}\mathbb{E}(\overline{\mu}^{b,2}(a,S_i,X_i)|S_i=s) \leq C<\infty$ for $b = D,Y$ and some constant $C$.
\end{enumerate}\label{ass:Delta}
\end{ass}
Assumption \ref{ass:Delta} is mild. Consider a linear working model $\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = X_i^\top \beta_{a,s}$, where the coefficient $\beta_{a,s}$ may vary across treatment assignments and strata. Its estimator $\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i)$ can be written as $X_i^\top \hat{\beta}_{a,s}$ where $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}$ is an estimator of $\beta_{a,s}$. Then, Assumption \ref{ass:Delta}(i) requires
\begin{align}
\max_{s \in \mathcal{S}, a=0,1} \envert[3]{ \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_1(s)}\sum_{i \in I_1(s)}X_i - \frac{1}{n_0(s)}\sum_{i \in I_0(s)}X_i}^\top (\hat{\beta}_{a,s} - \beta_{a,s}) } = o_p(n^{-1/2}),
\label{eq:ex}
\end{align}
which holds whenever $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}\stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} \beta_{a,s}$. Similar remark applies to Assumption \ref{ass:Delta}(ii).
Then Theorem \ref{thm:est} below shows that $\hat{\tau}$ is asymptotically normal with the asymptotic variance
\begin{align}
\sigma^2 := \frac{\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_0^2 + \sigma_2^2}{\mathbb{P}(D(1)>D(0))^2},
\label{eq:sigma}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\sigma_1^2 := \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{\pi(S_i)\Xi_1^2(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)}, \quad \sigma_0^2 := \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{(1-\pi(S_i))\Xi_0^2(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)}, \quad \sigma_2^2 := \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{\Xi_{2}^2(S_i)},
\end{align*}
and $\Xi_1(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)$, $\Xi_0(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)$, and $\Xi_2(S_i)$ are defined in \eqref{eq:Xi1}--\eqref{eq:Xi2}, respectively.
Next, we propose an estimator $\hat{\sigma}^2$ of $\sigma^2$. Recalling $\Xi_{H,i}$ defined in \eqref{eq:phi_H}, we define $\hat{\sigma}^2$ as
$$\hat{\sigma}^2 = \frac{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\left[A_i\hat{\Xi}_1^2(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i) + (1-A_i)\hat{\Xi}_0^2(\mathcal{D}_i,S_i)+\hat{\Xi}_2^2(S_i)\right]}{\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Xi_{H,i}\right)^2},$$
where
\begin{align*}
\hat{\Xi}_1(\mathcal{D}_i,s) & := \tilde{\Xi}_1(\mathcal{D}_i,s) - \frac{1}{n_1(s)}\sum_{i \in I_1(s)} \tilde{\Xi}_1(\mathcal{D}_i,s), \\
\hat{\Xi}_0(\mathcal{D}_i,s) & := \tilde{\Xi}_0(\mathcal{D}_i,s) - \frac{1}{n_0(s)}\sum_{i \in I_0(s)} \tilde{\Xi}_0(\mathcal{D}_i,s), \\
\hat{\Xi}_2(s) & := \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_1(s)}\sum_{i \in I_1(s)}(Y_i - \hat{\tau} D_i)} - \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_0(s)}\sum_{i \in I_0(s)}(Y_i - \hat{\tau} D_i)},\\
\tilde{\Xi}_1(\mathcal{D}_i,s) & := \sbr[3]{\del[3]{1- \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}(s)} }\hat{\mu}^Y(1,s,X_i) - \hat{\mu}^Y(0,s,X_i) + \frac{Y_i}{\hat{\pi}(s)}} \\
& \qquad - \hat{\tau} \sbr[3]{\del[3]{1- \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}(s)} }\hat{\mu}^D(1,s,X_i) - \hat{\mu}^D(0,S_i,X_i) + \frac{D_i}{\hat{\pi}(s)}}, \quad \text{and} \\
\tilde{\Xi}_{0}(\mathcal{D}_i, s) & := \sbr[3]{\del[3]{\frac{1}{1-\hat{\pi}(s)}-1 }\hat{\mu}^Y(0,s,X_i) + \hat{\mu}^Y(1,s,X_i) - \frac{Y_i}{1-\hat{\pi}(s)}} \\
&\qquad - \hat{\tau}\sbr[3]{\del[3]{\frac{1}{1-\hat{\pi}(s)}-1}\hat{\mu}^D(0,s,X_i) + \hat{\mu}^D(1,s,X_i) - \frac{D_i}{1-\hat{\pi}(s) }}.
\end{align*}
\begin{thm}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item Suppose Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1} and \ref{ass:Delta} hold, then
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{n}(\hat{\tau} - \tau) \rightsquigarrow \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)\quad \text{and} \quad \hat{\sigma}^2 \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} \sigma^2.
\end{align*}
\item In addition, if the working models are correctly specified, i.e., $\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,x) = \mu^b(a,s,x)$ for all $(a,b,s,x) \in \{0,1\} \times \{D,Y\} \times \mathcal{SX}$, where $\mathcal{SX}$ is the joint support of $(S,X)$, then the asymptotic variance $\sigma^2$ achieves the semiparametric efficiency bound.
\end{enumerate}
\label{thm:est}
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{thm:est}(i) establishes limit distribution of our adjusted LATE estimator and gives a consistent estimator of its asymptotic variance. Such a variance depends on the working model $\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,x)$ for $(a,b) \in \{0,1\} \times \{D,Y\}$. Theorem \ref{thm:est}(ii) further shows our general regression-adjusted estimator achieves the semiparametric efficiency bound $\underline{\sigma}^2$ derived in Theorem \ref{thm:eff} when the working model is correctly specified.
Second, when there are no adjustments so that $\overline{\mu}^Y(\cdot)$ and $\overline{\mu}^D(\cdot)$ are just zero, we have
\begin{align*}
\sigma^2 = \frac{\sum_{s \in S} \frac{p(s)}{\pi(s)}Var(W - \tau D(1)|S=s) + \sum_{s \in S}\frac{p(s)}{1-\pi(s)}Var(Z - \tau D(0)|S=s) + \sigma_2^2}{\mathbb{P}(D(1)>D(0))^2}.
\end{align*}
In this case, our estimator coincides with \citeauthor{BG21}'s (\citeyear{BG21}) fully saturated estimator. Indeed, we can verify, by some tedious calculation, that $\sigma^2$ defined above is the same as the asymptotic variance of the fully saturated estimator derived by \cite{BG21}.\footnote{Derivation is available upon request.} Then \cite{BG21} have shown that our estimator without adjustments is weakly more efficient than the strata fixed effects and two-sample IV estimators. In the next section, we show that, with adjustments, we can further improve the efficiency, even when the working models are potentially misspecified.
\section{Parametric Adjustments}
\label{sec:par}
In this section, we consider estimating $\overline{\mu}^{b}(a,s,x)$ for $a=0,1$, $s \in \mathcal{S}$, and $b = D,Y$ via parametric regressions. Note that we do not require $\overline{\mu}^{b}(a,s,x)$ to be correctly specified. Suppose
\begin{align}
\overline{\mu}^{Y}(a,S_i,X_i) = \sum_{s \in \mathcal{S}} 1\{S_i=s\} \Lambda_{a,s}^Y(X_i,\theta_{a,s})\quad \text{and} \quad \overline{\mu}^{D}(a,S_i,X_i) = \sum_{s \in \mathcal{S}}1\{S_i=s\} \Lambda_{a,s}^D(X_i,\beta_{a,s}), \label{eq:overlinemu_par}
\end{align}
where $\Lambda_{a,s}^b(\cdot)$ for $(a,b,s) \in \{0,1\} \times \{D,Y\}\times \mathcal{S}$ is a known function of $X_i$ up to some finite-dimensional parameter (i.e., $\theta_{a,s}$ and $\beta_{a,s}$). The researchers have the freedom to choose the functional forms of $\Lambda_{a,s}^b(\cdot)$, the parameter values of $(\theta_{a,s},\beta_{a,s})$, and the ways they are estimated. In fact, as the parametric models are potentially misspecified, different estimation methods of the same model can lead to distinctive pseudo true values. We will discuss several detailed examples in Sections \ref{sec:linear}, \ref{sec:OLS_MLE}, and \ref{sec:imp} below. Here, we first focus on the general setup.
Define the estimators of $(\theta_{a,s},\beta_{a,s})$ as $(\hat{\theta}_{a,s},\hat{\beta}_{a,s})$, and hence the corresponding feasible parametric regression adjustments as
\begin{align}
\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \Lambda_{a,s}^Y(X_i,\hat{\theta}_{a,s}) \quad \text{and} \quad
\hat{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \Lambda_{a,s}^D(X_i,\hat{\beta}_{a,s}). \label{eq:hatmu_par}
\end{align}
\bigskip
\begin{ass}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item Suppose $ \max_{a=0,1,s\in \mathcal{S}}||\hat{\theta}_{a,s} - \theta_{a,s}||_2 \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} 0 $ and $ \max_{a=0,1,s\in \mathcal{S}}||\hat{\beta}_{a,s} - \beta_{a,s}||_2 \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} 0.$
\item There exist a positive random variable $L_i$ and a positive constant $C>0$ such that for all $a = 0,1$ and $s \in \mathcal{S}$,
\begin{align*}
& \enVert[3]{\frac{\partial\Lambda_{a,s}^Y(X_i,\theta_{a,s})}{\partial \theta_{a,s}}}_2 \leq L_i, \quad ||\Lambda_{a,s}^Y(X_i,\theta_{a,s})||_2 \leq L_i\\
& \enVert[3]{\frac{\partial \Lambda_{a,s}^D(X_i,\beta_{a,s})}{\partial \beta_{a,s}}}_2 \leq L_i, \quad ||\Lambda_{a,s}^D(X_i,\beta_{a,s})||_2 \leq L_i,
\end{align*}
almost surely and $\mathbb{E}(L_i^q|S_i=s) \leq C$ for some $q > 2$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{ass:par}
\end{ass}
Assumption \ref{ass:par}(i) means that our estimators are consistent. Assumption \ref{ass:par}(ii) means that the parametric models are smooth in their parameters, which is true for many widely used regression models such as linear, logit, and probit regressions. This restriction can be further relaxed to allow for non-smoothness under less intuitive entropy conditions.
\bigskip
\begin{thm}
Suppose Assumption \ref{ass:par} hold. Then $\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)$ and $\hat{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)$ defined in \eqref{eq:overlinemu_par} and \eqref{eq:hatmu_par}, respectively, satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:Delta}.
\label{thm:par}
\end{thm}
\bigskip
Theorem \ref{thm:par} generalizes the intuition in \eqref{eq:ex} to general parametric models. It means that Assumption \ref{ass:Delta} holds for parametric models as long as the parameters are consistently estimated.
\subsection{Optimal Linear Adjustments}
\label{sec:linear}
Suppose, for $a=0,1$ and $s \in \mathcal{S}$, $\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X) = \Psi_{i,s}^\top t_{a,s}$ and $\overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X) = \Psi_{i,s}^\top b_{a,s}$, where $\Psi_{i,s} = \Psi_s(X_i)$ is a function and the functional form can vary across $s \in \mathcal{S}$. The restriction that the function $\Psi_s(\cdot)$ does not depend on $a =0,1$ is innocuous as if it does, we can stack them up and denote $\Psi_{i,s} = (\Psi_{1,s}^\top(X_i),\Psi_{0,s}^\top(X_i))^\top$. Similarly, it is also innocuous to impose that the function $\Psi_s(\cdot)$ is the same for modeling $\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X)$ and $\overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X)$.
The asymptotic variance of the adjusted LATE estimator $\hat{\tau}$ is denoted as $\sigma^2$, which depends on $(\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X) ,\overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X) )$, and thus, depends on $(t_{a,s},b_{a,s})$. The following theorem characterizes the optimal linear coefficients that minimize the asymptotic variance of $\hat{\tau}$ over all possible $(t_{a,s},b_{a,s})$. Let
\begin{align*}
\Theta^* := \begin{pmatrix}
&(\theta_{a,s}^*,\beta_{a,s}^*)_{a=0,1,s\in \mathcal{S}}: \\
&(\theta_{a,s}^*,\beta_{a,s}^*)_{a=0,1,s\in \mathcal{S}}\in \argmin_{(t_{a,s},b_{a,s})_{a=0,1,s\in\mathcal{S}}} \sigma^2((t_{a,s},b_{a,s})_{a=0,1,s\in\mathcal{S}}).
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
\begin{ass}
Suppose $\mathbb{E}(||\Psi_{i,s}||_2^q|S_i=s)\leq C<\infty$ for constants $C$ and $q>2$. Denote $\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s} := \Psi_{i,s} - \mathbb{E}(\Psi_{i,s}|S_i=s)$ for $s \in \mathcal{S}$. Then there exist constants $0<c<C<\infty$ such that
\begin{align*}
c< \lambda_{\min}(\mathbb{E}(\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}^\top)) \leq \lambda_{\max}(\mathbb{E}(\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}^\top)) \leq C,
\end{align*}
where for a generic symmetric matrix $A$, $\lambda_{\min}(A)$ and $\lambda_{\max}(A)$ denote the minimum and maximum eigenvalues of $A$, respectively.
\label{ass:psi}
\end{ass}
Assumption \ref{ass:psi} requires the regressor $\Psi_{i,s}$ does not contain the constant term. In fact, \eqref{eq:phi_H} and \eqref{eq:phi_G} imply that our estimator is numerically invariant to stratum-specific location shift because by definition,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^n \left(\frac{A_i}{\hat{\pi}(S_i)}-1\right) 1\{S_i=s\} = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \sum_{i=1}^n \left(\frac{1-A_i}{1-\hat{\pi}(S_i)}-1\right) 1\{S_i=s\} = 0.
\end{align*}
\begin{thm}
Suppose Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1} and \ref{ass:psi} hold. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
\Theta^* = \begin{pmatrix}
&(\theta_{a,s}^*,\beta_{a,s}^*)_{a=0,1,s\in \mathcal{S}}: \\
& \sqrt{\frac{1-\pi(s)}{\pi(s)}} (\theta_{1,s}^* -\tau \beta_{1,s}^*) + \sqrt{\frac{\pi(s)}{1-\pi(s)}}(\theta_{0,s}^* -\tau \beta_{0,s}^*) \\
&= \sqrt{\frac{1-\pi(s)}{\pi(s)}} (\theta_{1,s}^{LP} -\tau \beta_{1,s}^{LP}) + \sqrt{\frac{\pi(s)}{1-\pi(s)}}(\theta_{0,s}^{LP} -\tau \beta_{0,s}^{LP}).
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}
& \theta_{a,s}^{LP} = [\mathbb{E}(\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}^\top|S_i=s)]^{-1}[\mathbb{E}(\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}Y_i(D_i(a))|S_i=s)] \notag \\
& \beta_{a,s}^{LP} = [\mathbb{E}(\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}^\top|S_i=s)]^{-1}[\mathbb{E}(\tilde{\Psi}_{i,s}D_i(a)|S_i=s)].
\label{eq:optimallinear}
\end{align}
\label{thm:linear}
\end{thm}
The optimality result in Theorem \ref{thm:linear} rely on two key restrictions: (1) the regressor $\Psi_{i,s}$ is the same for treated and control units and (2) both the adjustments $\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X)$ and $\overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X)$ are linear. The first restriction is innocuous as we can stack up regressors for treated and control units as previously mentioned.
The second restriction means that it is possible to have nonlinear adjustments that are more efficient. We will come back to this point in Sections \ref{sec:OLS_MLE}, \ref{sec:imp}, and \ref{sec:np}.
In view of Theorem \ref{thm:par}, the optimal linear coefficients are not unique. In order to achieve the optimality, we only need to consistently estimate one point in $\Theta^*$. For the rest of the section, we choose $(\theta_{a,s}^{LP},\beta_{a,s}^{LP})$ with the corresponding optimal linear adjustments (i.e., linear probability model)
\begin{align}
\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \Psi_{i,s}^\top \theta_{a,s}^{LP} \quad \text{and} \quad \overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \Psi_{i,s}^\top \beta_{a,s}^{LP}.
\label{eq:muoverline_LP}
\end{align}
We estimate $(\theta_{a,s}^{LP},\beta_{a,s}^{LP})$ by $(\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{LP},\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{LP})$, where
\begin{align}
\dot{\Psi}_{i,a,s} & := \Psi_{i,s} - \frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i\in I_a(s)}\Psi_{i,s} \notag\\
\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{LP} & := \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\dot{\Psi}_{i,a,s}\dot{\Psi}_{i,a,s}^\top }^{-1}\del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\dot{\Psi}_{i,a,s}Y_i }\notag \\
\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{LP} & := \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\dot{\Psi}_{i,a,s}\dot{\Psi}_{i,a,s}^\top }^{-1}\del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\dot{\Psi}_{i,a,s}D_i}.\label{rr1}
\end{align}
Then, the feasible linear adjustments can be defined as
\begin{align}
\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \Psi_{i,s}^\top \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{LP} \quad \text{and} \quad \hat{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \Psi_{i,s}^\top \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{LP}.
\label{eq:muhat_LP}
\end{align}
Suppose $\mathcal{S} = \{1,\cdots,S\}$ for some integer $S>0$. It is clear that $\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{LP}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{LP}$ are the estimated slopes of the following four cluster-specific regressions using only the $s$ cluster:
\begin{align}
& (1-A_i)Y_i = (1-A_i)(\gamma_{0,s}^Y+\Psi_{i,s}^{\top}\theta_{0,s} + e_{0,i}^Y), \quad A_iY_i = A_i(\gamma_{1,s}^Y+\Psi_{i,s}^{\top}\theta_{1,s} + e_{1,i}^Y) \label{eq:optimal_Y} \\
& (1-A_i)D_i = (1-A_i)(\gamma_{0,s}^D+\Psi_{i,s}^{\top}\beta_{0,s} + e_{0,i}^D), \quad A_iD_i = A_i(\gamma_{1,s}^D+\Psi_{i,s}^{\top}\beta_{1,s} + e_{1,i}^D).\notag
\end{align}
\begin{thm}
Suppose Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1} and \ref{ass:psi} holds. Then, $$\{\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}} \quad \text{and} \quad \{\hat{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$$ defined in \eqref{eq:muoverline_LP} and \eqref{eq:muhat_LP}, respectively, satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:Delta}. Denote the adjusted LATE estimator with adjustment $\{\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$ defined in \eqref{eq:muhat_LP} as $\hat{\tau}^{LP}$. Then, all the results in Theorem \ref{thm:est}(i) hold for $\hat{\tau}^{LP}$. In addition, $\hat{\tau}^{LP}$ is the most efficient among all linearly adjusted LATE estimators, and in particular, weakly more efficient than the LATE estimator with no adjustments.
\label{thm:linear2}
\end{thm}
The asymptotic variance of the LATE estimator with the optimal linear adjustments ($\hat{\tau}^{LP}$) takes the form of \eqref{eq:sigma} with $\{\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$ in \eqref{eq:Xi1}--\eqref{eq:Xi2} defined in \eqref{eq:muoverline_LP}. When $\Psi_{i,s} = X_i$, such an asymptotic variance is the same as that for \citeauthor{anseletal2018}'s (\citeyear{anseletal2018}) $\hat{\tau}_S$ defined in Section \ref{sec:31} in the Online Supplement. This fact implies $\hat{\tau}_S$ is the most efficient LATE estimator adjusted by linear functions of $X_i$. Consequently, both $\hat{\tau}_S$ and $\hat{\tau}^{LP}$ are weakly more efficient than $\hat{\tau}_{tsls}$.
\subsection{Linear and Logistic Regressions}
\label{sec:OLS_MLE}
It is also possible to consider a linear model for $\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i)$ and a logistic model for $\overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i)$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} t_{a,s} \quad \text{and} \quad \overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} b_{a,s}),
\end{align*}
where $\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s} = (1,\Psi_{i,s})$, $\Psi_{i,s} = \Psi_s(X_i)$ and $\lambda(u) = \exp(u)/(1+\exp(u))$ is the logistic CDF. As the model for $\overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i)$ is non-linear, the optimality result established in the previous section does not apply. We can consider fitting the linear and logistic models by OLS and MLE, respectively, and call this method the OLS-MLE adjustment. Specifically, define
\begin{align}
\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{OLS} \quad \text{and} \quad \hat{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{MLE}),
\label{eq:hatmu_OLS_MLE}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
& \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{OLS} = \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)} \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s} \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top}}^{-1}\del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)} \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s} Y_i} \quad \text{and} \notag \\
& \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{MLE} = \argmax_b \frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)} \left[D_i \log(\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} b)) + (1-D_i) \log(1-\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} b)) \right].
\label{eq:OLS-MLE}
\end{align}
It is clear that $\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{OLS}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{MLE}$ are the OLS and MLE estimates of the following four cluster specific (logistic) regressions using only the $s$ cluster:
\begin{align}
& (1-A_i)Y_i = (1-A_i)(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top}\theta_{0,s} + e_{0,i}^Y), \quad A_iY_i = A_i(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top}\theta_{1,s} + e_{1,i}^Y) \notag \\
& (1-A_i)D_i = (1-A_i)1\{\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top}\beta_{0,s} \geq e_{0,i}^D \}, \quad A_i D_i = A_i1\{\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top}\beta_{1,s}\geq e_{1,i}^D\}, \notag
\end{align}
where $e_{0,i}^D$ and $e_{1,i}^D$ are logistic errors.\footnote{Note we do not need the regression models to be correctly specified.}
In the OLS-MLE adjustment, we do allow the regressor $\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}$ to contain the constant term. Suppose $\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{OLS} = (\hat{h}_{a,s}^{OLS}, \hat{\underline{\theta}}_{a,s}^{OLS,\top} )^\top$, where $\hat{h}_{a,s}^{OLS}$ are the coefficients of the constant terms in $\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}$. Then, because our adjusted LATE estimator is invariant to the stratum-specific location shift of the adjustment term, using $\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^\top \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{OLS} = \hat{h}_{a,s}^{OLS} + \Psi_{i,s}^\top \hat{\underline{\theta}}_{a,s}^{OLS}$ and $\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \Psi_{i,s}^\top \hat{\underline{\theta}}_{a,s}^{OLS}$ produce the exact same LATE estimator. In addition, we can obtain $\hat{\underline{\theta}}_{a,s}^{OLS}$ from the estimated slopes of the following cluster specific regressions using only the $s$ cluster
\begin{align*}
& (1-A_i)Y_i = (1-A_i)(\gamma_{0,s}^Y+\Psi_{i,s}^{\top}\theta_{0,s} + e_{0,i}^Y), \qquad A_iY_i = A_i(\gamma_{1,s}^Y+\Psi_{i,s}^{\top}\theta_{1,s} + e_{1,i}^Y)
\end{align*}
which is exactly the same as \eqref{eq:optimal_Y}. This implies $\hat{\underline{\theta}}_{a,s}^{OLS} = \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{LP}$. On the other hand, because the logistic regression is nonlinear, the non-intercept part of $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{MLE}$ does not equal $ \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{LP}$.
The limits of $\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{OLS}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{MLE}$ are defined as
\begin{align*}
& \theta_{a,s}^{OLS} = \left( \mathbb{E}(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s} \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} |S_i=s)\right)^{-1}\left(\mathbb{E}(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s} Y_i(D_i(a))|S_i=s)\right) \quad \text{and}\\
& \beta_{a,s}^{MLE} = \argmax_b \mathbb{E}\left(\left[D_i(a) \log(\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} b)) + (1-D_i(a)) \log(1-\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} b)) \right]|S_i=s\right),
\end{align*}
which imply that
\begin{align}
\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} \theta_{a,s}^{OLS} \quad \text{and} \quad \overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} \beta_{a,s}^{MLE}).
\label{eq:overlinemu_OLS_MLE}
\end{align}
\begin{ass}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item For $a=0,1$ and $s\in \mathcal{S}$, suppose $\mathbb{E}(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s} \mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top}|S_i=s)$ is invertible and $$\mathbb{E}\left(\left[D_i(a) \log(\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} b)) + (1-D_i(a)) \log(1-\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} b)) \right]|S_i=s\right)$$ has $\beta_{a,s}^{MLE}$ as its unique maximizer.
\item There exists a constant $C<\infty$ such that $\max_{a = 0,1,s \in \mathcal{S}}\mathbb{E}||\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}||_2^q \leq C<\infty$ for some $q> 2$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{ass:OLS_MLE}
\end{ass}
\begin{thm}
Suppose Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1} and \ref{ass:OLS_MLE} hold. Then, $$\{\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}} \quad \text{and} \quad \{\hat{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$$ defined in \eqref{eq:overlinemu_OLS_MLE} and \eqref{eq:hatmu_OLS_MLE}, respectively, satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:Delta}. Denote the adjusted LATE estimator with adjustment $\{\hat{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$ defined in \eqref{eq:hatmu_OLS_MLE} as $\hat{\tau}^{LG}$. Then, all the results in Theorem \ref{thm:est}(i) hold for $\hat{\tau}^{LG}$.
\label{thm:OLS_MLE}
\end{thm}
Several remarks are in order. First, the OLS-MLE adjustment is not optimal in the sense that it does not necessarily minimize the asymptotic variance of the corresponding LATE estimator. Second, the OLS-MLE adjustment is not necessarily less efficient than the optimal linear adjustment studied in Section \ref{sec:linear} as $\mu^D(a,s,X_i)$ could be nonlinear. In fact, as Theorem \ref{thm:est} shows, if the adjustments are correctly specified, then the adjusted LATE estimator can achieve the semiparametric efficiency bound. Compared with the linear probability model considered in Section \ref{sec:linear}, the logistic model is expected to be less misspecified, especially when the regressor $\Psi_i$ contains technical terms of $X_i$ such as interactions and quadratic terms. Third, we will further justify the above intuition in Section \ref{sec:np} below, in which we let $\Psi_{i,s}$ be the sieve basis functions with an increasing dimension and show that the OLS-MLE method can consistently estimate the correct specification under some regularity conditions. Fourth, one theoretical shortcoming of the OLS-MLE adjustment is that, unlike the optimal linear adjustment, it is not guaranteed to be more efficient than no adjustment. We address this issue in Section \ref{sec:imp} below.
\subsection{Further Efficiency Improvement}
\label{sec:imp}
Let $\theta_{a,s}^{OLS} = (h_{a,s}^{OLS},\underline{\theta}_{a,s}^{OLS})$, where $h_{a,s}^{OLS}$ is the intercept. If $\beta_{a,s}^{MLE}$ were known, the OLS-MLE adjustment can be viewed as a linear adjustment. Specifically, denote
\begin{align}
& \Phi_{i,s} := (\Psi_{i,s}^{\top}, \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} \beta_{1,s}^{MLE}),\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} \beta_{0,s}^{MLE}))^\top \label{eq:Psi_new}\\
& t_{a,s}^{LG} := a \begin{pmatrix}
\underline{\theta}_{1,s}^{OLS} \\
0 \\
0
\end{pmatrix} + (1-a)\begin{pmatrix}
\underline{\theta}_{0,s}^{OLS}\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix}, \quad b_{a,s}^{LG} := a \begin{pmatrix}
0_{d_{\Psi}}\\
1\\
0
\end{pmatrix} + (1-a)\begin{pmatrix}
0_{d_{\Psi}}\\
0\\
1
\end{pmatrix}, \notag
\end{align}
where $d_{\Psi}$ is the dimension of $\Psi_{i,s}$. Then, the OLS-MLE adjustment can be written as
\begin{align*}
\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \Phi_{i,s}^\top t_{a,s}^{LG} + h_{a,s}^{OLS} \quad \text{and} \quad \overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \Phi_{i,s}^\top b_{a,s}^{LG}.
\end{align*}
Because our estimator is invariant to stratum-level location shift of adjustments, the OLS-MLE adjustments and the linear adjustments
\begin{align*}
\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \Phi_{i,s}^\top t_{a,s}^{LG} \quad \text{and} \quad \overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \Phi_{i,s}^\top b_{a,s}^{LG}
\end{align*}
produce the same estimator. Similarly, we can replicate no adjustments and the optimal linear adjustments with $\Phi_{i,s}$ defined in \eqref{eq:Psi_new} as regressors by letting
\begin{align*}
\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \Phi_{i,s}^\top t_{a,s} \quad \text{and} \quad \overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \Phi_{i,s}^\top b_{a,s}
\end{align*}
with $(t_{a,s},b_{a,s}) = 0$ and $(t_{a,s},b_{a,s}) = (t_{a,s}^{LP},b_{a,s}^{LP})$, respectively, where
\begin{align*}
& t_{a,s}^{LP} := a \begin{pmatrix}
\theta_{1,s}^{LP} \\
0 \\
0
\end{pmatrix} + (1-a)\begin{pmatrix}
\theta_{0,s}^{LP}\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix}, \quad b_{a,s}^{LP} := a \begin{pmatrix}
\beta_{1,s}^{LP} \\
0 \\
0
\end{pmatrix} + (1-a)\begin{pmatrix}
\beta_{0,s}^{LP} \\
0 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}. \notag
\end{align*}
Based on Theorem \ref{thm:linear}, we can further improve all three types of adjustments by setting the linear coefficients of $\Phi_{i,s}$ as
\begin{align*}
& \theta_{a,s}^{F} : =\left( \mathbb{E} [\tilde{\Phi}_{i,s}\tilde{\Phi}_{i,s}^\top|S_i=s]\right)^{-1}\left([ \mathbb{E} \tilde{\Phi}_{i,s}Y_i(D_i(a))|S_i=s]\right), \\
& \beta_{a,s}^{F} : = \left( \mathbb{E}[ \tilde{\Phi}_{i,s}\tilde{\Phi}_{i,s}^\top|S_i=s]\right)^{-1}\left( [\mathbb{E} \tilde{\Phi}_{i,s}D_i(a)|S_i=s]\right),
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{\Phi}_{i,s} = \Phi_{i,s} - \mathbb{E}(\Phi_{i,s}|S_i=s)$. The final linear adjustments with $\theta_{a,s}^{F}$ and $\beta_{a,s}^{F}$ are
\begin{align}
\overline{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \Phi_{i,s}^\top \theta_{a,s}^{F} \quad \text{and} \quad \overline{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \Phi_{i,s}^\top \beta_{a,s}^{F}.
\label{eq:adj_OLS_MLE_2}
\end{align}
Because $\beta_{a,s}^{MLE}$ is unknown, we can replace it by its estimate proposed in Section \ref{sec:OLS_MLE}, i.e., define
\begin{align*}
\hat{\Phi}_{i,s} := (\Psi_{i,s}, \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} \hat{\beta}_{1,s}^{MLE}),\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}^{\top} \hat{\beta}_{0,s}^{MLE}))^\top \quad \text{and} \quad \breve{\Phi}_{i,a,s}: = \hat{\Phi}_{i,s} - \frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i\in I_a(s)}\hat{\Phi}_{i,s}.
\end{align*}
Then, we define the estimators of $\theta_{a,s}^{F}$ and $\beta_{a,s}^{F}$ as
\begin{align}
& \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{F} : = \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\breve{\Phi}_{i,a,s}\breve{\Phi}_{i,a,s}^\top}^{-1}\del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\breve{\Phi}_{i,a,s}Y_i}, \notag\\
& \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{F} : = \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\breve{\Phi}_{i,a,s}\breve{\Phi}_{i,a,s}^\top}^{-1}\del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\breve{\Phi}_{i,a,s}D_i}. \label{rr2}
\end{align}
The corresponding feasible adjustments are
\begin{align}
\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \hat{\Phi}_{i,s}^\top \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{F} \quad \text{and} \quad \hat{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \hat{\Phi}_{i,s}^\top \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{F}.
\label{eq:adj_OLS_MLE_2_hat}
\end{align}
\begin{ass}
Suppose Assumption \ref{ass:psi} holds for $\Phi_{i,s}$ defined in \eqref{eq:Psi_new}.
\label{ass:psi_new}
\end{ass}
\begin{thm}
Suppose Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1}, \ref{ass:OLS_MLE}, and \ref{ass:psi_new} hold. Then,
$$\{\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}} \quad \text{and} \quad \{\hat{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$$ defined in \eqref{eq:adj_OLS_MLE_2} and \eqref{eq:adj_OLS_MLE_2_hat}, respectively, satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:Delta}. Denote the LATE estimator with regression adjustments $\{\hat{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$ defined in \eqref{eq:adj_OLS_MLE_2_hat} as $\hat{\tau}^{F}$. Then, all the results in Theorem \ref{thm:est}(i) holds for $\hat{\tau}^{F}$. In addition, $\hat{\tau}^{F}$ is weakly more efficient than $\hat{\tau}^{LP}$, $\hat{\tau}^{LG}$, and the LATE estimator with no adjustments.
\label{thm:linear3}
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{thm:linear3} shows that by refitting OLS-MLE adjustment in a linear regression with optimal linear coefficients, we can further improve the efficiency of the adjusted LATE estimator. As a byproduct, $\hat{\tau}^{F}$ is guaranteed to be weakly more efficient than the LATE estimator without any adjustments.
\section{Nonparametric Adjustments}
\label{sec:np}
In this section, we consider the nonparametric regression as the adjustments for our LATE estimator. Specifically, we use linear and logistic sieve regressions to estimate the true specifications $\mu^Y(a,s,X_i)$ and $\mu^D(a,s,X_i)$, respectively. For implementation, the nonparametric adjustment is exactly the same as OLS-MLE adjustment studied in Section \ref{sec:OLS_MLE}. Theoretically, we will let the regressors $\mathring{\Psi}_{i,s}$ in \eqref{eq:hatmu_OLS_MLE} be sieve basis functions whose dimensions will diverge to infinity as sample size increases. For notation simplicity, we suppress the subscript $s$ and denote the sieve regressors as $\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n} \in \Re^{h_n}$, where the dimension $h_n$ can diverge with the sample size.
The corresponding feasible regression adjustments are
\begin{align}
\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{NP} \quad \text{and} \quad \hat{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{NP}),
\label{eq:muhat_np}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
& \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{NP} = \del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)} \mathring{\Psi}_{i,n} \mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^{\top}}^{-1}\del[3]{\frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)} \mathring{\Psi}_{i,n} Y_i} \quad \text{and} \notag \\
& \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{NP} = \argmax_b \frac{1}{n_a(s)} \sum_{i \in I_a(s)} \left[D_i \log(\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^{\top} b)) + (1-D_i) \log(1-\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^{\top} b)) \right].
\end{align*}
We finally denote the corresponding adjusted LATE estimator as $\hat{\tau}^{NP}$.
\begin{ass}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item There exist constants $0<c<C < \infty$ such that with probability approaching one, $$c\leq \lambda_{\min}\del[3]{ \frac{1}{n_{a}(s)}\sum_{i \in I_{a}(s)}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top}\leq \lambda_{\max}\del[3]{\frac{1}{n_{a}(s)}\sum_{i \in I_{a}(s)}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top}\leq C$$
and $$c\leq \lambda_{\min}\left( \mathbb{E}[\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top|S_i=s]\right)\leq \lambda_{\max}\left( \mathbb{E}[\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top|S_i=s]\right)\leq C.$$
\item For $a=0,1$, there exist $h_n \times 1$ vectors $\theta_{a,s}^{NP}$ and $\beta_{a,s}^{NP}$ such that for
\begin{align*}
R^Y(a,s,x) & := \mathbb{\mathbb{E}}\sbr[1]{Y_i(D_i(a))|S_i=s,X_i=x} - \mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top\theta_{a,s}^{NP} \quad \text{and}\\
R^D(a,s,x) & := \mathbb{P}\del[1]{D_i(a)=1|S_i=s,X_i=x} - \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top\beta_{a,s}^{NP}),
\end{align*}
we have $\sup_{a = 0,1, b \in \{D,Y\}, s \in \mathcal{S}, x \in \text{Supp}(X)}|R^b(a,s,x)| = o_p(1)$,
\begin{align*}
\sup_{a = 0,1, b \in \{D,Y\}, s \in \mathcal{S}, x \in \text{Supp}(X)}\frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i \in I_{a}(s)}\del[1]{R^{b}(a,s,X_i)}^2 = O_p\left(\frac{h_n \log n}{n}\right),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\sup_{a=0,1,b \in \{D,Y\}, s\in \mathcal{S}} \mathbb{E}\sbr[2]{\del[1]{R^{b}(a,s,X_i)}^2|S_i=s} = O\left(\frac{h_n \log n}{n}\right).
\end{align*}
\item For $a=0,1$, there exists a constant $c \in (0,0.5)$ such that
\begin{align*}
c\leq & \inf_{a = 0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}, x \in \text{Supp}(X)}\mathbb{P}\del[1]{D_i(a)=1|S_i=s,X_i=x} \\
\qquad \leq & \sup_{a = 0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}, x \in \text{Supp}(X)}\mathbb{P}\del[1]{D_i(a)=1|S_i=s,X_i=x} \leq 1-c.
\end{align*}
\item Suppose $\mathbb{E}[\mathring{\Psi}^2_{i,n,k}|S_i=s] \leq C<\infty$ for some constant $C>0$, where $\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n,k}$ denotes the $k$th coordinate of $\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}$. $\max_{i \in [n]}||\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}||_2 \leq \zeta(h_n)$ a.s., where $\zeta(\cdot)$ is a deterministic increasing function satisfying $\zeta^2(h_n) h_n \log n = o(n)$. Also $h_n^2 \log^2 n = o(n)$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{ass:np}
\end{ass}
Assumption \ref{ass:np} is standard for linear and logistic sieve regressions. We refer to \cite{HIR03} and \cite{c07} for more discussions. The quantity $\zeta(h_n)$ in Assumption \ref{ass:np}(iv) depends on the choice of
basis functions. For example, $\zeta(h_n) = O(h_n^{1/2})$ for splines and $\zeta(h_n) = O(h_n)$ for power series.
\begin{thm}
Suppose Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1} and \ref{ass:np} hold. Then $\{\hat{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$ defined in \eqref{eq:muhat_np} with $\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,X) = \mu^b(a,s,X)$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:Delta}. Then, all the results in Theorem \ref{thm:est}(i) hold for $\hat{\tau}^{NP}$. In addition, $\hat{\tau}^{NP}$ achieves the minimum asymptotic variance characterized in Theorem \ref{thm:est}(ii).
\label{thm:np}
\end{thm}
The OLS-MLE and nonparametric adjustments are numerically identical if the same set of regressors are used. Theorem \ref{thm:np} then shows that the OLS-MLE adjustment with technical regressors performs well because it can closely approximate the correct specification. Under the asymptotic framework that the dimension of the regressors diverges to infinity and the approximation error converges to zero, the OLS-MLE adjustment can be viewed as the nonparametric adjustment, which achieves the minimum asymptotic variance of the adjusted LATE estimator.
\section{Regularized Adjustments}
\label{sec:hd}
In this section, we consider the case that the regressor $\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n} \in \Re^{p_n}$ in which we allow $p_n$ to be much higher than $n$. In this case, we can no longer use the OLS-MLE (nonparametric) adjustment method. Instead, we need to regularize the least squares and logistic regressions. Specifically, let
\begin{align}
\hat{\mu}^Y(a,s,X_i) = \mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top \hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{R} \quad \text{and} \quad \hat{\mu}^D(a,s,X_i) = \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top \hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{R}),
\label{eq:muhat_hd}
\end{align}
and the corresponding adjusted LATE estimator is denoted as $\hat{\tau}^{R}$,
where
\begin{align*}
\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{R} = & \argmin_{t} \frac{-1}{n_{a}(s)}\sum_{i \in I_{a}(s)} \del[1]{Y_i - \mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top t}^2 + \frac{\varrho_{n,a}(s)}{n_a(s)}||\hat{ \Omega}^Y t||_1,\\
\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{R} = & \argmin_{b} \frac{-1}{n_{a}(s)}\sum_{i \in I_{a}(s)} \sbr[2]{D_i\log\del[1]{\lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top b)} + (1-D_i)\log(1-\lambda\del[1]{\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top b)}} + \frac{\varrho_{n,a}(s)}{n_a(s)}||\hat{ \Omega}^D b||_1,
\end{align*}
$\{\varrho_{n,a}(s)\}_{a = 0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$ are tuning parameters, and $\hat{ \Omega}^b = \text{diag}(\hat{ \omega}_1^b,\cdots,\hat{ \omega}_{p_n}^b)$ is a diagonal matrix of data-dependent penalty loadings for $b=D,Y$. We provide more detail about $\hat{\Omega}^b$ in Section \ref{sec:aux_imp}.
We maintain the following assumptions for Lasso and logistic Lasso regressions.
\begin{ass}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item For $a=0,1$. Suppose
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{Y_i(D_i(a))|X_i,S_i=s} = \mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top \theta^{R}_{a,s} + R^Y(a,s,X_i) \quad \text{and}\\
& \mathbb{P}(D_i(a) =1|X_i,S_i=s) = \lambda(\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top \beta^{R}_{a,s}) + R^D(a,s,X_i)
\end{align*}
such that $\max_{a=0,1,s\in \mathcal{S}}\max(||\theta^{R}_{a,s}||_0,||\beta^{R}_{a,s}||_0) \leq h_n$, where $||a||_0$ denotes the number of nonzero components in $a$.
\item Suppose $\sup_{i\in [n]}||\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}||_\infty \leq \zeta_n$ a.s. and $\sup_{h \in [p_n]}\mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{|\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n,h}^q||S_i=s} < \infty$ for $q>2$.
\item Suppose
$$\max_{a = 0,1, b =D,Y, s \in \mathcal{S}}\frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i \in I_a(s)}(R^b(a,s,X_i))^2 = O_p(h_n \log p_n/n),$$
$$\max_{a = 0,1, b =D,Y, s \in \mathcal{S}}\mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{(R^b(a,s,X_i))^2|S_i=s} = O(h_n \log p_n/n),$$
and
$$\sup_{a = 0,1, b = D,Y, s \in \mathcal{S},x \in \mathcal{X}}|R^b(a,s,X)| = O(\sqrt{\zeta_n^2 h_n^2 \log p_n/n}).$$
\item Suppose $\frac{\log(p_n)\zeta_n^2 h_n^2}{n} \rightarrow 0$ and $\frac{\log^2(p_n)\log^2(n) h_n^2}{n} \rightarrow 0$.
\item There exists a constant $c \in (0,0.5)$ such that
\begin{align*}
c\leq & \inf_{a = 0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}, x \in \text{Supp}(X)}\mathbb{P}(D_i(a)=1|S_i=s,X_i=x) \\
\leq & \sup_{a = 0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}, x \in \text{Supp}(X)}\mathbb{P}(D_i(a)=1|S_i=s,X_i=x) \leq 1-c.
\end{align*}
\item Let $\ell_n$ be a sequence that diverges to infinity. Then there exist two constants $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ such that with probability approaching one,
\begin{align*}
0< \kappa_1 \leq & \inf_{a = 0,1, s\in \mathcal{S}, ||v||_0 \leq h_n \ell_n} \frac{v^\top \left(\frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top \right)v }{||v||_2^2} \\
\leq & \sup_{a = 0,1, s\in \mathcal{S}, ||v||_0 \leq h_n \ell_n} \frac{v^\top \left(\frac{1}{n_a(s)}\sum_{i \in I_a(s)}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top \right)v }{||v||_2^2} \leq \kappa_2 < \infty,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
0< \kappa_1 \leq & \inf_{a = 0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}, ||v||_0 \leq h_n \ell_n} \frac{v^\top \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top |S_i=s}v }{||v||_2^2} \\
\leq & \sup_{a = 0,1, s\in \mathcal{S}, ||v||_0 \leq h_n \ell_n} \frac{v^\top \mathbb{E}\sbr[1]{\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n}^\top |S_i=s}v }{||v||_2^2} \leq \kappa_2 < \infty.
\end{align*}
\item For $a=0,1$, let $\varrho_{n,a}(s) = c \sqrt{n_a(s)}F_N^{-1}\del[1]{ 1-0.1/\sbr[1]{\log(n_a(s))4p_n}}$ where $F_N(\cdot)$ is the standard normal CDF and $c>0$ is a constant.
\end{enumerate}
\label{ass:hd}
\end{ass}
Assumption \ref{ass:hd} is standard in the literature and we refer interested readers to \cite{BCFH13} for more discussion.
\begin{thm}
Suppose Assumptions \ref{ass:assignment1} and \ref{ass:hd} hold. Then $\{\hat{\mu}^b(a,s,X_i)\}_{b = D,Y, a=0,1, s \in \mathcal{S}}$ defined in \eqref{eq:muhat_hd} and $\overline{\mu}^b(a,s,X) = \mu^b(a,s,X)$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:Delta}. Then all the results in Theorem \ref{thm:est}(i) hold for $\hat{\tau}^{R}$. In addition, $\hat{\tau}^{R}$ achieves the minimum asymptotic variance characterized in Theorem \ref{thm:est}(ii).
\label{thm:hd}
\end{thm}
Based on the approximate sparsity, Lasso can consistently estimate the correct specification, which then implies that the adjusted LATE estimator achieves the minimum variance because of Theorem \ref{thm:est}(ii).
\section{Simulations}
\label{sec:sim}
\subsection{Data Generating Processes}
Three data generating processes (DGPs) are used to assess the finite sample performance of the estimation and inference methods introduced in the paper. Suppose that
\begin{align*}
Y_{i}(1)& = a_1+\alpha(X_{i}, Z_i) + \varepsilon_{1,i}\\
Y_{i}(0)& = a_0+\alpha(X_{i}, Z_i) + \varepsilon_{2,i}\\
D_i(0) & =1\{b_0+ \gamma(X_i, Z_i) >c_0\varepsilon_{3,i}\}\\
D_i(1) & =\left\lbrace \begin{array}{cc}
1\{b_1 + \gamma(X_i, Z_i) >c_1\varepsilon_{4,i}\} & \text{if } D_i(0)=0\\
1 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}\right. \\
D_i&=D_i(1)A_i+D_i(0)(1-A_i)\\
Y_i&=Y_i(1)D_i+Y_i(0)(1-D_i)
\end{align*}
where $\{X_i, Z_i\}_{i\in [n]}, \alpha(\cdot, \cdot)$, $\{a_i, b_i, c_i\}_{i=0,1}$ and $\{\varepsilon_{j,i}\}_{j\in [4], i\in [n]}$ are separately specified as follows.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item Let $Z_i$ be i.i.d. according to standardized Beta(2, 2), $S_i = \sum_{j = 1}^4 1\{Z_i \leq g_j\}$, and $(g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4) = (-0.25\sqrt{20}, 0, 0.25\sqrt{20}, 0.5\sqrt{20})$. $X_i:=(X_{1,i}, X_{2,i})^\top$, where $X_{1,i}$ follows a uniform distribution on $[-2,2]$, $X_{2,i}:=Z_i+N(0,1)$, and $X_{1,i}$ and $X_{2,i}$ are independent. Further define
\begin{align*}
\alpha(X_{i}, Z_i)&=0.7X_{1,i}^2+X_{2,i}+4Z_i\\
\gamma(X_i, Z_i) & = 0.5X_{1,i}^2-0.5X_{2,i}^2-0.5Z_i^2,
\end{align*}
$a_1=2, a_0=1, b_1=1.3, b_0=-1, c_1=c_0=3$, and $(\varepsilon_{1,i}, \varepsilon_{2,i},\varepsilon_{3,i},\varepsilon_{4,i})^{\top}\stackrel{i.i.d}{\sim}N(0, \Sigma)$, where
\begin{align*}
\Sigma = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0.5 & 0.5^2 & 0.5^3 \\
0.5 & 1 & 0.5 & 0.5^2\\
0.5^{2} & 0.5 & 1 & 0.5\\
0.5^3 & 0.5^2 & 0.5 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
\item Let $Z$ be i.i.d. according to uniform$[-2,2]$, $S_i = \sum_{j = 1}^4 1\{Z_i \leq g_j\}$, and $(g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4) = (-1, 0, 1, 2)$. Let $X_i:=(X_{1,i}, X_{2,i})^\top$, where $X_{1,i}$ follows a uniform distribution on $[-2,2]$, $X_{2,i}$ follows a standard normal distribution, and $X_{1,i}$ and $X_{2,i}$ are independent. Further define
\begin{align*}
\alpha(X_{i}, Z_i)&= -0.8X_{1,i}\cdot X_{2,i}+Z_i^2+Z_i\cdot X_{1,i}\\
\gamma(X_i, Z_i) & = 0.5X_{1,i}^2-0.5X_{2,i}^2-0.5Z_i^2,
\end{align*}
$a_1=2, a_0=1, b_1=1, b_0=-1, c_1=c_0=3$, and $(\varepsilon_{1,i}, \varepsilon_{2,i},\varepsilon_{3,i},\varepsilon_{4,i})^{\top}$ are defined in DGP(i).
\item Let $Z$ be i.i.d. according to standardized Beta(2, 2), $S_i = \sum_{j = 1}^4 1\{Z_i \leq g_j\}$, and $(g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4) = (-0.25\sqrt{20}, 0, 0.25\sqrt{20}, 0.5\sqrt{20})$. Let $X_i:=(X_{1,i}, \cdots, X_{20,i})^\top$, where $X_i \stackrel{i.i.d}{\sim} N(0_{20 \times 1}, \Omega)$ where $\Omega$ is the Toeplitz matrix
\begin{align*}
\Omega = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0.5 & 0.5^2 &\cdots & 0.5^{19} \\
0.5 & 1 & 0.5 & \cdots & 0.5^{18} \\
0.5^2 & 0.5 & 1 & \cdots & 0.5^{17} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0.5^{19} & 0.5^{18} & 0.5^{17} & \cdots & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
Further define $\alpha(X_{i}, Z_i)= \sum_{k=1}^{20}X_{k,i}\beta_k+Z_i$, $\gamma(X_i, Z_i) = \sum_{k=1}^{20}X_{k,i}^{\top}\gamma_k-Z_i$, with $\beta_k = \sqrt{6}/k^2$ and $\gamma_k = -2/k^2$. Moreover, $a_1=2, a_0=1, b_1=2, b_0=-1, c_1=c_0=\sqrt{7}$, and $(\varepsilon_{1,i}, \varepsilon_{2,i},\varepsilon_{3,i},\varepsilon_{4,i})^{\top}$ are defined in DGP(i).
\end{enumerate}
\bigskip
For each data generating process, we consider the following four randomization schemes as in \cite{ZZ20} with $\pi(s) = 0.5$ for $s \in \mathcal{S}$:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item SRS: Treatment assignment is generated as in Example \ref{ex:srs}.
\item WEI: Treatment assignment is generated as in Example \ref{ex:wei} with $f(x) = (1-x)/2$.
\item BCD: Treatment assignment is generated as in Example \ref{ex:bcd} with $\lambda = 0.75$.
\item SBR: Treatment assignment is generated as in Example \ref{ex:sbr}.
\end{enumerate}
We compute the true LATE effect $\tau_0$ using Monte Carlo simulations, with sample size being 10000 and the number of Monte Carlo simulations being 1000. We test the true hypothesis
\[H_0: \tau=\tau_0\]
by the test described in Theorem \ref{thm:est} in order to gauge the size of the test. The power is investigated by the hypothesis
\[H_0: \tau=\tau_0+1.\]
All the tests are carried out at 5\% level of significance.
\subsection{Estimators for Comparison}
For DGPs(i)-(ii), we consider the following estimators.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item NA: the estimator with no adjustments, i.e., setting $\bar{\mu}^{b}(a,s,x) = \hat{\mu}^{b}(a,s,x) = 0$ for $b=D,Y$, $a=0,1$, all $s$ and all $x$.
\item TSLS: the two-stage least squares (TSLS) estimator of $\tau$, i.e., $\hat{\tau}_{tsls}$ defined in Section \ref{sec:tsls}. We use the IV heteroskedasticity-robust standard error for inference.
\item LP: the optimal linear estimator with $\Psi_{i,s}=X_i$ and the pseudo true values being estimated by $\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{LP}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{LP}$ defined in (\ref{rr1}). This is asymptotically equivalent to $\hat{\tau}_S$ proposed by \cite{anseletal2018}.
\item LG: the OLS-MLE estimator with $\Psi_{i,s}=X_i$, and the pseudo true values being estimated by $\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{OLS}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{MLE}$ defined in (\ref{eq:OLS-MLE}).
\item F: the further efficiency improving estimator with $\Psi_{i,s}=X_i$, and the pseudo true values being estimated by $\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{F}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{F}$ defined in (\ref{rr2}).
\item NP: the nonparametric estimator outlined in Section \ref{sec:np}. The sieve regressors are
\begin{align*}
&\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n} = \left( 1, X_{1,i}, X_{2,i}, X_{1,i}^2, X_{2,i}^2, X_{1,i}1\{X_{1,i}>t_1\}, X_{2,i}1\{X_{2,i}>t_2\}, X_{1,i}X_{2,i}, \right. \\
&\qquad\qquad \left. X_{1,i}1\{X_{1,i}>t_1\}X_{2,i}1\{X_{2,i}>t_2\} \right) ^\top
\end{align*}
where $t_1$ and $t_2$ are the sample medians of $\{X_{1,i}\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $\{X_{2,i}\}_{i \in [n]}$, respectively. The adjustments are computed as in (\ref{eq:muhat_np}). The implementation details are given in Section \ref{sec:aux_imp}.
\item R: a regularized estimator. The nonparametric estimator outlined in Section \ref{sec:np} (NP) might not have a good size when the sample size is small, so we propose to use Lasso to select the sieve regressors. The sieve regressors are
\begin{align*}
&\mathring{\Psi}_{i,n} = \left( 1, X_{1,i}, X_{2,i}, X_{1,i}^2, X_{2,i}^2, X_{1,i}1\{X_{1,i}>t_1\}, X_{2,i}1\{X_{2,i}>t_2\}, X_{1,i}X_{2,i}, \right. \\
&\qquad\qquad \left. X_{1,i}1\{X_{1,i}>t_1\}X_{2,i}1\{X_{2,i}>t_2\}, X_{1,i}^21\{X_{1,i}>t_1\}, X_{2,i}^21\{X_{2,i}>t_2\} \right) ^\top
\end{align*}
where $t_1$ and $t_2$ are the sample medians of $\{X_{1,i}\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $\{X_{2,i}\}_{i \in [n]}$, respectively. The adjustments are computed as in (\ref{eq:muhat_hd}). The implementation details are given in Section \ref{sec:aux_imp}.
\end{enumerate}
For GDP(iii), we consider the estimator with no adjustments (NA), and the lasso estimators $\hat{\theta}_{a,s}^{R}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{a,s}^{R}$ defined in (\ref{eq:muhat_hd}) with $\Psi_{i,n}=X_i$. The implementation details are given in Section \ref{sec:aux_imp}.
\subsection{Simulation Results}
\begin{table}[!htp]
\centering
\caption{{\small NA, TSLS, LP, LG, F, NP, R stand for the no-adjustment, TSLS, optimal linear, OLS-MLE, further efficiency improving, nonparametric and regularized estimators, respectively. }}
\label{tab:Simulation}%
\smallskip
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lcccccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$N = 200$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$N = 400$} \\ \cmidrule{2-5}\cmidrule{6-9}
Methods & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SRS} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{WEI} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{BCD} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SBR} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SRS} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{WEI} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{BCD} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SBR} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{9}{c}{Panel A: DGP(i)} \\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{\textit{A.1: Size}} \\
\quad NA & 0.033 & 0.031 & 0.031 & 0.034 & 0.041 & 0.043 & 0.042 & 0.039\\
\quad TSLS & 0.035 & 0.034 & 0.032 & 0.038 & 0.041 & 0.040 & 0.044 & 0.042\\
\quad LP & 0.042 & 0.041 & 0.041 & 0.045 & 0.045 & 0.044 & 0.047 & 0.047\\
\quad LG & 0.043 & 0.042 & 0.040 & 0.045 & 0.045 & 0.045 & 0.047 & 0.047\\
\quad F & 0.054 & 0.052 & 0.049 & 0.053 & 0.053 & 0.048 & 0.052 & 0.050\\
\quad NP & 0.106 & 0.094 & 0.092 & 0.090 & 0.064 & 0.062 & 0.067 & 0.062 \\
\quad R & 0.056 & 0.051 & 0.051 & 0.054 & 0.052 & 0.049 & 0.050 & 0.047 \\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{\textit{A.2: Power}} \\
\quad NA & 0.164 & 0.169 & 0.170 & 0.170 & 0.290 & 0.289 & 0.291 & 0.294 \\
\quad TSLS & 0.246 & 0.254 & 0.260 & 0.255 & 0.436 & 0.433 & 0.443 & 0.436 \\
\quad LP & 0.264 & 0.264 & 0.273 & 0.268 & 0.443 & 0.440 & 0.447 & 0.444 \\
\quad LG & 0.257 & 0.257 & 0.267 & 0.261 & 0.436 & 0.435 & 0.443 & 0.439 \\
\quad F & 0.285 & 0.292 & 0.296 & 0.293 & 0.462 & 0.454 & 0.466 & 0.463 \\
\quad NP & 0.300 & 0.285 & 0.291 & 0.282 & 0.513 & 0.506 & 0.510 & 0.509 \\
\quad R & 0.311 & 0.314 & 0.320 & 0.318 & 0.519 & 0.512 & 0.509 & 0.508\\
\midrule
\multicolumn{9}{c}{Panel B: DGP(ii)} \\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{\textit{B.1: Size}} \\
\quad NA & 0.030 & 0.031 & 0.029 & 0.030 & 0.041 & 0.043 & 0.043 & 0.041 \\
\quad TSLS & 0.033 & 0.033 & 0.031 & 0.033 & 0.042 & 0.044 & 0.045 & 0.040 \\
\quad LP & 0.044 & 0.040 & 0.044 & 0.038 & 0.044 & 0.047 & 0.046 & 0.046 \\
\quad LG & 0.043 & 0.039 & 0.042 & 0.037 & 0.044 & 0.047 & 0.046 & 0.046 \\
\quad F & 0.052 & 0.047 & 0.048 & 0.043 & 0.048 & 0.049 & 0.051 & 0.049 \\
\quad NP & 0.102 & 0.087 & 0.087 & 0.081 & 0.062 & 0.063 & 0.065 & 0.062 \\
\quad R & 0.059 & 0.053 & 0.050 & 0.051 & 0.048 & 0.051 & 0.050 & 0.048 \\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{\textit{B.2: Power}} \\
\quad NA & 0.211 & 0.208 & 0.208 & 0.206 & 0.339 & 0.351 & 0.351 & 0.344 \\
\quad TSLS & 0.214 & 0.212 & 0.211 & 0.210 & 0.344 & 0.352 & 0.354 & 0.346 \\
\quad LP & 0.342 & 0.331 & 0.342 & 0.340 & 0.517 & 0.527 & 0.524 & 0.516 \\
\quad LG & 0.333 & 0.324 & 0.336 & 0.333 & 0.514 & 0.524 & 0.523 & 0.514 \\
\quad F & 0.375 & 0.374 & 0.379 & 0.376 & 0.563 & 0.568 & 0.566 & 0.561 \\
\quad NP & 0.387 & 0.382 & 0.386 & 0.388 & 0.654 & 0.664 & 0.654 & 0.656 \\
\quad R & 0.427 & 0.426 & 0.432 & 0.430 & 0.652 & 0.661 & 0.655 & 0.646 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{9}{c}{Panel C: DGP(iii)} \\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{\textit{C.1: Size}} \\
\quad NA & 0.048 & 0.043 & 0.046 & 0.048 & 0.040 & 0.047 & 0.045 & 0.047 \\
\quad R & 0.049 & 0.044 & 0.044 & 0.041 & 0.047 & 0.050 & 0.049 & 0.051 \\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{\textit{C.2: Power}} \\
\quad NA & 0.172 & 0.170 & 0.170 & 0.177 & 0.224 & 0.237 & 0.235 & 0.239 \\
\quad R & 0.426 & 0.436 & 0.445 & 0.439 & 0.739 & 0.745 & 0.748 & 0.746 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}%
\end{table}%
Table \ref{tab:Simulation} presents the empirical sizes and powers of the true null $H_0: \tau =\tau_0$ and false null $H_0: \tau =\tau_0+1$, respectively, under DGPs (i)-(iii). Note that none of the working models is correctly specified. Consider DGP (i). When $N=200$, the NA estimator is slightly under-sized. The NP estimator is over-sized because the number of sieve regressors is relatively large compared to the sample size, while the R estimator has the correct size thanks to the Lasso selection of the sieve regressors. All other estimators have sizes close to the nominal level 5\%. This confirms that our estimation and inference procedures are robust to misspecification.
In terms of power, the NA estimator has the lowest power, corroborating the belief that one should carry out the regression adjustment whenever covariates correlate with the potential outcomes. Powers of the TSLS, LP, LG, F, NP and R estimators are much higher. In particular, power of the LP estimator is slightly higher than that of the LG estimator even though a logistic model is less misspecified. This shows some robustness of the LP estimator. Power of the F estimator is higher than those of the NA, TSLS, LP and LG estimators, which is consistent with our theory that the F estimator is weakly more efficient than those estimators. The NP and R estimators enjoy the highest powers as a nonparametric model could approximate the true specification very well. NP has more size distortion than R when sample size is 200. When the sample size is increased to 400, virtually all the sizes and powers of the estimators improve, and all the observations continue to hold.
Most observations uncovered in DGP (i) carry forward to DGP (ii). One new pattern is that powers of the LP, LG, F, NP and R estimators are much higher than those of the NA and TSLS estimators. This is probably because the true specifications for $Y_i(a)$ become more nonlinear.
We now consider DGP (iii). In this setting, only the NA and R estimators are feasible. When $N=200$, both estimators have the correct sizes but the R estimator has considerably higher power. When $N=400$, the sizes of these two estimators remain relatively unchanged, while their powers improve with a diverging gap.
\subsection{Practical Recommendation}
If researchers are restricted to parametric adjustments, we suggest using estimation method F which is guaranteed to be weakly more efficient than simple TSLS, LP, and LG. We can include linear, quadratic and interaction terms of the original covariates as regressors $\Psi_{i,s}$. If the dimension of covariates is high relative to the sample size and/or both covariates and their technical terms are used in the adjustments, we suggest using estimation method NP or R.
\section{Empirical Application}
\label{sec:app}
Banking the unbanked is considered to be the first step toward broader financial inclusion -- the focus of the World Bank's Universal Financial Access 2020 initiative.\footnote{https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/brief/achieving-universal-financial-access-by-2020} In a field experiment with a CAR design, \cite{dupasetal2018} examined the impact of expanding access to basic saving accounts for rural households living in three countries: Uganda, Malawi, and Chile. In particular, apart from the intent-to-treat effects for the whole sample, they also studied the local average treatment effects for the households who actively used the accounts. This section presents an application of our regression adjusted estimators to the same dataset to examine the LATEs of opening bank accounts on savings -- a central outcome of interest in their study.
We focus on the experiment conducted in Uganda. The sample consists of 2,160 households who were randomized with a CAR design. Specifically, within each of 41 strata formed by gender, occupation, and bank branch, half of households were randomly allocated to the treatment group, the other half to the control one. Households in the treatment group were then offered a voucher to open bank accounts with no financial costs. However, not every treated household ever opened and used the saving accounts for deposit. In fact, among the treated households, only 41.87\% of them opened the accounts and made at least one deposit within 2 years. Subject compliance is therefore imperfect in this experiment.
The randomization design apparently satisfies statements (i), (ii), and (iii) in Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}. The target fraction of treated households is 1/2. Because $\max_{s\in\mathcal{S}}|\frac{B_{n}(s)}{n(s)}|\approx 0.056$, it is plausible to claim that Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(iv) is also satisfied. Since households in the control group need to pay for the fees of opening accounts while the treated ones bear no financial costs, no-defiers statement in Assumption \ref{ass:assignment1}(v) holds plausibly in this case.
One of the key analyses in \cite{dupasetal2018} is to estimate the treatment effects on savings for active users -- households who actually opened the accounts and made at least one deposit within 2 years. We follow their footprints to estimate the same LATEs at savings balance.\footnote{Savings balance includes savings in formal financial intuitions, mobile money, cash at home or in secret place, savings in ROSCA/VSLA, savings with friends/family, other cash savings, total formal savings, total informal savings, and total savings (See \cite{dupasetal2018} for details). Our analysis uses these variables obtained from the first follow-up survey.} Specifically, for each item in the savings balance, we estimate the LATEs on savings for active users by the methods ``NA", ``TSLS", ``LP", ``LG", ``F", and ``NP". To maintain comparability, for each outcome variable, we keep $X_i$ similar to those used in \cite{dupasetal2018} for all the adjusted estimators.\footnote{The description of these estimators is similar to that in Section \ref{sec:sim}. Except for savings in formal financial institutions, mobile money, and total formal savings, $X_i$ includes baseline value for outcome of interest and dummy for missing observations. For savings in formal financial institutions, mobile money, and total formal savings, since their baseline values are all zero, we set $X_i$ as baseline value of total savings and dummy for missing observations. For the nonparametric adjustment ``NP", we choose the bases $\{1,X_{i}, \left(X_{i1}-qx_{1,0.3}\right)1\{X_{i1}>qx_{1,0.3}\},\left(X_{i1}-qx_{1,0.5}\right)1\{X_{i1}>qx_{1,0.5}\}\}$ where $X_{i1}$ denotes the continuous $X$ variable. $qx_{1,0.3}$ and $qx_{1,0.5}$ are 30\%th and 50\%th quantiles of $\{X_{i1}\}_{i \in [n]}$.}
Table \ref{tab:emp_ate} presents the LATE estimates and their standard errors (in parentheses) estimated by these methods. These results lead to four observations. First, consistent with the theoretical and simulation results, the standard errors for the LATE estimates with regression adjustments are lower than those without adjustments. This observation holds for all the outcome variables and all the regression adjustment methods. Over the nine outcome variables, the standard errors estimated by regression adjustments are on average around 7\% lower than those without adjustment. In particular, when the outcome variable is total informal savings, the standard errors obtained via the further improvement adjustment -- ``F" method is about 14.9\% lower than those without adjustment. This means that regression adjustments, just with the same two covariates used in \cite{dupasetal2018}, can achieve sizable efficiency gains in estimating the LATEs.
Second, the standard errors for the regression-adjusted LATE estimates are mostly lower than those obtained by the usual TSLS procedure. Especially, when the outcome variable is savings in friends/family, the standard error estimated by the optimal linear adjustment -- ``LP" method is around 6.9\% lower than that obtained by TSLS. This means that, compared with our regression-adjusted methods, TSLS is less efficient to estimate the LATEs under CAR.
Third, the standard errors for the LATE estimates with regression adjustments are similar in terms of magnitude. This implies that all the regression adjustments achieve similar efficiency gain in this case.
Finally, as in \cite{dupasetal2018}, for the households who actively use bank accounts, we find that reducing the cost of opening a bank account can significantly increase their savings in formal institutions. We also observe the evidence of crowd-out -- mainly moving cash from saving at home to saving in bank.
\newcolumntype{L}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}X}
\newcolumntype{C}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X}
\begin{table}[htp!]
\centering
\caption{Impacts on Saving Stocks in 2010 US Dollars}
\vspace{1ex}
\begin{tabularx}{1\textwidth}{LCCCCCCC}
\toprule
\qquad $Y$ & $n$ & NA & TSLS & LP & LG & F & NP \\
\midrule
Formal & 1968 & 20.558 & 20.824 & 22.192 & 22.070 & 23.033 & 22.367 \\
fin. inst. & & (3.067) & (3.042) & (3.028) & (3.018) & (3.057) & (3.024) \\
\\
Mobile & 1972 & -0.208 & -0.197 & -0.351 & -0.349 & -0.363 & -0.374 \\
& & (0.223) & (0.223) & (0.217) & (0.216) & (0.215) & (0.215) \\
\\
Total & 1966 & 20.399 & 20.678 & 21.894 & 21.758 & 22.737 & 22.228 \\
formal & & (3.089) & (3.064) & (3.053) & (3.041) & (3.084) & (3.070) \\
\\
Cash at & 1971 & -10.826 & -8.785 & -9.285 & -9.153 & -8.978 & -8.135 \\
home & & (5.003) & (4.559) & (4.506) & (4.443) & (4.482) & (4.390) \\
\\
ROSCA/ & 1975 & -1.933 & -2.575 & -1.714 & -1.769 & -1.609 & -1.769 \\
VSLA & & (1.971) & (1.866) & (1.784) & (1.841) & (1.823) & (1.841) \\
\\
Friends/ & 1974 & -3.621 & -3.472 & -2.436 & -2.539 & -2.525 & -2.540 \\
family & & (2.040) & (1.997) & (1.860) & (1.946) & (1.873) & (1.946) \\
\\
Other & 1965 & 0.027 & 0.040 & 0.033 & 0.033 & 0.033 & 0.033 \\
cash & & (0.046) & (0.045) & (0.044) & (0.044) & (0.044) & (0.044) \\
\\
Total & 1960 & -17.643 & -15.714 & -16.894 & -16.805 & -16.177 & -17.973 \\
informal & & (6.200) & (5.454) & (5.329) & (5.298) & (5.276) & (5.352) \\
\\
Total & 1952 & 2.787 & 5.355 & 6.061 & 6.023 & 6.820 & 5.639 \\
savings & & (7.290) & (6.502) & (6.340) & (6.301) & (6.292) & (6.283) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx} \\
\vspace{-1ex}
\justify
Notes: The table reports the LATE estimates of opening bank accounts on saving stocks. NA, TSLS, LP, LG, F, NP, stand for the no-adjustment, TSLS, optimal linear, OLS-MLE, further efficiency improving, nonparametric estimators, respectively. $n$ is the number of households. Standard errors are in parentheses.
\label{tab:emp_ate}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclu}
In this paper, we address the problem of estimation and inference of local average treatment effects under covariate-adaptive randomizations using regression adjustments. We first derive the semiparametric efficiency bound for the LATE under CARs. We then propose a regression-adjusted LATE estimator under CARs. We derive its limit theory and show that, even under the potential misspecification of adjustments, our estimator maintains its consistency and its inference method still achieves an asymptotic size equal to the nominal level under the null. When the adjustment is correctly specified, our LATE estimator achieves the semiparametric efficiency bound. We also examine the efficiency gains brought by regression adjustments in parametric (both linear and nonlinear), nonparametric, and regularized forms. When the adjustment is parametrically misspecified, we construct a new estimator by combining the linear and nonlinear adjustments. This new estimator is shown to be weakly more efficient than all the parametrically adjusted estimators, including the one without any adjustment. Simulations and empirical application confirm efficiency gains that materialize from regression adjustments relative to both the estimator without adjustment and the widely used two-stage least squares estimator.
|
\section{Introduction}
The present note is a continuation of the previous work \cite{BCSX}, in which some homotopy-level structures from Lie pairs, known as $ L_\infty $ algebroids, shifted derived Poisson algebras and so forth were found. Now, we are more concerned with intrinsic properties of these structures. The motivation here is detailed below.
Lie algebroids were introduced in the 1960s by Pradines \cite{Pradines} as a formalization of ideas
going back to the works of Lie and Cartan. Recall that a Lie $\mathbb{K}$-algebroid
($\mathbb{K}$ is either $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$) is a $\mathbb{K}$-vector bundle $L\to M$ over a smooth manifold $M$ such that $\Gamma(L)$ is a Lie-Rinehart $\mathbb{K}$-algebra \cite{Rinehart} over the commutative ring $C^\infty(M,\mathbb{K})$. Namely, $\bsection{L}$ is equipped with a Lie bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_L$, an anchor map $\rho_L\colon L\to TM\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{K}$, and they are compatible (see Definition \ref{Def:LieKalgebroid}). In recent years, people tend to give the equivalent description of the Lie algebroid structure on $L$ from a dg manifold point of view \cite{Vaintrob1997}, namely, the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential operator $d_L:\bsection{\wedge^\bullet L^\vee}\to \bsection{\wedge^{\bullet+1} L^\vee}$ encodes $[\cdot,\cdot]_L$ and $\rho_L$, and gives rise to a
dg algebra $(\bsection{\wedge^\bullet L^\vee},d_L)$.
Objects of Lie algebroids interpolate between tangent bundles, foliations
on the one hand and on the other
hand, Lie algebras and their actions on manifolds. As Lie algebroids combine the usual differential geometry and Lie
algebra theory under a common roof, it
suggests their relations with the realm of Mechanics. In fact, they form a category which is closely related to symplectic and Poisson manifolds, and there has been recently a lot of work and progress in the
geometric aspects of Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics on Lie algebroids, see e.g. \cite{Grabowska,deLeon,Martinez,Weinstein}.
We say that $(L, A)$ is a pair of Lie algebroids or \textit{Lie pair} for short if $A$ is a subalgebroid of another Lie algebroid $L$ over the same base manifold. The notion of {Lie pair} is a natural framework encompassing a range of diverse geometric
contexts including complex manifolds, foliations, matched pairs, and manifolds
endowed with an action of a Lie algebra, etc.
In the last decade much research on Lie pairs has been done following different strategies and the underlying mathematical structures: Atiyah classes arising from Lie pairs have been studied, using a variety of methods, see e.g. \cite{CSX16,CXX,Batakidis};
It is shown that geometric objects including Kapranov dg and Fedosov dg manifolds \cite{LSXadvance2021,SX20},
algebraic objects such as Hopf algebras \cite{CSX14,CCN},
Leibniz$_\infty$ and $ L_\infty $ algebras can be derived from Lie pairs \cite{LSX12,BCSX,CLX};
Also, in the context of Lie pairs, considerable attentions had been paid to Poincar\'{e}-Birkhoff-Witt isomorphisms \cite{CCT,Calaque}, Kontsevich-Duflo isomorphisms \cite{LSX,CXXarxiv2021}, and Rozansky-Witten-type invariants \cite{VX}, etc.
We remind the reader briefly of
the notion of Lie algebroid representation of $L$ on a vector bundle $V$ (over the same base manifold), also known as an $L$-action, or an $L$-module structure on $V$ --- This means a $\mathbb{K}$-bilinear map $\nabla:~\bsection{L}\times \bsection{V}\to \bsection{V} $ which is $C^\infty(M,\K)$-linear in its first argument and satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\nabla_{l}(fv)=f\nabla_l v+ \rho_L(l)(f) v$, for all $l\in \bsection{L}$, $f\in C^\infty(M,\K)$ and $v\in\bsection{V}$;
\item $\nabla_{[l_1,l_2]_L}=\nabla_{l_1}\circ \nabla_{l_2}-\nabla_{l_2}\circ \nabla_{l_1}$, for all $l_1,l_2\in \bsection{L}$.
\end{enumerate}
If we turn to the language of dg algebras, such an action $\nabla$ is equivalent to a square zero derivation
$d^\nabla_L$: $\bsection{\wedge^\bullet L^\vee\otimes V}\to \bsection{\wedge^{\bullet+1} L^\vee\otimes V}$ which is also called the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential \cite{Vaintrob1997}.
The pair $\big(\bsection{\wedge^\bullet L^\vee\otimes V},d^\nabla_L\big)$
now becomes a dg module over the dg algebra
$(\bsection{\wedge^\bullet L^\vee},d_L)$, and is known as the
Chevalley-Eilenberg complex of $L$ with coefficients in $V$.
Notably, given a Lie pair $(L, A)$ over a base manifold $M$,
the quotient bundle $L/A$, which we usually denote by $B$,
naturally admits a Lie algebroid $A$-action known
as the Bott connection \cite{Bott1970,Bott}.
In specific, this action which we denote by $\nabla$ is defined by
\[\Gamma(A)\times\Gamma(B)\longrightarrow \Gamma(B): \quad (a,b)\longmapsto \nabla_a b:={\rm pr}_B[a,\tilde{b}]_L\]
where $a\in \bsection{A}$, $b\in \bsection{B}$, ${\rm pr}_B: L\to B$ stands for the canonical quotient map, and $\tilde{b}\in \bsection{L}$ satisfies ${\rm pr}_B(\tilde{b})=b$.
The Bott connection originates in
foliation theory: When we especially take $L = TM$ with $A$ the tangent bundle to
a foliation on $M$, and $B=L/A$ the normal bundle to the foliation, the action $\nabla$ becomes the canonical flat connection on $B$ along $A$ considered by Bott \cite{Bott1970}.
From the Lie algebroid $A$ and its action on $B$, we have the standard dg algebra
$\Omega^\bullet _A:=\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet A^\vee)$ and the dg module
$\Omega_A^\bullet(B):= \Gamma(\wedge^\bullet A^\vee \otimes L/A)$
(both equipped with Chevalley-Eilenberg differentials). To interpret
$\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$, consider $\mathfrak{X}_A$ and $\mathfrak{X}_L$, the
differentiable stacks determined by the local Lie groupoids
integrating the Lie algebroids $A$ and $L$, respectively.
The dg module $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$ can be regarded as the space of formal
vector fields tangent to the fibers of the differentiable
stack fibration $\mathfrak{X}_A\to \mathfrak{X}_L$.
We would like to mention another point of view towards foliations
on manifolds, which are particular instances of Lie pairs,
due to Vitagliano \cite{V2009,V2014,V2015} ---
Let $C\subset TM$ be an involutive distribution on a finite dimensional smooth manifold $M$. This gives an object of a \textit{diffiety} to which there is associated a rich cohomological calculus, also known as secondary calculus \cite{Vinogradov1984,Vinogradov1998,Vinogradov2001}.
For instance,
secondary functions give characteristic (de Rham) cohomology of $C$, i.e. $H_{\mathrm{dR}}\big(\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet C^\vee )\big)$, and secondary vector fields give characteristic
cohomology with local coefficients in $C$-normal vector fields, i.e.
$H_{\mathrm{dR}}\big(\Gamma\big(\wedge^\bullet C^\vee \otimes TM/C\big)\big)$.
Although the settings \textit{op. cit.} are foliations on smooth
manifolds, we can adapt them to Lie pairs easily: given a general Lie pair
$(L,A)$, one interprets the Chevalley-Eilenberg cohomology
$H_{\mathrm{CE}}(A):=H\big(\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet A^\vee)\big)=H(\Omega_A^\bullet)$ as the secondary functions and
$H_{\mathrm{CE}}(A;B):=H\big(\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet A^\vee \otimes B)\big)=H\big(\Omega_A^\bullet(B)\big)$
as the secondary vector fields stemming from a stack fibration
$\mathfrak{X}_A\to \mathfrak{X}_L$.
To the aforementioned space $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$, there are associated two \emph{different} $ L_\infty $ structures, one by \cite{LSX12} and the other by \cite{BCSX}. The latter one is relatively easier because it is indeed an $\Linftythree$ algebra (i.e., its structure maps $[\cdots]_n$ are trivial for $n\geqslant 4$, see Section \ref{Sec:LinftyLiePair}).
We wish to find more intrinsic properties of the both $ L_\infty $ structures but in this note we only handle the latter one and give the following result --- the Lie algebra $\mathrm{Der}(L)$ of derivations of the Lie algebroid $L$ has an action on the said $\Linftythree$ algebra $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$, see Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}.
Why the $\Linftythree$-algebra $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$, the central object of this study, is interesting?
In fact, it is shown in \cite{BCSX} that $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$ is a `resolution' of $H_{\mathrm{CE}}(A;B)=H\big(\Omega_A^\bullet(B)\big)$,
which admits a canonical graded Lie algebra structure.
As a consequence of our Theorem \ref{MainTheorem},
we find an \textit{action by derivation} of a Lie subalgebra of
$\mathrm{Der}(L)$ on $H_{\mathrm{CE}}(A;B)$,
see Corollary \ref{Cor:actiononH}. Moreover, $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$ is closely related with deformations of the Lie pair $(L,A)$. To be more precise, a Maurer-Cartan element in $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$, i.e., a certain element $\xi\in \Omega_A^1(B)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ (where $\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ is the maximal ideal of a local Artinian $\mathbb{K}$-algebra $\mathscr{A}$; see Definition
\ref{Def:MC}), gives rise to a deformed Lie pair $(L,A_{\xi})$. It turns out that the aforementioned action by $\mathrm{Der}{(L)}$ on $\Omega^\bullet _A(B)$ determines a family of gauge equivalences of such deformations. Limited by the length of this paper, we do not expand this relatively complicated topic. Detailed investigation and conclusions will be presented in our next work.
To prove Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}, we first need to specify the notion of a Lie algebra action on an $ L_\infty $ algebra. We will borrow many known facts from the literature and give a formal definition and several equivalent characterizations which should be of independent interest, see Section \ref{Sec:LiealgebraactiononLinfty}. We would like to point out that, in \cite{MehtaZambon}, Mehta and Zambon have introduced the concept of $L_\infty$ algebra action on a graded manifold, which is more general than our definition of Lie algebra actions and could be a point for further studies related to the present work.
Further more, we propose to consider gauge actions on Maurer-Cartan elements in an $ L_\infty $ algebra if it adopts a Lie algebra action. The idea follows from the original definition of gauge actions by Getzler \cite{Getzler}. When applying to the particular instance of $\mathrm{Der}(L)$-action on $\Omega_A^\bullet (B)$, we obtain a new type of gauge equivalence of Maurer-Cartan elements in $\Omega_A^\bullet (B)$, which is compatible with the standard gauge equivalence in the sense of Getzler, see Theorem \ref{Thm:adb=baction}. For this reason, we elect to call the action by $\mathrm{Der}(L)$ \textit{internal symmetry} of the $\Linftythree$ algebra $\Omega_A^\bullet (B)$.
\smallskip
\textbf{Terminology and notations.}
\textit{Field $\mathbb{K}$.} We use the symbol $\mathbb{K}$ to denote the field of either real or complex numbers.
\textit{Gradings.}
Unless specified otherwise, all vector spaces, algebras, modules, etc., are
$\mathbb{Z}$-graded objects over the field $\mathbb{K}$.
For a graded object $V=\oplus_{i\in \mathbb{Z}} V^{i}$, the degree of
a homogeneous element $v\in V^{i}$ is denoted by $\degree{v}=i$.
We write $V[k]$ as the degree $k$ shift of $V$ by the rule
$(V[k])^i=V^{k+i}$, so the element $v[k]\in V[k]$ shifted from
$v\in V$ has degree $\degree{ {v[k]}} =\degree{v}-k$.
The elements $v[1]\in V[1]$ will also be denoted by $\tilde{v}$.
\textit{Tensor products.}
Given a graded vector space $V$, we denote its tensor (co)algebra and
exterior (co)algebra over $\mathbb{K}$ respectively by
$T(V):=\bigoplus_{n\geqslant 0}V^{\otimes n}$ and
$\Lambda(V):=\bigoplus_{n\geqslant 0}\Lambda^n(V)$.
The symmetric (co)algebra and the reduced symmetric (co)algebra of $V$ are respectively denoted
by $S(V):=\bigoplus_{n\geqslant 0}S^n(V)$ and $\overline{S(V)}:=\bigoplus_{n\geqslant 1}S^n(V)$, whose multiplication symbols are written as $\odot$.
\textit{Shuffles.} Let $\mathfrak{S}_n$ denote the permutation group of the set $\{1, 2, \cdots, n\}$.
A $(p, \, q)$-shuffle is a permutation
$\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_{p+q}$
such that
$\sigma(1)<\cdots < \sigma(p)$
and
$\sigma(p+1)<\cdots < \sigma(p+q)$.
The symbol $\mathrm{Sh}(p, \, q)$ denotes the set of $(p, \, q)$-shuffles.
Similarly,
$\mathrm{Sh}(i,j,k)$ denotes the set of such $(i,j,k)$-shuffles, i.e., those $\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_{i+j+k}$ satisfying $\sigma(1)<\cdots<\sigma(i)$,
$\sigma(i+1)<\cdots<\sigma(i+j)$, and $\sigma(i+j+1)<\cdots<\sigma(i+j+k)$.
For any shuffle $\sigma$, its sign is denoted by ${\rm sgn}(\sigma)$.
\textit{Koszul signs.}
For homogeneous elements $v_1,\cdots,v_n\in V$ and
$\sigma\in\mathfrak{S}_n$, the Koszul signs
$\epsilon(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)$ and $\chi(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)$ are
defined respectively by the equations
\begin{align*}
v_1\odot\cdots\odot v_n&=\epsilon(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)v_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(n)} \quad(\in S(V)),\\\mbox{ and }~
v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_n&=\chi(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)v_{\sigma(1)}\wedge\cdots\wedge v_{\sigma(n)}\quad(\in \Lambda(V)).
\end{align*}
The two signs are related by
$\chi(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)={\rm sgn}(\sigma)\epsilon(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)$.
\textit{The d\'{e}calage isomorphism.} Given a graded vector space $V$, there are natural isomorphisms for any $n\in \mathbb{N}$:
\begin{equation*}
{\rm dp}_n:~{S^n}(V[1])\to (\Lambda^nV)[n],\quad \tilde{v}_1\odot\cdots \odot \tilde{v}_n\mapsto (-1)^{\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{v_i}}(v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_n)[n].
\end{equation*}
\textit{Lie algebroids.}
In this paper `Lie algebroid' always means
`Lie $\mathbb{K}$-algebroid'.
\textit{Abbreviations.} The word `dg' stands for `differential graded'. Likewise, `dgla' stands for `differential graded Lie algebra'.
\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
We would like to thank Chuangqiang Hu and Maosong Xiang for useful comments. We gratefully acknowledge the critical review by the anonymous referee on an earlier version of the manuscript.
The research is supported by
NSFC grant 12071241, Research Fund of Nanchang Hangkong University (EA202107232), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2020MS040).
\section{$L_\infty$ algebras}
\subsection{Definitions of $L_\infty$ algebras}
We start with the definitions of various terms related to homotopy Lie algebras.
\begin{Def}\label{Def:Linfty-algebra}
An \textbf{$L_\infty$ algebra} is a graded vector space $\mathfrak{g}$ equipped with a collection of skew-symmetric multilinear maps $[\cdots]_k: \Lambda^k \mathfrak{g}\to \mathfrak{g} $ of degree $(2-k)$, for all $k\geqslant $1$ $, such that the higher Jacobi rules
\smallskip
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobi identities}
\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
i=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(i,n-i)\end{subarray}}} (-1)^i\chi(\sigma;x_1,\cdots,x_n) [[x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(i)}]_i,x_{\sigma(i+1)},\cdots, x_{\sigma(n)}]_{n-i+1}=0,
\end{equation}
hold for all homogeneous elements $x_1,\cdots,x_n \in V$ and $n\geqslant 1$.
\end{Def}
\textbf{Notation:} It is common to denote the unary bracket $[\cdot]_1$ by $d$.
The first three Jacobi rules are listed below:
\begin{itemize} \label{eq:3Jacobi}
\item[$\bullet$] ($n=1$) $d^2=0,$
\item[$\bullet$] ($n=2$) $d[x_1,x_2]_2=[d x_1,x_2]_2+(-1)^{\degree{x_1}}[x_1,d x_2]_2,$
\item[$\bullet$] ($n=3$)
\begin{align*}
& [[x_1,x_2]_2,x_3]_2+(-1)^{1+\degree{x_2}\cdot\degree{x_3}}[[x_1,x_3]_2,x_2]_2\\
&\qquad\qquad+(-1)^{\degree{x_1}(\degree{x_2}+\degree{x_3})}[[x_2,x_3]_2,x_1]_2\\
=\,& d [x_1,x_2,x_3]_3+[d x_1,x_2,x_3]_3+(-1)^{1+\degree{x_1}\cdot\degree{x_2}}[d x_2, x_1,x_3]_3\\
&\qquad\qquad+(-1)^{(\degree{x_1}+\degree{x_2})\degree{x_3}}[d x_3,x_1,x_2]_3.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
In particular, an $L_\infty$ algebra with $[\cdots]_k=0$ for $k\geqslant 3$ amounts to
a differential graded Lie algebra (dgla for short), i.e., a triple $(V,[\cdot,\cdot],d)$,
where $(V=\bigoplus_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} V^i,d)$ is a differential graded vector space and $[\cdot,\cdot]\colon V\times V \to V$ is a graded Lie bracket, satisfying the above $n=2$ constraint.
\begin{Def}
If an $L_\infty$ algebra has vanishing brackets $[\cdots]_k=0$ for $k\geqslant 4$, i.e.,
only the brackets $d$, $[\cdot,\cdot]_2$, and
$[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_3$ are possibly nontrivial, then it is called an
\textbf{$L_{\leqslant 3}$ algebra}.
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
In this paper, we follow the sign convention of Getzler \cite{Getzler} for the definition of $L_\infty$ algebras. The original definition of $L_\infty$ structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ introduced by Lada and Markl \cite{LM95}
means a family of brackets
$[\cdots]'_k: \Lambda^k(\mathfrak{g})\to \mathfrak{g} $ of degree $(2-k)$ subject to the
higher Jacobi rules:
\smallskip
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqt:nJacabi-2}
&\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
i=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(i,n-i)\end{subarray}}} (-1)^{i(n-i)} \chi(\sigma;x_1,\cdots,x_n)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad[[x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(i)}]'_i,x_{\sigma(i+1)},\cdots,
x_{\sigma(n)}]'_{n-i+1}
=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In fact, if we define
$$[x_1,\cdots,x_k]_k:=(-1)^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}} [x_1,\cdots,x_k]'_k,$$
then the identity \eqref{Eqt:nJacabi-2} becomes
\eqref{Jacobi identities}.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}\label{rmk:H(g)}
For an $L_\infty$-algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ whose unary bracket is $d$,
since $d^2=0$, we have a cochain complex $(\mathfrak{g},d)$.
The corresponding cohomology is denoted by $H(\mathfrak{g})$.
Moreover, $H(\mathfrak{g})$ is equipped with a graded Lie algebra structure
whose Lie bracket is induced from the binary bracket of $\mathfrak{g}$. Note this $H(\mathfrak{g})$ is \emph{not} $H_{\mathrm{CE}}(\mathfrak{g})$ which usually refers to the Chevalley-Eilenberg cohomology of the $L_\infty$ algebra $\mathfrak{g}$.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Def}\label{Def:morphismLinfty}
Let $(\mathfrak{g}_1,[\cdots]^1_n)$ and $(\mathfrak{g}_2,[\cdots]^2_n)$ be two $L_\infty$ algebras.
An \textbf{${L_\infty}$ morphism} $F:~\mathfrak{g}_1\to\mathfrak{g}_2$ is a collection of multilinear maps $$F_n: \Lambda^n \mathfrak{g}_1\to \mathfrak{g}_2 $$
(of degree $1-n$) satisfying the following equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
&\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p+q=n+1 \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\pm
F_q\big([x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)}]^1_p,
x_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}\big)\\
&\quad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
1\leqslant k \leqslant n \\
i_1+\cdots+i_k=n\\
\tau \in \mathrm{Sh}(i_1,\cdots,i_k)\end{subarray}}} \pm
\big[F_{i_1}(x_{\tau(1)},\cdots,x_{\tau(i_1)}),\cdots,
F_{i_k}(x_{\tau(i_1+\cdots+i_{k-1}+1)},\cdots,x_{\tau(n)})
\big]^2_k
\end{aligned}
$$ for every $n\geqslant 1$ and $x_1,\cdots,x_n\in \mathfrak{g}_1$.
Here we denote by $(\pm)$ the appropriate Koszul signs
(which can be worked out explicitly).
\end{Def}
There is another version of definition for an $L_\infty$ algebra, known as $L_\infty[1]$ algebras, see \cite{Voronov,Schatz}.
\begin{Def}\label{Defn:Linftyone}
An \textbf{$L_\infty[1]$ algebra} is a graded vector space $W$ equipped with a collection of symmetric multilinear maps $\{\cdots\}_k: S^k(W)\to W$, all being degree $1$ for $k\geqslant $1$ $, such that the higher Jacobi rules
\smallskip
\begin{equation}\label{Jacobi identities1}
\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
i=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(i,n-i)\end{subarray}}} \epsilon(\sigma;w_1,\cdots,w_n)
\big\{\{w_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,w_{\sigma(i)}\}_i,w_{\sigma(i+1)},\cdots, w_{\sigma(n)}\big\}_{n-i+1}=0
\end{equation}
hold for all homogeneous elements $w_1,\cdots,w_n \in W$ and $n\geqslant 1$.
\end{Def}
A basic fact we need is the bijection between $L_\infty$ algebra structures on a graded vector space $\mathfrak{g}$ and $L_\infty[1]$ algebra structures on $\mathfrak{g}[1]$ --- Suppose that $(\mathfrak{g},[\cdots]_n)$ is an $L_\infty$ algebra. Following the d\'{e}calage isomorphism, we define the following $n$-brackets:
\begin{equation*}
{S^n}(\mathfrak{g}[1])\to \mathfrak{g}[1],\quad
\{\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_n\}_n:=(-1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{x_i}}([x_1,\cdots,x_n]_n)[1],
\end{equation*} where $x_1,\cdots,x_n\in \mathfrak{g}$.
Then one can verify that $(\mathfrak{g}[1],\{\cdots \}_n)$ is an $L_\infty[1]$ algebra.
Another relation we need is about the Koszul signs:
\begin{equation*}\label{Eqt:sign}
(-1)^{\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{x_{\sigma(i)}}}\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_n)=(-1)^{\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{x_i}}\chi(\sigma;x_1,\cdots,x_n),
\end{equation*}
where $\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_n$, $\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_n)$ and $\chi(\sigma;x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ are defined in $S^n(\mathfrak{g}[1])$ and $\Lambda^n(\mathfrak{g})$ respectively.
\subsection{$L_\infty$ structure in terms of dg coalgebras}
The notions of $L_\infty$ and $L_\infty[1]$ algebras can be wrapped up in the language of dg coalgebras. Here is a quick review of this fact. One could also consult \cite{Manetti} and \cite{Fukaya}.
Let $C$ be a graded coalgebra with a comultiplication
$\Delta:~C\to C\otimes C$. A degree $m$ \textbf{coderivation} of
$(C,\Delta)$ is a degree $m$ graded linear map
$D:~C\to C$ satisfying the coLeibniz rule
$\Delta D=(D\otimes\operatorname{id}_C+\operatorname{id}_C\otimes D)\Delta$.
A \textbf{codifferential} is a degree $1$ coderivation $D$ with $D^2=0$.
\textbf{Notation:} The vector space of all coderivations on $C$ is denoted by
${\rm Coder}(C):=\bigoplus_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}{\rm Coder}^m(C)$
which is naturally graded by the degrees.
With respect to the composition $\circ$, the space ${\rm Coder}(C)$
has the graded Lie bracket
$[F,G]:=F\circ G-(-1)^{\degree{F}\degree{G}}G\circ F$ for homogeneous elements $F,G\in{\rm Coder}(C)$.
If $D:~C\to C$ is a codifferential, then $[\cdot,\cdot]$ and $d=[D,\cdot]$
give a dgla structure on ${\rm Coder}(C)$.
We will mainly work with two coalgebras associated with a given
graded vector space $V$: the symmetric coalgebra
$S(V)=\bigoplus_{n\geqslant 0}S^n(V)$ and the reduced one
$\overline{S(V)}=\bigoplus_{n\geqslant 1}S^n(V)$.
The comultiplication on $S(V)$ is given as follows:
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\mathfrak{b}(v_1\odot\cdots\odot v_n)\\
&\quad= \sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
r=0,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(r,n-r)\end{subarray}}}
\epsilon(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)(v_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(r)})\otimes(v_{\sigma(r+1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(n)}),
\end{aligned}$$
where $v_1,\cdots,v_n\in V$ are homogeneous elements.
In particular, for a homogeneous element $v\in V$, we have
$\mathfrak{b}(v)=1\otimes v+v\otimes 1$.
For $1\in S^0(V)=\mathbb{K}$, we have $\mathfrak{b}(1)=1\otimes 1$.
The counit $\varepsilon:~S(V)\to \mathbb{K}=S^0(V)$ is the natural projection.
Similarly, the comultiplication on the reduced symmetric coalgebra
$\overline{S(V)}$ is given as follows:
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\mathfrak{l}(v_1\odot\cdots\odot v_n)\\
&\quad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
r=1,\cdots,n-1 \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(r,n-r)\end{subarray}}} \epsilon(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)(v_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(r)})\otimes(v_{\sigma(r+1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(n)}),
\end{aligned}$$
where $v_1,\cdots,v_n\in V$ are homogeneous elements.
In particular, for a homogeneous element $v\in V$, we have
$\mathfrak{l}(v)=0$. Let $p:~S(V)\to \overline{S(V)}$ be the projection
with kernel $\mathbb{K}=S^0(V)$. It is easy to check that
$\mathfrak{l}p=(p\otimes p)\mathfrak{b}$,
i.e., $p$ is a morphism of graded coalgebras.
Given a graded vector space $V$, every coderivation $D:~S(V)\to S(V)$ of degree $m$ is completely determined by its corestriction
${\rm pr}_1\circ D=(D_0,D_1,D_2,$ $\cdots)$, where ${\rm pr}_1:~S(V)\to V$ denotes the canonical projection, and $D_k$ is the composition $S^k(V)\xrightarrow{D} S(V) \xrightarrow{{\rm pr}_1} V$, which is a graded vector space morphism of degree $m$. In other words, there exists an isomorphism of graded vector spaces
\begin{equation}\label{ISO:Fukaya}
{\rm Coder} (S(V))\cong\operatorname{Hom} (S(V),V),
\end{equation}
whose inverse is given by the formula
\begin{align*}
&D(v_1\odot \cdots\odot v_n)\\
&\quad=D_0(1)\odot v_1\odot \cdots\odot v_n\\
&\qquad+\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
k=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(k,n-k)\end{subarray}}}
\epsilon(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad D_k(v_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(k)})\odot v_{\sigma(k+1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(n)},
\end{align*}
where $v_1,\cdots,v_n\in V$ are homogeneous elements.
Following this proposition, we use the notation
$D=(D_0,D_1,D_2,\cdots)$ to denote a coderivation of $S(V)$.
Similarly, for the reduced symmetric coalgebra $\overline{S(V)}$,
the map $R\mapsto {\rm pr}_1\circ R=(R_1,R_2,\cdots)$
with $R_k:= {\rm pr}_1 \circ R|_{S^k(V)}$
gives an isomorphism of graded vector spaces
\begin{equation}
\label{ISO:reduced}{\rm Coder} (\overline{S(V)})\cong
\operatorname{Hom} (\overline{S(V)},V),
\end{equation}
whose inverse is given by the formula
$$
\begin{aligned}
&R(v_1\odot \cdots\odot v_n)\\
&\quad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
k=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(k,n-k)\end{subarray}}}
\epsilon(\sigma;v_1,\cdots,v_n)R_k(v_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(k)})\odot v_{\sigma(k+1)}\odot\cdots\odot v_{\sigma(n)},
\end{aligned}$$
where $v_1,\cdots,v_n\in V$ are homogeneous elements.
By these two identifications, a coderivation
$R=(R_1,R_2,\cdots)$ on $\overline{S(V)}$ is equivalent to a coderivation
$R=(R_0,R_1,R_2,\cdots)$ on $S(V)$ with $R_0=0$.
On the other hand, given a coderivation $D=(D_0,D_1,D_2,\cdots)$ on $S(V)$,
we have a truncated coderivation $\overline{D}:=(D_1,D_2,\cdots)$ on
$\overline{S(V)}$. In particular, if $Q\in{\rm Coder}^1
(\overline{S(V)})$ is a codifferential, then $Q$ induces dgla structures on both ${\rm Coder}(\overline{S(V)})$ and ${\rm Coder}(S(V))$, where the former is a sub-dgla of the latter.
For a degree $i$ coderivation $R\in {\rm Coder}^i(\overline{S(V)})$
and a degree $j$ vector $v\in V^j$, we can define a degree $(i+j)$
coderivation $v\lrcorner R \in {\rm Coder}^{i+j}(\overline{S(V)})$
with components given by
\begin{equation*}
\label{Eqt:contraction}
(v\lrcorner R)_n(v_1\odot\cdots\odot v_n):=(-1)^{ij}R_{n+1}(v\odot v_1\odot\cdots\odot v_n),
\end{equation*}
$ \forall n\geqslant 1, v_1\odot \cdots\odot v_n \in S^n(V)$.
One can check that
\begin{equation*}
v\lrcorner R=-\overline{[v^\#,R]}, \quad (-1)^{ij}R(v)=(-1)^{ij}R_1(v)=-{[v^\#,R]_0}(1)=-{[v^\#,R]}(1),
\end{equation*}
or equivalently,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lrcorner}
-{[v^\#,R]}= \big((-1)^{ij}R(v)\big)^\#+v\lrcorner R ,
\end{equation}
where $v^\#=\big((v^\#)_0=v,0,0,\ldots\big)\in{\rm Coder}(S(V))$.
Finally, we need the fact that \textit{there is a bijection between $L_\infty$
algebra structures on a graded vector space $\mathfrak{g}$ and codifferentials on
the reduced symmetric coalgebra $\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])}$.} In fact, it suffices
to consider $L_\infty[1]$ algebra structures on $\mathfrak{g}[1]$.
Suppose that a sequence of maps $\{\cdots\}_k: S^k(\mathfrak{g}[1])\to \mathfrak{g}[1]$,
all being degree $1$ for $k\geqslant 1$, define an $L_\infty[1]$ structure
on $\mathfrak{g}[1]$ (see Definition \ref{Defn:Linftyone}).
Set $Q_k=\{\cdots\}_k$ and consider $Q=(Q_1,Q_2,\cdots)\in {\rm Coder}^1(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])})$,
then the higher Jacobi identities \eqref{Jacobi identities1}
are equivalent to the identity $Q^2=0$, i.e., $Q$ is a codifferential
on $\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])}$.
Throughout the note, we shall assume the correspondence between
an $L_\infty$ algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and its associated dg coalgebra
$(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])},Q)$ by default. Of course, the codifferential $Q$ also gives rise to a dg coalgebra $( {S(\mathfrak{g}[1])},Q)$.
In this context, a morphism of $L_\infty$ algebras $\mathfrak{g}_1 \to \mathfrak{g}_2 $ translates to a morphism of dg coalgebras $(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}_1 [1])},Q_1)\to (\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}_2 [1])},Q_2)$, and $( {S(\mathfrak{g}_1 [1])},Q_1)\to ( {S(\mathfrak{g}_2 [1])},Q_2)$ as well.
\subsection{The $\Linftythree$ algebra arising from a Lie pair} \label{Sec:LinftyLiePair}
\begin{Def}\label{Def:LieKalgebroid}
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. A \textbf{Lie algebroid} over $M$ consists of a $\mathbb{K}$-vector bundle $E\to M$, a vector bundle map $\rho_E\colon E\to TM\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{K}$, called anchor, and a Lie algebra bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_E$ on the space of sections $\bsection{E}$,
such that $\rho_E$ induces a Lie algebra homomorphism from $\bsection{E}$ to $\mathscr{X}(M)\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{K}}$, and the Leibniz rule
$$[u,fv]_E=\big(\rho_E(u)f\big)v+f[u,v]_E$$
is satisfied for all $f \in C^{\infty} (M,{\mathbb{K}})$ and $u,v \in \Gamma(E)$. Such a Lie algebroid is denoted by the triple $(E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,\rho_E)$.
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}
By a \textbf{Lie algebroid pair} (Lie pair for short) $(L,A)$,
we mean a Lie algebroid $L$ together with a Lie subalgebroid $A$ of $L$
over the same base manifold $M$ (we will often omit to write $M$).
\end{Def}
Given a Lie pair $(L,A)$, one can choose a complement $B$ of $A$
in $L$ and identify the quotient bundle $L/A\cong B$
though it is not canonical.
In the sequel, we fix such an embedding $B\hookrightarrow L$ and
hence get a fixed decomposition $L\cong A\oplus B$.
The projections from $L$ to $A$ and $B$ are denoted by ${\rm pr}_A$ and ${\rm pr}_B$.
The \textbf{Bott connection} $\nabla$ of $A$ on $B$ is given by
$$\Gamma(A)\times\Gamma(B)\longrightarrow \Gamma(B): \quad (a,b)\longmapsto \nabla_a b:={\rm pr}_B[a,b]_L.$$
In fact, this definition does not depend on the choice of a decomposition
$L\cong A\oplus B$. Therefore, the quotient $B$ of a Lie pair $(L,A)$ is
canonically an $A$-module, i.e.,
$$\nabla_a (fb)=(\rho_A(a)f)b+f(\nabla_a b),$$
$$\nabla_{[a_1,a_2]_A}b=\nabla_{a_1}(\nabla_{a_2}b)-\nabla_{a_2}(\nabla_{a_1}b),$$
where $a,a_1,a_2\in\Gamma(A)$, $b\in\Gamma(B)$, $f\in C^\infty(M,\K) $.
Similarly, there is a $B$-operation $\eth$ on $A$ though it depends on the decomposition $L\cong A\oplus B$:
$$\Gamma(B)\times\Gamma(A)\longrightarrow \Gamma(A):\quad
(b,a)\longmapsto \eth_b a:={\rm pr}_A[b,a]_L.$$
Furthermore, the operation $\eth_b\colon \Gamma(A)\to \Gamma(A),\forall b \in \Gamma(B)$
induces a dual operation on $\Gamma(A^\vee)$ given by
$$\pairing{\eth_b u}{a}
=\rho_L(b)\pairing{u}{a}-\pairing{u}{\eth_b a} ,\quad
\forall u \in \Gamma(A^\vee),\forall a \in \Gamma(A).$$
More generally, the operation $\eth_b$ extends to a derivation on $\Gamma(\Lambda^p A^\vee),\forall p \in \mathbb{N}$ by the Leibniz rule.
Next, introduce the following maps for any $b_1, b_2\in\Gamma(B)$:
\begin{align*}
[\cdot,\cdot]_B: ~\Gamma(B)\times\Gamma(B)\to\Gamma(B), \quad [b_1,b_2]_B&:={\rm pr}_B[b_1,b_2]_L,\\
\beta(\cdot,\cdot):~ \Gamma(B)\times\Gamma(B)\to\Gamma(A), \quad \beta(b_1,b_2)&:={\rm pr}_A[b_1,b_2]_L,
\end{align*}
where the bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_B$ does not necessarily satisfy the Jacobi identity.
With these structure maps fixed, the Lie algebroid structure on $L=A\oplus B$ can be described as follows:
\begin{equation*}\label{Liealgebroidstructure}
\begin{cases}
[a_1,a_2]_L=[a_1,a_2]_A,\\
[b_1,b_2]_L=\beta(b_1,b_2)+[b_1,b_2]_B,\\
[a,b]_L=-\eth_b a+\nabla_a b,\\
\rho_L(a+b)=\rho_A(a)+\rho_B(b),
\end{cases}
\forall a,a_1,a_2\in\Gamma(A), b,b_1,b_2\in\Gamma(B),
\end{equation*}
where $\rho_A,\,\rho_B$ are the restrictions $\rho_L|_A,\,\rho_L|_B$ respectively.
Consider the spaces of $A$-forms and $B$-valued $A$-forms:
$$\Omega_A^\bullet = \bigoplus \limits_{k=0}^{\mathrm{rank}(A)}\Gamma(\Lambda^k A^\vee),\qquad \Omega^\bullet_A(B)=\bigoplus \limits_{k=0}^{\mathrm{rank}(A)}\Gamma(\Lambda^k A^\vee \otimes B).$$
Let $\omega\in\Omega^\bullet_A$ and
$\lambda\in\Omega^\bullet_A,b\in \Gamma(B)$ so that $\lambda\otimes b \in \Omega^\bullet_A(B)$. It is clear that $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ is an $\Omega_A^\bullet$-module:
$\omega \cdot (\lambda\otimes b):=(\omega \wedge \lambda) \otimes b$.
Also, both $\Omega^\bullet_A$ and $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$ are equipped with the standard Chevalley-Eilenberg differentials as follows:
\begin{align}\nonumber
(d_A \omega)(a_1,\cdots,a_{k+1})=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} (-1)^{i+1}
\rho_A (a_i) \big(\omega(a_1,\cdots,\hat{a_i},\cdots,a_{k+1})\big)\\\nonumber
& +\sum\limits_{i<j} (-1)^{i+j} \omega([a_i,a_j]_A,a_1,\cdots,\hat{a_i},\cdots,\hat{a_j},\cdots,a_{k+1}),
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{Eqt:dABot}
(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A {X})(a_1,\cdots,a_{k+1})=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} (-1)^{i+1} \nabla_{a_i}\big({X}(a_1,\cdots,\hat{a_i},\cdots,a_{k+1})\big)\\\nonumber
& +\sum\limits_{i<j} (-1)^{i+j} {X}([a_i,a_j]_A,a_1,\cdots,\hat{a_i},\cdots,\hat{a_j},\cdots,a_{k+1}),
\end{align}
where $\omega \in \Omega_A^k,{X} \in \Omega^k_A(B),a_i\in\Gamma(A)$.
Under these differentials, the space $(\Omega^\bullet_A,d_A )$
is a dg algebra and the space $(\Omega^\bullet_A(B),d^\mathrm{Bott}_A)$ is a dg
$\Omega^\bullet_A$-module.
A vector field of degree $n$ on the graded manifold $A[1]$ is a derivation of degree $n$ of the algebra $\Omega_A^\bullet=C^\infty(A[1])$, i.e., a linear map $\varsigma\colon \Omega_A^\bullet \rightarrow \Omega_A^{\bullet + n} $ such that
the graded Leibniz rule
$$\varsigma(\xi \wedge \eta)=(\varsigma\xi)\wedge \eta +(-1)^{n\cdot |\xi|} \xi \wedge (\varsigma\eta)$$
holds for all homogeneous elements
$\xi,\eta \in \Omega_A^\bullet$.
\textbf{Notation:} Let us denote by $\operatorname{Der}^n (\Omega_A^\bullet )$
the set of degree $n$ derivations of $\Omega_A^\bullet$.
\begin{Thm}\label{Thm:Linftystructuregenerator}\cite[Proposition 4.3]{BCSX}
Let $(L,A)$ be a Lie pair. Given a decomposition $L\cong A\oplus B$, there exists an induced ${\Linftythree}$ algebroid structure on the graded vector bundle $A[1]\times B\to A[1]$ whose structure maps are given as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1).] The zeroth anchor $\rho_0$ is $d_A : \Omega^\bullet_A\to\Omega^{\bullet+1}_A$.\\
\item[(2).] The unary anchor
$\rho_1: \Omega^i_A(B)\to\operatorname{Der}^i(\Omega^\bullet_A)$
is given by
$$\rho_1(\lambda\otimes b)\omega=\lambda\cdot(\eth_b \omega), \qquad \qquad \forall \lambda\otimes b\in\Omega^i_A(B), \omega\in\Omega^\bullet_A.$$
\item[(3).] The binary anchor $\rho_2:\Omega^i_A(B)\times\Omega^j_A(B)\to\operatorname{Der}^{i+j-1}(\Omega^\bullet_A)$
is given by
$$\rho_2(\lambda\otimes b, \lambda'\otimes b')\omega=
(-1)^{|\lambda|+|\lambda'|+1}
(\lambda\wedge\lambda')\cdot(i_{\beta(b,b')}\omega), $$
$ \forall \lambda\otimes b,\lambda'\otimes b'\in\Omega^i_A(B), \omega\in\Omega^\bullet_A$.
\item[(4).] The unary bracket $d=[\cdot]_1$ is
$d^\mathrm{Bott}_A\colon\Omega^\bullet_A(B)\to \Omega^{\bullet+1}_A(B) $.\\
\item[(5).] The binary bracket
$[\cdot,\cdot]_2: \Omega^i_A(B)\times\Omega^j_A(B)\to\Omega^{i+j}_A(B)$
is generated by the relations
\begin{align*}
[b,b']_2&=[b,b']_B,\\
[X,\omega\cdot Y]_2&=(\rho_1(X)\omega)\cdot Y+(-1)^{|\omega|\cdot|X|} \omega \cdot [X,Y]_2,
\end{align*}
$\forall b,b' \in \Gamma(B), X,Y \in \Omega^\bullet_A(B), \omega \in \Omega^\bullet_A$.
\item[(6).] The ternary bracket
$[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_3: \Omega_A^p(B) \times \Omega_A^q(B) \times \Omega_A^r(B) \rightarrow \Omega_A^{p+q+r-1}(B)$
is generated by the relations
\begin{align*}
[b,b',b'']_3&=0, \\
[X,Y,\omega \cdot Z]_3&=(\rho_2(X,Y)\omega)\cdot Z+(-1)^{|\omega|(|X|+|Y|+1)} \omega \cdot [X,Y,Z]_3,
\end{align*}
$\forall b,b',b''\in \Gamma(B), X,Y,Z \in \Omega^\bullet_A(B), \omega \in \Omega^\bullet_A$.
\item[(7).] The other higher anchors and brackets all vanish.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
We further find direct formulas of higher structure maps of $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$. Similar results are found in \cite{Schatz-Zambon}.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:2and3bracket} The binary and the ternary brackets of the ${\Linftythree}$ algebra $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ are expressed as follows:
\begin{itemize}\item[(1)]
For all $X \in \Omega_A^p(B)$ and $Y \in \Omega_A^q(B)$, the $2$-bracket $[X,Y]_2\in \Omega_A^{p+q}(B)$ is determined by
\begin{align*}
& \quad [X,Y]_2(a_1,\cdots, a_{p+q})\\
&=\sum\limits_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q)}\sum\limits_{i=1}^p
{\rm sgn}(\sigma)
X(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots, \eth_{Y(a_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(p+q)})}a_{\sigma(i)},
\cdots, a_{\sigma(p)})\\
&\quad -\sum\limits_{\tau\in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q)}\sum\limits_{j=1}^q {\rm sgn}(\tau)
Y(a_{\tau(p+1)},\cdots,
\eth_{X(a_{\tau(1)},\cdots,a_{\tau(p)})}a_{\tau(p+j)}, \cdots
,a_{\tau(p+q)}
)\\
&\quad\quad + \sum \limits_{\alpha \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\alpha)[X(a_{\alpha(1)},\cdots, a_{\alpha(p)}), Y(a_{\alpha(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\alpha(p+q)})]_B\,.
\end{align*}
\item[(2)]For all $X \in \Omega_A^p(B)$, $Y \in \Omega_A^q(B)$, and $Z \in \Omega_A^r(B)$, the $3$-bracket $[X,Y,Z]_3\in \Omega_A^{p+q+r-1}(B)$ is determined by
\begin{align*}
&[X,Y,Z]_3 (a_1,\cdots,a_{p+q+r-1})\\
&=\!(-1)^{p+q+1} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum\limits_{\sigma \in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q,r-1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!{\rm sgn}(\sigma)
Z \Big(\beta \big(X(a_{\sigma(1)},\!\cdots),\!
Y(a_{\sigma(p+1)},\!\cdots)\big),\!
a_{\sigma(p+q+1)},\!\cdots \Big)\\
&\quad+\!(-1)^{p} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum\limits_{\tau \in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q-1,r)}
\!\!\!\!\!\! {\rm sgn}(\tau)
Y\Big(\beta \big(X(a_{\tau(1)},\cdots),
Z(a_{\tau(p+q)},\cdots)\big),
a_{\tau(p+1)},\cdots\Big)
\\
&\quad-\sum \limits_{\alpha \in {\mathrm{Sh}(p-1,q,r)}}
{\rm sgn}(\alpha)
X\Big(\beta \big(Y(a_{\alpha(p)},\cdots),
Z(a_{\alpha(p+q)}, \cdots)\big),
a_{\alpha(1)},\cdots\Big).
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
Here $a_1,\cdots, a_{p+q+r-1}\in\Gamma(A)$, and
the set $\mathrm{Sh}(i,j,k)$ consists of $(i,j,k)$-shuffles.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
To show (1), by linearity, we assume that $X=u\otimes b\in \Omega_A^p(B)$
and $Y=v\otimes c\in \Omega_A^q(B)$ where $u,v\in \Omega_A^{\bullet}$, $b,c\in \Gamma(B)$.
By the generating relations of the binary bracket, we have
$$[X,Y]_2=\big(u\wedge(\eth_b v)\big)\otimes c-\big((\eth_c u)\wedge v\big)\otimes b
+(u\wedge v)\otimes [b,c]_B.$$
Evaluating the above expression at the variables $a_1,\cdots, a_{p+q}$, we get
\begin{align*}
&[X,Y]_2(a_1,\cdots, a_{p+q})\\
&\quad=\sum\limits_{\tau\in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\tau)
u(a_{\tau(1)},\cdots,a_{\tau(p)})\cdot
\eth_b v(a_{\tau(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\tau(p+q)})\cdot c\\
&\qquad-\sum\limits_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\sigma)
\eth_c u(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(p)}) \cdot v(a_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(p+q)}) \cdot b\\
&\qquad+\sum\limits_{\alpha \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\alpha) u(a_{\alpha(1)},\cdots, a_{\alpha(p)}) \cdot v(a_{\alpha(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\alpha(p+q)})\cdot [b,c]_B\\
&\quad=\sum\limits_{\tau\in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\tau)
u(a_{\tau(1)},\cdots,a_{\tau(p)})\cdot
\rho_B(b)\big( v(a_{\tau(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\tau(p+q)})\big)\cdot c\\
&\qquad-\sum\limits_{\tau\in{\mathrm{Sh}(p,q)}} {\rm sgn}(\tau)
u(a_{\tau(1)},\cdots,a_{\tau(p)})\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\cdot
\big(\sum\limits_{j=1}^q v(a_{\tau(p+1)},\cdots,\eth_b a_{\tau(p+j)},\cdots, a_{\tau(p+q)})\big)\cdot c\\
&\qquad-\sum\limits_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\sigma)
\rho_B(c)\big(u(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(p)})\big) \cdot v(a_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(p+q)}) \cdot b\\
&\qquad+\sum\limits_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\sigma)
\big(\sum\limits_{i=1}^p u(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,\eth_c a_{\sigma(i)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(p)})\big)\\
&\quad\quad\quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \cdot v(a_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(p+q)}) \cdot b\\
&\qquad+\sum\limits_{\alpha \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\alpha) u(a_{\alpha(1)},\cdots, a_{\alpha(p)}) \cdot v(a_{\alpha(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\alpha(p+q)})\cdot [b,c]_B\\
&\quad=\sum \limits_{\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,q)}\sum\limits_{i=1}^p {\rm sgn}(\sigma)
X(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots, \eth_{Y(a_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\sigma(p+q)})}a_{\sigma(i)},
\cdots, a_{\sigma(p)})\\
&\qquad-\sum \limits_{\tau \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,q)}\sum\limits_{j=1}^q {\rm sgn}(\tau)
Y(a_{\tau(p+1)},\cdots,
\eth_{X(a_{\tau(1)},\cdots,a_{\tau(p)})}a_{\tau(p+j)}, \cdots
,a_{\tau(p+q)}
)\\
&\qquad+ \sum \limits_{\alpha \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,q)} {\rm sgn}(\alpha)[X(a_{\alpha(1)},\cdots, a_{\alpha(p)}), Y(a_{\alpha(p+1)},\cdots,a_{\alpha(p+q)})]_B\,.
\end{align*}
To show (2), we also assume that $Z=w\otimes e\in \Omega_A^r(B)$ where $w\in \Omega_A^{\bullet}$, $e\in \Gamma(B)$.
By the generating relations of the ternary bracket, we have
\begin{align*}
[X,Y,Z]_3
&=\big(\rho_2(X,Y) w\big)\otimes e
+ (-1)^{|Y||Z|+1} \big(\rho_2(X,Z) v\big)\otimes c\\
&\qquad
+ (-1)^{|X|(|Y|+|Z|)} \big(\rho_2(Y,Z) u\big)\otimes b\\
&=(-1)^{|X|+|Y|+1}(u\wedge v\wedge i_{\beta(b,c)}w) \otimes e
+(-1)^{|X|}(u\wedge i_{\beta(b,e)}v\wedge w) \otimes c\\
&\qquad
- (i_{\beta(c,e)}u\wedge v\wedge w) \otimes b.
\end{align*}
Evaluating the above expression at the variables $a_1,\cdots, a_{p+q}$, we get (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}
The unary anchor $\rho_1$, the binary anchor $\rho_2$ and the ternary bracket $[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_3$ are all $C^\infty(M)$-(multi-)linear, whereas the zeroth anchor $d_A$, the unary bracket $d^\mathrm{Bott}_A$ and the binary bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_2$ are not.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}\label{Rmk:depedenceofsplittings}Note that the $\Linftythree$ structure maps depend on the choice of a splitting $L\cong A\oplus B$. However, different choices of splittings give rise to
isomorphic $\Linftythree$ algebras where the isomorphism is given by a collection
of multilinear maps
$$\varphi_n:~\wedge^n \big(\Omega^\bullet_A(B)\big)\to \Omega^\bullet_A(B),\quad n=1,2,\ldots$$
where $\varphi_1$ is the identity map, see \cite[Theorem 1.1]{BCSX}. In fact, these maps $\varphi_n$ can be wrapped up into an automorphism $\exp(\delta_\pi)$ of the coalgebra ${S\big(\Omega^\bullet_A(B)[1]\big)} $ where the datum $\pi$ measures the difference between two splittings and $\delta_\pi$ is a coderivation of $ {S\big(\Omega^\bullet_A(B)[1]\big)}$. Moreover, $\exp(\delta_\pi)$ is an isomorphism of dg coalgebras, i.e., it intertwines the relevant codifferentials arising from different splittings.
\end{Rem}
\section{Lie algebra actions on $L_\infty$ algebras}\label{Sec:LiealgebraactiononLinfty}
Let $\mathfrak{h}$ be an ordinary (i.e., with zero grading) Lie algebra,
and $\mathfrak{g}$ be an $L_\infty$ algebra.
In this Section, we consider a notion of Lie algebra
action of $\mathfrak{h}$ on the $L_\infty$ algebra $\mathfrak{g}$,
together with several equivalent descriptions of such an action.
\subsection{Definition of Lie algebra actions on $L_\infty$ algebras}
Recall that from $\mathfrak{g}$ we obtain the associated dg coalgebras
$({S(\mathfrak{g}[1])},Q)$ and $(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])},Q)$, and the dglas
${\rm Coder}(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])})$ and ${\rm Coder}({S(\mathfrak{g}[1])})$ whose
differentials are both induced by $Q$. In the meantime, $\mathfrak{h}$ could be regarded
as a dgla which concentrates in degree $0$ and has a trivial differential.
\begin{Def}\label{Def: haction} A \textbf{Lie algebra action} of $\mathfrak{h}$ on the $L_\infty$ algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is a ~dgla ~ homomorphism
$$\psi:~\mathfrak{h}\to {\rm Coder}({S(\mathfrak{g}[1])}).$$
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}\label{Def: hactioncompatible}
Suppose that two $L_\infty$ algebras $\mathfrak{g}_1$ and $\mathfrak{g}_2 $ are both equipped with $\mathfrak{h}$-actions $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$, respectively.
A morphism of $L_\infty$ algebras $F:~\mathfrak{g}_1 \to \mathfrak{g}_2 $ is called \textbf{compatible with the $\mathfrak{h}$-actions} if the corresponding morphism of dg coalgebras $F^s:~ {S(\mathfrak{g}_1 [1])} \to {S(\mathfrak{g}_2 [1])} $ intertwines with $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$, i.e. $\psi_2(h)\circ F^s=F^s\circ \psi_1(h)$, $\forall h\in \mathfrak{h}$.
\end{Def}
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:equi-action1}
An $\mathfrak{h}$-action on $\mathfrak{g}$ as defined above is equivalent to
a pair of linear maps $(\theta,\gamma)$
where $\theta:~\mathfrak{h}\to {\rm Coder}^0(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])})$
and $\gamma:~\mathfrak{h}\to\mathfrak{g}[1]^0$
such that for all $ h,h'\in\mathfrak{h}$ the following compatibility conditions hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eqt:Q-kappa0}
Q\circ \gamma&=&0 ,\\
\label{Eqt:Q-kappa}
[Q,\theta(h)] &=&-\gamma(h)\lrcorner Q ,\\
\label{Eqt:Q-theta0}
\gamma\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)&=&\theta(h)\big(\gamma(h')\big)-\theta(h')\big(\gamma(h)\big),\\
\label{Eqt:Q-theta}
\theta\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)&=&[\theta(h),\theta(h')]+\gamma(h')\lrcorner\theta(h)-\gamma(h)\lrcorner\theta(h').
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For every $h\in\mathfrak{h}$, its corresponding coderivation $\psi(h)\in {\rm Coder}({S(\mathfrak{g}[1])})$, by identification \eqref{ISO:Fukaya}, is completely determined by a sequence of maps
$$\psi(h)_k:~S^k(\mathfrak{g}[1])\to \mathfrak{g}[1],\quad k\geqslant0.$$
Let $\gamma:~\mathfrak{h}\to\mathfrak{g}[1]^0$ be given by $\gamma(h):=\psi(h)_0(1)$.
According to identification \eqref{ISO:reduced}, the sequence of maps $\psi(h)_k$, $k\geqslant 1$, uniquely
determines a coderivation of degree $0$ on $\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])}$, which we denote by $\theta(h)$. Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomposition}
\psi(h)=\gamma(h)^\#+\theta(h).
\end{equation}
The linear map $\psi$ is a morphism of dglas if and only if both of the following two equalities hold:
\begin{align}
[Q,\psi(h)]&=0,\quad \forall h\in\mathfrak{h}, \label{Eqt:actionstrcture1} \\
\psi([h,h']_\mathfrak{h})&=[\psi(h),\psi(h')],\quad \forall h,h'\in\mathfrak{h}. \label{Eqt:actionstrcture2}
\end{align}
Using \eqref{eq:decomposition} and \eqref{eq:lrcorner}, we have
\begin{align*}
[Q,\psi(h)]
&= [Q,\gamma(h)^\#] +[Q,\theta(h)] = -[\gamma(h)^\#,Q]+[Q,\theta(h)]\\
&= Q\big(\gamma(h)\big)^\#+\gamma(h)\lrcorner Q+[Q,\theta(h)],
\end{align*}
where $\gamma(h)\lrcorner Q+[Q,\theta(h)]\in {\rm Coder}^0(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])})$. Now, we see that \eqref{Eqt:actionstrcture1} is equivalent to \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa0} and \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa}.
Using \eqref{eq:decomposition} and \eqref{eq:lrcorner} again, plus the fact $[v^\#,v'^\#]=0,\forall v,v'\in \mathfrak{g}[1]$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\psi\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)-[\psi(h),\psi(h')]\\
=&\gamma\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)^\#+\theta\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)
-[\gamma(h)^\#+\theta(h),\gamma(h')^\#+\theta(h')]\\
=&\gamma\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)^\#+\theta\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)
-[\theta(h),\theta(h')]
-[\gamma(h)^\#,\theta(h')]
-[\theta(h),\gamma(h')^\#]\\
=&\gamma\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)^\#+\theta\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)
-[\theta(h),\theta(h')]\\
&+\big(\theta(h')(\gamma(h))\big)^\#+\gamma(h)\lrcorner\theta(h')
-\big(\theta(h)(\gamma(h'))\big)^\#-\gamma(h')\lrcorner\theta(h).
\end{align*}
Separating the coderivations in the above expression involving $\#$ apart from those in ${\rm Coder}^0(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])})$, we see that \eqref{Eqt:actionstrcture2} is equivalent to \eqref{Eqt:Q-theta0} and \eqref{Eqt:Q-theta}.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}
In particular, if $\gamma=0$, then $\theta:~\mathfrak{h}\to {\rm Coder}(\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])})$ needs to be a morphism of dglas.
The compatibility conditions in Proposition \ref{Prop:equi-action1} become
\begin{eqnarray*}
[Q,\theta(h)] &=&0 ,\\
\theta([h,h']_\mathfrak{h})&=&[\theta(h),\theta(h')],
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $h,h'\in\mathfrak{h}$.
Therefore, for any $h\in\mathfrak{h}$ the coderivation $\theta(h)$ is an infinitesimal deformation of $\mathfrak{g}$, and $\theta$ commutes with Lie brackets.
In this case, we say $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a \textbf{strict Lie algebra action} of $\mathfrak{h}$.
\end{Rem}
\subsection{Equivalent characterizations of Lie algebra actions on $L_\infty$ algebras}
We give two more characterizations of Definition~\ref{Def: haction}. The first one follows Mehta-Zambon's approach \cite{MehtaZambon} via extensions. The second one follows the classical approach of specifying the action maps.
\begin{Thm}\label{Thm:hplusg}
An $L_\infty$ algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a Lie algebra action of $\mathfrak{h}$
if and only if the direct sum $\mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{g}$,
where $\mathfrak{h}$ concentrates in degree $0$,
admits an $L_\infty$ algebra structure which extends the original $L_\infty$ algebra structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ and the Lie algebra structure on $\mathfrak{h}$,
in the sense that the following two conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)]
the sequence
$0\longrightarrow \mathfrak{g} \overset{\iota_\mathfrak{g}}{\longrightarrow} \mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{g} \overset{\rm{pr}_\mathfrak{h}}{\longrightarrow} \mathfrak{h} \longrightarrow 0$
is a (not necessarily split) sequence of $L_\infty$ morphisms,
\item [(2)] any $n$-bracket on $\mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{g}$ for
$n\geqslant 3$ vanishes when two or more inputs are from $\mathfrak{h}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\mathfrak{g}$ admits an $\mathfrak{h}$-action with the dgla homomorphism $\psi$
as in Definition \ref{Def: haction}, it suffices to construct a codifferential $\widehat{Q}$ on $\overline{S(\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1])}$.
By Proposition \ref{Prop:equi-action1}, $\psi$ is completely determined by $(\gamma,\theta)$.
In what follows, we explain by several steps how to use $(Q,\theta,\gamma)$ to construct $\widehat{Q}$.
Firstly, we specify the components of a degree $1$
coderivation $\widehat{Q}$ $=$ $(\widehat{Q}_1,$ $\widehat{Q}_2,\cdots)$
of $\overline{S(\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1])}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item
The unary component
$\widehat{Q}_1:~\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1]\to\mathfrak{g}[1]\subset\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1]$ is given by
$$\widehat{Q}_1(\tilde{h})=\gamma(h)\quad\text{and}\quad \widehat{Q}_1(\tilde{x})=Q_1(\tilde{x}), \qquad \forall h\in\mathfrak{h}, x\in\mathfrak{g}.$$
\item
The binary component
$\widehat{Q}_2:~S^2(\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1])\to\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1]$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widehat{Q}_2(\tilde{x}_1\odot \tilde{x}_2) &=& Q_2(\tilde{x}_1\odot \tilde{x}_2),\\
\widehat{Q}_2(\tilde{h}\odot \tilde{x}) &=& \theta(h)_1(\tilde{x}),
\\
\widehat{Q}_2(\tilde{h}\odot \tilde{h'}) &=& [h,h']_\mathfrak{h} [1],
\end{eqnarray*}
where $h,h'\in\mathfrak{h}$ and $x,x_1,x_2\in\mathfrak{g}$.
\item
The $n$-component $(n\geqslant3)$ $\widehat{Q}_n:~S^n(\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1])\to\mathfrak{g}[1]\subset\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1]$ is determined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widehat{Q}_n(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n)&=&Q_n(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n),\\
\widehat{Q}_n(\tilde{h}\odot \tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{n-1})&=&\theta(h)_{n-1}(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{n-1}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $h\in\mathfrak{h},\,x_1,\cdots,x_n\in\mathfrak{g}$, and $\widehat{Q}_n$ is required to vanish with two or more inputs of $\mathfrak{h}[1]$.
\end{itemize}
Next, we verify that $\widehat{Q}\circ \widehat{Q}=0$.
Applying Equation \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa0} and $({Q}\circ{Q})_1=0$,
one has $(\widehat{Q}\circ\widehat{Q})_1=0$.
Applying Equations \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa},\,\eqref{Eqt:Q-theta0}
and $({Q}\circ{Q})_2=0$, one has $(\widehat{Q}\circ\widehat{Q})_2=0$.
We now apply Equations \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa} and \eqref{Eqt:Q-theta} to obtain $(\widehat{Q}\circ\widehat{Q})_{n+1}=0$ for every $n\geqslant 2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item
When there is only one input of $\mathfrak{h}[1]$, i.e.,
$\forall\tilde{h}\in\mathfrak{h}[1]$ and $\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_n\in\mathfrak{g}[1]$, we have
\begin{align*}
&(\widehat{Q}\circ\widehat{Q})_{n+1}(\tilde{h}\odot \tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n)\\
&\quad=Q_{n+1}(\gamma(h)\odot \tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n)\\
&\qquad+\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
k=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(k,n-k)\end{subarray}}}
\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_n)\\
&\qquad\qquad Q_{n-k+1}
\Big(
\theta(h)_k(\tilde{x}_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(k)})\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(k+1)}\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(n)}
\Big)
\\
&\qquad-\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
k=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(k,n-k)\end{subarray}}}
\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_n)\\
&\qquad\qquad\theta(h)_{n-k+1}
\Big(
Q_k(\tilde{x}_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(k)})\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(k+1)}\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(n)}
\Big)
\\
&\quad=\big(\gamma(h)\lrcorner Q+[Q,\theta(h)]\big)_n(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n)\\
&\quad=0.
\end{align*}
\item
When there are two inputs of $\mathfrak{h}[1]$, i.e.,
$\forall\tilde{h},\tilde{h'}\in\mathfrak{h}[1]$ and $\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_{n-1}\in\mathfrak{g}[1]$, we have
\begin{align*}
&(\widehat{Q}\circ\widehat{Q})_{n+1}(\tilde{h}\odot \tilde{h'}\odot \tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{n-1})\\
&\quad=\theta(h')_{n}\big(\gamma(h)\odot \tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{n-1}\big)
-\theta(h)_{n}\big(\gamma(h')\odot \tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{n-1}\big)\\
&\qquad+\theta\big([h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\big)_{n-1}(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{n-1})\\
&\qquad+\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
k=1,\cdots,n-1 \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(k,n-k-1)\end{subarray}}}\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_{n-1})\\
&\qquad\qquad\theta(h')_{n-k}\big(\theta(h)_k(\tilde{x}_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(k)})\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(k+1)}\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(n-1)}\big)\\
&\qquad-\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
k=1,\cdots,n-1 \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(k,n-k-1)\end{subarray}}}\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_{n-1})\\
&\qquad\qquad\theta(h)_{n-k}\big(\theta(h')_k(\tilde{x}_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(k)})\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(k+1)}\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_{\sigma(n-1)}\big)\\
&\quad=\big(\gamma(h)\lrcorner \theta(h')-\gamma(h')\lrcorner \theta(h)+\theta([h,h']_\mathfrak{h})\\
&\qquad-[\theta(h),\theta(h')]\big)_{n-1}(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n)\\
&\quad=0.
\end{align*}
\item
When there are exactly three inputs of $\mathfrak{h}[1]$ and no inputs of $\mathfrak{g}[1]$,
the equality $(\widehat{Q}\circ\widehat{Q})_{3}(\tilde{h},\tilde{h'},\tilde{h''})=0$
follows from the Jacobi identity for $\mathfrak{h}$.
\item
The remaining case of verifying $(\widehat{Q}\circ\widehat{Q})_{n+1}=0$
follows from the requirement that $\widehat{Q}_{k+1}$ vanishes with two or more inputs of $\mathfrak{h}[1]$ for $k\geqslant 2$.
\end{itemize}
Thus $\widehat{Q}$ is a codifferential on $\overline{S(\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1])}$.
The verification of conditions (1) and (2) are immediate.
Conversely, suppose that $\widehat{Q}$ is a codifferential on $\overline{S(\mathfrak{h}[1]\oplus\mathfrak{g}[1])}$ satisfying conditions (1) and (2) of the current Theorem.
Define $$\gamma(h):=\widehat{Q}_1(\tilde{h}),\quad \text{and}\quad\theta(h):=\mbox{restriction of } \tilde{h}\lrcorner \widehat{Q} \mbox{ on }{\overline{S(\mathfrak{g}[1])}},\quad \forall h\in\mathfrak{h},
$$
where $\widehat{Q}_1(\tilde{h})$ is in $\mathfrak{g}[1]$ because of the trivial differential on $\mathfrak{h}$.
Reversing the above argument, one obtains the
four compatibility Equations \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa0},\,\eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa},\,\eqref{Eqt:Q-theta0},\,\eqref{Eqt:Q-theta}
for $ \gamma$ and $\theta$ as a result of evaluating
$\widehat{Q}\circ\widehat{Q}=0$ for various cases of inputs.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}We have defined a compatibility condition between Lie algebra actions and morphism of $ L_\infty $ algebras in Definition \ref{Def: hactioncompatible}. In terms of the characterization as described by the above theorem, the compatible condition is equivalent to the statement that the morphism $F:~\mathfrak{g}_1 \to \mathfrak{g}_2 $ extends to the morphism $F^e:~\mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{g}_1 \to \mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{g}_2 $ (of $ L_\infty $ algebras) with $F^e_1=\operatorname{id}_{\mathfrak{h}}\oplus F_1$ and $F^e_{n}=F_n$ for all $n\geqslant 2$.
\end{Rem}
Classically, a Lie algebra action of $\mathfrak{h}$ on an object $\mathcal{M}$ is specified by an action map $\mathfrak{h}\times \mathcal{M}\rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ satisfying certain compatibility conditions. Similarly, applying $(\theta,\gamma)$ (see Proposition \ref{Prop:equi-action1}) to define for $n\geqslant 1$:
\begin{equation*}\label{Eqt:mudefine}
\mu_{n}(h,x_1,\cdots,x_{n})[1]:=(-1)^{\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}+\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{x_i}}\theta(h)_{n}(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot\tilde{x}_n),
\end{equation*}
and $\mu_0(h)[1]:=-\gamma(h)$,
where $h\in\mathfrak{h}$ and $x_1,\cdots,x_n\in\mathfrak{g}$,
we have the following statement.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:hactiontomun}
Let $\mathfrak{h}$ be a Lie algebra and $(\mathfrak{g},[\cdots]_k)$ an $L_\infty$ algebra as defined in Definition \ref{Def:Linfty-algebra}. An $\mathfrak{h}$-action on $\mathfrak{g}$ as defined above is equivalent to a collection of multilinear maps $\mu_n\colon \mathfrak{h}\times\wedge^{n}\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g}$ of degree $(1-n)$ for $n\geqslant 0$ which satisfy
\smallskip
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{Eqt:mu-1}
&\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=1,\cdots,n\\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\chi(\sigma;x_1,\cdots,x_n)\mu_{n-p+1}\big(h,[x_{\sigma(1)} ,\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)}]_p,x_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}\big)\\
&\qquad =\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=0,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}(-1)^{p+1}\chi(\sigma;x_1,\cdots,x_n)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\big[\mu_{p}(h,x_{\sigma(1)} ,\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)}),x_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}\big]_{n-p+1},
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Eqt:mu-2}
\begin{aligned}
&\mu_{n}([h,h']_\mathfrak{h},x_1,\cdots,x_n)\\
&\quad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=0,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\chi(\sigma;x_1,\cdots,x_n)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\mu_{n-p+1}\big(h,\mu_{p}(h',x_{\sigma(1)} ,\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)}),x_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}\big)\\
&\\
&\qquad-\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=0,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\chi(\sigma;x_1,\cdots,x_n)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\mu_{n-p+1}\big(h',\mu_{p}(h,x_{\sigma(1)} ,\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)}),x_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}\big),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} for all $h,h'\in\mathfrak{h}$ and $x_1,\cdots,x_n\in\mathfrak{g}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
When $n=0$, one immediately sees that Equations \eqref{Eqt:mu-1} and \eqref{Eqt:mu-2} are equivalent to Equations \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa0} and \eqref{Eqt:Q-theta0}. Now assume $n\geqslant 1$, we will verify that Equation \eqref{Eqt:mu-1} is equivalent to Equation \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa}.
By the correspondence between codifferentials $Q$ on $\overline{(S(\mathfrak{g}[1]))}$ and $L_\infty$ brackets $[\cdots]_k,k\geqslant 1$ on $\mathfrak{g}$, we know that
\begin{equation*}
Q_n(\tilde{x}_1,\cdots,\tilde{x}_n)=(-1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{x_i}}([x_1,\cdots,x_n]_n)[1].
\end{equation*}
Equation \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa} means that $$Q_{n+1}(\gamma(h)\odot \tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n)+[Q,\theta(h)]_n(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n)=0.$$
We have the explicit evaluations:
\begin{align*}
&(Q\circ\theta(h))_n(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot\tilde{x}_n)\\
&\qquad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots, \tilde{x}_n)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad Q_{n-p+1}\big(
\theta(h)_p(\tilde{x}_{\sigma(1)}\odot\cdots\odot\tilde{x}_{\sigma(p)})\odot\tilde{x}_{\sigma(p+1)}\odot\cdots\odot\tilde{x}_{\sigma(n)}
\big)\\
&\\
&\qquad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\Big(\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots, \tilde{x}_n)(-1)^{\frac{(p+1)(p+2)}{2}+\sum_{i=1}^p(p-i)\degree{x_{\sigma(i)}}}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad \cdot Q_{n-p+1}\big(
\mu_{p}(h,x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)})[1]\odot\tilde{x}_{\sigma(p+1)}\odot\cdots\odot\tilde{x}_{\sigma(n)}
\big)\Big)\\
&\qquad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\Big(\epsilon(\sigma;\tilde{x}_1,\cdots, \tilde{x}_n)(-1)^{\frac{(p+1)(p+2)}{2}+\sum_{i=1}^p(p-i)\degree{x_{\sigma(i)}}}\\
&\qquad\qquad (-1)^{\frac{(n-p+1)(n-p+2)}{2}+(n-p)(\degree{x_{\sigma(1)}}+\cdots\degree{x_{\sigma(p)}}+2-p-1)+\sum_{j=1}^{n-p}(n-p-j)\degree{x_{\sigma(p+j)}}}\\
&\qquad\qquad \qquad\cdot\big[
\mu_{p}(h,x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)}),{x}_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,{x}_{\sigma(n)}
\big]_{n-p+1}[1]\Big)\\
&\qquad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\Big(\chi(\sigma;{x}_1,\cdots, {x}_n)(-1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+p+\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{x_i}}\\
&\qquad\qquad \cdot\big[
\mu_{p}(h,x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)}),{x}_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,{x}_{\sigma(n)}
\big]_{n-p+1}[1]\Big).
\end{align*}
Likewise, one verifies two more explicit evaluations:
\begin{align*}
&Q_{n+1}(\gamma(h)\odot \tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot \tilde{x}_n)\\
&\qquad=(-1)^{\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}+n+\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{x_i}}[-\mu_0(h),x_1,\cdots,x_n]_{n+1}[1].\\
&(\theta(h)\circ Q)_n(\tilde{x}_1\odot\cdots\odot\tilde{x}_n)\\
&\qquad=\sum\limits_{{\begin{subarray}{c}
p=1,\cdots,n \\
\sigma \in \mathrm{Sh}(p,n-p)\end{subarray}}}\Big(\chi(\sigma;{x}_1,\cdots, {x}_n)(-1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+1+\sum_{i=1}^n(n-i)\degree{x_i}}\\
&\qquad\qquad \cdot\mu_{n-p+1}\big(h,[x_{\sigma(1)} ,\cdots,x_{\sigma(p)}]_p,x_{\sigma(p+1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}\big)[1]\Big).
\end{align*}
Combining the above identities, we obtain the equivalence between Equations \eqref{Eqt:Q-kappa} and \eqref{Eqt:mu-1}.
Similarly, one verifies that Equation \eqref{Eqt:mu-2} for $n\geqslant 1$ is equivalent to Equation \eqref{Eqt:Q-theta}.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Notation:} In the sequel, we will simply denote the unary map $\mu_0\colon \mathfrak{h}\to \mathfrak{g}^1$ by $\kappa$,
and denote $\mu_{n} (h,x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ by $h\triangleright(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$.
We shall call them the \textbf{$n$-action maps} of $\mathfrak{h}$ on $\mathfrak{g}$.
When $n=1$, the symbol $h\triangleright(x_1)$ becomes $h\triangleright x_1$ if there is no risk of confusion.
For small numbers $n$, the compatibility conditions in the above proposition are unraveled as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $n=0$ \begin{equation}\label{Eqt:muncondition-0}
d\circ \kappa=0;\end{equation}
\item $n=1$ \begin{equation}\label{Eqt:muncondition-11}
\kappa[h,h']_\mathfrak{h}= h\triangleright(\kappa h')- {h'}\triangleright(\kappa h),\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Eqt:muncondition-12}
d(h\triangleright x)=[\kappa h,x]_2+ h\triangleright(dx);\end{equation}
\item $n=2$
\begin{equation}\label{Eqt:muncondition-21}
[h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\triangleright x =h\triangleright (h'\triangleright x)-h'\triangleright (h\triangleright x)+h\triangleright(\kappa h',x)-h'\triangleright(\kappa h,x),
\end{equation}
\begin{align}\label{Eqt:muncondition-21(2)}
&h\triangleright(dx_1,x_2)+h\triangleright(x_1,dx_2 )+h\triangleright[x_1,x_2]_2\\
&=-[\kappa h,x_1,x_2]_3+[h\triangleright x_1,x_2]_2+[x_1,h\triangleright x_2 ]_2-d\big(h\triangleright(x_1,x_2)\big);\nonumber
\end{align}
\item $n=3$
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(1,2)}\chi(\sigma;x_1,x_2,x_3)h\triangleright\big(dx_{\sigma(1)},x_{\sigma(2)},x_{\sigma(3)}\big)+h\triangleright [x_1,x_2,x_3]_3\\
&\quad+\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}\chi(\sigma;x_1,x_2,x_3)h\triangleright\big([x_{\sigma(1)},x_{\sigma(2)}]_2,x_{\sigma(3)}\big)
\\
& =-[\kappa h,x_1,x_2,x_3]_4+\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(1,2)}\chi(\sigma;x_1,x_2,x_3)[h\triangleright x_{\sigma(1)},x_{\sigma(2)},x_{\sigma(3)}]_{3}\\
&\quad-\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}\chi(\sigma;x_1,x_2,x_3)\big[h\triangleright(x_{\sigma(1)},x_{\sigma(2)}),x_{\sigma(3)}\big]_{2}\\
&\quad+d\big(h\triangleright(x_1,x_2,x_3)\big),
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{Eqt:muncondition-31}
&[h,h']_\mathfrak{h}\triangleright(x_1,x_2,x_3)\\
&\quad=h\triangleright\big(\kappa h',x_1,x_2,x_3\big)\\
&\qquad+\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(1,2)}\chi(\sigma;x_1,x_2,x_3)h\triangleright (h'\triangleright x_{\sigma(1)},x_{\sigma(2)},x_{\sigma(3)})\\
&\qquad+\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}\chi(\sigma;x_1,x_2,x_3)h\triangleright\big(h'\triangleright(x_{\sigma(1)},x_{\sigma(2)}),x_{\sigma(3)}\big)\\
&\qquad+h\triangleright\big(h'\triangleright(x_1,x_2,x_3)\big)-h'\triangleright\big(\kappa h,x_1,x_2,x_3\big)\\
&\qquad-\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(1,2)}\chi(\sigma;x_1,x_2,x_3)h'\triangleright (h\triangleright x_{\sigma(1)},x_{\sigma(2)},x_{\sigma(3)})\\
&\qquad-\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}\chi(\sigma;x_1,x_2,x_3)h'\triangleright\big(h\triangleright(x_{\sigma(1)},x_{\sigma(2)}),x_{\sigma(3)}\big)\\
&\qquad-h'\triangleright\big(h\triangleright(x_1,x_2,x_3)\big).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The following fact can be verified by the Jacobi identities in \eqref{eq:3Jacobi} and \eqref{Eqt:muncondition-21(2)}.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:hactionpassingtoH}
Suppose that a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}$ acts on an $L_\infty$ algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, the $0$-action being $\kappa\colon \mathfrak{h}\to \mathfrak{g}^1$.
Then $\mathfrak{h}_0=\ker(\kappa)$ is a Lie subalgebra in $\mathfrak{h}$, and $\mathfrak{h}_0$ acts on the space $H(\mathfrak{g})$ (see Remark \ref{rmk:H(g)}), denoted and defined by
$
\triangleright:~ \mathfrak{h}_0\times H(\mathfrak{g})\to H(\mathfrak{g})
$,
\[h \triangleright \overline{x}= \overline{ h \triangleright x}\]
for all $h\in \mathfrak{h}_0$ and $x\in \mathfrak{g}$ which is subject to $dx=0$. Here $\overline{x}$ stands for the cohomology class of $x$. Moreover, the $\mathfrak{h}_0$ action is compatible with the graded Lie algebra structure on $H(\mathfrak{g})$:
\[
h\triangleright[\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2]
= [h\triangleright \overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2] +[\overline{x}_1,h\triangleright \overline{x}_2]
\]
for all $\overline{x}_1$ and $\overline{x}_2\in H(\mathfrak{g})$ (in other words, the action is a derivation).
\end{prop}
\section{Main result: action of derivations on the $\Linftythree $ algebra arising from a Lie pair}\label{Sec:Mainresults}
We shall show that the Lie algebra of derivations of a Lie algebroid
(also known as morphic vector fields or Lie algebroid derivations, see \cite{Mackenzie-Xu,Iglesias-Laurent-Xu}) acts on the
$L_\infty$ algebra $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ in the sense of
Definition~\ref{Def: haction}. Let us first give a conceptually easy but not very rigorous explanation of this fact.
As we have mentioned in the introduction, the Lie algebroid structure of $L$ is encapsulated in the dg algebra $(\bsection{\wedge^\bullet L^\vee},d_L)$. In the language of Va\u{\i}ntrob \cite{Vaintrob1997}, we say that $L[1]$ is a dg manifold.
The group $\mathrm{Aut}(L)$ of automorphisms of the Lie
algebroid $L$ has an induced action on $L[1]$. According to \cite{BCSX}, the ${\Linftythree}$ algebra $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ can be considered as the section space of the dg vector bundle $L[1]\to A[1]$. Hence there is an associated action of $\mathrm{Aut}(L)$ on $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$.
Therefore, $\mathrm{Der}(L)$, the `Lie algebra' of $\mathrm{Aut}(L)$, acts on
$\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ as well. Translating this thought into a purely algebraic description, it becomes the desired action. Our Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} below demonstrates the said action.
\begin{Def}\label{Def:Liealgebroiddiff}
Let $(L,[\cdot,\cdot]_L,\rho_L)$ be a Lie algebroid over $M$.
A \textbf{derivation} of $L$ is an operator
$\delta\colon\Gamma(L)\to \Gamma(L)$ which is equipped with some $s\in \mathscr{X}(M)\otimes \mathbb{K}$, called the symbol of $\delta$, such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\label{Eqt:delta0delta1derivatives}
\delta(fu)&=&s ( f) u+f\delta ( u) ,\\
\label{Eqt:kdifferential3}
[s, \rho_L(u)]&=&\rho_L(\delta (u)) ,\\
\label{Eqt:kdifferential4}
\mbox{ and }~\quad \delta [u,v]_L &=&[\delta (u),v]_L +[u,\delta (v)]_L ,
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $f \in {C^\infty(M,\K)}$, $u,v\in \Gamma(L)$.
\end{Def}
\textbf{Notation:} We will denote by $\mathrm{Der}(L)$ the space of derivations of a Lie algebroid $L$. Note that it is naturally a Lie algebra (possibly infinite dimensional) whose Lie bracket is the standard commutator. In \cite{AAC2012}, such derivations are called $1$-differentials of $L$.
\begin{Thm} \label{MainTheorem}
Given a Lie pair $(L,A)$ and a decomposition $L\cong A\oplus B$,
the Lie algebra $\mathrm{Der}(L)$ acts on the associated ${\Linftythree}$
algebra $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ with the action maps specified as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] The $0$-action $\mu_0=\kappa:~\mathrm{Der}(L)\to\Omega_A^1(B)$ is given by
$$\kappa(\delta)(a):= -\mathrm{pr}_B\delta(a),\quad\forall a\in \Gamma(A). $$
\item[(2)] The $1$-action $
\mu_1:~\mathrm{Der}(L)\times \Omega_A^k(B)\to\Omega_A^k(B) $
is defined in two situations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet$ ]if $k=0$, then we define $\mu_1(\delta,b)=\delta\triangleright b \in \Gamma(B)$ for $\delta\in\mathrm{Der}(L)$ and $b\in \Gamma(B)$ by
$$\delta\triangleright b :=\mathrm{pr}_B\delta(b);$$
\item[$\bullet$ ]if $k\geqslant 1$, then we define $\mu_1(\delta,X)=\delta\triangleright X \in \Omega_A^k(B)$ for
$\delta\in\mathrm{Der}(L)$ and $X\in\Omega_A^k(B)$ by
$$ \begin{aligned}
&(\delta\triangleright X) (a_1,\cdots,a_k)\\
&\qquad:=-\sum_{j=1}^{k}X\big(a_1,\cdots,\mathrm{pr}_{A}\delta(a_j),\cdots,a_k\big) +\mathrm{pr}_{B} \delta\big( X(a_1,\cdots,a_k)\big), \end{aligned}$$
where $a_1,\cdots,a_k\in\Gamma(A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\item[(3)] The $2$-action $
\mu_2:~\mathrm{Der}(L)\times \Omega_A^i(B)\times \Omega_A^j(B)\to\Omega_A^{i+j-1}(B)$
is defined by the situations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet$]If $i=j=0$, we set
$$\mu_2(\delta,b,b')=\delta\triangleright (b,b'):= 0,\quad \forall \delta\in \mathrm{Der}(L), b,b'\in \Gamma(B);$$
\item[$\bullet$]If $i\geqslant 1$, $j=0$, we define
$\mu_2(\delta,X,b)=\delta\triangleright (X,b)\in \Omega_A^{i-1}(B)$ for $\delta\in \mathrm{Der}(L)$, $X \in \Omega_A^{i}(B)$ and $b\in \Gamma(B)$ by
$$\big(\delta\triangleright (X,b)\big)(a_1,\cdots,a_{i-1}):=X \big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta(b),a_1,\cdots,a_{i-1}\big),$$
$\forall a_1,\cdots, a_{i-1}\in \Gamma(A)$.
\item[$\bullet$] If $i=0$ and $j\geqslant 1$, the situation is similar:
$$\big(\delta\triangleright (b,X)\big)(a_1,\cdots,a_{i-1}):= - X \big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta(b),a_1,\cdots,a_{i-1}\big),$$
$\forall a_1,\cdots, a_{i-1}\in \Gamma(A)$.
\item[$\bullet$]If $i\geqslant 1$, $j\geqslant 1$, we define $\mu_2(\delta,X,Y)=\delta\triangleright (X,Y)\in \Omega_A^{i+j-1}(B)$ for $\delta\in \mathrm{Der}(L)$, $X\in \Omega_A^{i}(B)$ and $Y\in \Omega_A^{j}(B)$ by
\begin{align*}
&\big(\delta\triangleright (X,Y)\big)(a_1,\cdots,a_{i+j-1})\\
&\quad:=(-1)^{i+1}\sum_{\sigma\in \mathrm{Sh}(i,j-1)}{\rm sgn}
(\sigma)Y\Big( \mathrm{pr}_{A} \delta \big(X(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots)\big) ,a_{\sigma(i+1)},\cdots\Big)\\
&\quad\quad+\sum_{\sigma\in \mathrm{Sh}(i-1,j)}{\rm sgn}
(\sigma)X \Big( \mathrm{pr}_{A}\delta \big(Y(a_{\sigma(i)},\cdots)\big) ,a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots\Big), \end{align*}
where $a_1,\cdots,a_{i+j-1}\in\Gamma(A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\item [(4)]All higher $n$-actions ($n\geqslant 3$) are trivial.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, the structure maps $\mu_n$ are subject to the following properties: for any $\delta\in \mathrm{Der}(L)$ whose symbol is denoted by $s$, and for any $X,Y\in \Omega_A^{\bullet}(B)$, $f\in C^\infty(M,\mathbb{K})$, $\omega\in \Omega_A^{\bullet}$, we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] for the $0$-action $\kappa$,
$$\kappa(f\delta)=f\kappa(\delta);$$
\item[(ii)] for the $1$-action,
$$ (f\delta)\triangleright X=f \big(\delta \triangleright X\big) ;$$
$$ \delta \triangleright (\omega\cdot X)=\big(\varrho_1(\delta)(\omega)\big)\cdot X + \omega\cdot (\delta \triangleright X) ,$$
where $\varrho_1:~\mathrm{Der}(L)\to{\rm Der}^0(\Omega_A^\bullet)$ is defined for $\omega\in \Omega_A^k$ by
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\big(\varrho_1(\delta)(\omega)\big)(a_1,\cdots,a_k)\\
&\qquad:=
s \big(\omega(a_1,\cdots,a_k)\big)-\sum_{j=1}^{k}\omega\big(a_1,\cdots,\mathrm{pr}_{A}\delta(a_j),\cdots,a_k\big);
\end{aligned} $$
\item[(iii)] for the $2$-action,
$$ (f\delta)\triangleright (X,Y)=f\big(\delta \triangleright (X,Y)\big) ;$$
$$ \delta\triangleright( X ,\omega\cdot Y)=
\big(\varrho_2(\delta,X)(\omega)\big)\cdot Y+(-1)^{\degree{\omega}(1+\degree{X})}\omega\cdot \big(\delta\triangleright( X,Y)\big),$$
where $\varrho_2:~\mathrm{Der}(L)\times \Omega_A^\bullet(B)\to {\rm Der}^{\bullet-1}(\Omega_A^\bullet)$ is defined for $X\in \Omega_A^i(B)$, $\omega\in \Omega_A^k$ by:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\big(\varrho_2(\delta,X)(\omega)\big)(a_1,\cdots,a_{i+k-1})\\
&:=&(-1)^{i+1}\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(i,k-1)}{\rm sgn}(\sigma)\omega\Big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta\big( X(a_{\sigma(1)},\cdots)\big),a_{\sigma(i+1)},\cdots\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{itemize}
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
Properties $(i)$, $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ follow by direct verifications
using their definitions given by the theorem.
Next, we apply Proposition \ref{Prop:hactiontomun} to prove that
these action maps $\mu_{n}$ do define a Lie algebra action.
Since $\mu_{k}$ and $[\cdots]_{k+1}$ vanish for
$k\geqslant 3$, we only need to verify Equations \eqref{Eqt:mu-1} and \eqref{Eqt:mu-2} for $n=0,1,2,3$, which are unraveled in Equations \eqref{Eqt:muncondition-0} to \eqref{Eqt:muncondition-31}, plus one more equation of \eqref{Eqt:mu-1} for $n=4$.
\begin{itemize}
\item When $n=0$, we need to show $d^\mathrm{Bott}_A\circ \kappa$ vanishes.
In fact, by Equation \eqref{Eqt:dABot} and the definition of $\kappa$,
we have for $\delta\in\mathrm{Der}(L)$ and $a_1,a_2\in\Gamma(A)$ that
\begin{align*}
&d^\mathrm{Bott}_A\big(\kappa(\delta)\big)(a_1,a_2)\\
&\quad=\nabla_{a_1}\big(\kappa(\delta)(a_2)\big)-\nabla_{a_2}\big(\kappa(\delta)(a_1)\big)-\kappa(\delta)([a_1,a_2]_A)\\
&\quad=-\mathrm{pr}_B[a_1,\delta(a_2)]_L-\mathrm{pr}_B[\delta(a_1),a_2]_L+\mathrm{pr}_B\big(\delta[a_1,a_2]_A\big)=0.
\end{align*}
\item When $n=1$, we need to verify the following two equalities for
$\delta,\delta'\in\mathrm{Der}(L)$ and ${X}\in\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$:
\begin{gather}
\label{Eqt:temp1} \kappa([\delta,\delta'])=\delta\triangleright\big(\kappa(\delta')\big)-\delta'\triangleright\big(\kappa(\delta)\big),\\
\label{Eqt:temp2}
d^\mathrm{Bott}_A\big(\delta\triangleright{X}\big)=[\kappa(\delta),{X}]_2+\delta\triangleright(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A {X}).
\end{gather}
To verify Equation \eqref{Eqt:temp1}, by the definition of $\kappa$, we have
$$\kappa(\delta)=-\mathrm{pr}_B \circ \delta|_{\Gamma(A)}=-\delta|_{\Gamma(A)}+\mathrm{pr}_A \circ \delta|_{\Gamma(A)}.$$
Thus, we get:
\begin{align*}
\kappa([\delta,\delta'])
&=-\mathrm{pr}_B \circ\delta\circ\delta'|_{\Gamma(A)}
+\mathrm{pr}_B \circ\delta'\circ\delta|_{\Gamma(A)}\\
&=\mathrm{pr}_B \circ\delta\circ\Big(\kappa(\delta')-\mathrm{pr}_A\circ \delta'|_{\Gamma(A)}\Big)\\
&\qquad
-\mathrm{pr}_B \circ\delta'\circ\Big(\kappa(\delta)-\mathrm{pr}_A\circ \delta|_{\Gamma(A)}\Big)\\
&=\delta\triangleright\big(\kappa(\delta')\big)-\delta'\triangleright\big(\kappa(\delta)\big).
\end{align*}
To show Equation \eqref{Eqt:temp2}, we begin with the case where $ {X}$ is merely a generating element: ${X}=b\in\Gamma(B)$.
By Equation \eqref{Eqt:dABot} of $d^\mathrm{Bott}_A$ and the definition of $\mu_1$,
we can examine the following identities for any $a\in \Gamma(A)$.
\begin{align*}
\big(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A (\delta\triangleright{b})\big)(a)
=&\nabla_a(\delta\triangleright b )
=\mathrm{pr}_B[a,\delta\triangleright b]_L
=\mathrm{pr}_B[a,\mathrm{pr}_B\delta(b)]_L\\
=&\mathrm{pr}_B[a,\delta(b)]_L
=\mathrm{pr}_B\big(\delta[a,b]_L\big)-\mathrm{pr}_B[\delta(a),b]_L;\\
\big(\delta\triangleright(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A {b})\big)(a)
=&\delta\triangleright\big((d^\mathrm{Bott}_A b)(a)\big)-(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A b)(\delta\triangleright a)\\
=&\delta\triangleright(\nabla_a b)-\nabla_{\delta\triangleright a}b\\
=&\mathrm{pr}_B\big(\delta(\mathrm{pr}_B[a,b]_L)\big)-\mathrm{pr}_B\big[\mathrm{pr}_A\big(\delta(a)\big),b\big]_L.
\end{align*}
By the expression of $[\cdot,\cdot]_2$ in Proposition \ref{Prop:2and3bracket}, we have
\begin{align*}
[\kappa(\delta),b]_2(a)&=\kappa(\delta)(\eth_b a)+[\kappa(\delta)(a),b]_B\\
&=\mathrm{pr}_B\big(\delta(\mathrm{pr}_A[a,b]_L)\big)
-\mathrm{pr}_B\big[\mathrm{pr}_B\big(\delta(a)\big),b\big]_L.
\end{align*}
Hence, Equation \eqref{Eqt:temp2} holds for $X=b\in\Gamma(B)$.
The verification of Equation \eqref{Eqt:temp2} for general $X\in\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ follows from the property described in $(ii)$.
\item When $n=2$, we need to verify the following two equalities for
$\delta,\delta'\in\mathrm{Der}(L)$ and ${X},{X}_1,{X}_2\in\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$:
\begin{equation*}
[\delta,\delta']\triangleright{X}=\delta\triangleright\big(\kappa(\delta'),{X}\big)+\delta\triangleright(\delta'\triangleright{X})-\delta'\triangleright\big(\kappa(\delta),{X}\big)-\delta'\triangleright(\delta\triangleright{X}),
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\delta\triangleright(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A{X}_1,{X}_2)+(-1)^{1+\degree{{X}_1}\degree{{X}_2}}\delta\triangleright(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A{X}_2,{X}_1)+\delta\triangleright([{X}_1,{X}_2]_2)\\
&\qquad=-[\kappa(\delta),{X}_1,{X}_2]_3
+[\delta\triangleright{X}_1,{X}_2]_2\\
&\qquad\qquad+(-1)^{1+\degree{{X}_1}\degree{{X}_2}}[\delta\triangleright{X}_2,{X}_1]_2
-d^\mathrm{Bott}_A\big(\delta\triangleright({X}_1,{X}_2)\big).
\end{align*}
By the properties in $(iii)$, it suffices to consider the situations
where ${X}=b\in\Gamma(B)$, ${X}_1=b_1\in\Gamma(B)$, and
${X}_2=b_2\in\Gamma(B)$. Using the definitions of $\kappa$ and $\mu_1$,
we get
\begin{align*}
&\delta\triangleright\big(\kappa(\delta'),b\big)
+\delta\triangleright(\delta'\triangleright b)
-\delta'\triangleright\big(\kappa(\delta),b\big)
-\delta'\triangleright(\delta\triangleright b)\\
=&\kappa(\delta')\big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta (b)\big)
+\mathrm{pr}_B\delta\big(\mathrm{pr}_B\delta'(b)\big)
-\kappa(\delta)\big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta' (b)\big)
-\mathrm{pr}_B\delta'\big(\mathrm{pr}_B\delta(b)\big)\\
=&-\mathrm{pr}_B\delta'\big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta (b)\big)
+\mathrm{pr}_B\delta\big(\mathrm{pr}_B\delta'(b)\big)
+\mathrm{pr}_B\delta\big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta' (b)\big)
-\mathrm{pr}_B\delta'\big(\mathrm{pr}_B\delta(b)\big)\\
=&(\mathrm{pr}_B\circ\delta\circ\delta')(b)
-(\mathrm{pr}_B\circ\delta'\circ\delta)(b)
=[\delta,\delta']\triangleright b.
\end{align*}
Using the definitions of $\kappa$, $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$ and the expression of
$[\cdot,\cdot,\cdot]_3$ in Proposition \ref{Prop:2and3bracket},
we get
\begin{align*}
&\delta\triangleright(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A b_1,b_2)-\delta\triangleright(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A b_2,b_1)+\delta\triangleright([b_1,b_2]_2)\\
=&(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A b_1)\big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta(b_2)\big)
-(d^\mathrm{Bott}_A b_2)\big(\mathrm{pr}_A\delta(b_1)\big)
+\mathrm{pr}_B\delta[b_1,b_2]_B\\
=&\mathrm{pr}_B\big[\mathrm{pr}_A\delta(b_2),b_1\big]_L
-\mathrm{pr}_B\big[\mathrm{pr}_A\delta(b_1),b_2\big]_L
+\mathrm{pr}_B\delta\big(\mathrm{pr}_B[b_1,b_2]_L\big)\\
=&-\mathrm{pr}_B[\mathrm{pr}_B \delta(b_2),b_1]_L
+\mathrm{pr}_B[\mathrm{pr}_B \delta(b_1),b_2]_L
-\mathrm{pr}_B\delta\big(\mathrm{pr}_A[b_1,b_2]_L\big)\\
=&-[\delta\triangleright b_2,b_1]_2
+[\delta\triangleright b_1,b_2]_2
-[\kappa(\delta),b_1,b_2]_3
-d^\mathrm{Bott}_A\big(\delta\triangleright(b_1,b_2)\big).
\end{align*}
\item When $n=3$, by the vanishing of $\mu_3$ and $[\cdots]_4$,
we need to verify the following two equalities for
$\delta,\delta'\in\mathrm{Der}(L)$ and ${X}_1,{X}_2,{X}_3\in\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$:
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}\chi(\sigma;{X}_1,{X}_2,{X}_3)
\delta\triangleright
\big([{X}_{\sigma(1)},{X}_{\sigma(2)}]_2,{X}_{\sigma(3)}\big)
+\delta\triangleright[{X}_1,{X}_2,{X}_3]_3\\
=&\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(1,2)}\chi(\sigma;{X}_1,{X}_2,{X}_3)
\big[\delta\triangleright {X}_{\sigma(1)},{X}_{\sigma(2)},{X}_{\sigma(3)}\big]_3\\
&-\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}\chi(\sigma;{X}_1,{X}_2,{X}_3)
\big[\delta\triangleright({X}_{\sigma(1)},{X}_{\sigma(2)}),{X}_{\sigma(3)}\big]_2\,,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}\chi(\sigma;{X}_1,{X}_2,{X}_3)\Big(\delta\triangleright\big(\delta'\triangleright({X}_{\sigma(1)},{X}_{\sigma(2)}),{X}_{\sigma(3)}\big)\Big)\\
&\qquad=\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}\chi(\sigma;{X}_1,{X}_2,{X}_3)\Big(\delta'\triangleright\big(\delta\triangleright({X}_{\sigma(1)},{X}_{\sigma(2)}),{X}_{\sigma(3)}\big)\Big).
\end{align*}
In fact, when the three $X_i$'s are of the form $b_i\in\Gamma(B)$,
all the terms in these equalities are trivial.
For general $X_i$, one resorts to (5) and (6) of Theorem
\ref{Thm:Linftystructuregenerator}, and properties $(ii)$ and $(iii)$.
\item When $n\geqslant4$, by the vanishing of $\mu_{k}$ and $[\cdots]_{k+1}$ for $k\geqslant 3$, we are only left to verify the following equality for $\delta\in\mathrm{Der}(L)$ and ${X}_1,\cdots,{X}_4\in\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$:
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(3,1)}\chi(\sigma;{X}_1,\cdots,{X}_4)
\delta\triangleright\big([{X}_{\sigma(1)},{X}_{\sigma(2)},{X}_{\sigma(3)}]_3,{X}_{\sigma(4)}\big)\\
=&-\sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(2,2)}\chi(\sigma;{X}_1,\cdots,{X}_4)
\big[\delta\triangleright({X}_{\sigma(1)},{X}_{\sigma(2)}),{X}_{\sigma(3)},{X}_{\sigma(4)}\big]_3.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize} The argument is similar to the $n=3$ case.
\end{proof}
Following Theorems \ref{Thm:hplusg} and \ref{MainTheorem}, we have a corollary.
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor:main}
The space $\mathrm{Der}(L)\oplus\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ admits an ${\Linftythree}$ algebra structure which extends the ${\Linftythree}$ structure on $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$.
\end{Cor}
Define a subspace of $\mathrm{Der}(L)$:
\[\mathrm{Der}(L,A):=\ker\kappa=\{\delta\in \mathrm{Der}(L)~|~ \delta \bsection{A}\subset \bsection{A}\}.\]
Following Proposition \ref{Prop:hactionpassingtoH}, we have another corollary.
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor:actiononH} The above $\mathrm{Der}(L,A)$ is a Lie algebra and it acts by derivation on the graded Lie algebra $H\big(\Omega^\bullet _A(B),[\cdot]_1=d^\mathrm{Bott}_A\big)=H_{\mathrm{CE}}(A;B)$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{Ex}
Let $\mathfrak{h}$ be a complex semisimple Lie algebra,
and $\mathfrak{t}$ a Cartan subalgebra in $\mathfrak{h}$.
Let $\mathfrak{h}=\mathfrak{t}\oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha$ be its root decomposition,
where $\Delta\subset \mathfrak{t}^\vee$ is the root system of $\mathfrak{h}$.
Fix a set $\Pi$ of simple roots and denote the set of positive roots by $\Delta^+$.
For all $\alpha\in\Delta^+$, there exist $e_\alpha\in \mathfrak{t}$, $x_\alpha\in \mathfrak{h}_\alpha$, and $x_{-\alpha}\in \mathfrak{h}_{-\alpha}$
such that
$$[e_\alpha,x_\alpha]=2x_\alpha,\quad [e_\alpha,x_{-\alpha}]=-2x_{-\alpha},\quad [x_{\alpha},x_{-\alpha}]=e_{\alpha}.$$
Furthermore, there are two standard sets of structure constants $C_{\alpha,\beta},N_{\alpha,\beta}\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that (see \cite[Chapters III,VII]{Humphreysbook}):
\begin{gather*}
[e_{\alpha},x_{\beta}]=C_{\alpha,\beta} x_{ \beta},
\quad
[e_{\alpha},x_{-\beta}]=-C_{\alpha,\beta} x_{ -\beta},
\quad \forall \alpha,\beta\in \Delta;\\
[x_{\alpha},x_{\beta}]=N_{\alpha,\beta} x_{\alpha+\beta},
\quad
[x_{-\alpha},x_{-\beta}]=-N_{\alpha,\beta} x_{-\alpha-\beta},
\quad
\forall \alpha,\beta\in \Delta \mbox{ with } \alpha+\beta \in \Delta.
\end{gather*}
For the simple roots $\alpha,\beta\in\Pi$ under a given ordering,
the data $C_{\alpha,\beta}$ form the corresponding Cartan matrix.
For $\alpha,\beta\in \Delta \mbox{ with } \alpha+\beta \notin \Delta\cup\{0\}$, set $N_{\alpha,\beta}=0$. However, since $[x_{\alpha},x_{-\alpha}]=e_{\alpha} \notin \bigoplus_{\beta\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\beta$ for $\alpha\in \Delta$, the number $N_{\alpha,-\alpha}$ is undefined.
Now, the Lie pair we take is $L=\mathfrak{h}$
together with its subalgebra $A=\mathfrak{t}$,
and hence $B=L/A=\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha$.
According to Theorem \ref{Thm:Linftystructuregenerator} and Proposition \ref{Prop:2and3bracket}, the space $\Lambda^\bullet \mathfrak{t}^\vee\otimes (\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha)$
admits an ${\Linftythree}$ structure, see also \cite[Theorem 4.22]{BCSX}.
Since $\mathfrak{h}$ is semisimple,
we have $\mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{h})\cong \mathfrak{h}$.
Therefore, by Theorem \ref{MainTheorem},
there is a Lie algebra action of $\mathfrak{h}$ on
$\Lambda^\bullet \mathfrak{t}^\vee\otimes (\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha)$.
The action maps are specified as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] The $0$-action $\mu_0=\kappa:~ \mathfrak{h}\to \mathfrak{t}^\vee\otimes (\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha)$ is given by
$$\kappa(e_{\alpha})=0,
\quad \kappa(x_{\alpha})=\sum_{\beta\in \Pi} C_{\beta,\alpha} e^{\vee}_{\beta}\otimes x_{\alpha},
\quad \kappa(x_{-\alpha})=-\sum_{\beta\in \Pi} C_{\beta,\alpha} e^{\vee}_{\beta}\otimes x_{-\alpha},$$
$ \forall\alpha\in \Delta^+$.
\item[(2)] The $1$-action $
\mu_1:~ \mathfrak{h}\times \big(\Lambda^\bullet \mathfrak{t}^\vee\otimes (\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha)\big) \to \Lambda^\bullet \mathfrak{t}^\vee\otimes (\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha) $
~is given by the generating relations
\[
\begin{cases}
x_{\alpha}\triangleright x_{-\alpha} = 0 & \forall \alpha\in \Delta,\\
x_{\alpha}\triangleright x_{\beta}=N_{\alpha,\beta}x_{\alpha+\beta}
& \forall \alpha,\beta\in \Delta
\mbox{ with } \alpha+\beta\neq 0,\\
e_{\alpha}\triangleright x_{\beta}=C_{\alpha,\beta}x_{\beta}
& \forall \alpha\in \Pi,\beta\in \Delta,
\end{cases}
\]
with vanishing $\varrho_1=0:~\mathfrak{h}\to{\rm Der}^0(\Lambda^{\bullet} \mathfrak{t}^\vee)$.
\item[(3)] The $2$-action $
\mu_2:~ \mathfrak{h}\times \big(\Lambda^\bullet \mathfrak{t}^\vee\otimes (\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha)\big)^{\otimes 2} \to \Lambda^{\bullet-1} \mathfrak{t}^\vee\otimes (\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha) $
is given by the generating relation $$\mathfrak{h}\triangleright\Big(\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha,\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha\Big)=0,$$
with
$\varrho_2:~\mathfrak{h}\times \big(\Lambda^\bullet \mathfrak{t}^\vee\otimes (\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathfrak{h}_\alpha)\big)\to {\rm Der}^{\bullet-1}(\Lambda^\bullet \mathfrak{t}^\vee)$
$$
\begin{cases}
\varrho_2(x_{\alpha},\omega \otimes x_{-\alpha})=(-1)^{|\omega|+1}\omega\cdot e_\alpha \lrcorner \quad
& \forall \alpha \in \Delta,\\
\varrho_2(x_{\alpha},\omega \otimes x_{\beta})=0
& \forall \alpha,\beta\in \Delta
\mbox{ with } \alpha+\beta\neq 0,\\
\varrho_2(e_{\alpha},\omega \otimes x_{\beta})=0
& \forall \alpha,\beta\in \Delta,
\end{cases}
$$
where $\omega\in\Lambda^\bullet \mathfrak{t}^\vee$.
\item[(4)] All higher actions $\mu_n$ ($n\geqslant 3$) are trivial.
\end{itemize}
\end{Ex}
\begin{Rem}
In Remark \ref{Rmk:depedenceofsplittings} we have addressed the dependence of splittings $L=A\oplus B$ which give different but isomorphic $\Linftythree$ algebras $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$. We point out that the $\mathrm{Der}(L)$-action on $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ constructed by Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} also depends on the choice of splitting. However, one can prove that such $\mathrm{Der}(L)$-actions are \emph{compatible} with the $\Linftythree$ algebras $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ arising from different splittings (see Definition \ref{Def: hactioncompatible}). For this reason, the $\mathrm{Der}(L)$-action given by the theorem is in fact \emph{canonical}.
\end{Rem}
\section{Gauge equivalences of Maurer-Cartan elements based on Lie algebra actions}
In this part, we review a notion of gauge equivalence of Maurer-Cartan elements introduced by Getzler \cite{Getzler}, and will propose another type of gauge equivalence following Getzler's formula.
\textbf{Notation:} Let $\mathscr{A}$ be a local Artinian $\mathbb{K}$-algebras with residue field ${\mathbb{K}}$. We will denote by $\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ the maximal ideal of $\mathscr{A}$.
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be an $L_\infty$ algebra. The graded vector space $\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ now becomes a nilpotent\footnote{This means that the lower central series $F^i (\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}) $ vanish for $i $ sufficiently large, where $F^1 (\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A})=\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}$ and, for $i\geqslant 2$,
$$F^i (\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}):=\sum \limits_{i_1+\cdots+i_k=i}[F^{i_1}(\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}),\cdots,F^{i_k}(\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A})]_k\,.$$} $L_\infty$ algebra whose structure maps are extended from $\mathfrak{g}$.
\begin{Def}\label{Def:MC}
A \textbf{Maurer-Cartan element} in an $L_\infty$ algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ (with coefficient $\mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $) is an element $\xi\in \mathfrak{g}^1\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty \dfrac{1}{k!}[\xi,\cdots,\xi]_k=0.
\end{equation*}
We will denote by ${\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g})$ $(\subset \mathfrak{g}^1\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} )$
the set of Maurer-Cartan elements in $\mathfrak{g}$.
\end{Def}
For any element $\xi \in \mathfrak{g}^1\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $, the formula
\begin{align*}
[g_1,\cdots,g_i]^\xi_i
&=\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}[\xi^{\wedge k},g_1,\cdots,g_i]_{i+k}\\
&=[g_1,\cdots,g_i]_i+[\xi,g_1,\cdots,g_i]_{i+1}+
\frac{1}{2}[\xi,\xi,g_1,\cdots,g_i]_{i+2}+\cdots
\end{align*}
defines a new sequence of brackets on $\mathfrak{g}\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ known as the ($i$-th) $\xi$-bracket, where
$[\xi^{\wedge k},g_1,\cdots,g_i]_{k+i}$ is an abbreviation for
$[\xi,\cdots,\xi,g_1,\cdots,g_i]_{k+i}$, in which $\xi$ occurs $k$ times.
For example, we have
$$
[g]^\xi_1
=[g]_1+[\xi,g]_2+
\frac{1}{2}[\xi,\xi,g]_3+\cdots.
$$
For $b \in \mathfrak{g}^0\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $, $\xi\in {\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g})$, define $e^b *\xi\in \mathfrak{g}^1\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ by
$$e^b *\xi:=\xi-\sum \limits_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k!} e^k_\xi(b),$$
where $ e^k_\xi(b)$ are inductively determined by
$$e^1_\xi(b)=[b]^\xi_1, $$
$$e^{k+1}_\xi(b)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^k \frac{1}{n!}
\sum\limits_{\begin{subarray}{c}
k_1+\cdots+k_n=k \\ k_i\geqslant 1
\end{subarray} }\frac{k!}{k_1!\cdots k_n!}
[b,e^{k_1}_\xi(b),\cdots,e^{k_n}_\xi(b)]^\xi_{n+1}.$$
It is shown \textit{op. cit.} that $e^b *\xi$ again lands in ${\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g})$ and hence one obtains an ``action'' of $\mathfrak{g}^0\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ on ${\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g})$. Let us call it the \textit{gauge action}. Note that $\mathfrak{g}^0\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ is \emph{not} a Lie algebra in general.
\begin{Def}\label{gauge equivalent}Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be an $ L_\infty $ algebra.
Two Maurer-Cartan elements $\xi, \eta \in {\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g}) $ are said to be \textbf{gauge equivalent} if there exists an element $b \in \mathfrak{g}^0\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $
such that
$ e^b *\xi=\eta $.
\end{Def}
Following the recipe of gauge actions, we propose another type of gauge equivalence of Maurer-Cartan elements arising from Lie algebra actions. Suppose that the $ L_\infty $ algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ admits an action by a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}$, with the structure maps being $\{\mu_n\}$ (or $\triangleright$). For any $h\in \mathfrak{h}\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ and $\xi\in {\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g}) $, define $e^{h}* \xi\in \mathfrak{g}^1\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ as follows:
$$e^{h}* \xi:= \xi-\sum \limits_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k!} e^k_\xi(h ),$$
where $e^k_\xi(h )\in \mathfrak{g}^1\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ ($k\geqslant 1$) is inductively defined by
\begin{gather*}
e^1_\xi(h )
=\sum_{i=0}^\infty\frac{1}{i!}\mu_{i}(\xi^{\wedge i},h)
=\kappa(h)-h\triangleright(\xi)
+\frac{1}{2}h\triangleright(\xi,\xi)
-\frac{1}{6} h\triangleright(\xi,\xi,\xi)
+\cdots, \label{Eqt:e1xib0}
\end{gather*}
and
\begin{gather*}
e^{k+1}_\xi(h )
=\sum\limits_{n=1}^k \frac{1}{n!}
\sum\limits_{\begin{subarray}{c}
k_1+\cdots+k_n=k \\ k_i\geqslant 1
\end{subarray} }\frac{k!}{k_1!\cdots k_n!}
\sum\limits_{j=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^j}{j!}
h \triangleright \big(\xi^{\wedge j} ,e^{k_1}_\xi(h),\cdots,e^{k_n}_\xi(h)\big) \,. \label{Eqt:enxib0}
\end{gather*}
Again, one can prove that $e^{h}* \xi$ belongs to ${\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g}) $. In turn, we obtain a new type of gauge action which is given by the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ on ${\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g}) $, and hence the notion of $\mathfrak{h}$-gauge equivalence:
\begin{Def}\label{Def:WeakGaugeEquivalence}
With the assumptions as above, two Maurer-Cartan elements $\xi$ and $\eta\in {\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathfrak{g})$ are said to be \textbf{$\mathfrak{h}$-gauge equivalent} if there exists an $h \in \mathfrak{h}\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $ such that
$e^{h}* \xi=\eta$.
\end{Def}
More properties of $\mathfrak{h}$-gauge equivalences will be studied in the future. Just for this note, let us turn back to the settings of Section \ref{Sec:Mainresults}, Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} in particular: $\mathfrak{g}$ is the $\Linftythree$ algebra $\Omega^\bullet_A(B)$ with an $\mathfrak{h}=\mathrm{Der}(L)$ action. We have $\mathfrak{g}^0=\Gamma(B)$. For an element $b\in \Gamma(B)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $, consider the operator
$${\mathrm{ad}_b }:=[b,\cdot]_L \in \mathrm{End}_{ \mathscr{A} }( \Gamma(L)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} ) .$$
We can check that, ${\mathrm{ad}_b }$ is indeed a derivation, i.e. $ {\mathrm{ad}_b }\in \mathrm{Der}(L)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}$, and moreover, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\kappa({\mathrm{ad}_b }) &=& [b]_1 (= d^\mathrm{Bott}_A b ),\\
{ {\mathrm{ad}_b } \triangleright ( X) } &=& {[b,X]_2},
\\
{ {\mathrm{ad}_b } \triangleright ( X,Y) } &=& {[b,X,Y]_3,}
\end{eqnarray*} for all $X$ and $Y\in \Omega_A^\bullet(B) \otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A} $. From these relations, we can prove the following fact.
\begin{Thm}\label{Thm:adb=baction} For any $b\in \Gamma(B)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}$, the $\mathrm{Der}(L)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}$-gauge action by $\delta ={\mathrm{ad}_b } $ coincides with the gauge action by $b$, i.e.
$$e^{{\mathrm{ad}_b }}*\xi=e^b*\xi,\quad \forall \xi \in {\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}\big(\Omega_A^\bullet(B)\big).$$
\end{Thm}
From this theorem, we see that our newly introduced $\mathrm{Der}(L)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}$-gauge action recovers the classical one given by Getzler in \cite{Getzler}. It comes from the $\mathrm{Der}(L)$-action on $\Omega_A^\bullet(B)$ as detailed in the previous Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}. We have a reason to call such actions $\delta\triangleright(\cdots)$ ($\delta\in \mathrm{Der}(L)$) internal symmetries --- the Lie algebra $\mathrm{Der}(L)$ exists naturally; while the space $\Gamma(B)$ is not a Lie algebra in general, and its role depends on the splitting $L\cong A\oplus B$. Of course, isomorphism classes of ${\rm MC}_{\mathscr{A}}\big(\Omega_A^\bullet(B)\big)$ up to $\mathrm{Der}(L)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}$-gauge equivalences (i.e. the associated deformation space) will have fewer elements than up to $\Gamma(B)\otimes \mathfrak{m}_\mathscr{A}$-gauge equivalences. The new problems caused by this way of thinking await our follow-up research.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Computer graphics has a long history of 3D garments research, from modeling to the physics simulation. In this paper, we tackle the problem of estimating the underlying rest shape of a garment for which a deformed 3D shape is available. Such a 3D garment shape could be a draping result from a physics simulation or a 3D scan of a real-world garment.
By rest shape, we mean a representation of a garment shape disentangled from deformation due to external physical forces, collisions, and fabric properties.
Understanding such garment structure allows shaping the same garment in novel conditions like draping it on new body shapes or poses or enables the ability to adjust a captured garment's design. These abilities are highly desirable for virtual try-on, garment design, or avatar creation.
Building upon advances in Deep Learning research for shape analysis, we use a learning-based approach to tackle the problem in this work. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to explore a learning-based solution for estimating garment rest shapes, with previous work either relying on fitting one of the pre-defined templates~\cite{Hasler2007ReverseGarments,Jeong2015c,Yang2018c}, optimizing rest shape directly from a good initial guess~\cite{Brouet2012b,Bartle2016c,Wang2018c}, surface flattening~\cite{Wang2009InteractiveCurves,Meng2012,Liu2018c,Bang2021EstimatingData}, or inverting physics deformations analytically~\cite{Ly2018} (see Sec.~\ref{sec:realted_work} for more detailed review). Learning-based methods have the advantage of scalability to acquire knowledge from large garment databases and cover the space of garment designs better than methods based on template fitting while allowing fast processing at inference time, unlike optimization-based solutions.
One of our key ideas is to use a garment sewing pattern as a base representation for a garment rest shape. We assume a \textit{sewing pattern} to be a collection of the 2D pieces of fabric (panels) with a known placement of each panel around the human body and information on how the panels are stitched together to form the final garment. We model a \textit{panel} to be a closed piece-wise curve with every piece (\textit{edge}) being either a straight line or a Bezier spline.
Such a sewing pattern is a close approximation of how most real-world garments are constructed and thus serves as a strong prior for disentangling rest shape from physical deformation or the imperfections of the data acquisition process. At the same time, sewing patterns allow describing a variety of garment types and designs uniformly, unlike the approaches based on parametric templates as in~\cite{Wang2018}. Our problem formulation can also be viewed as a case of learning-based structure recovery for deformable objects. To the best of our knowledge, our work is one of the first of this kind, as most studies in the structure learning domain use datasets of rigid objects.
Reconstruction of a sewing pattern as a structure with a deep neural network (DNN) presents multiple challenges. It requires predicting a set (of panels) with variable cardinality across garment types. Every set element is a structured object itself and may exhibit significant shape variations, and stitches being cross-connections between individual edges of panels complicate the structure even more. We propose a NeuralTailor framework that recovers panel structure through a combination of 3D point-wise attention for a high-level decision on topology and an RNN module for predicting panel details. Stitching information is regressed using a separate stitch connection module implemented as a classifier on edge pairs. We also present a strong baseline model based on the RNN hierarchy to highlight the key features that enable NeuralTailor generalization properties. Our experiments show that NeuralTailor successfully reconstructs sewing patterns for various garment designs, including novel garments with sewing pattern structures not seen during training.
To summarise, our contributions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item A new problem of learning-based recovery of a structured representation of garment sewing pattern.
\item A strong baseline and an upgraded solution for the first deep learning framework that predicts a structural representation of a sewing pattern from a 3D garment shape and generalizes to novel garment types.
\end{itemize}
Code and pre-trained models for NeuralTailor framework are available at \href{https://github.com/maria-korosteleva/Garment-Pattern-Estimation}{GitHub}\footnote{ \url{https://github.com/maria-korosteleva/Garment-Pattern-Estimation}}.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:realted_work}
This section reviews previous studies related to our work. Specifically, we discuss research on estimating the rest shape of the garment, review other approaches to reconstructing controllable garments with DNNs, and approaches to representing structured objects in general.
\subsection{Garment Rest Shape Estimation}
Several approaches have been proposed to estimate the rest shape of garments.
\textbf{Fitting garment templates.} The first approach is to rely on a set of garment templates and choose a template and its parameters to replicate an input garment as closely as possible. A notable work of~\cite{Chen2015c} performs a search in the database of 3D garment parts (skirts, sleeves, collars, etc.) and stitches them together to form the final garment. While having the advantage of consistently producing plausible garments, this approach requires an extensive database to deal with the high diversity of garments, which potentially leads to high computational costs. Several studies~\cite{Hasler2007ReverseGarments,Jeong2015c,Yang2018c} utilize sets of parametric sewing patterns, described in terms of numerical values such as sleeve length, waist width, etc., and perform optimization in the parameter space so that a chosen pattern matches an input garment when simulated on top of a body model. Wang et al.~\shortcite{Wang2018} takes one step further and trains a DL-model for each parametric garment template (defined similarly as in the studies mentioned above) to predict the template-specific parameters from an input garment sketch. Parametric templates reduce the storage demand and allow smooth exploration of the design space, unlike the databases of individual examples. However, different garment types would require different sets of parameters, forcing the usage of different models for each garment type and preventing knowledge sharing across types. To solve this, we propose using a sewing pattern as shape parametrization, a typical structure for most garment types. Our approach allows for generalization beyond the garment types present in the training set, as demonstrated by our experiments in Sec.~\ref{sec:evaluation}.
\textbf{Surface flattening.} Another way to get a garment's intrinsic structure is directly cutting a 3D surface of an input garment into developable 3D parts and then flattening every piece into 2D panels with, for example, ARAP technique~\cite{Igarashi2005} or Variational Surface Cutting~\cite{Sharp2018VariationalCutting}. The flattening-based approach works well in a controlled environment where an input 3D garment is not heavily deformed, the full, uncorrupted geometry is available, and when the initial cutting strategy is provided by a user or other means. For its simplicity and speed, this approach is popular in solutions for garment design where a high degree of manual control is acceptable~\cite{Wang2003FeatureSketches,Wang2005DesignProducts,Decaudin2006c,Yunchu2007PrototypeDummy,Daanen2008Made-to-measureScans,Wang2009InteractiveCurves,Meng2012,Liu2018c}.
More recent studies adopt this approach to allow automatic processing by employing cuts guided by heuristic considerations~\cite{Bang2021EstimatingData} or by trained Deep Learning model~\cite{Goto2021Data-drivenGeometries}. These works produce plausible sewing patterns for various garment types but lack pattern quality and rely on the quality of original geometry a lot. Another recent work~\cite{Wolff20213DMovementc} relies on having direct access to the garment rest shape, which allows producing working patterns for arbitrary garment designs with a general technique of Variational Surface Cutting.
On the other hand, our learning-based approach neither requires uncorrupted, unsimulated geometry as input nor additional pre-processing and is capable of producing clean panel shapes.
\textbf{Pattern geometry optimization.} Much success in estimating garment structure in terms of sensitivity to details was achieved by optimization-based methods where some base geometric representation is deformed to achieve a target. The formulation of the target could be quite flexible, from some desired design features to a 3D garment model. Brouet et al.~\shortcite{Brouet2012b} demonstrated this approach to adapting garments to different body shapes while preserving the overall style.
Bartle et al.~\shortcite{Bartle2016c} proposed a garment editing pipeline for users to create new garments directly in 3D by editing and combining existing garments while ensuring correct sewing patterns. Wang~\shortcite{Wang2018c} developed a method to adjust a standard sewing pattern for a better fit on an input body shape, while Li et al.~\shortcite{Li2018FoldSketch:Folds} enabled the creation of garments with desired folds' design by simple sketching over the initial model. More recently, Montes et al.~\shortcite{Montes2020ComputationalClothing} used optimization of sewing pattern geometry to find optimal fit and pressure distribution for tight clothing.
These methods require a good initial guess of the garment sewing pattern, which is often unavailable. Our approach follows a more loose assumption that the input belongs to a distribution modeled by the training data and even makes successful predictions on garment types outside the training domain. This assumption will become even less demanding as more data becomes available.
\textbf{Inverting Physics}. The work of \cite{Ly2018} explores an interesting direction of performing a physics inversion by jointly estimating the rest shape and the physical forces acting on an input object conditioned on material properties provided by the user. This approach applies to any shell-like objects, including garments, and is not limited by the representational power of datasets. On the other hand, the proposed method is computationally demanding and has trouble handling the folds and wrinkles due to contacts, which is typical for garments draped on humans. On the contrary, our approach successfully processes folds and wrinkles
and can perform fast once trained.
\subsection{Learning-based reconstruction of controllable garments}
We see a potential for our approach of predicting sewing patterns to be used for reconstructing controllable 3D garments from 3D scans or images of people. A number of works in recent years address this problem for learning-based retargeting~\cite{Wang2018,LalBhatnagar2019,Santesteban2019,Bertiche2020,Ma2020,Patel2020,Zakharkin2021Point-BasedClothing}, animation~\cite{Wang2019,Patel2020,Jiang2020,Ma2021TheClothing,Zakharkin2021Point-BasedClothing,Santesteban2021Self-SupervisedTry-On}, or garment style adjustment~\cite{Wang2018,Tiwari2020,Su2020DeepClothEditing,Corona_2021_CVPR}. Some of the works rely on meshes of known topologies and thus require their models to be trained per-garment or per-garment type~\cite{Wang2018,Wang2019,Santesteban2019,Jiang2020,Tiwari2020,Patel2020}.
Usage of displacements~\cite{LalBhatnagar2019,Bertiche2020,Ma2020}, UV-maps~\cite{Su2020DeepClothEditing}, point clouds~\cite{Ma2021TheClothing,Zakharkin2021Point-BasedClothing}, and implicit functions~\cite{Corona_2021_CVPR} enabled representation of different garment styles within the same model and even showed the ability to reconstruct unseen outfits~\cite{Ma2021TheClothing}, but the garments are reconstructed with design, material properties and deformations fused together.
We believe that reconstructing disentangled garment representations will eventually lead to better quality, control, and generalization. Shen et al.~\shortcite{Shen2020GAN-BasedImages} demonstrate a garment model generator conditioned on sewing patterns with capabilities to generalize to novel designs. In our work, we show that using sewing pattern as a natural structured representation of design when inferring it from raw inputs allows not only for generalization to \emph{unseen garment examples} as in~\cite{Ma2021TheClothing}, but \emph{unseen garment types}. Moreover, sewing patterns are retargetable by design and, when coupled with a physics simulator, produce physically accurate 3D reconstructions with guaranteed developability, which geometry-based learned reconstructions cannot do yet.
\subsection{Structural Deep Learning}
The problem of representing sewing patterns in DNN is highly related to a more general problem of representing the structure of the objects composed of simpler components in DNN. Studies on this problem often experiment with 3D furniture as an example of such structured objects. Our work builds upon the ideas of hierarchical and sequential modeling of part relationships of GRASS~\cite{Chaudhuri2017}, StructureNet~\cite{Mo2019StructureNet:Generation}, SAGNet~\cite{Wu2019SagNet:Modeling}, LSD-StructureNet~\cite{Roberts2021LSD-StructureNet:Hierarchies}, and several works in vector graphics generation~\cite{Ha2018ADrawings,Carlier2020DeepSVG:Animation,Wang2021DeepVecFont:Learning}. On top of that, we attempt to generalize beyond the component collections presented in the training set. Hence, we introduce a novel attention module and connectivity classification module for stitch prediction. A recent work of Shape Part Slot Machine~\cite{Wang2021TheParts} demonstrated a similar generalization ability by focusing on connections between components rather than the global shape. In our work, we come to a similar conclusion as \cite{Wang2021TheParts} -- that focusing on the local context allows for both prediction quality and structural generalization capabilities.
\section{Dataset}
\label{sec:dataset}
In this work we use Dataset of 3D garments with sewing patterns ~\cite{garment_pattern_dataset} as introduced in~\cite{Korosteleva2021GeneratingPatterns}. It covers a variety of garment designs, including variations of t-shirts, jackets, pants, skirts, jumpsuits, and dresses, with 22,000 garments sampled from 19 base types in total. Each garment sample contains a garment 3D model as draped on SMPL~\cite{Loper2015} average woman body shape in T-pose, a corresponding sewing pattern represented as a structure, and a corrupted 3D model imitating some of the 3D scanning artifacts. The dataset is limited in representing human poses and shapes but provides a good range of garment designs. Hence, it provides a good starting point for tackling the problem of sewing pattern recovery from 3D models.
\subsubsection*{Panel classes and panel vectors}
\label{sec:data:classes}
The original dataset does not guarantee that similar panels from different garment types, e.g., pant panels in pants and jumpsuits, have the same labels. Hence, we introduce classes of panels that we use to group panels by role and location around the body across garment types. For example, panels covering the front of the trunk from T-Shirts, dresses, jumpsuits, etc., are grouped in the "front panels" class. The labeling for panels of base templates is included with the published code.
\subsubsection*{Additional sample filtering}
\label{sec:data:filter}
The original dataset contains garment samples with overlapping designs -- these samples have different sewing pattern topologies and may belong to different garment types but produce similar shapes in 3D, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:data:design_overlap}. Such cases are common in real-world garments, but they significantly complicate an already difficult problem. In this work, we assume that design overlap in the data is minimal to focus our attention on developing a base solution for sewing pattern reconstruction and topology generalization. We manually analyzed parameter spaces of the dataset base templates and filtered them to contain mostly non-overlapping examples.
\subsubsection*{Dataset split}
\label{sec:data:split}
We use the train/test group split of garment types as introduced in the dataset~\cite{garment_pattern_dataset}. Garment samples from the seven types of the test group remain unseen to the NeuralTailor during training and are only used for evaluation, as shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:evaluation}. We additionally designate 100 examples of each train group type as a validation set for model selection and 100 examples of each type as a test set to compare performance on seen and unseen types. This split leaves 19236 garment samples in the full training set. The number of training samples when sample filtering is applied is 9678.
\input{fig_tex/design_overlap}
\section{Overview}
\label{sec:overview}
Our work explores several directions to approach the task at hand. We designed an original thought-through baseline model that can successfully represent the sewing pattern structures and learn to reconstruct them (Sec.~\ref{sec:baseline_model}). It is based on extracting a latent space vector from an input point cloud and then decoding it into a sewing pattern through a two-step hierarchy of RNNs, with stitching information represented as a property of individual panel edges.
We then updated the baseline with several new ideas (Sec.~\ref{sec:NT_framework}). Firstly, we introduce a point-level attention mechanism that evaluates latent codes for individual panels based on local rather than global context. Secondly, we separate stitch prediction into an independent module that performs edge pairs classification into being connected or not.
As shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:evaluation}, these improvements make the overall framework generalize to sewing pattern topologies unseen during training. The achieved generalization feature is critical for a diverse domain like garments. Gathering a fully representative dataset of garments is genuinely hard, and it is nearly impossible to achieve design generalization by training specialized per-type models, which is a common approach in Deep Learning for 3D garments.
\section{Baseline Model}
\label{sec:baseline_model}
\input{fig_tex/nn_baseline}
\subsection{Point Features Encoder}
\label{sec:baseline:point_encoder}
Deep learning-based processing of point clouds is a challenging problem of its own and has seen rapid development in recent years. In this work, we employ EdgeConv~\cite{Wang2018DynamicClouds} as a base block for the encoder for its simplicity and performance on par with other state-of-the-art point cloud-based network architectures, according to~\cite{Guo2020DeepSurvey}. The main advantage of EdgeConv is its ability to aggregate information in feature space rather than spatially by dynamically re-building a connectivity graph on every EdgeConv layer. Our encoder consists of two EdgeConv layers, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:net:baseline},
with a skip-connection from the input 3D point cloud to the output of the last EdgeConv layer. Final per-point features are then aggregated into a single feature vector by average pooling.
\subsection{LSTM for Panel Encodings}
\label{sec:baseline:rnn_enc}
In the next stage, the model reconstructs latent codes for each panel in a sewing pattern given the global latent code. Having no particular order with respect to each other, panels represent a set whose cardinality (number of panels) varies across garments. One of the simpler solutions to represent such a structure is to define an arbitrary order on set elements and then employ a sequence-based model to predict the elements of the formed sequences, as was done for structured predictions in ~\cite{Wu2019SagNet:Modeling}. OrderlessRNN~\cite{OguzYazici2020OrderlessClassification} takes the set-as-sequence approach even further by allowing an RNN-based network to output set elements in any order instead of following a pre-defined one by a clever loss function construction, which helps improve the performance of their target task.
Following this line of work, we design panel encoding prediction as an LSTM~\cite{Hochreiter1997LongMemory} module for our baseline model for its capability to model sets of variable cardinality. This LSTM module takes in a garment global latent code and outputs a sequence of latent vectors of panels, which are then processed by Panel Decoder as described below.
We experiment with both pre-defined order and orderless losses approach, as shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:evaluation}.
\subsection{Panel Decoder}
\label{sec:baseline:panel_dec}
Each panel latent vector predicted in the previous step is processed by the panel decoder to recover the panel shape
and stitching information. The panel decoder consists of an LSTM module and a linear module. The LSTM converts a panel encoding into a sequence of edge features comprising the panel, and an additional linear module regresses the 3D placement of the panel. The details of edge and placement representations are discussed below.
\subsubsection{Panel representation.}
\label{sec:baseline:panel_def}
We model a panel as a sequence of edges -- smooth segments of a closed piece-wise curve -- with every edge being either a straight line or a quadratic Bezier spline, similarly to their representation in the dataset. Using splines to represent curvy edges instead of discretization is more compact, prevents resolution-related artifacts, and ensures simple stitch definition as a 1-to-1 edge connection.
\subsubsection{Edge features.}
\label{sec:baseline:edge_feature}
We use the following idea to construct a meaningful sequential representation of panel edges. Panel decoder outputs every edge as \textbf{a 2D vector}, from the edge starting point to its endpoint as follows:
\[
\vec{e}_{ij} = v_j - v_i,
\]
where $v_i$ and $v_j$ are the 2D local coordinates of vertices $i$ and $j$ connected by $e_{ij}$. Since every panel is a closed piece-wise curve, these edge vectors form a loop when ordered and traced sequentially. 2D coordinates of any panel vertex can be obtained by adding a corresponding edge vector to the 2D coordinates of a previous vertex in the panel. The first vertex of the loop is always assumed to be at the origin of the panel local space. The dataset guarantees consistency in the choice of edge loop first vertex and the direction of loop traversal across panels by design, so we simply use the edge loop order as given in the data when evaluating losses.
Since edges are not necessarily straight lines, we use \textbf{curvature coordinates} as an additional edge vector feature. Curvature coordinates are the 2D coordinates $(c_x, c_y)$ of quadratic Bezier spline control point and are defined in the local space of an edge. In this coordinate system $(0, 0)$ and $(1, 0)$ indicate the positions of edge vertex. Hence, $c_x$ indicates the position along the edge, roughly corresponding to the location of the curvature peak, and $c_y$ controls the depth of the curvature. If an edge is straight, its curvature coordinates are marked as $(0, 0)$. The edge feature will then look like this:
\[
(e_x, e_y, c_x, c_y),
\]
where $(e_x, e_y) = \vec{e}_{ij}$ are 2D edge vector coordinates and $(c_x, c_y)$ are curvature coordinates.
Since different panels have different numbers of edges, the edge sequences are padded with zero feature vectors to the length (14 in our experiment) that is equal to or larger than the maximum number of edges found in the training set.
\subsubsection{Stitch Tags for stitching information prediction}
\label{sec:baseline:stitch_tags}
Stitches are cross-connections of the edges in the network output hence predicting them represents a challenge for a feed-forward style of network architecture. Our first idea is to include stitching information directly into the edge features. We define per-edge stitching information as the following feature vector:
\[
(f_{0/1}, s_1, s_2, s_3),
\]
where $f_{0/1}$ is a \textbf{binary class} of whether an edge is free or belongs to any of the stitches, and $(s_1, s_2, s_3)$ is a learned vector called a \textbf{stitch tag} that is designed to identify the edges that are connected. The definitive property of stitch tags is as follows:
tags of edges from the same stitch are expected to be similar, but edges from different stitches should have tags that are different by a margin. We use Euclidean distance between tags as a similarity measure. The connectivity reconstruction then comes down to filtering out free and connected edges and comparing stitch tags of the pairs of connected edges. Note that the edges classified as ``free'' are not expected to have meaningful stitch tags.
This idea enables a compact representation of pattern connectivity that does not depend on the number of stitches or the total number of edges in a pattern and avoids explicitly referencing edge IDs, allowing the encoding of different sewing pattern topologies. The network learns to provide suitable values of the stitch tags by following the loss function that enforces the correct behavior during training, as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:baseline:losses}.
\subsubsection{Panel 3D placement representation.}
The following feature vector represents the panel placement in the world space:
\[
(q_1, q_2, q_3, q_4, t_1, t_2, t_3),
\]
where $(q_1, q_2, q_3, q_4)$ is a \textbf{quaternion} that reflect panel rotation. Panel translation $(t_1, t_2, t_3)$ is represented as \textbf{3D translation} of the top mid-point of the panel's 2D bounding box when the panel is viewed in 3D. We found that in most cases, this point corresponds to body features (e.g., neck, waist) important for panel placement and thus exhibits stability across particular stylistic choices (e.g., skirt length). This translation formulation showed a more accurate 3D placement prediction than using panel local origin as the reference point in our tests.
\subsection{Loss functions}
\label{sec:baseline:losses}
The full loss for training the panel shape and placement prediction module is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:full_loss}
L_{total} = L_{edge} + L_{loop} + L_{placement} + L_{stitches}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Edge loss}
The edge loss $L_{edge}$ evaluates the quality of panel geometry prediction.
Ground truth panel representation is converted to the sequential format of 2D edge vectors as described above. Then, $L_{edge}$ is computed as an MSE loss on edge vectors and curvature coordinates between the ground truth and the corresponding edge features from NeuralTailor output.
\subsubsection{Loop loss}
The loop loss $L_{loop}$ is added to additionally enforce the loop closure property of panel representation. It evaluates the $L_2$ norm of the distance between the origin and final point of the panel edge sequence.
\subsubsection{Placement loss}
The placement loss $L_{placement}$ is an MSE loss on corresponding rotation and translation representations converted from ground truth placement information to match the network output specification.
\subsubsection{Losses for stitch prediction}
\label{sec:net:losses:tags}
Training loss for predicting stitching information consists of the following two terms:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:stitch_loss}
L_{stitches} = {L_{class} + L_{tags}}.
\end{equation}
The class loss $L_{class}$ encourages learning proper edge class, modeled as a binary cross-entropy loss for edges classification into free and non-free. The tag loss $L_{tags}$ enforces the definition of the stitch tags (Sec.~\ref{sec:baseline:stitch_tags}) by referencing a list of stitches from the data. Its formulation is a variation of the triplet loss~\cite{Schultz2003} and consists of two components -- similarity and separation losses. $L_{similarity}$ encourages the stitch tags of a pair of edges that are stitched together to be close to each other, and $L_{separation}$ pushes all the stitch tags from different stitches apart by a predefined margin $\delta$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\label{eq:tag_loss}
L_{tags} &= L_{similarity} + L_{separation} \\
L_{similarity} &= \sum_{\mathclap{(i, j) \in stitches}}
\left \| tag_{i} - tag_{j} \right \|^2 \\
L_{separation} &= \sum_{\mathclap{
\substack{i, j \in non\_free \\
(i, j) \notin stitches}}}
max(\delta - \left \| tag_{i} - tag_{j} \right \|^2, 0),
\end{align*}
where $i$, $j$ are edge IDs, $stitches$ is a set of edge pairs to be stitched together, and $non\_free$ is a set of non-free edges that participate in any of the stitches, as opposed to the edges that are left free. Both sets are obtained from the ground truth sewing pattern.
We found the training to be more efficient if $L_{class}$ and $L_{tags}$ losses are introduced after a few epochs, allowing the model to learn the overall concept of sewing patterns first. In our experiments, these loss components are added after the 40th epoch.
\subsubsection{Implementation of panel ordering and padding}
Evaluation of the above losses requires a choice of panel ordering within a sewing pattern. To ensure that ground truth panels of the same class are matched to the same positions in the net output panel sequence, we organize panels within sewing patterns into panel vectors. We fix the order of panel classes and place each existing panel in the panel vector according to its class id. The slots corresponding to classes not present in a sewing pattern are filled with empty panel placeholders,
represented by zero tensors of the same dimensionality as the actual panels. In contrast to the usual approach of placing the padding at the end of a sequence, this arrangement spreads the panel placeholders across the panel sequence. This strategy allows the ordering to be more consistent across different topologies and encourages the network to explore the similarity between the panels from the same class. In our experience, the choice of padding strategy did not seem to affect the performance of the Baseline model, but it paid off when we improved the architecture, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:NT_framework}.
We additionally experiment with removing the panel order by finding the order of panels in the ground truth that best matches the order of panels in predicted sewing patterns, similarly to OrderlessRNN~\cite{OguzYazici2020OrderlessClassification}. The matching is performed by solving an assignment problem between the two sets of panels with an off-the-shelf algorithm. The distances between panels are evaluated as Euclidean distances of their vector representation consisting of the concatenation of all the edge features in a panel and 6D placement vector.
\section{NeuralTailor: Improvements for generalization}
\label{sec:NT_framework}
\input{fig_tex/nn_NeuralTailor}
We introduce two modifications to the baseline framework that encourage modular and local context-based reasoning within the architecture. These features enable recognizing familiar panel components and reconstructing novel pattern topologies by recombining these components.
\subsection{Attention-based Panel Encodings}
\label{sec:net:attention}
\input{fig_tex/att_weights}
As introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:baseline_model}, the baseline model employs sequence prediction from global garment latent code to reconstruct the latent codes for individual panels. This global bottleneck makes the model prone to relying on the overall shape of the garment and less likely to exploit its per-component structure.
Another option would be to attend to only a relevant part of the input point cloud to construct a latent code for a corresponding panel. This approach would allow the model to construct the final sewing pattern from relevant pieces. An additional consideration is that
garments of different types have a different number of panels, and the types of panels differ, too.
One thing we may safely assume is that one sewing pattern contains no more than one panel of each panel class as per the definition of panel classes (Sec.~\ref{sec:data:classes}). Hence, we implement the attention idea by introducing an additional MLP module that acts on point feature vectors and predicts per-point per-panel-class probability scores of how likely it is that a particular point belongs to a given panel class, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:net:neural_tailor_full}. The model then obtains encodings for each panel class by simply pooling point features as given by the encoder (Sec.~\ref{sec:baseline:point_encoder}) weighted by the attention scores of the relevant class.
Ideally, attention weights should encourage the recognition of components corresponding to panel classes across different garments. Hence, we would like attention weights to highlight only the minimal local context relevant to each panel class. For that reason, weights should be sparse, and each point should participate in just one or a few classes. We encourage this behavior by employing SparseMax~\cite{pmlr-v48-martins16} as the last layer of the attention module evaluated on per-point attention scores.
Examples of attention weights predicted by our framework are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:att_weights}. The attention weights highlight the local context and contain additional clues related to garment type.
\subsection{Stitching Information Regression Neural Network}
\label{sec:net:stitch_model}
Stitch-tag-based pattern stitches prediction of the baseline model yields an effective representation of stitches to reconstruct the whole sewing pattern in one single model.
However, both stitching information and panel shape are inferred from the same panel latent code, which may give an entangling effect of the two properties. For example, front panels of T-shirts and jumpsuits have only one difference -- the latter requires the bottom edge to be separated into two for correct connection with pant panels. Although the training set contains examples of T-shirt front panels connected to sleeves, it does not have such examples for jumpsuits. Having stitching information entangled with shape may result in the network replicating this bias of the training data and refusing to predict stitches for jumpsuits front panels even when sleeves are present in the input 3D point cloud.
For this reason, we shifted towards considering the panel edges as individual objects rather than panels' parts. We hypothesize that the pattern geometry and panel placement may provide enough information to predict the stitches without accessing the input geometry. Surprisingly, it turned out to be true.
We constructed a simple MLP model that takes a pair of sewing pattern edges as input and outputs the probability of these edges being connected by a stitch (Fig.~\ref{fig:net:neural_tailor_full}). Each edge is represented as a vector
\[
(v_x^{start}, v_y^{start}, v_z^{start}, v_x^{end}, v_y^{end}, v_z^{end}, c_x, c_y),
\]
where $(v_x^{start}, v_y^{start}, v_z^{start})$ and $(v_x^{end}, v_y^{end}, v_z^{end})$ are 3D coordinates relative to the body model of panel vertices connected by the stitch, and $(c_x, c_y)$ are the edge curvature control point coordinates, as described in~\ref{sec:baseline:edge_feature}.
\subsubsection{Training set structure}
\label{sec:stitch_model:training set}
The only tricky part of training this stitch classification model was setting up the training set. A naive training set would include all possible combinations of edge pairs for each sewing pattern in the garment dataset. This training set is highly unbalanced as most edge combinations are not connected by a stitch. It also has inadequately more examples for complex patterns with many panels than simpler ones, as the number of edge pairs grows quadratically with the total number of edges in a sewing pattern. The latter property also results in the fast growth of the training set size as we add more sewing patterns to it. Instead, on each epoch, we sample a given number of edge pairs from each sewing pattern, with oversampling of stitched pairs and under-sampling of non-connected pairs. Since our dataset contains many samples that share sewing pattern topologies, we expect the network to get enough clues for non-connected pairs during training. In addition to these precautions, we avoid bias towards a particular choice of vertices or edges order in pairs by randomizing these properties at training time.
\subsection{Training process adjustments}
Training of NeuralTailor framework is now performed in two steps: first, training the model for pattern shape regression, and second, training the stitch prediction model, in this order. The stitch prediction model is trained on the edge features reconstructed by the pattern shape model instead of using edges from ground truth sewing patterns. This decision increases robustness to noise in the pattern shape model output at inference time, which we demonstrate in Sec.~\ref{sec:eval:stitch_train_set}.
The losses for each model are adjusted as follows. Since the stitch prediction moves to a separate module, the $L_{stitches}$ is not needed for training the pattern shape regression; hence the total loss for it is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shape_loss}
L_{pattern shape} = L_{edge} + L_{loop} + L_{placement},
\end{equation}
with $L_{edge}$, $L_{loop}$, and $L_{placement}$ being the same as introduced in~Sec.~\ref{sec:baseline:losses}. The ordering of ground truth panels for loss evaluations follows the same scheme based on panel classes as for the baseline model training. As for stitch regression model, we train it as a binary classification task using binary cross-entropy loss (BCE).
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
\input{tables/shape_experiments}
\input{tables/stitch_prediction}
This section demonstrates the capabilities of NeuralTailor in different setups. First, we introduce the collection of measurements to evaluate sewing pattern prediction quality. We then compare the performance of NeuralTailor with our baseline solutions for pattern shape and stitch information reconstruction on garment types that were used or hidden during training. We then further analyze the behavior of the framework with different loss conditions, the effects of changing the panel classes or removing dataset filtering (as introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:dataset}), as well as the potential for generalization to in-the-wild data. Lastly, we compare sewing patterns predicted by NeuralTailor with the patterns suggested by a recent work solving a similar problem~\cite{Bang2021EstimatingData}.
\subsection{Metrics}
We evaluate the accuracy in predicting the number of panels within every pattern (\textbf{\#Panels}) and the number of edges within every panel (\textbf{\#Edges}).
The cases in which the panel loop does not return to the origin are counted as having an incorrect number of edges as they usually require adding an edge to produce a connected shape. To estimate the quality of panel shape predictions, we use the average distance ($L2$ norm) between the vertices of predicted and ground truth panels with curvature coordinates converted to panel space and acting as panel vertices in this comparison (\textbf{Panel L2}). Similarly, we report $L2$ norm on the differences of predicted panel rotations (\textbf{Rot L2}) and translations (\textbf{Transl L2}) with ground truth values. The quality of predicted stitching information is described by a mean precision (\textbf{Precision}) and recall (\textbf{Recall}) of predicted stitches.
\subsection{Comparing LSTM and Attention-based solutions for pattern shape recovery}
\label{sec:eval:generalization}
Here we compare the baseline hierarchical LSTM (\textbf{LSTM}) architecture, which relies on the global garment latent codes, versus the attention-based model for pattern shape recovery (\textbf{Att}). The presence of Stitch Tags in the output affects the performance of both models (Sec.~\ref{sec:eval:stitch_tag_ablation}), so for a cleaner comparison of shape recovery, we train and compare both architectures without stitch tags. We evaluate the models on the test set consisting of unseen garment examples of the same types that were used during training and on completely new types, according to the split described in Sec.~\ref{sec:data:split}. As can be seen from the results reported in Table~\ref{tab:shape_eval}, the baseline solution performs reasonably well on familiar types. However, it fails to generalize with less than 7\% success rate for predicting the correct number of panels in sewing patterns. An orderless loss (\textbf{LSTM Orderless}), which was found beneficial for RNN-based image multi-labeling task~\cite{OguzYazici2020OrderlessClassification}, did not improve the results. However, the attention-based solution showcases the ability to predict sewing patterns for the garment types unseen during training, correctly predicting the number of panels in more than 80\% of cases and performing well on other metrics. Examples of successful reconstructions are given in the supplementary materials, Fig.~\ref{fig:sup:test_unseen_results} and Fig.~\ref{fig:sup:test_seen_results}. In addition, the attention-based solution produces better panel shape quality (1.5 versus 2.7 Panel L2 for LSTM) on the test set but with somewhat less accurate panel placement.
\subsection{Choosing the method for stitch prediction}
\label{sec:stitches_eval}
To faithfully compare the two solutions for stitch prediction -- stitch tags as edge features and separate edge pairs classifier -- we evaluate both models on attention-based pattern shape prediction solution. We either train it jointly with stitch tags or use a trained pattern shape prediction model to produce inputs for the stitch model. The LSTM-based method does not generalize to novel garment types (Sec.~\ref{sec:eval:generalization}); hence it cannot provide suitable inputs for stitching information recovery methods for those cases. In the case of unseen garment types, we evaluate precision and recall scores only on the outputs with a correctly predicted number of panels to prevent errors of the shape prediction model from affecting the stitch metrics.
The results of the evaluation are given in Table~\ref{tab:stitch-eval}. While stitch tags give near-perfect predictions on known types, their performance on unseen types is inferior to the best separate stitch model (\textbf{Model on Predictions}) in both precision and recall scores. In addition, training models with stitch tags seem to affect the performance of the shape prediction quality for both LSTM and attention-based solutions compared to the models trained without them (Table~\ref{tab:shape_eval}). Pattern shape model training with stitch tags is significantly slower (by about 15h on 2 GPU training). In contrast, the stitch classifier is lightweight, with 20 min training on a single GPU aided by two-hour inference of pattern shape model on the entire training set on a single GPU to obtain training data for stitch prediction.
We believe that the successful performance of a simple edge classifier model is explained by the fact that connected edges often have similar shapes, are close to each other in 3D, and stitches are often concentrated around certain body areas in our dataset. The latter might not hold for more complex garment types; hence a more sophisticated solution might be needed in the future. Another essential feature of the model is its reliance on only the local context of a potential stitch, which allows for a good performance on unseen garment types.
\subsubsection{Training set source for stitch prediction}
\label{sec:eval:stitch_train_set}
There are two options for choosing the type of input source to train connectivity prediction: using the edge vectors from ground truth panels or using the edges outputted by the trained pattern shape prediction module. We experimented with both approaches and then tested both models on the set of patterns outputted by the pattern shape prediction module as part of the integrated pipeline (Table~\ref{tab:stitch-eval}). As expected, the stitch model trained on the pattern shape predictions is more robust to the noisy inputs than the model trained on clean ground truth edges, hence having a significantly better performance for both seen and unseen garment types.
\subsection{Loss ablation study}
Most of the losses we use for training pattern shape prediction or stitching are indispensable components, without which the network will output random values for the corresponding variables.
However, we find the need to justify the usage of loop loss for panel shape predictions and discuss encouraging segmentation-like behavior in attention scores and the effect of stitch tags prediction on shapes.
\subsubsection{Loop loss}
\input{fig_tex/loop_loss}
A model trained with only the basic losses, excluding the loop loss, tends to produce panels with the last edge not perfectly connected to the first one (Fig.~\ref{fig:eval:loop_loss}). Loop loss helps alleviate this issue. Quantitative analysis also reflects this effect: the overall edge accuracy score drops drastically when the loop loss is removed from the training process (Table~\ref{tab:shape_eval}).
\input{fig_tex/topology_fails}
\subsubsection{Effect of stitch tags presence}
\label{sec:eval:stitch_tag_ablation}
Experiments for both LSTM and Attention-based architectures show that the presence of stitch tags in the model negatively affects the quality of predicted panel shapes (Table~\ref{tab:shape_eval}). We conjecture that the reduction of complexity of both the output and the loss function when stitch tags are removed helps improve training for the rest of the sewing pattern features. These experiments provide an additional reason to prefer the separate stitching information regression model to the stitch tags-based solution.
\subsubsection{Learned attention scores vs. segmentation}
The way we formulate the attention scores (Sec.~\ref{sec:net:attention}) is very similar to the typical formulation for 3D model segmentation output layers. We also had an intuition that attention scores should resemble segmentation because they should attend to the area of the input 3D model corresponding to that particular panel location. With these two factors, it seems natural to encourage this segmentation-like behavior in attention scores explicitly using segmentation loss and ground truth segmentation labels provided with the dataset.
We implement segmentation loss on SparseMax scores as introduced in the original paper~\cite{pmlr-v48-martins16} and add to the other losses on pattern shape with weighting to balance the scales of errors. The point cloud segmentation of inputs is transferred from the original mesh segmentation by taking the class of the nearest neighbor of each sampled point.
Results for the model trained on Segmentation loss (\textbf{Att w Segm}) are reported in Table~\ref{tab:shape_eval}. Unfortunately, segmentation loss was detrimental to performance on both parts of the test set. A closer inspection of attention scores generated by the model trained without segmentation loss (Fig.~\ref{fig:att_weights}) reveals that while attention tends to concentrate on the areas close to the corresponding panel, it also spreads to the areas of a panel's symmetric counterpart and to the areas that reveal related global features (e.g., the number of edges in top front or back panels depends on whether they connect to pant or skirt panels). Encouraging segmentation behavior may disturb the network from discovering these or similar dependencies.
\subsection{Effects of dataset preprocessing}
As was introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:dataset}, we grouped the panels that compose the sewing patterns of garments in the dataset in classes and additionally filtered samples of the dataset to reduce the design overlap issues. Here we investigate the effect of these decisions.
\subsubsection{Panel classes}
\label{sec:eval:more_classes}
Panels are grouped in classes by their role in the garment and location around the body. For example, we grouped the front panels covering the trunk from t-shirts, dresses, and jumpsuits in one class (the full classification is given in the supplementary materials). However, there are several different ways to assign classes, and we found that the choice might affect the performance of the final panel shape prediction. To demonstrate this effect, we constructed an alternative set of classes where both panels that correspond to the left and right opening of the jackets are assigned a separate class. The original classification grouped one of the sides with full front panels of t-shirts, dresses, and jumpsuits. The results given in Table~\ref{tab:shape_eval} demonstrate that this extended class arrangement (\textbf{Att w Alt Classes}) has worse performance on unseen garment types. In Fig.~\ref{fig:topology_fails} we demonstrate failure cases for these experiments to showcase qualitative differences. For example, when the original classification misses or adds one side of the jacket, the alternative ones miss or add both.
These observations lead to the conclusion that the question of panel classification might be more complex than we initially thought and thus need to be investigated further in more detail in future work.
\subsubsection{Sample filtering}
Table~\ref{tab:shape_eval} shows the results of the attention-based pattern shape prediction as trained on the full dataset without sample filtering (\textbf{Att w/o Data Filter}). The performance of this model on the filtered test set is comparable to the results of our main model (Att), although the panel shape metric is slightly worse on both seen and unseen types. However, we should note that removing filtering, increased the number of garment samples available for training by about two times, which affects the performance as well.
It is noteworthy that the model trained on the full dataset produces different quality errors compared to the original run. Fig.~\ref{fig:topology_fails} shows a prediction of extra sleeve panels for sleeveless but wide garment examples or misinterpretation of a dress as a long t-shirt pattern. These mistakes
appear to be the issues of design overlap, which we mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:data:filter}.
\subsection{Comparison with flattening-based sewing pattern recovery}
\input{fig_tex/comparison_with_sb}
The work in the area of sewing pattern shape recovery is somewhat limited, especially when focusing on the direct estimation of sewing patterns from geometry without access to initial guesses or templates. Our closest competitor is the work of Bang et al.~\shortcite{Bang2021EstimatingData} that uses a flattening-based approach and shows generalization across garment types.
We compare this work with the predictions of NeuralTailor on garments from our test set. Note that our examples present favorable conditions to the work as they contain clean and full geometry with minimum distortions due to human poses. We chose garment samples from types supported by the original work (no jackets, hoods, or jumpsuits). Figure~\ref{fig:evl:compare_with_flattening} demonstrates that while both methods give good results on simple garments (pants, pencil skirt), our method consistently estimates the garment fit better (pants, t-shirt, dress), while the competing technique produces slightly looser garments. NeuralTailor can also handle stylistic panel arrangements that are difficult to recover by the body-part-based cuts (skirt with a belt and flared skirt). Sewing patterns produced by our method are symmetric and contain straight lines and simpler curves, reproducing typically expected sewing pattern shapes.
\subsection{Robustness to input noise}
\label{sec:eval:robustness}
To get a complete picture of the NeuralTailor behavior, we test its robustness to different types of noise present in the input.
\subsubsection{3D Scanning Artifacts Imitation}
Alongside the clean meshes, the dataset contains their corrupted versions. The corruption imitates artifacts of 3D scanning -- missing geometry in the areas invisible to the capturing camera, which is a typical problem for heavy folds (e.g., Fig. 2 in~\cite{Korosteleva2021GeneratingPatterns}). We found that of NeuralTailor is robust to this type of noise (Table~\ref{tab:shape_eval}) despite being trained on full geometry only. Most likely, the randomness and sparsity of point clouds sampled for training encouraged the model to learn how to handle missing geometry. Another reason could be the attention mechanism itself. It focuses the processing on an even smaller number of points, which increases the chances of avoiding the areas where gaps are likely to occur.
\subsubsection{Gaussian Noise}
\input{fig_tex/noise_levels}
In our synthetic point clouds, all the sampled points are located precisely on the surface of the corresponding 3D models. On the other hand, it is natural to expect noise in the points' locations for the in-the-wild 3D scans. We approximate such artifacts by adding Gaussian noise to the point locations of the point clouds in the test set, varying the standard deviation between 0 and 1 cm. Evaluation of NeuralTailor on these inputs (Figure~\ref{fig:noise_lev}) demonstrates performance drop as the noise gets more severe. Hence, NeuralTailor is only capable of handling small levels of noise, as present in high-precision 3D scanning systems.
Improving the robustness to handle noisier data, e.g., from systems like Kinect or single-view RGB reconstructions, would be an interesting direction for future work.
\subsubsection{In-the-wild data}
\input{fig_tex/real_data_cut}
We qualitatively evaluate the framework on the garment captures from Deep Fashion3D dataset~\cite{Zhu2020} (Fig.~\ref{fig:real_data_cut}). We found that the model makes relatively good guesses about the garment structure; for example, jeans got a pattern of classic pants with a belt, a type that was not included in our dataset. On the other hand, the quality of pattern shape and panel placement prediction degraded on the in-the-wild scans, and bridging this sim-to-real gap will be an important direction of future work.
\section{Discussion and Future Work}
\label{sec:discusstion}
This paper presented NeuralTailor, the first learning-based solution for recovering sewing patterns as structures from 3D garment point clouds. We introduced a baseline based on hierarchical LSTMs capable of recovering sewing patterns for drastically different garment types within the same model. We then suggested a novel attention mechanism and a stitch recovery module that both focus on exploring local features to enable generalization to novel garment types and sewing pattern topologies unseen during training.
This work is the first step toward neural sewing pattern recovery. It successfully demonstrates how structured representation and consideration for the local context could allow generalization beyond the data available for training, which is particularly useful for the ever-evolving garment domain.
However, there are several directions left for future research. There is a need for additional solutions to handle overlapping designs and, for example, make the framework produce multiple or any of the plausible patterns for a particular input garment. It would also be interesting to explore if the optimal panel clustering can be found automatically instead of relying on a heuristic decision. The current stitching model prediction, although successful, might benefit from additional exploration and direct access to the input 3D point cloud.
Another consideration for future work is an exploration of symmetrical properties of garments, such as left-right symmetry or symmetry of edges in the stitches. Since symmetry could be violated for stylistic purposes, we avoided incorporating it into our system for generalizability. However, the simplicity of our output sewing pattern structures allows enforcing symmetry in post-processing, e.g., finding corresponding edges by relying on their 3D positions and matching their lengths. Such a post-processing step may further improve the quality of predicted sewing patterns.
On a higher level, an important direction would be to bring the pipeline closer to in-the-wild data. NeuralTailor would improve its applicability by building stronger resistance to noise in the input point clouds, incorporating variations due to material properties, body poses, or shapes, and fine features of sewing pattern design, such as darts, pleats, or complex edge curves. On top of that, it would be important to consider complex garment arrangements, such as heavy occlusions due to garment layering, layering of fabric (e.g., ballroom skirts), accessories that change the standard draped shape like belts, and utilization of complex materials like thick and bumpy winter coats. Bringing these features would require an extension of the currently available datasets. Other technologies, such as domain transfer and adaptation, could also be worth exploring to reduce the need for data labeled with ground truth sewing patterns.
\section*{NeuralTailor: Appendix}
\input{fig_tex/many_preds_unseen}
\section{Implementation details}
\label{sec:supp:implementation}
\subsubsection*{Architecture details}
Each EdgeConv layer in both of our architectures (Figures~\ref{fig:net:baseline},~\ref{fig:net:neural_tailor_full}) uses a small MPL with two hidden layers of 200 neurons each and an output layer of 150 neurons. The dynamic graphs on each layer are constructed using $k=5$ nearest neighbors. Per-point features are aggregated from edge features using max-pooling. The final per-point feature has the size of 153 thanks to skip connection with input point coordinates. Pattern LSTM (Sec.~\ref{sec:baseline:rnn_enc}) cell contains two layers with 250 elements per hidden layer and output of the same size. Attention MLP (Sec.~\ref{sec:net:attention}) consists of 3 layers with 153 neurons each and outputs vector of size 31 (number of panel classes) or 32 for the experiment with additional class (Sec.~\ref{sec:eval:more_classes}). The panel decoder's LSTM cell contains three layers with 250 elements per layer, outputting edge features of size 4 or size 8 if stitching information is included. The maximum number of edges generated by PanelLSTM is 14. The MLP for decoding the panel placement consists of one linear layer mapping the 250-element panel encoding to the vector of 7 elements representing concatenated rotation and translation. The stitch information prediction model (Sec.~\ref{sec:net:stitch_model}) is MLP with 3 layers, a hidden layer size of 200 and an output layer of one neuron. For training this model, we sample 200 edge pairs that are stitched and 200 that are not from each sewing pattern example in the batch. All LSTM cells operate in a one-to-many manner. We construct the input to LSTM as a sequence of duplicated input encodings for the desired length of the output sequence.
\subsubsection*{Data pre-processing}
The 3D garment models from the dataset of~\cite{Korosteleva2021GeneratingPatterns} have a clean mesh structure with visible seam lines. We randomly sample point clouds from the surface of these models. Each sample point cloud contains 2000 points. To stabilize training, we additionally apply standardization (bringing mean to zero and standard deviation to one) on input point clouds, edge vectors, curvature coordinates, and normalization (ensuring all values are between 0 and 1) on panel rotations and translations.
\subsubsection*{Training settings} We found it beneficial to use one-cyclic learning rate scheduling, following recommendations of~\cite{Smith2018ADECAY}, with the maximum learning rate of 0.002. We train all models for 350 epochs with Adam optimizer~\cite{Kingma2015} and batch size of~30 with early stopping enabled for when the model does not improve for consecutive 100 epochs. The training pipeline is implemented with PyTorch~\cite{PyTorchNEURIPS2019_9015}, PyG~\cite{PyG/Fey/Lenssen/2019}, and Weights and Biases~\cite{wandb}.
\subsubsection*{Training times}
Training the pattern recovery model without stitch tags takes about 36 hours on two NVIDIA Titan Xp GPUs. Training of the stitch model follows a similar training setup and takes about 2 hours for inference of pattern shapes from the pattern recovery model on the training set and 30 min of the actual training on a single NVIDIA Titan XP GPU. The full baseline model with LSTM backbone and stitch tag recovery takes 72 hours to train on two NVIDIA Titan Xp GPUs.
\section{Example predictions on the test set}
\input{fig_tex/many_preds_seen}
|
\section{Introduction}
Every real number $x \in (0,1)$ admits a \emph{continued fraction expansion} of the form
\begin{equation}\label{cfe}
x = \dfrac{1}{a_1(x) +\dfrac{1}{a_2(x) +\dfrac{1}{a_3(x)+\ddots}}}:=[a_1(x), a_2(x), a_3(x),\cdots],
\end{equation}
where the \emph{partial quotients} $a_1(x),a_2(x),a_3(x),\cdots$ are positive integers.
Basic properties of continued fractions may be found in \cite{IK02, Khi64} and references therein.\\
\indent
This paper falls into the category of the metric theory of continued fractions. We begin with the Borel-Bernstein theorem (see \cite{BF1912,BE1909,BE1912}), which states that for any $\psi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ the set
$$B(\psi)=\Bigl\{x \in (0,1):a_n(x) \geq \psi(n)\;\text{for infinitely many\;$n$'s}\Bigr\}$$
has Lebesgue measure either $0$ or $1$ according as the series $\sum_{n \geq 1} 1/\psi(n)$ converges or diverges. We are interested at the Hausdorff dimension of the set $B(\psi)$ in the first case when it is of Lebesgue measure $0$.
As a first result toward this direction, Good \cite{Good41} obtained some estimations on the Hausdorff dimension of $B(\psi)$ in 1941. A complete solution to the problem about the Hausdorff dimension of $B(\psi)$ was given by Wang and Wu \cite{WW08}. In other directions, there are many papers investigating the Hausdorff dimension of sets of continued fractions with some restrictions on the growth rate of their partial quotients, see for example, Hirst \cite{Hirst}, Cusick \cite{Cus90}, Wang and Wu \cite{lesWW08A}, Cao, Wang and Wu \cite{CWW}, Takahasi \cite{HT21}.\\
\indent As a consequence of the Borel-Bernstein theorem, for Lebesgue almost all $x \in (0,1)$,
\begin{equation}\label{limsupan}
\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}=1.
\end{equation}
It is shown in \cite{FMS20} that the set of points for which the limsup in \eqref{limsupan} equals to a given non-negative real number has full Hausdorff dimension. More generally, let $\psi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ be a function satisfying $\psi(n)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Fang, Ma and Song \cite{FMS20} calculated the Hausdorff dimensions of the sets
\[
E_{\sup}(\psi)=\Bigl\{x\in(0,1):\ \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\psi(n)}=1\Bigr\},
\]
\[
E_{\inf}(\psi)=\Bigl\{x\in(0,1):\ \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\psi(n)}=1\Bigr\}
\quad \text{and}\quad E(\psi)=E_{\sup}(\psi)\cap E_{\inf}(\psi).
\]
Throughout this paper, we use $\dim_{\rm H}$ to denote the Hausdorff dimension (see \cite{Fal90}).
For the reader's convenience, we list the main results in \cite{FMS20} as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{RAMA}
Let $\psi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ be a function satisfying $\psi(n)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $\psi(n)/n\to0$ as $n\to\infty$, then $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\psi)=1$.
\item If $\psi(n)/n\to\alpha\ (0<\alpha<\infty)$ as $n\to\infty$, then $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\psi)=S(\alpha)$,
where $S:\mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow(1/2,1)$ is a continuous function satisfying
\[\lim\limits_{\alpha\to0}S(\alpha)=1\ \ \text{and}\ \ \lim\limits_{\alpha\to\infty}S(\alpha)=\frac{1}{2}.\]
\item If $\psi(n)/n\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, then $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\psi)=1/(A+1)$,
where $A \in [1,\infty]$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Asup}
\log A:=\liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log\psi(n)}{n}.
\end{equation}
\item $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\inf}(\psi)=1/(B+1)$,
where $B \in [1,\infty]$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Binf}
\log B:=\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log\psi(n)}{n}.
\end{equation}
\item $\dim_{\rm H}E(\psi)=1/(C+1)$,
where $C \in [1,\infty]$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Clim}
C:=1+\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\psi(n+1)}{\psi(1)+\cdots+\psi(n)}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\noindent Moreover, they also remarked that $A\leq B\leq C$ and these three values of $A, B$ and $C$ can be all different for some functions $\psi$.
Recently, the authors of \cite{FMSW21} studied the Hausdorff dimension of the intersection of $E_{\inf}(\psi)$ and the set of points with non-decreasing partial quotients, i.e.,
\[
\Lambda=\bigl\{x\in(0,1): a_{n}(x)\leq a_{n+1}(x), \forall n\geq1\bigr\}.
\]
Let us point out that $\dim_{\rm H}\Lambda=\frac{1}{2}$, which is essentially a result of Ramharter \cite{R85}, see Jordan and Rams \cite{lesJR12} for general results in the setting of infinite iterated function systems. In a previous paper \cite{FMSW21}, the authors studied the dimension of the set
$$E_{\inf}(\Lambda,\psi)= E_{\inf}(\psi) \cap\Lambda,$$
and established the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{inf}
Let $\psi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ be a function satisfying $\psi(n)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $\psi(n)/\log n\to \alpha\ (0\leq\alpha<\infty)$ as $n\to\infty$, then
\[
\dim_{\rm H}E_{\inf}(\Lambda,\psi)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \hbox{$0\leq\alpha<1$;} \\
\frac{\alpha-1}{2\alpha}, & \hbox{$\alpha \geq 1$.}
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\item If $\psi(n)/\log n\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, then
\[\dim_{\rm H}E_{\inf}(\Lambda,\psi)=\frac{1}{B+1},\]
where $B$ is given by \eqref{Binf}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
In this paper, we investigate the Hausdorff dimension of
$$E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi):= E_{\sup}(\psi) \cap\Lambda\quad\text{and}\quad E(\Lambda,\psi):= E(\psi) \cap\Lambda.$$
Our main result is as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{suplim}
Let $\psi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ be a function satisfying $\psi(n)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $\psi(n)/\log n\to \alpha\ (0\leq\alpha<\infty)$ as $n\to\infty$, then
\begin{equation*}
\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)= \dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \hbox{$0\leq\alpha<1$;} \\
\frac{\alpha-1}{2\alpha}, & \hbox{$\alpha \geq 1$.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
\item If $\psi(n)/\log n\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, then
\[\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)=\frac{1}{A+1},\]
where $A$ is given by \eqref{Asup}, and either $E(\Lambda,\psi)=\emptyset$ or
\[
\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi)=\frac{1}{C+1},
\]
where $C$ is given by \eqref{Clim}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\noindent In the case of $\psi(n)=\alpha \log n$ with $0<\alpha <\infty$, by comparing Theorems \ref{inf} and \ref{suplim} with Theorem \ref{RAMA}, we observe that
$$\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\psi)=1,\quad \text{and}\quad \dim_{\rm H}E_{\inf}(\psi)=\dim_{\rm H}E(\psi)=1/2;$$
while the sets $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$, $E_{\inf}(\Lambda,\psi)$ and $E(\Lambda,\psi)$ display a multifractal phenomenon.
\indent The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we first present some elementary properties and then collect some useful lemmas for computing the Hausdorff dimension of some sets in continued fractions. Section 3 is devoted to the proofs of main results.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Elementary properties of continued fractions}
For any $n\geq1$ and $(a_1,\cdots,a_n)\in\mathbb{N}^{n}$, we call
\begin{equation*}
I_{n}(a_1, \cdots, a_n): =\big\{x\in(0,1):\ a_1(x)=a_1, \cdots, a_n(x)=a_n\big\}
\end{equation*}
a \emph{cylinder} of order $n$ associated to $(a_1,\cdots,a_n)$. Denote the $n$-th convergent of the continued fraction expansion of $x$ by
\begin{equation}\label{xnwb}
\frac{p_n(x)}{q_n(x)}:=[a_1(x),a_2(x),\cdots,a_n(x)],
\end{equation}
where $p_n(x)$ and $q_n(x)$ are positive and coprime.
Notice that all points in $I_{n}(a_1, \cdots, a_n)$ have the same $p_n(x)$ and $q_n(x)$. Thus we write
\begin{equation*}
p_n(a_1,\cdots,a_n)=p_n=p_n(x)\ \text{and}\ q_n(a_1,\cdots,a_n)=q_n=q_n(x)
\end{equation*}
for $x\in I_{n}(a_1, \cdots, a_n)$.
It is well known (see \cite[p. 4]{Khi64}) that $p_n$ and $q_n$ satisfy the following recursive formula:
\begin{equation}\label{ppqq}
\begin{cases}
p_n=a_np_{n-1}+p_{n-2};\cr
q_n=a_nq_{n-1}+q_{n-2},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with the conventions $p_{-1}\equiv1, p_0\equiv0$ and $q_{-1}\equiv0, q_0\equiv1$. Consequently, $q_n\geq q_{n-1}+q_{n-2}$, and so
\begin{equation}\label{fn}
q_n\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)^{n}-
\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)^{n}\geq\frac{1}{2\sqrt{5}}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)^{n}.
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}[{\cite[p. 18]{IK02}}]\label{cd}
For any $(a_1,\cdots, a_n)\in\mathbb{N}^{n}$, the cylinder $I_{n}(a_1,\cdots, a_n)$ is the interval with the endpoints
$p_n/q_n$ and $(p_n+p_{n-1})/(q_n+q_{n-1})$. As a result, the length of $I_{n}(a_1, \cdots, a_n)$ equals to
\begin{equation*}
|I_{n}(a_1, \cdots, a_n)|=\frac{1}{q_n(q_n+q_{n-1})}.
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
Combining the second of formula \eqref{ppqq}, \eqref{fn} and Proposition \ref{cd}, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{2cd}
|I_{n}(a_1, \cdots, a_n)| \leq\frac{1}{q^{2}_n}
\leq20\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)^{-2n}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{length}
\left(2^n\prod^n_{k=1}a_k\right)^{-2} \leq |I_n(a_1, \cdots, a_n)| \leq \left(\prod^n_{k=1}a_k\right)^{-2}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Some useful lemmas}
The first lemma is a combinatorial formula on the cardinality (i.e., $\sharp$) of finite sets.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 4.3]{FWS18}}]\label{card}
For positive integers $\ell$ and $n$, let
\[
D(\ell,n):=\big\{(a_1,\cdots,a_n)\in\mathbb{N}^{n}: 1\leq a_1\leq\cdots \leq a_n\leq\ell\big\}.
\]
Then
\[\sharp D(\ell,n)=\frac{(n+\ell-1)!}{n!(\ell-1)!}.\]
\end{lemma}
The second lemma established in \cite{FMSW21} provides a method to obtain a lower bound of the Hausdorff dimension of some sets of continued fractions for which their partial quotients are non-decreasing, see Liao and Rams \cite[Lemma 2.3]{LR21} for general results.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 3.4]{FMSW21}}]\label{fmsw}
Let $\{t_n\}$ be a sequence of positive integers tending to infinity with $t_n\geq2$ for all $n\geq1$. Write
\[
\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\}):=\big\{x\in(0,1): nt_n\leq a_n(x)<(n+1)t_n, \forall\,n\geq1\big\}.
\]
Then
\[
\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})=\frac{1}{2+\xi},
\]
where $\xi \in [0,\infty]$ is given by
\[
\xi:=\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{2\log(n+1)!+\log t_{n+1}}{\log(t_1 t_2\cdots t_n)}.
\]
\end{lemma}
Inspired by the proof of Theorem 2.4 of \cite{FMSW21}, we are able to obtain the following lemma for providing an upper bound of the Hausdorff dimension of the sets $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$, $E_{\inf}(\Lambda,\psi)$ and $E(\Lambda,\psi)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{sj}
Let $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ be two positive real numbers and let
\[\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,\alpha_1,\alpha_2):=\left\{x\in\Lambda: \alpha_1\leq\liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}\leq\alpha_2\right\}.\]
Then for any $\alpha_2\geq\alpha_1\geq1$, we have
\[\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\leq\frac{\alpha_2-1}{2\alpha_1}.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha_2\geq\alpha_1\geq1$ and $0<\varepsilon<\alpha_1$. For $x\in\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, there exists $N\geq1$ such that $a_j(x)\geq j^{\alpha_1-\varepsilon}$ for all $j\geq N$; and $a_k(x)\leq k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}$ for infinitely many $k$'s. Then
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,\alpha_1,\alpha_2) \subseteq \bigcup\limits_{N=1}^{\infty} B_{N}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon),
\end{align*}
where $B_{N}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{bhgx}
B_{N}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon):=\bigcap_{n=N}^{\infty}\bigcup_{k=n}^{\infty}\Big\{x\in\Lambda: a_k(x)\leq k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}, a_{j}(x)\geq j^{\alpha_1-\varepsilon}, \forall N\leq j\leq k\Big\}.
\end{equation}
It follows that
\begin{equation*}\label{wsgx1}
\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\leq\sup_{N\geq1}\big\{\dim_{\rm H}B_{N}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon)\big\}.
\end{equation*}
We shall only computer the upper bound of Hausdorff dimension of $B_{1}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon)$ since the proofs are similar for other cases $N \geq 2$ .
Write
\[
\mathcal{A}_k:=\big\{(a_1, \cdots, a_k)\in\mathbb{N}^{k}:1\leq a_1\leq\cdots \leq a_k \leq k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}, a_j\geq j^{\alpha_1-\varepsilon}, \forall 1\leq j\leq k\big\}.
\]
By \eqref{bhgx}, we have
\begin{equation*}
B_{1}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon)=\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty}\bigcup_{k=n}^{\infty}\bigcup_{(a_1, \cdots, a_k) \in \mathcal{A}_k} I_k(a_1, \cdots, a_k),
\end{equation*}
which means that for any $n \geq 1$, the family $\{I_k(a_1, \cdots, a_k): k \geq n, (a_1, \cdots, a_k) \in \mathcal{A}_k\}$ is a cover of $B_{1}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon)$. To estimate the upper bound of $\dim_{\rm H}B_{1}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon)$, we need the information about the cardinality of $\mathcal{A}_k$ and the length of $I_k(a_1, \cdots, a_k)$.
For the cardinality of $\mathcal{A}_k$, applying Lemma \ref{card}, we deduce that
\begin{align}\label{deltags}
\sharp\mathcal{A}_k \leq \frac{(k+\lfloor k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}\rfloor-1)!}{k!(\lfloor k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}\rfloor-1)!}&\leq
\frac{\lfloor k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}\rfloor\cdot \left(\lfloor k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}\rfloor+1\right)\cdots\left(\lfloor k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}\rfloor+k-1\right)}{k!} \nonumber\\
&\leq\frac{k^{k(\alpha_2+\varepsilon)}}{k!}\cdot\left(1+\frac{1}{k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}}\right)\cdots\left(1+\frac{k-1}{k^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{2^k\cdot k^{k(\alpha_2+\varepsilon)}}{k!}.
\end{align}
Recall the Stirling formula, we get that
\begin{equation*}\label{st}
\sqrt{2\pi}k^{k+\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-k)\leq k!\leq\exp(1)k^{k+\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-k),
\end{equation*}
which, in combination with \eqref{deltags}, implies that
\begin{equation}\label{jqgs}
\sharp\mathcal{A}_k \leq 2^{k}\cdot (k!)^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon-1}\cdot\left(\frac{\exp(k)}{\sqrt{2\pi k}}\right)^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon}\leq 2^{k}\cdot\exp((\alpha_2+\varepsilon)k) \cdot(k!)^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon-1}.
\end{equation}
For the length of $I_k(a_1, \cdots, a_k)$, it follows from \eqref{length} that
\begin{equation}\label{zzss}
|I_k(a_1,\cdots, a_k)| \leq \left(\prod\limits_{j=1}^{k}a _{j}\right)^{-2} \leq (k!)^{-2(\alpha_1-\varepsilon)}.
\end{equation}
Let $s:=\frac{\alpha_2+2\varepsilon-1}{2(\alpha_1-\varepsilon)}$. Denote by $\mathcal{H}^{s}$ the $s$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. We conclude from \eqref{jqgs} and \eqref{zzss} that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}^{s}(B_{1}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon))& \leq\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{(a_1, \cdots, a_k) \in \mathcal{A}_k}|I_{k}(a_1, \cdots,a_k)|^{s}\\
& \leq \liminf_{n\to\infty}\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty} \sharp \mathcal{A}_k \cdot (k!)^{-2s(\alpha_1-\varepsilon)}\\
&\leq\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty}\frac{2^{k}\cdot\exp((\alpha_2+\varepsilon)k) \cdot(k!)^{\alpha_2+\varepsilon-1}}{(k!)^{\alpha_2+2\varepsilon-1}}\\
&=\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty}\frac{2^{k}\cdot\exp((\alpha_2+\varepsilon)k)}
{(k!)^{\varepsilon}}=0.
\end{align*}
This shows that
\[\dim_{\rm H}B_{1}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\varepsilon)\leq\frac{\alpha_2+2\varepsilon-1}{2(\alpha_1-\varepsilon)}.\]
Letting $\varepsilon \to 0^+$, we obtain the desired upper bound.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of main results}
In this section, we will prove Theorem \ref{suplim}. The proof is divided into two cases: the Hausdorff dimension of $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$ and the Hausdorff dimension of $E(\Lambda,\psi)$.
\subsection{Hausdorff dimension of $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$}
Recall that
\[
E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)=\left\{x\in\Lambda:\ \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\psi(n)}=1\right\}.
\]
We will give the proof of Theorem \ref{suplim} for the Hausdorff dimension of $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$ when $\psi(n)/\log n\to\alpha\ (0\leq\alpha<\infty)$ and $\psi(n)/\log n\to \infty$ respectively.
\subsubsection{Case $\psi(n)/\log n\to\alpha\ (0\leq\alpha<\infty)$}
For the upper bound of $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$, we remark that
\begin{equation}\label{inf45}
E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi) \subseteq\left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}\leq\alpha\right\}.
\end{equation}
So it is sufficient to give the upper bound of the Hausdorff dimension of the set on the right-hand side of \eqref{inf45}.
\begin{lemma}\label{infles}
For $0\leq\alpha <\infty$,
\[
\dim_{\rm H}\left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}\leq\alpha\right\} \leq
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \hbox{$0\leq\alpha<1$;} \\
\frac{\alpha-1}{2\alpha}, & \hbox{$\alpha \geq 1$.}
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $0\leq\alpha <1$, let $0<\varepsilon<1-\alpha$. By the definition of liminf,
\begin{equation}\label{1bhgx}
\left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}\leq\alpha\right\}\subseteq\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty}\bigcup_{k=n}^{\infty}\bigcup_{(a_1, \cdots, a_k)\in \mathcal{C}_k}I_k(a_1, \cdots, a_k),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}_{k}$ is given by
\[
\mathcal{C}_{k}:=\big\{(a_1, \cdots, a_k)\in\mathbb{N}^{k}: 1\leq a_1\leq \cdots\leq a_k\leq k^{\alpha+\varepsilon}\big\}.
\]
Note that the cardinality of $\mathcal{C}_k$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{ak33}
\nonumber \sharp \mathcal{C}_k=\frac{(k+\lfloor k^{\alpha+\varepsilon}\rfloor-1)!}{k!(\lfloor k^{\alpha+\varepsilon}\rfloor-1)!}
&\leq (k+1)\cdots(k+\lfloor k^{\alpha+\varepsilon}\rfloor-1)\\
&<(k+k^{\alpha+\varepsilon})^{k^{\alpha+\varepsilon}} \nonumber\\
&< \exp(k^{\alpha+\varepsilon}(\log k+1)),
\end{align}
and for any $(a_1, \cdots, a_k) \in \mathcal{C}_k$, it derives from \eqref{2cd} that
\begin{equation}\label{20}
|I_{k}(a_1, \cdots, a_k)| \leq20\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)^{-2k}.
\end{equation}
Taking $s=\varepsilon$ and combining \eqref{1bhgx}, \eqref{ak33} and \eqref{20}, we conclude that the $s$-dimensional Hausdorff measure of the set on the right-hand side of \eqref{inf45} is not greater than
\begin{align*}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{(a_1, \cdots, a_k) \in \mathcal{C}_k}|I_{k}(a_1, \cdots,a_k)|^{s}
& \leq \liminf_{n\to\infty}\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty} \sharp \mathcal{C}_k \cdot \frac{20^{\varepsilon}}{\big((1+\sqrt{5})/2\big)^{2k\varepsilon}}\\
& \leq \liminf_{n\to\infty}\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty}\frac{20^{\varepsilon}\cdot\exp(k^{\alpha+\varepsilon}(\log k+1))}{\big((1+\sqrt{5})/2\big)^{2k\varepsilon}}=0,
\end{align*}
which yields that
\[
\dim_{\rm H}\left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}\leq\alpha\right\} \leq 0
\]
since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary.
For $\alpha \geq 1$, we point out that
\begin{equation}\label{ii}
\left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}\leq\alpha\right\} = \left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}<1\right\} \bigcup \mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1,\alpha),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1,\alpha)$ is defined as in Lemma \ref{sj}. Note that
\[
\left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}<1\right\} = \bigcup^\infty_{K=1} \left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n} \leq 1 -\frac{1}{K}\right\},
\]
so it has Hausdorff dimension zero. By \eqref{ii}, we need only consider the upper bound of $\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1,\alpha)$. When $\alpha =1$, we have $\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1,\alpha) =0$ by Theorem \ref{inf}. When $\alpha >1$, since for any $n >\alpha-1$,
\[
\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1,\alpha) \subseteq \bigcup^{n-1}_{k=0} \mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1+k\cdot\frac{\alpha-1}{n}, 1+(k+1)\cdot\frac{\alpha-1}{n}),
\]
it follows from Lemma \ref{sj} that
\begin{align*}
\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1,\alpha) &\leq \max_{0 \leq k \leq n-1} \left\{\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E} (\Lambda,1+k\cdot\frac{\alpha-1}{n}, 1+(k+1)\cdot\frac{\alpha-1}{n})\right\} \nonumber \\
&\leq \max_{0 \leq k \leq n-1} \left\{ \frac{(k+1)\cdot \frac{\alpha-1}{n}}{2(1+k\cdot \frac{\alpha-1}{n})}\right\}.
\end{align*}
Combining this with the fact that for $0<\beta <1$, the map $x\mapsto \frac{(x+1)\beta}{2(1+x\beta)}$ is increasing, we see that
\begin{align*}
\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1,\alpha) \leq \frac{\alpha-1}{2(1+(\alpha-1)\cdot\frac{n-1}{n})}.
\end{align*}
Letting $n \to \infty$, we get that $\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\Lambda,1,\alpha) \leq (\alpha -1)/(2\alpha)$. In view of \eqref{ii},
\begin{equation*}
\dim_{\rm H}\left\{x\in\Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}\leq\alpha\right\} \leq \frac{\alpha -1}{2\alpha}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
For the lower bound of $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$, when $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, we have $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi) =0$; when $\alpha >1$, let $t_n:=2\lfloor n^{\alpha-1}\rfloor$ and
\[
\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})=\big\{x\in (0,1): nt_n\leq a_n(x)<(n+1)t_n, \forall n\geq1\big\}.
\]
Then $\{t_n\}$ is non-decreasing, and so $\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})$ is a subset of $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$. Since
\[
\xi= \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{2\log(n+1)!+\log t_{n+1}}{\log(t_1 t_2\cdots t_n)} = \frac{2}{\alpha -1},
\]
applying Lemma \ref{fmsw}, we deduce that
\begin{align*}
\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)\geq\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\}) = \frac{1}{2+\xi} = \frac{\alpha -1}{2\alpha}.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Case $\psi(n)/\log n\to\infty$ }
For the upper bound of $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$, we remark that $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi) \subseteq F(\Lambda,\psi)$, where $F(\Lambda,\psi)$ is given by
\[
F(\Lambda,\psi):= \Big\{x\in\Lambda: a_n(x)\geq 2^{\psi(n)}\ \text{for infinitely many $n$'s}\Big\}.
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{varphi}
Let $\varphi: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}^+$ be a function. Then
\[
\dim_{\rm H}F(\Lambda,\varphi) = \frac{1}{\gamma+1},
\]
where $\gamma \in [1,\infty]$ is given by
\[
\log \gamma:=\liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log\varphi(n)}{n}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $a, b>1$, let
\[
F(\Lambda,a,b):= \Big\{x\in\Lambda: a_n(x)\geq a^{b^n}, \forall n \geq 1\Big\}
\]
and
\[
\widetilde{F}(\Lambda,a,b):= \Big\{x\in\Lambda: a_n(x)\geq a^{b^n}\ \text{for infinitely many $n$'s}\Big\}.
\]
We claim that
\begin{equation*}\label{Lab}
\dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,a,b) = \dim_{\rm H} \widetilde{F}(\Lambda,a,b) = \frac{1}{b+1}.
\end{equation*}
In fact, the lower bound of $\dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,a,b)$ can be read off from Lemma \ref{fmsw} by putting $t_n:=2a^{b^n}$ and the upper bound of $\dim_{\rm H} \widetilde{F}(\Lambda,a,b)$ follows from the result of {\L}uczak \cite{Luc97} (see \cite{WW08} for general results).
Next we are ready to deal with $\dim_{\rm H}F(\Lambda,\varphi)$ according to $\gamma =1$, $1<\gamma <\infty$ and $\gamma =\infty$ respectively.
When $\gamma =1$, for any small $\varepsilon >0$, we see that $\varphi(n) \leq (1+\varepsilon)^n$ for infinitely many $n$'s. Then $F(\Lambda,2, 1+\varepsilon) \subseteq F(\Lambda,\varphi)$, and so
\[
\frac{1}{2+\varepsilon} = \dim_{\rm H}F(\Lambda,2, 1+\varepsilon) \leq \dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,\varphi) \leq \dim_{\rm H} \Lambda = \frac{1}{2}.
\]
Letting $\varepsilon \to 0^+$, we obtain $\dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,\varphi) = 1/2 =1/(\gamma+1)$.
When $1<\gamma <\infty$, for any small $0<\varepsilon <\gamma-1$, we see that $\varphi(n) \geq (\gamma-\varepsilon)^n$ for sufficiently large $n$, and $\varphi(n) \leq (\gamma+\varepsilon)^n$ for infinitely many $n$'s.
Then $F(\Lambda,2, \gamma+\varepsilon) \subseteq F(\Lambda,\varphi) \subseteq \widetilde{F}(\Lambda,2,\gamma-\varepsilon)$, and so
\[
\frac{1}{\gamma+\varepsilon +1} =\dim_{\rm H}F(\Lambda,2, \gamma+\varepsilon) \leq \dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,\varphi) \leq \dim_{\rm H}\widetilde{F}(\Lambda,2,\gamma-\varepsilon) = \frac{1}{\gamma-\varepsilon +1}.
\]
Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, we have $\dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,\varphi) =1/(\gamma+1)$.
When $\gamma =\infty$, for any large $K>1$, we see that $\varphi(n) \geq K^n$ for sufficiently large $n$. Then $F(\Lambda,\varphi) \subseteq \widetilde{F}(\Lambda,2,K)$, and so
\[
\dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,\varphi) \leq \dim_{\rm H}\widetilde{F}(\Lambda,2,K) = \frac{1}{K +1},
\]
which implies that $\dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,\varphi) = 0 =1/(\gamma+1)$ by letting $K \to \infty$.
\end{proof}
From Lemma \ref{varphi}, we deduce that
\[
\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi) \leq \dim_{\rm H} F(\Lambda,\psi) = \frac{1}{A+1}\ \ \text{with}\ \ \log A =\liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log\psi(n)}{n}.
\]
For the lower bound of $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$, we shall construct a suitable subset of $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$. To this end, we follow the notation used in \cite[p.\,901--903]{FMS20}.
Let
\begin{equation*}
\theta(n):=\min\limits_{k\geq n}\{\psi(k)\},\ \ \forall n\geq1
\end{equation*}
and define a sequence $\{d_n\}$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
d_1:=\exp(\theta(1))\ \ \text{and}\ \ d_n:=\min\left\{\exp(\theta(n)),\prod\limits_{k=1}^{n-1}d^{A-1+\varepsilon}_k\right\}\ (n\geq2).
\end{equation*}
Then $d_{n+1}\geq d_n\,(\forall n\geq2)$,
\begin{align}\label{dnlogn}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log d_{n}}{\log n} =\infty,
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{wan3}
\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log d_{n+2}}{\log d_2+\cdots+\log d_{n+1}} \leq A-1+\varepsilon
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{cn}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log d_n}{\psi(n)}=1.
\end{equation}
Let $t_n:= 2d_{n+1}$ for all $n \geq 1$. Then $\{t_n\}$ is non-decreasing. Write
\[
\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})=\big\{x\in (0,1): nt_n\leq a_n(x)<(n+1)t_n, \forall n\geq1\big\}.
\]
By \eqref{cn} and the condition $\psi(n)/\log n\to\infty$ as $n \to \infty$, we see that $\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})$ is a subset of $E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)$. It follows from Lemma \ref{fmsw} that
\begin{equation*}
\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi) \geq \dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})= \frac{1}{2+\xi}\ \ \text{with}\ \ \xi= \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{2\log(n+1)!+
\log d_{n+2}}{\log d_2+\cdots+\log d_{n+1}}.
\end{equation*}
By the Stolz-Ces\`{a}ro theorem, \eqref{dnlogn} and \eqref{wan3}, we deduce that
\begin{align*}
\xi &\leq \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{2\log(n+1)!}{\log d_2+\cdots+\log d_{n+1}}
+\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log d_{n+2}}{\log d_2+\cdots+\log d_{n+1}}\\
\nonumber &\leq \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{2\log(n+1)}{\log d_{n+1}}+
A-1+\varepsilon\\
&=A-1+\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)\geq \frac{1}{A+1+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrarily, we get that $\dim_{\rm H}E_{\sup}(\Lambda,\psi)\geq 1/(A+1)$.
\subsection{Hausdorff dimension of $E(\Lambda, \psi)$}
Let $\psi$ and $\widetilde{\psi}$ be positive functions defined on $\mathbb{N}$. We say that $\psi$ and $\widetilde{\psi}$ are \emph{equivalent} if $\psi(n)/\widetilde{\psi}(n)\to1$ as $n\to\infty$.
Recall that
\[
E(\Lambda, \psi)=\left\{x\in \Lambda: \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\psi(n)}=1\right\}.
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{limnon-empty}
$E(\Lambda,\psi)\neq\emptyset$ if and only if $\psi$ is equivalent to a non-decreasing function.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $E(\Lambda,\psi)\neq\emptyset$, then we take $x_0\in E(\Lambda,\psi)$, and so
\[
a_{n+1}(x_0)\geq a_n(x_0), \forall n \geq 1\ \ \text{and}\ \ \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x_0)}{\psi(n)}=1.
\]
Define $\widetilde{\psi}(n):=\lfloor\log a_n(x_0)\rfloor+1$ for all $n\geq1$. Then we see that $\widetilde{\psi}$ is non-decreasing and is equivalent to $\psi$.
Suppose that $\psi$ and $\widetilde{\psi}$ are equivalent and $\widetilde{\psi}$ is non-decreasing. Define a point $\widetilde{x}\in(0,1)$ such that $a_n(\widetilde{x})=\lfloor\exp(\widetilde{\psi}(n))\rfloor$ for all $n\geq1$.
Then $a_{n+1}(\widetilde{x})\geq a_n(\widetilde{x}), \forall n \geq 1$ and
\[
\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(\widetilde{x})}{\psi(n)}= \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\widetilde{\psi}(n)}{\psi(n)}=1.
\]
That is to say, $\widetilde{x}\in E(\Lambda,\psi)$, and thus $E(\Lambda,\psi)\neq\emptyset$.
\end{proof}
We remark that $E(\Lambda,\psi)=E(\Lambda,\tilde{\psi})$ if $\psi$ and $\tilde{\psi}$ are equivalent. By Lemma \ref{limnon-empty}, we assume that $\psi$ is non-decreasing in dealing with $E(\Lambda, \psi)$.
\subsubsection{Case $\psi(n)/\log n\to\alpha\ (0\leq\alpha<\infty)$}
For the upper bound of $\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda, \psi)$, we see that
\[
E(\Lambda, \psi) \subseteq \left\{x\in \Lambda: \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}=\alpha\right\}\subseteq \left\{x\in \Lambda: \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log a_n(x)}{\log n}=\alpha\right\}.
\]
It follows from Theorem \ref{inf} that
\[
\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda, \psi) \leq
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \hbox{$0\leq\alpha<1$;} \\
\frac{\alpha-1}{2\alpha}, & \hbox{$\alpha \geq 1$.}
\end{array}
\right.
\]
For the lower bound of $\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda, \psi)$, when $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, we have $\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi) =0$; when $\alpha >1$, let $t_n:=2\lfloor n^{\alpha-1}\rfloor$ and
\[
\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})=\big\{x\in (0,1): nt_n\leq a_n(x)<(n+1)t_n, \forall n\geq1\big\}.
\]
Then $\{t_n\}$ is non-decreasing, and so $\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})$ is a subset of $E(\Lambda,\psi)$. Since
\[
\xi= \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{2\log(n+1)!+\log t_{n+1}}{\log(t_1 t_2\cdots t_n)} = \frac{2}{\alpha -1},
\]
applying Lemma \ref{fmsw}, we deduce that
\begin{align*}
\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi)\geq\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\}) = \frac{1}{2+\xi} = \frac{\alpha -1}{2\alpha}.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Case $\psi(n)/\log n\to\infty$}
For the upper bound of $\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi)$, it follows from Theorem \ref{RAMA} (v) that
\[
\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi) \leq \dim_{\rm H}E(\psi) = \frac{1}{C+1}.
\]
For the lower bound of $\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi)$, let $t_n:=\lfloor \exp(\psi(n)+1)\rfloor$, then $t_n\geq2$ and $\{t_n\}$ is non-decreasing since $\psi$ is non-decreasing.
Write
\[
\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})=\Big\{x\in(0,1): nt_n\leq a_n(x)<(n+1)t_n, \forall n\geq1\Big\}.
\]
Since $\psi(n)/\log n\to\infty$ as $n \to \infty$, we deduce that $\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\})\subseteq E(\Lambda,\psi)$. Applying Lemma \ref{fmsw}, we conclude that
\begin{align*}
\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi)\geq\dim_{\rm H}\mathbb{E}(\{t_n\}) = \frac{1}{2+\xi} \ \ \text{with}\ \ \xi= \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{2\log(n+1)!+
\psi(n+1)}{\psi(1) +\cdots +\psi(n)}.
\end{align*}
By the Stolz-Ces\`{a}ro theorem, we get that
\begin{align*}
\xi &\leq \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{2\log(n+1)!}{\psi(1) +\cdots +\psi(n)} + \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\psi(n+1)}{\psi(1) +\cdots +\psi(n)}\\
&\leq \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log(n+1)}{\psi(n)} + C-1\\
&= C-1.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\[
\dim_{\rm H}E(\Lambda,\psi)\geq \frac{1}{C+1}.
\]
{\bf Acknowledgement:}
The research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos.\,11771153, 11801591, 11971195, 12071171, 12171107), Jiangsu Province Innovation \& Entrepreneurship Doctor Talent Program (No.\,JSSCBS20210201) and Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No.\,2021A1515010056).
\section*{Reference}
|
\section{Additional Results}
\subsection{Ablation Study for $\alpha$ and $\beta$}
Figure \ref{fig:app:mean_var} shows the results of \emph{PII}{} when varying the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, which determine the intervals from which the ColorShift constants are randomly drawn. Based on this and similar experiments, we permanently fix these parameters to $\alpha = \beta = 1.0$ for all other \emph{PII}{} experiments, and find that these values indeed transfer well to other models.
\def \varmeanvar{10.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{cYYYYYYY}
& $\beta=0$ & $\beta=0.1$ & $\beta=0.5$ & $\beta=1.0$ & $\beta=2.0$ & $\beta=4.0$ & $\beta=8.0$ \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{$\alpha=0$} } &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.0_0.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.0_0.1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.0_0.5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.0_1.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.0_2.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.0_4.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.0_8.0.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{$\alpha=0.1$} } &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.1_0.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.1_0.1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.1_0.5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.1_1.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.1_2.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.1_4.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.1_8.0.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{$\alpha=0.5$} } &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.5_0.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.5_0.1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.5_0.5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.5_1.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.5_2.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.5_4.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_0.5_8.0.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{$\alpha=1.0$} } &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_1.0_0.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_1.0_0.1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_1.0_0.5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_1.0_1.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_1.0_2.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_1.0_4.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_1.0_8.0.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{$\alpha=2.0$} } &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_2.0_0.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_2.0_0.1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_2.0_0.5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_2.0_1.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_2.0_2.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_2.0_4.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_2.0_8.0.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{$\alpha=4.0$} } &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_4.0_0.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_4.0_0.1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_4.0_0.5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_4.0_1.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_4.0_2.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_4.0_4.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_4.0_8.0.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{$\alpha=8.0$} } &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_8.0_0.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_8.0_0.1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_8.0_0.5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_8.0_1.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_8.0_2.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_8.0_4.0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=\varmeanvar]{images/ablate_color/0_8.0_8.0.jpg} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Effect of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on the quality of the images generated by \text{\emph{PII}} from a naturally-trained ResNet-50 for the Tench class.}
\label{fig:app:mean_var}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Insensitivity to TV regularization}
Figure \ref{fig:app:tv} shows additional results on the effect of ColorShift on the sensitivity to the weight of TV regularization when inverting a robust model, complementing Figure \ref{fig:tv}. As in the earlier figure, we observe that certain values of $\lambda_{TV}$ may produce noisy or blurred images when not using ColorShift, whereas the ColorShift results are quite stable.
\def \vartv{10.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.90.125\linewidth}{cYYYYYY}
$log(\lambda_{tv}):$ & $-9$ & $-8$ & $-7$ & $-6$ & $-5$ & $-4$ \\
\iffalse
\raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/ \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/105_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/105_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/105_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/105_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/105_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/105_0.png} \\ \raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/o \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/105_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/105_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/105_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/105_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/105_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/105_0.png} \\ \hline
\fi
\raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/ \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/334_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/334_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/334_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/334_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/334_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/334_0.png} \\ \raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/o \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/334_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/334_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/334_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/334_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/334_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/334_0.png} \\ \hline
\raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/ \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/360_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/360_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/360_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/360_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/360_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/360_0.png} \\ \raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/o \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/360_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/360_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/360_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/360_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/360_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/360_0.png} \\ \hline
\raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/ \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/79_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/79_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/79_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/79_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/79_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/79_0.png} \\ \raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/o \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/79_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/79_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/79_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/79_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/79_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/79_0.png} \\ \hline
\raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/ \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/87_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/87_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/87_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/87_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/87_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/no_tv/87_0.png} \\ \raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/o \text{CS}} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/87_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/87_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/87_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/87_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/87_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vartv]{images/tv/tv/87_0.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Effect of TV with and without \text{ColorShift}. With \text{ColorShift} it is clear that there is no need for hyper-parameter tuning for parameters such as TV. Images from the robust ResNet-50.}
\label{fig:app:tv}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection{Effect of Centering}
Figures \ref{fig:app:robust_centering} and \ref{fig:app:nat_centering} show the effect of \emph{centering} on inverting a robust and natural model, respectively.
\def \varcenterapp{0.125\linewidth}
\def 0pt{0pt}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.90.125\linewidth}{YYYYYYYY}
Cen & Not Cen & Cen & Not Cen & Cen & Not Cen & Cen & Not Cen \\
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/11_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/11_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/37_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/37_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/70_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/70_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/75_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/75_not.png} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Gold Finch} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Box Turtle} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Harvestman} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Black Widow} \\
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/80_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/80_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/98_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/98_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/182_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/182_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/300_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/300_not.png} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Black Grouse} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Mergus Serrator} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Border Terrier} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Tiger Beetle} \\
\iffalse
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/306_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/306_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/308_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/308_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/335_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/335_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/320_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/320_not.png} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Rhinoceros Beetle} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Fly} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Fox Squirrel} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Damselfly} \\
\fi
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/312_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/312_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/881_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/881_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/906_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/906_not.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/980_center.png} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/center/appendix/980_not.png} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Cricket} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Upright Piano} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Windsor Tie} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Volcano} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Effect of using centering vs not using centering for a robust ResNet-50. }
\label{fig:app:robust_centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.90.125\linewidth}{YYYYYYYY}
Cen & Not Cen & Cen & Not Cen & Cen & Not Cen & Cen & Not Cen \\
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_138.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_138.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_175.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_175.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_308.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_308.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_373.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_373.jpg} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Bustard} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Otterhound} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Fly} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Macaque} \\
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_502.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_502.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_507.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_507.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_505.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_505.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_550.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_550.jpg} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Clog} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Combination Lock} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coffeepot} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Espresso Maker} \\
\iffalse
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_605.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_605.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_171.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_171.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_332.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_332.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_42.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_42.jpg} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{iPod} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Italian Greyhound} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Angora Rabbit} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Agama} \\
\fi
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_794.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_794.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_851.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_851.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_606.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_606.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_621.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_621.jpg} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Shower Curtain} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{TV} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Iron} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Mower} \\
\iffalse
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_78.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_78.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_808.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_808.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_318.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_318.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/center_627.jpg} } &
\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=\varcenterapp]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_627.jpg} } \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Tick} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sombrero} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Lacewing Fly} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Limo} \\
\fi
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Effect of using centering vs not using centering for a naturally-trained ResNet-50. }
\label{fig:app:nat_centering}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effect of Ensemble Size}
Figure \ref{fig:app:batch_size} gives additional results to those in figure \ref{fig:batch_size} for the effect of ensemble size on inversion.
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.950.125\linewidth}{cYYYYYYY}
& $e=1$ & $e=2$ & $e=4$ & $e=8$ & $e=16$ & $e=32$ & $e=64$ \\
\iffalse
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{625} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_64.png} \\
\fi
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{403} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/403_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/403_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/403_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/403_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/403_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/403_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/403_64.png} \\
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{283} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/283_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/283_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/283_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/283_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/283_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/283_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/283_64.png} \\
\iffalse
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{284} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/284_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/284_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/284_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/284_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/284_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/284_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/284_64.png} \\
\fi
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{449} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/449_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/449_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/449_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/449_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/449_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/449_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/449_64.png} \\
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{460} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/460_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/460_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/460_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/460_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/460_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/460_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/460_64.png} \\
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{558} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/558_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/558_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/558_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/558_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/558_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/558_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/558_64.png} \\
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{802} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/802_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/802_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/802_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/802_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/802_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/802_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/802_64.png} \\
\raisebox{1.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{834} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/834_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/834_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/834_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/834_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/834_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/834_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/834_64.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Effect of ensemble size when inverting a robust ResNet-50. Even small values of $e$ give reasonably good results, but increasing $e$ tends to give slight improvement.}
\label{fig:app:batch_size}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effect of using other Augmentations} \label{app:other_augs}
We used 4 random augmentations other than ColorShift to make comparisons. We used augmentations used in \cite{chen2020improved} with modifications. We use PyTorch \citep{paszke2019pytorch} notation to describe this part. We used \emph{RandomHorizontalFlip} with 0.5 probability. We used \emph{RandomResizedCrop} with scale [0.7, 1.], and ratio [0.75, and 1.33]. With applied \emph{ColorJitter} with 0.8 probability, and brightness, contrast, saturation, and hue of (0.4, 0.4, 0.4, 0.1), respectively. We used \emph{RandomGrayscale} with 0.2 probability. For this experiment, we do apply data normalization before feeding the input to the network. This is different than the regular experiment setting that we use for the robust model (see appendix \ref{app:robust-setting}). The reason is that not having data normalization is similar to using ColorShift (it changes the data distribution which the model expects as an input).
\def \varcenterapp{0.11950.125\linewidth}
\def 0pt{0pt}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{cYYYYYYY}
& No Aug & Flip & Crop & Gray & Color Jitter & ColorShift \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{target=140} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/140_raw.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/140_flip.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/140_crop.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/140_gray.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/140_color.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/140_color_jitter_begin.png} \\
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{target=295} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/295_raw.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/295_flip.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/295_crop.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/295_gray.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/295_color.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/295_color_jitter_begin.png} \\
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{target=350} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/350_raw.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/350_flip.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/350_crop.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/350_gray.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/350_color.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/robust/350_color_jitter_begin.png} \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{target=240} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/240_raw.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/240_flip.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/240_crop.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/240_gray.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/240_color.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/240_color_jitter_begin.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{target=400} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/400_raw.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/400_flip.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/400_crop.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/400_gray.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/400_color.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/400_color_jitter_begin.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{target=460} } &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/460_raw.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/460_flip.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/460_crop.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/460_gray.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/460_color.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablation_aug/natural_normal/460_color_jitter_begin.jpg} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Effect of using different augmentations on inverting a robustly-trained ResNet-50 (top 3 rows) and a naturally-trained ResNet-50 (bottom 3 rows).}
\label{fig:app:augablation_natural}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\emph{PII}{} on additional networks}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{0.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.970.125\linewidth}{YYYYYYYY}
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/0.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/7.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/8.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/9.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/10.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/11.jpg} \\
AlexNet & DenseNet & GoogLeNet & MobileNet v2 & MobileNet v3-l & MobileNet v3-s & MNasNet 0-5 & MNasNet 1-0 \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/12.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/13.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/14.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/15.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/16.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/17.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/18.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/19.jpg} \\
ResNet 18 & ResNet 34 & ResNet 50 & ResNet 101 & ResNet 152 & ResNext 50 & ResNext 101 & WResNet 50 \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/20.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/21.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/22.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/23.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/29.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/30.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/31.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/32.jpg} \\
WResNet 101 & ShuffleNet v2-0-5 & ShuffleNet v2-1-0 & SqueezeNet & VGG11-bn & VGG13-bn & VGG16-bn & VGG19-bn \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/33.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/34.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/35.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/36.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/40.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/41.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/42.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/43.jpg} \\
ViT B16 & ViT B32 & ViT L16 & ViT L32 & DeiT p16-224 & DeiT-D p16-384 & Deit p16-384 & DeiT-D-t p16-224 \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/44.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/45.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/46.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/47.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/48.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/51.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/52.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/53.jpg} \\
DeiT-D-s p16-224 & DeiT-D p16-224 & CoaT-m & CoaT-s & CoaT-t & ConViT & ConViT-s & ConViT-t \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/54.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/55.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/59.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/62.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/63.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/64.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/66.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/68.jpg} \\
Mixer 24-224 & Mixer b16-224 & Mixer l16-224 & PiT-D b-224 & PiT s-224 & PiT-D s-224 & Pit-D t-224 & ResMLP 12-224 \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/69.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/70.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/71.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/72.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/73.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/74.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/75.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/76.jpg} \\
ResMLP-D 12-224 & ResMLP 24-224 & ResMLP-D 24-224 & ResMLP 36-224 & ResMLP-D 36-224 & ResMLP b-24-224 & ResMLP b-24-224-1k & ResMLP-D b-24-224 \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/79.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/85.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/87.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/88.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/89.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/90.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/91.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/various/92.jpg} \\
Swin w12-384 & Swin s-w7-224 & Twin pcpvt-b & Twin pcpvt-l & Twin pcpvt-s & Twin svt-b & Twin svt-l & Twin svt-s \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{\text{\emph{PII}} applied to various vision models for the Volcano class.}
\label{fig:app_various_nets}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:app_various_nets} shows the results of Plug-In Inversion on various CNN, ViT, and MLP networks, adding to those shown in figure \ref{fig:various_nets}. See section \ref{app:model-library} for model details.
\clearpage
\section{Models}\label{app:model-library}
In our experiments, we use publicly available pre-trained models from various sources. The following tables list the models used from each source, along with references to where they are introduced in the literature.
\setlength\tabcolsep{10.0pt}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYY}
\toprule
Alias & Name & Paper \\ \hline
\text{ViT B16} & \text{B\_16\_imagenet1k} & \cite{dosovitskiy2021image} \\
\text{ViT B32} & \text{B\_32\_imagenet1k} & \cite{dosovitskiy2021image} \\
\text{ViT B-32} & \text{B\_32\_imagenet1k} & \cite{dosovitskiy2021image} \\
\text{ViT L16} & \text{L\_16\_imagenet1k} & \cite{dosovitskiy2021image} \\
\text{ViT L32} & \text{L\_32\_imagenet1k} & \cite{dosovitskiy2021image} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{
Pre-trained models used from : \href{https://github.com/lukemelas/PyTorch-Pretrained-ViT}{https://github.com/lukemelas/PyTorch-Pretrained-ViT}.
}
\label{table:app:model:vit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYY}
\toprule
Alias & Name & Paper \\ \hline
\text{DeiT p16-224} & \text{deit\_base\_patch16\_224} & \cite{touvron2021training} \\
\text{DeiT P16 224} & \text{deit\_base\_patch16\_224} & \cite{touvron2021training} \\
\text{Deit-D p16-384} & \text{deit\_base\_distilled\_patch16\_384} & \cite{touvron2021training} \\
\text{Deit Dist P16 384} & \text{deit\_base\_distilled\_patch16\_384} & \cite{touvron2021training} \\
\text{deit p16-384} & \text{deit\_base\_patch16\_384} & \cite{touvron2021training} \\
\text{Deit-D-t p16-224} & \text{deit\_tiny\_distilled\_patch16\_224} & \cite{touvron2021training} \\
\text{Deit-D-s p16-224} & \text{deit\_small\_distilled\_patch16\_224} & \cite{touvron2021training} \\
\text{Deit-D p16-224} & \text{deit\_base\_distilled\_patch16\_224} & \cite{touvron2021training} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Pre-trained models from \cite{pmlrv139touvron21a} . }
\label{table:app:model:deit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYY}
\toprule
Alias & Name & Paper \\ \hline
\text{AlexNet} & \text{alexnet} & \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} \\
\text{DenseNet} & \text{densenet121} & \cite{huang2017densely} \\
\text{GoogLeNet} & \text{googlenet} & \cite{szegedy2015going} \\
\text{MobileNet v2} & \text{mobilenet\_v2} & \cite{sandler2018mobilenetv2} \\
\text{MobileNet-v2} & \text{mobilenet\_v2} & \cite{sandler2018mobilenetv2} \\
\text{MobileNet v3-l} & \text{mobilenet\_v3\_large} & \cite{howard2019searching} \\
\text{MobileNet v3-s} & \text{mobilenet\_v3\_small} & \cite{howard2019searching} \\
\text{MNasNet 0-5} & \text{mnasnet0\_5} & \cite{tan2019mnasnet} \\
\text{MNasNet 1-0} & \text{mnasnet1\_0} & \cite{tan2019mnasnet} \\
\text{ResNet 18} & \text{resnet18} & \cite{he2016deep} \\
\text{ResNet-18} & \text{resnet18} & \cite{he2016deep} \\
\text{ResNet 34} & \text{resnet34} & \cite{he2016deep} \\
\text{ResNet 50} & \text{resnet50} & \cite{he2016deep} \\
\text{ResNet 101} & \text{resnet101} &
\cite{he2016deep} \\
\text{ResNet-101} & \text{resnet101} & \cite{he2016deep} \\
\text{ResNet 152} & \text{resnet152} & \cite{he2016deep} \\
\text{ResNext 50} & \text{resnext50\_32x4d} & \cite{xie2017aggregated} \\
\text{ResNext 101} & \text{resnext101\_32x8d} & \cite{xie2017aggregated} \\
\text{WResNet 50} & \text{wide\_resnet50\_2} & \cite{zagoruyko2016wide} \\
\text{WResNet 101} & \text{wide\_resnet101\_2} &
\cite{zagoruyko2016wide} \\
\text{W-ResNet-101-2} & \text{wide\_resnet101\_2} &\cite{zagoruyko2016wide} \\
\text{ShuffleNet v2-0-5} & \text{shufflenet\_v2\_x0\_5} & \cite{ma2018shufflenet} \\
\text{ShuffleNet v2-1-0} & \text{shufflenet\_v2\_x1\_0} & \cite{ma2018shufflenet} \\
\text{ShuffleNet v2} & \text{shufflenet\_v2\_x1\_0} & \cite{ma2018shufflenet} \\
\text{SqueezeNet} & \text{squeezenet1\_0} & \cite{iandola2016squeezenet} \\
\text{VGG11-bn} & \text{vgg11\_bn} & \cite{simonyan2014very} \\
\text{VGG13-bn} & \text{vgg13\_bn} & \cite{simonyan2014very}\\
\text{VGG16-bn} & \text{vgg16\_bn} & \cite{simonyan2014very} \\
\text{VGG19-bn} & \text{vgg19\_bn} & \cite{simonyan2014very} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Pre-trained models from TorchVision: \href{https://github.com/pytorch/vision}{https://github.com/pytorch/vision}. }
\label{table:app:model:torchvision}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYY}
\toprule
Alias & Name & Paper \\ \hline
\text{CoaT-m} & \text{coat\_lite\_mini} & \cite{xu2021co} \\
\text{CoaT-s} & \text{coat\_lite\_small} & \cite{xu2021co} \\
\text{CoaT-t} & \text{coat\_lite\_tiny} & \cite{xu2021co} \\
\text{ConViT} & \text{convit\_base} & \cite{d2021convit} \\
\text{ConViT-s} & \text{convit\_small} & \cite{d2021convit} \\
\text{ConViT-t} & \text{convit\_tiny} & \cite{d2021convit} \\
\text{ConViT tiny} & \text{convit\_tiny} & \cite{d2021convit} \\
\text{Mixer 24-224} & \text{mixer\_24\_224} & \cite{tolstikhin2021mlp} \\
\text{Mixer b16-224} & \text{mixer\_b16\_224} & \cite{tolstikhin2021mlp} \\
\text{Mixer b16 224} & \text{mixer\_b16\_224} & \cite{tolstikhin2021mlp} \\
\text{Mixer b16-224-mill} & \text{mixer\_b16\_224\_miil} & \cite{tolstikhin2021mlp} \\
\text{Mixer l16-224} & \text{mixer\_l16\_224} & \cite{tolstikhin2021mlp} \\
\text{PiT-D b-224} & \text{pit\_b\_distilled\_224} & \cite{heo2021rethinking} \\
\text{PiT Dist 224} & \text{pit\_b\_distilled\_224} & \cite{heo2021rethinking} \\
\text{PiT s-224} & \text{pit\_s\_224} & \cite{heo2021rethinking} \\
\text{PiT-D s-224} & \text{pit\_s\_distilled\_224} & \cite{heo2021rethinking} \\
\text{PiT-D t-224} & \text{pit\_ti\_distilled\_224} & \cite{heo2021rethinking} \\
\text{ResMLP 12-224} & \text{resmlp\_12\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp}\\
\text{ResMLP-D 12-224} & \text{resmlp\_12\_distilled\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{ResMLP 24-224} & \text{resmlp\_24\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{ResMLP-D 24-224} & \text{resmlp\_24\_distilled\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{ResMLP 36-224} & \text{resmlp\_36\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{ResMLP-D 36-224} & \text{resmlp\_36\_distilled\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{ResMLP 36 Dist} & \text{resmlp\_36\_distilled\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{ResMLP b-24-224} & \text{resmlp\_big\_24\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{ResMLP b-24-224-1k} & \text{resmlp\_big\_24\_224\_in22ft1k} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{ResMLP-D b-24-224} & \text{resmlp\_big\_24\_distilled\_224} & \cite{touvron2021resmlp} \\
\text{Swin w7-224} & \text{swin\_base\_patch4\_window7\_224} & \cite{liu2021swin}\\
\text{Swin l-w7-224} & \text{swin\_large\_patch4\_window7\_224} & \cite{liu2021swin}\\
\text{Swin l-w12-384} & \text{swin\_large\_patch4\_window12\_384} & \cite{liu2021swin}\\
\text{Swin w12-384} & \text{swin\_base\_patch4\_window12\_384} & \cite{liu2021swin}\\
\text{Swin P4 W12} &
\text{swin\_base\_patch4\_window12\_384} & \cite{liu2021swin}\\
\text{Swin s-w7-224} & \text{swin\_small\_patch4\_window7\_224} & \cite{liu2021swin} \\
\text{Swin t-w7-224} & \text{swin\_tiny\_patch4\_window7\_224} & \cite{liu2021swin} \\
\text{Twin pcpvt-b} & \text{twins\_pcpvt\_base} & \cite{chu2021twins} \\
\text{Twin PCPVT} & \text{twins\_pcpvt\_base} & \cite{chu2021twins} \\
\text{Twins pcpvt-l} & \text{twins\_pcpvt\_large} & \cite{chu2021twins}\\
\text{Twins pcpvt-s} & \text{twins\_pcpvt\_small} & \cite{chu2021twins} \\
\text{Twins svt-b} & \text{twins\_svt\_base} & \cite{chu2021twins} \\
\text{Twins svt-l} & \text{twins\_svt\_large} & \cite{chu2021twins} \\
\text{Twins svt-s} & \text{twins\_svt\_small} & \cite{chu2021twins} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Pre-trained models used from: \cite{rw2019timm} }
\label{table:app:weightman.}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section{Additional experimental setting}\label{app:robust-setting}
\subsection{Robust models}
We use a robust RestNet-50 \citep{he2016deep} model free-trained \citep{shafahi2019adversarial} on the ImageNet dataset \citep{deng2009imagenet}. The setting we use for inverting robust models is very similar to that of \emph{PII}{} explained in section \ref{exp-setup} except for some differences. Throughout the paper, we use centering for robust models unless otherwise is mentioned (like when we are examining the effect of zoom and centering themselves). We use 0.0005 to scale total variation in the loss function. Also, we do not apply the data normalization layer before feeding the input to the network. In \emph{PII}{} experiment setting, we apply a random ColorShift at each optimization step to each element in the ensemble. In the robust setting, we do not update the ColorShift variables $\mu$, and $\sigma$ for a fixed patch size, and we update these variables for the ensemble when we use a new patch size. Although using ColorShift{} would alleviate the need for using TV regularization as discussed in section \ref{plugin:color-jitter}, and illustrated in figure \ref{fig:tv}, we retain the TV penalty in our robust setting to make this setting more similar to that of previous inversion methods and to emphasize that it is a toy example for our ablation studies.
\section{Every Class of ImageNet Dataset Inverted}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/every_class/Half1128.jpg}
\caption{Inversion of first 500 classes of ImageNet for the Robust Model.}
\label{fig:app:all_classes1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/every_class/Half2128.jpg}
\caption{Inversion of second 500 classes of ImageNet for the Robust Model.}
\label{fig:app:all_classes2}
\end{figure}
\section{Optimization algorithm}\label{sec:algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Optimization procedure for Plug-In Inversion}
\label{alg:pii}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\Input{Model $f$, class $y$, final resolution $R$, ColorShift parameters $\alpha, \beta$, `ensemble' size $e$, randomly initialized $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{I}^{3 \times R/8 \times R/8}$}
\For{$s=1, \dots, 7$}{
Upsample $\mathbf{x}$ to resolution $\frac{(2s+1)R}{16} \times \frac{(2s+1)R}{16}$ \\
Pad $\mathbf{x}$ with random noise to resolution $\frac{(s+1)R}{8} \times \frac{(s+1)R}{8}$ \\
\For{$i = 1, \dots, 400$}{
$\mathbf{x}' = \text{Jitter}(\mathbf{x})$ \\
\For{$n = 1, \dots, e$}{
Draw $\mu \sim U(-\alpha, \alpha)^3$, $\sigma \sim \exp(U(-\beta, \beta))^3$ \\
$\mathbf{x}_n = \text{ColorShift}_{\mu, \sigma}(\mathbf{x}')$
}
$\displaystyle \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{e} \sum_{n=1}^e NLL(f(\mathbf{x_n}), y)$ \\
$\mathbf{x} \leftarrow \text{Adam}_i(\mathbf{x}, \nabla_\mathbf{x} \mathcal{L})$
}
\Return $\mathbf{x}$
}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Additional baseline comparisons}\label{sec:baselines}
\def 0.190.125\linewidth{0.190.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccc}
\iffalse
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/7.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/31.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/15.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/20.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/22.jpg} \\
\fi
MobileNet-v2 & ResNet-18 & VGG16-bn & W- ResNet-101-2 & ShuffleNet-v2\\
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/15.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/34.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/40.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/41.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/53.jpg} \\
ResNet-101 & ViT B-32 & DeiT P16 224 & Deit Dist P16 384 & ConViT tiny \\
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/55.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/62.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/72.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/85.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various_di/87.jpg} \\
Mixer b16 224 & PiT Dist 224 & ResMLP 36 Dist & Swin P4 W12 & Twin PCPVT \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Images inverted from the Volcano class for
various Convolutional, Transformer, and MLP-based networks using DeepInversion (CNN models) / DeepDream (non-CNN models). Cross-reference figure \ref{fig:various_nets}.}
\label{fig:various_nets_di}
\end{figure}
\def 0.130.125\linewidth{0.130.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.90.125\linewidth}{ccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{} & \multirow{2}{*}{Barn} & Garbage & \multirow{2}{*}{Goblet} & Ocean & CRT & \multirow{2}{*}{Warplane}\\
& & Truck & & Liner & Screen & \\
\raisebox{0.05\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ResNet-101}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/15_425.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/15_569.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/15_572.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/15_628.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/15_782.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/15_895.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT B-32}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/34_425.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/34_569.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/34_572.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/34_628.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/34_782.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/34_895.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.2\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{DeiT Dist}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/41_425.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/41_569.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/41_572.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/41_628.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/41_782.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/41_895.jpg} \\
\raisebox{0.05\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ResMLP 36}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/72_425.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/72_569.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/72_572.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/72_628.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/72_782.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes_di/72_895.jpg} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Inverting different model and class combinations for different classes using DeepInversion (top row) / DeepDream (other rows). Cross-reference figure \ref{fig:various_classes}.}
\label{fig:various_classes_di}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak
\section{Quantitative Results}\label{sec:quant}
To quantitatively evaluate our method, we invert a pre-trained ViT model to produce one image per class using \emph{PII}{}, and do the same using DeepDream (i.e., DeepInversion minus feature regularization, which is not available for this model). We then use a variety of pre-trained CNN, ViT, and MLP models to classify these images. We find that every model achieves strictly higher top-1 and top-5 accuracy on the \emph{PII}{}-generated image set (excepting the `teacher' model, which perfectly classifies both). We compile these results in figure \ref{fig:vit-classification}. Additionally, we compute the Inception score \citep{salimans2016improved} for both sets of images, which also favors \emph{PII}{} over DeepDream, with scores of $28.17 \pm 7.21$ and $2.72 \pm 0.23$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{images/quantitative/vit/Top1.pdf} }}
\qquad
\subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{images/quantitative/vit/Top5.pdf} }}
\caption{Top-1 (a) and top-5 (b) classification accuracy of various CNN, ViT, and MLP models evaluated on images generated from ViT B-32 using PII and DeepDream.}
\label{fig:vit-classification}
\end{figure}
We also perform the same evaluation for images generated from a pre-trained ResMLP model. These results are more mixed; DeepDream images are classified much better by a small number of models, but the majority of models classify \emph{PII}{} images better, and the average accuracy across models is approximately equal for both methods. Inception score, however, once again clearly favors \emph{PII}{} over DeepDream, with scores of $6.79 \pm 2.18$ and $3.27 \pm 0.47$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{images/quantitative/mlp/Top1.pdf} }}
\qquad
\subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{images/quantitative/mlp/Top5.pdf} }}
\caption{Top-1 (a) and top-5 (b) classification accuracy of various CNN, ViT, and MLP models evaluated on images generated from ResMLP 36-224 using PII and DeepDream.}
\label{fig:mlp-classification}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}
Model inversion is an important tool for visualizing and interpreting behaviors inside neural architectures, understanding what models have learned, and explaining model behaviors. In general, model inversion seeks inputs that either activate a feature in the network (\emph{feature visualization}) or yield a high output response for a particular class (\emph{class inversion}) \citep{olah2017feature}.
Model inversion and visualization has been a cornerstone of conceptual studies that reveal how networks decompose images into semantic information
\citep{zeiler2014visualizing, dosovitskiy2016inverting}.
Over time, inversion methods have shifted from solving conceptual problems to solving practical ones.
Saliency maps, for example, are image-specific model visualizations that reveal the inputs that most strong influence a model's decisions \citep{simonyan2014deep}.
Recent advances in network architecture pose major challenges for existing model inversion schemes. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have long been the de-facto approach for computer vision tasks, and are the focus of nearly all research in the model inversion field. Recently, other architectures have emerged that achieve results competitive with CNNs. These include Vision Transformers \citep[ViTs;][]{dosovitskiy2021image}, which are based on self-attention layers, and MLP-Mixer \citep{tolstikhin2021mlp} and ResMLP \citep{touvron2021resmlp}, which are based on Multi Layer Perceptron layers. Unfortunately, most existing model inversion methods either cannot be applied to these architectures, or are known to fail. For example, the feature regularizer used in DeepInversion \citep{yin2020dreaming} cannot be applied to ViTs or MLP-based models because they do not include Batch Normalization layers \citep{ioffe2015batch}.
In this work, we focus on class inversion, the goal of which is to find interpretable images that maximize the score a classification model assigns to a chosen label without knowledge about the model's training data. Class inversion has been used for a variety of tasks including model interpretation \citep{mordvintsev2015inceptionism}, image synthesis \citep{santurkar2019image}, and data-free knowledge transfer \citep{yin2020dreaming}. However, current inversion methods have several key drawbacks. The quality of generated images is often highly sensitive to the weights assigned to regularization terms, so these hyper-parameters need to be carefully calibrated for each individual network. In addition, methods requiring batch norm parameters are not applicable to emerging architectures.
To overcome these limitations, we present \emph{Plug-In Inversion} (\emph{PII}), an augmentation-based approach to class inversion.
\emph{PII}{} does not require any explicit regularization, which eliminates the need to tune regularizer-specific hyper-parameters for each model or image instance.
We show that \emph{PII}{} is able to invert CNNs, ViTs, and MLP networks using the same architecture-agnostic method, and with the same architecture-agnostic hyper-parameters.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.240.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/teaser/10.png}
\end{figure}
Fringilla
\vspace{1em}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.240.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/teaser/200.png}
\end{figure}
Tibetan terrie
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.240.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/teaser/980.png}
\end{figure}
Volcano
\vspace{1.2em}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.240.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/teaser/970.png}
\end{figure}
Alp
\vspace{1em}
\end{minipage}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Inverted images from a robust-ResNet50 model trained on ImageNet-1k. }
\label{fig:teaser}
\end{figure}
\fi
\newpage
We summarize our contributions as follows:
\squishlist
\item We provide a detailed analysis of various augmentations and how they affect the quality of images produced via class inversion.
\item We introduce \emph{Plug-In Inversion} (\emph{PII}), a new class inversion technique based on these augmentations, and compare it to existing techniques.
\item We apply \emph{PII}{} to dozens of different pre-trained models of varying architecture, justifying the claim that it can be `plugged in' to most networks without modification.
\item In particular, we show that \emph{PII}{} succeeds in inverting ViTs and large MLP-based architectures, which to our knowledge has not previously been accomplished
\item Finally, we explore the potential for combining \emph{PII}{} with prior methods.
\squishend
\section{Background}\label{background}
\subsection{Class inversion}\label{plugin:general}
In the basic procedure for class inversion, we begin with a pre-trained model $f$ and chosen target class $y$. We randomly initialize (and optionally pre-process) an image $\mathbf{x}$ in the input space of $f$. We then perform gradient descent to solve the optimization problem $\hat{x} = \argmin_{\mathbf{x}} \mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}), y)$ for a chosen objective function $\mathcal{L}$ to produce a class image $\hat{x}$. For very shallow networks and small datasets, letting $\mathcal{L}$ be cross-entropy or even the negative confidence assigned to the true class can produce recognizable images with minimal pre-processing \citep{fredrikson2015model}. Modern deep neural networks, however, cannot be inverted as easily.
\subsection{Regularization}
Most prior work on class inversion for deep networks has focused on carefully designing the objective function to produce quality images. This entails combining a divergence term (e.g. cross-entropy) with one or more regularization terms (\emph{image priors}) meant to guide the optimization towards an image with `natural' characteristics. \emph{DeepDream} \citep{mordvintsev2015inceptionism}, following work on feature inversion \citep{mahendran2015understanding}, uses two such terms: $\mathcal{R}_{\ell_2}(\mathbf{x}) = \| \mathbf{x} \|_2^2$, which penalizes the magnitude of the image vector, and total variation, defined as $\mathcal{R}_{TV}(\mathbf{x})
= \sum_{\substack{\Delta_i\in\{0,1\} \\ \Delta_j\in\{0,1\}}} \left( \sum_{i, j} (x_{i+\Delta_i, j+\Delta_j} - x_{i, j})^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2}$,
which penalizes sharp changes over small distances.
\emph{DeepInversion} \citep{yin2020dreaming} uses both of these regularizers, along with the feature regularizer $\mathcal{R}_{feat}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_k \left( \| \mu_k(\mathbf{x}) - \hat{\mu}_k \|_2 + \| \sigma_k^2(\mathbf{x}) - \hat{\sigma}_k^2 \|_2 \right)$,
where $\mu_k, \sigma_k^2$ are the batch mean and variance of the features output by the $k$-th convolutional layer, and $\hat{\mu}_k, \hat{\sigma}_k^2$ are corresponding Batch Normalization statistics stored in the model \citep{ioffe2015batch}. Naturally, this method is only applicable to models that use Batch Normalization, which leaves out ViTs, MLPs, and even some CNNs. Furthermore, the optimal weights for each regularizer in the objective function vary wildly depending on architecture and training set, which presents a barrier to easily applying such methods to a wide array of networks.
\def \varfigcen{0.0840.125\linewidth}
\def 0.1620.125\linewidth{0.1260.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccccc|c}
\multicolumn{9}{c|}{w/ Centering } & w/o Centering \\
Init & Step 1 & Step 2 & Step 3 & Step 4 & Step 5 & Step 6 & Step 7 & Final & Final \\
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/center/182/good/0_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/center/182/good/2_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/center/182/good/4_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/center/182/good/8_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/center/182/good/10_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/center/182/good/12_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/center/182/good/14_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/center/182/good/16_0.png}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1620.125\linewidth]{images/center/182/good/17_300.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1620.125\linewidth]{images/center/182/bad/17_300.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{An image at different stages of optimization with centering (left), and an image inverted without centering (right), for the Border Terrier class of a robust ResNet-50.}
\label{fig:centering}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccccc|c}
\multicolumn{9}{c}{w/ Zoom} & w/o Zoom \\
Init & Step 1 & Step 2 & Step 3 & Step 4 & Step 5 & Step 6 & Step 7 & Final & Final \\
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/resolution/17/good/0_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/resolution/17/good/2_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/resolution/17/good/4_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/resolution/17/good/8_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/resolution/17/good/10_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/resolution/17/good/12_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/resolution/17/good/14_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.25\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{images/resolution/17/good/16_0.png}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1620.125\linewidth]{images/resolution/17/good/17_300.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1620.125\linewidth]{images/resolution/17/bad/17_300.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{An image during different stages of optimization with zoom (left), and an image inverted without zoom (right), for the Jay class of a robust ResNet-50.}
\label{fig:zoom}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Architectures for vision}
We now present a brief overview of the three basic types of vision architectures that we will consider.
{\bf Convolutional Neural Networks} (CNNs) have long been the standard in deep learning for computer vision \citep{lecun1989backpropagation, krizhevsky2012imagenet}. Convolutional layers encourage a model to learn properties desirable for vision tasks, such as translation invariance. Numerous CNN models exist, mainly differing in the number, size, and arrangement of convolutional blocks and whether they include residual connections, Batch Normalization, or other modifications \citep{he2016deep, zagoruyko2016wide, simonyan2014very}.
\citet{dosovitskiy2021image} recently introduced {\bf Vision Transformers} (ViTs), adapting the Transformer architectures commonly used in NLP \citep{vaswani2017attention}. ViTs break input images into patches, combine them with positional embeddings, and use these as input tokens to self-attention modules. Some proposed variants require less training data \citep{touvron2021training}, have convolutional inductive biases \citep{d2021convit}, or make other modifications to the attention modules \citep{chu2021twins, liu2021swin, xu2021co}.
Subsequently, a number of authors have proposed vision models which are based solely on {\bf Multi-Layer Perceptrons} (MLPs), using insights from ViTs \citep{tolstikhin2021mlp, touvron2021resmlp, liu2021pay}. Generally, these models use patch embeddings similar to ViTs and alternate channel-wise and patch-wise linear embeddings, along with non-linearities and normalization.
We emphasize that as the latter two architecture types are recent developments, our work is the first to study them in the context of model inversion.
\section{Plug-In Inversion}\label{plugin}
Prior work on class inversion uses augmentations like jitter, which randomly shifts an image horizontally and vertically, and horizontal flips to improve the quality of inverted images
\citep{mordvintsev2015inceptionism, yin2020dreaming}. The hypothesis behind their use is that different views of the same image should result in similar scores for the target class. These augmentations are applied to the input before feeding it to the network, and different augmentations are used for each gradient step used to reconstruct $x$. In this section, we explore additional augmentations that benefit inversion before describing how we combine them to form the \emph{PII}{} algorithm.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{cYYYYYY}
$log(\lambda_{tv}):$ & $-9$ & $-8$ & $-7$ & $-6$ & $-5$ & $-4$ \\
\raisebox{4\totalheight}{w/ CS} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/no_tv/480_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/no_tv/480_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/no_tv/480_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/no_tv/480_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/no_tv/480_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/no_tv/480_0.png} \\
\raisebox{4\totalheight}{w/o CS} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/tv/480_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/tv/480_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/tv/480_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/tv/480_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/tv/480_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/tv/tv/480_0.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Inversions of the robust ResNet-50 ATM class, with and without ColorShift and with varying TV regularization strength. The inversion process with ColorShift{} is robust to changes in the $\lambda_{tv}$ hyper-parameter, while without it, $\lambda_{tv}$ seems to present a trade-off between noise and blur.}
\label{fig:tv}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYYYYYY}
$e=1$ & $e=2$ & $e=4$ & $e=8$ & $e=16$ & $e=32$ & $e=64$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/robust/625_64.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Effect of ensemble size in the quality of inverted images for the Tugboat class of a robust ResNet-50.}
\label{fig:batch_size}
\end{figure*}
As robust models are typically easier to invert than naturally trained models \citep{santurkar2019image, mejia2019robust}, we use a robust ResNet-50 \citep{he2016deep} model trained on the ImageNet \citep{deng2009imagenet} dataset throughout this section as a toy example to examine how different augmentations impact inversion. Note, we perform the demonstrations in this section under slightly different conditions and with different models than those ultimately used for \emph{PII}{} in order to highlight the effects of the augmentations as clearly as possible. The reader may find thorough experimental details in the appendix, section \ref{app:robust-setting}.
\subsection{Restricting Search Space}\label{plugin:search-space}
In this section, we consider two augmentations to improve the spatial qualities of inverted images:
\emph{Centering} and \emph{Zoom}. These are designed based on our hypothesis that restricting the input optimization space encourages better placement of recognizable features. Both methods start with small input patches, and each gradually increases this space in different ways to reach the intended input size. In doing so, they force the inversion algorithm to place important semantic content in the center of the image.
\paragraph{Centering}
Let $x$ be the input image being optimized. At first, we only optimize a patch at the center of $x$. After a fixed number of iterations, we increase the patch size outward by padding with random noise, repeating this until the patch reaches the full input size. Figure \ref{fig:centering} shows the state of the image prior at each stage of this process, as well as an image produced without centering. Without centering, the shift invariance of the networks allows most semantic content to scatter to the image edges. With centering, results remain coherent.
\paragraph{Zoom}
For zoom, we begin with an image $x$ of lower resolution than the desired result. In each step, we optimize this image for a fixed number of iterations and then up-sample the result, repeating until we reach the full resolution. Figure \ref{fig:zoom} shows the state of an image at each step of the zoom procedure, along with an image produced without zoom. The latter image splits the object of interest at its edges. By contrast, zoom appears to find a meaningful structure for the image in the early steps and refines details like texture as the resolution increases.
We note that zoom is not an entirely novel idea in inversion. \citet{yin2020dreaming} use a similar technique as `warm-up' for better performance and speed-up. However, we observe that continuing zoom throughout optimization contributes to the overall success of \emph{PII}.
\def 0.0880.125\linewidth{0.0880.125\linewidth}
\def 0.1760.125\linewidth{0.1760.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\iffalse
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccccc}
\multicolumn{8}{c}{Centering} & Not Centering \\
Init & Step 1 & Step 2 & Step 3 & Step 4 & Step 5 & Step 6 & Final & Final \\
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/308/0_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/308/2_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/308/4_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/308/8_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/308/10_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/308/12_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/308/14_0.png}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1760.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/308/15_50.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1760.125\linewidth]{images/nat_center/appendix/not_308.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYYYYYY}
$e=1$ & $e=2$ & $e=4$ & $e=8$ & $e=16$ & $e=32$ & $e=64$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/nat/0_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/nat/0_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/nat/0_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/nat/0_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/nat/0_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/nat/0_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/batch_size/nat/0_64.png} \\
\end{tabularx}\\
\fi
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYYY|YYYY}
Z & Z + C & C & None & Z & Z + C & C & None \\ \includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablate_vit/r_cj.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablate_vit/r_c_cj.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablate_vit/c_cj.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablate_vit/cj.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablate_vit/r.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablate_vit/r_c.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablate_vit/c.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/ablate_vit/basic.png} \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{w/ ColorShift} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{w/o ColorShift} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{The effect of various combinations of zoom, centering, and ColorShift{} when inverting the Dipper class using a \emph{naturally}-trained ResNet-50.}
\label{fig:ablations}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Zoom + Centering}
Unsurprisingly, we have found that applying zoom and centering simultaneously yields even better results than applying either individually, since each one provides a different benefit. Centering places detailed and important features (e.g. the dog's eye in Figure \ref{fig:centering}) near the center and builds the rest of the image around the existing patch. Zoom helps enforce a sound large-scale structure for the image and fills in details later.
The combined Zoom and Centering process proceeds in `stages', each at a higher resolution than the last. Each stage begins with an image patch generated by the previous stage, which approximately minimizes the inversion loss. The patch is then up-sampled to a resolution halfway between the previous stage and current stage resolution, filling the center of the image and leaving a border which is padded with random noise. The next round of optimization then begins starting from this newly processed image.
\subsection{ColorShift{} Augmentation}\label{plugin:color-jitter}
The colors of the illustrative images we have shown so far are notably different from what one might expect in a natural image. This is due to \emph{ColorShift}, a new augmentation that we now present.
ColorShift is an adjustment of an image's colors by a random mean and variance in each channel. This can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\text{ColorShift}(\mathbf{x}) = \sigma \mathbf{x} - \mu,
\end{equation*}
where $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are $C$-dimensional\footnote{$C$ being the number of channels} vectors drawn from $\mathcal{U}(-\alpha, \alpha)$ and $e^{\mathcal{U}(-\beta, \beta)}$, respectively, and are repeatedly redrawn after a fixed number of iterations. We use $\alpha = \beta = 1.0$ in all demonstrations unless otherwise noted.
At first glance, this deliberate shift away from the distribution of natural images seems counterproductive to the goal of producing a recognizable image. However, our results show that using ColorShift noticeably increases the amount of visual information in inverted images and also obviates the need for hard-to-tune regularizers to stabilize optimization.
We visualize the stabilizing effect of ColorShift in Figure \ref{fig:tv}. In this experiment, we invert the model by minimizing the sum of a cross entropy and a total-variation (TV) penalty. Without ColorShift, the quality of images is highly dependent on the weight $\lambda_{TV}$ of the TV regularizer; smaller values produce noisy images, while larger values produce blurry ones. Inversion with ColorShift, on the other hand, is insensitive to this value and in fact succeeds when omitting the regularizer altogether.
Other preliminary experiments show that ColorShift similarly removes the need for $\ell_2$ or feature regularization, as our main results for \emph{PII}{} will show. We conjecture that by forcing unnatural colors into an image, ColorShift requires the optimization to find a solution which contains meaningful semantic information, rather than photo-realistic colors, in order to achieve a high class score. Alternatively, as seen in Figure \ref{fig:distill_comp}, images optimized with an image prior may achieve high scores despite a lack of semantic information merely by finding sufficiently natural colors and textures.
\subsection{Ensembling}
Ensembling is an established tool often used in applications from enhanced inference~\citep{opitz1999popular} to dataset security~\citep{souri2021sleeper}.
We find that optimizing an ensemble composed of different ColorShifts of the same image simultaneously improves the performance of inversion methods.
To this end, we minimize the average of cross-entropy losses $\mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}_i), y)$,
where the ${\mathbf{x}_i}$ are different ColorShifts of the image at the current step of optimization. Figure \ref{fig:batch_size} shows the result of applying ensembling alongside ColorShift{}. We observe that larger ensembles appear to give slight improvements, but even ensembles of size 1 or two produce satisfactory results. This is important for models like ViTs, where available GPU memory constrains the possible size of this ensemble; in general, we use the largest ensemble size (up to a maximum of $e=32$) that our hardware permits for a particular model. More results on the effect of ensemble size can be found in Figure \ref{fig:app:batch_size}. We show the effect of ensembling using other well-known augmentations and compare them to ColorShift{} in Appendix Section \ref{app:other_augs}, and observe that ColorShift{} is the strongest among augmentations we tried for model inversion.
\subsection{The Plug-in Inversion Method}\label{plugin:method}
We combine the jitter, ensembling, ColorShift, centering, and zoom techniques, and name the result Plug-In Inversion, which references the ability to `plug in' any differentiable model, including ViTs and MLPs, using a single fixed set of hyper-parameters. Full pseudocode for the algorithm may be found in appendix \ref{sec:algorithm}.
In the next section, we detail the experimental method that we used to find these hyper-parameters, after which we present our main results.
\def 0.190.125\linewidth{0.1950.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{0.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccc}
\iffalse
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/7.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/11.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/31.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/20.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/22.png} \\
MobileNet-v2 & ResNet-18 & VGG16-bn & W-ResNet-101-2 & ShuffleNet-v2\\
\fi
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/15.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/34.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/40.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/41.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/53.png} \\
ResNet-101 & ViT B-32 & DeiT P16 224 & Deit Dist P16 384 & ConViT tiny \\
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/55.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/62.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/72.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/85.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{images/various/87.png} \\
Mixer b16 224 & PiT Dist 224 & ResMLP 36 Dist & Swin P4 W12 & Twin PCPVT \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Images inverted from the ImageNet Volcano class for various Convolutional, Transformer, and MLP-based networks using \emph{PII}.
See figure \ref{fig:app_various_nets} for further examples. For more details about networks, refer to Appendix~\ref{app:model-library}. }
\label{fig:various_nets}
\end{figure*}
\def 0.130.125\linewidth{0.1550.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{} & \multirow{2}{*}{Barn} & Garbage & \multirow{2}{*}{Goblet} & Ocean & CRT & \multirow{2}{*}{Warplane}\\
& & Truck & & Liner & Screen & \\
\raisebox{0.3\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ResNet-101}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/15_425.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/15_569.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/15_572.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/15_628.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/15_782.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/15_895.png} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT B-32}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/34_425.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/34_569.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/34_572.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/34_628.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/34_782.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/34_895.png} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{DeiT Dist}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/41_425.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/41_569.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/41_572.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/41_628.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/41_782.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/41_895.png} \\
\raisebox{0.3\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ResMLP 36}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/72_425.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/72_569.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/72_572.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/72_628.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/72_782.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{images/var_nets_var_classes/72_895.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Inverting different ImageNet model and class combinations for different classes using \emph{PII}.}
\label{fig:various_classes}
\end{figure*}
\def \cifar100{0.10230.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccccccc}
& Apple & Castle & Dolphin &
Maple & Road & Rose & Sea & Seal & Train \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT L-16}} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/0.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/17.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/30.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/47.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/68.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/70.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/71.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/72.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/0/90.png} \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT B-32}} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/0.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/17.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/30.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/47.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/68.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/70.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/71.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/72.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/8/90.png} \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT S-32}} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/0.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/17.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/30.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/47.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/68.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/70.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/71.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/72.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/4/90.png} \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT T-16}} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/0.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/17.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/30.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/47.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/68.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/70.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/71.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/72.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar100]{images/cifar100/7/90.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Inverting different CIFAR-100 model and class combinations using \emph{PII}.}
\label{fig:cifar100}
\end{figure*}
\def \cifar10{0.09150.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{cccccccccccc}
& Plane & Car & Bird & Cat &
Deer & Dog & Frog & Horse & Ship & Truck \\
\raisebox{0.05\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT L-32}} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/0.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/6.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/7.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/3/9.png} \\
\raisebox{0.05\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT L-16}} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/0.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/6.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/7.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/2/9.png} \\
\raisebox{0.05\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT B-32}} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/0.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/6.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/7.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/1/9.png} \\
\raisebox{0.05\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT B-16}} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/0.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/6.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/7.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\cifar10]{images/cifar10/0/9.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Inverting different every class of CIFAR-10 from different ViT models using \emph{PII}.}
\label{fig:cifar10}
\end{figure*}
\section{Experimental Setup}\label{exp-setup}
In order to tune hyper-parameters of \emph{PII}{} for use on naturally-trained models, we use the \texttt{torchvision} \citep{paszke2019pytorch} ImageNet-trained ResNet-50 model. We apply centering + zoom simultaneously in 7 `stages'. During each stage, we optimize the selected patch for 400 iterations, applying random jitter and ColorShift{} at each step. We use the Adam \citep{kingma2014adam} optimizer with momentum $\beta_m=(0.5, 0.99)$, initial learning rate $lr=0.01$, and cosine-decay. At the beginning of every stage, the learning rate and optimizer are re-initialized. We use $\alpha=\beta=1.0$ for the ColorShift parameters, and an ensemble size of $e=32$. Further ablation studies for these choices can be found in figures \ref{fig:app:mean_var}, \ref{fig:app:nat_centering}, and \ref{fig:app:batch_size}.
All the models (including pre-trained weights) we consider in this work are publicly available from widely-used sources. Explicit details of model resources can be found in section \ref{app:model-library} of the appendix. We also make the code used for all demonstrations and experiments in this work available at \url{https://github.com/youranonymousefriend/plugininversion}.
\section{Results}\label{results}
\subsection{\emph{PII}{} works on a range of architectures}
We now present the results of applying Plug-In Inversion to different types of models. We once again emphasize that we use identical settings for the \emph{PII}{} parameters in all cases.
Figure \ref{fig:various_nets} depicts images produced by inverting the Volcano class for a variety of architectures, including examples of CNNs, ViTs, and MLPs. While the quality of images varies somewhat between networks, all of them include distinguishable and well-placed visual information. Many more examples are found in Figure \ref{fig:app_various_nets} of the Appendix.
In Figure \ref{fig:various_classes}, we show images produced by \emph{PII}{} from representatives of each main type of architecture for a few arbitrary ImageNet classes. We note the distinct visual styles that appear in each row, which supports the perspective of model inversion as a tool for understanding what kind of information different networks learn during training.
\def \vardistill{0.1550.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccc}
Gown & Microphone & Mobile Home & Schooner & Cardoon & Volcano \\
\raisebox{2.5\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{PII} }
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/400/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/650/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/660/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/780/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/946/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/980/ours.png} \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{PII + DeepInv} }
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/400/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/650/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/660/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/780/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/946/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/980/ours_distill.png} \\
\raisebox{0.6\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{DeepInv} }
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/400/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/650/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/660/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/780/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/946/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{images/deepinversion/980/distill.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ \emph{PII}{} and DeepInversion results for a naturally-trained ResNet-50. The middle row represents performing \emph{PII}{} and using the result as an initialization for DeepInversion.}
\label{fig:distill_comp}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{\emph{PII}{} works on other datasets}
In Figure \ref{fig:cifar100}, we use \emph{PII}{} to invert ViT models trained on ImageNet and fine-tuned on CIFAR-100. Figure \ref{fig:cifar10} shows inversion results from models fine-tuned on CIFAR-10. We emphasize that these were produced using identical settings to the ImageNet results above, whereas other methods (like DeepInversion) tune dataset-specific hyperparameters.
\subsection{Comparing \emph{PII}{} to existing methods}
To quantitatively evaluate our method, we invert both a pre-trained ViT model and a pretrained ResMLP model to produce one image per class using \emph{PII}{}, and do the same using DeepDream (i.e., DeepInversion minus feature regularization, which is not available for this model). We then use a variety of pre-trained models to classify these images. Table \ref{tab:pii_vs_dd} contains the mean top-1 and top-5 classification accuracies across these models, as well as Inception scores, for the generated images from each method. We see that our method is competitive with, and in the ViT case widely outperforms, DeepDream. Appendix \ref{sec:quant} contains more details about these experiments.
\begin{table}[h]
\setlength\tabcolsep{7pt}
\caption{Inception score and mean classification accuracies of various models on images inverted from (a) ViT B-32 and (b) ResMLP 36 by \emph{PII}{} and DeepDream. Higher is better in all fields.}
\begin{subtable}[h]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\toprule
Method & Inception score & Top-1 & Top-5 \\
\midrule
\emph{PII}{}& 28.17 $\pm$ 7.21 & 77.0\% & 89.5\% \\
DeepDream & 2.72 $\pm$ 0.23 & 35.2\% & 49.6\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Images inverted from ViT B-32}
\end{subtable}
\begin{subtable}[h]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\toprule
Method & Inception score & Top-1 & Top-5 \\
\midrule
\emph{PII}{}& $6.79 \pm 2.18$ & 49.2\% & 62.0\% \\
DeepDream & $3.27 \pm 0.47$ & 51.3\% & 61.3\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Images inverted from ResMLP 36}
\end{subtable}
\label{tab:pii_vs_dd}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:distill_comp} shows images from a few arbitrary classes produced by \emph{PII}{} and DeepInversion. We additionally show images produced by DeepInversion using the output of \emph{PII}, rather than random noise, as its initialization. Using either initialization, DeepInversion clearly produces images with natural-looking colors and textures, which \emph{PII}{} of course does not. However, DeepInversion alone results in some images that either do not clearly correspond to the target class or are semantically confusing. By comparison, \emph{PII}{} again produces images with strong spatial and semantic qualities. Interestingly, these qualities appear to be largely retained when applying DeepInversion after \emph{PII}, but with the color and texture improvements that image priors afford \citep{mahendran2015understanding}, suggesting that using these methods in tandem may be a way to produce even better inverted images from CNNs than either method independently.
Appendix \ref{sec:baselines} contains additional qualitative comparisons to DeepDream and DeepInversion, further illustrating the need for model-specific hyperparameter tuning in contrast to our method.
\iffalse
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Image reconstruction}
Various works have sought to understand how deep vision models (particularly CNNs) `work' by reconstructing input images from their feature representations or other layer output. Some techniques train auxiliary networks which take features as inputs and give images as outputs \citep{zeiler2014visualizing, dosovitskiy2016inverting}. Another approach is that of \citep{mahendran2015understanding}, in which gradient descent is performed on a randomly initialized image until its feature representation approximately matches that of a reference image. We note that these methods require access to the model's training data, which may not be available for proprietary models.
\subsection{Model inversion}
A \emph{data-free} way to visualize information about what a model has learned is model inversion. The basic scheme is similar to the gradient descent procedure for feature inversion described above, but attempts to match the model's softmax prediction to a particular class label instead of matching feature representations. This method alone works well for shallow networks \citep{fredrikson2015model} and small datasets \citep{shokri2017membership}, but modifications are needed for more complex settings. One such modification is the use of an image prior to direct the optimization towards result which more closely resembles a natural image. The prior is enforced via regularizer(s) such as a penalty on \emph{total variation} (TV) or $\ell_2$-norm \citep{mahendran2015understanding, mordvintsev2015inceptionism}. \emph{DeepInversion} combines both of these with a feature regularization term which encourages images for which the output of each convolutional layer has mean and variance close to the corresponding BatchNorm statistics stored in the model \citep{yin2020dreaming}.
\fi
\section{Conclusion}
We studied the effect of various augmentations on the quality of class-inverted images and introduced Plug-In Inversion, which uses these augmentations in tandem. We showed that this technique produces intelligible images from a wide range of well-studied architectures and datasets, including the recently introduced ViTs and MLPs, without a need for model-specific hyper-parameter tuning. We believe that augmentation-based model inversion is a promising direction for future research in understanding computer vision models.
\clearpage
\section{Introduction}
Model inversion is an important tool for visualizing and interpreting behaviors inside neural architectures, understanding what models have learned, and explaining model behaviors. In general, model inversion seeks inputs that either activate a feature in the network (\emph{feature visualization}) or yield a high output response for a particular class (\emph{class inversion}) \citep{olah2017feature}.
Model inversion and visualization has been a cornerstone of conceptual studies that reveal how networks decompose images into semantic information
\citep{zeiler2014visualizing, dosovitskiy2016inverting}.
Over time, inversion methods have shifted from solving conceptual problems to solving practical ones.
Saliency maps, for example, are image-specific model visualizations that reveal the inputs that most strong influence a model's decisions \citep{simonyan2014deep}.
Recent advances in network architecture have posed major challenges for existing model inversion schemes. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have long been the de-facto approach for computer vision tasks, and are the focus of nearly all research in the model inversion field. Recently, other architectures have emerged that achieve results competitive with CNNs. These include Vision Transformers \citep[ViTs;][]{dosovitskiy2021image}, which are based on self-attention layers, and MLP-Mixer \citep{tolstikhin2021mlp} and ResMLP \citep{touvron2021resmlp}, which are based on Multi Layer Perceptron layers. Unfortunately, most existing model inversion methods either cannot be applied to these architectures, or are known to fail. For example, the feature regularizer used in DeepInversion \citep{yin2020dreaming} cannot be applied to ViTs or MLP-based models because they do not include Batch Normalization layers \citep{ioffe2015batch}.
In this work, we focus on class inversion, the goal of which is to find interpretable images that maximize the score a classification model assigns to a chosen label without knowledge about the model's training data. Class inversion has been used for a variety of tasks including model interpretation \citep{mordvintsev2015inceptionism}, image synthesis \citep{santurkar2019image}, and data-free knowledge transfer \citep{yin2020dreaming}. However, current inversion methods have several key drawbacks. The quality of generated images is often highly sensitive to the weights assigned to regularization terms, so these hyper-parameters need to be carefully calibrated for each individual network. In addition, methods requiring batch norm parameters are not applicable to emerging architectures.
To overcome these limitations, we present \emph{Plug-In Inversion} (\emph{PII}), an augmentation-based approach to class inversion.
\emph{PII}{} does not require any explicit regularization, which eliminates the need to tune regularizer-specific hyper-parameters for each model or image instance.
We show that \emph{PII}{} is able to invert CNNs, ViTs, and MLP networks using the same architecture-agnostic method, and with the same architecture-agnostic hyper-parameters.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{0.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.240.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/teaser/10.png}
\end{figure}
Fringilla (10)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.240.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/teaser/200.png}
\end{figure}
Tibetan terrier (200)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.240.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/teaser/980.png}
\end{figure}
Volcano (980)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.240.125\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{images/teaser/970.png}
\end{figure}
Alp (970)
\end{minipage}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Inverted images from a robust-ResNet50 model trained on ImageNet-1k. }
\label{fig:teaser}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Contributions}
We summarize our contributions as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We provide a detailed analysis of various augmentations and how they affect the quality of images produced via class inversion.
\item We introduce \emph{Plug-In Inversion} (\emph{PII}), a new class inversion technique based on these augmentations, and compare it to existing techniques.
\item We apply \emph{PII}{} to dozens of different pre-trained models of varying architecture, justifying our claim that it can be `plugged in' to most networks without modification.
\item In particular, we show that \emph{PII}{} succeeds in inverting ViTs and large MLP-based architectures, which to our knowledge has not previously been accomplished
\item Finally, we explore the potential for combining \emph{PII}{} with prior methods.
\end{itemize}
In section \ref{background}, we review existing techniques for class inversion and outline the types of architectures we consider. In section \ref{plugin}, we explore individually the different augmentations that we use, and then describe the full \emph{PII}{} algorithm. The remainder is devoted to results and analysis.
\section{Background}\label{background}
\subsection{Class inversion}\label{plugin:general}
In the basic procedure for class inversion, we begin with a pre-trained model $f$ and chosen target class $y$. We randomly initialize (and optionally pre-process) an image $\mathbf{x}$ in the input space of $f$. We then perform gradient descent to solve the following optimization problem for a chosen objective function $\mathcal{L}$,
$$ \hat{x} = \argmin_{\mathbf{x}} \mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}), y), $$
and the result is class image $\hat{x}$. For very shallow networks and small datasets, letting $\mathcal{L}$ be cross-entropy or even the negative confidence assigned to the true class can produce recognizable images with minimal pre-processing \citep{fredrikson2015model}. Modern deep neural networks, however, cannot be inverted as easily.
\subsection{Regularization}
Most prior work on class inversion for deep networks has focused on carefully designing the objective function to produce quality images. This entails combining a divergence term (e.g. cross-entropy) with one or more regularization terms (\emph{image priors}) meant to guide the optimization towards an image with `natural' characteristics. \emph{DeepDream} \citep{mordvintsev2015inceptionism}, following work on feature inversion \citep{mahendran2015understanding}, uses two such terms: $\mathcal{R}_{\ell_2}(\mathbf{x}) = \| \mathbf{x} \|_2^2$, which penalizes the magnitude of the image vector, and total variation, defined as\footnote{This is the formulation used by \citep{yin2020dreaming}; others are also common, such as the simpler version in \citep{mahendran2015understanding}.}
\begin{align*} \mathcal{R}_{TV}(\mathbf{x})
&= \left( \sum_{i, j} (x_{i+1, j} - x_{i, j})^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2}
+ \left( \sum_{i, j} (x_{i, j+1} - x_{i, j})^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2} \\
&+ \left( \sum_{i, j} (x_{i+1, j+1} - x_{i, j})^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2}
+ \left( \sum_{i, j} (x_{i+1, j} - x_{i, j+1})^2 \right)^\frac{1}{2},
\end{align*}
which penalizes sharp changes over small distances. \emph{DeepInversion} \citep{yin2020dreaming} uses both of these regularizers, along with the feature regularizer
$$ \mathcal{R}_{feat}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_k \left( \| \mu_k(\mathbf{x}) - \hat{\mu}_k \|_2 + \| \sigma_k^2(\mathbf{x}) - \hat{\sigma}_k^2 \|_2 \right), $$
where $\mu_k, \sigma_k^2$ are the batch mean and variance of the features output by the $k$-th convolutional layer, and $\hat{\mu}_k, \hat{\sigma}_k^2$ are corresponding Batch Normalization statistics stored in the model \citep{ioffe2015batch}. Naturally, this method is only applicable to models that use Batch Normalization, which leaves out ViTs, MLPs, and even some CNNs. Furthermore, the optimal weights for each regularizer in the objective function vary wildly depending on architecture and training set, which presents a barrier to easily applying such methods to a wide array of networks.
\subsection{Architectures for vision}
We now present a brief overview of the three basic types of vision architectures that we will consider.
{\bf Convolutional Neural Networks} (CNNs) have long been the standard in deep learning for computer vision \citep{lecun1989backpropagation, krizhevsky2012imagenet}. Convolutional layers encourage a model to learn properties desirable for vision tasks, such as translation invariance. Numerous CNN models exist, mainly differing in the number, size, and arrangement of convolutional blocks and whether they include residual connections, Batch Normalization, or other modifications \citep{he2016deep, zagoruyko2016wide, simonyan2014very}.
\citet{dosovitskiy2021image} recently introduced {\bf Vision Transformers} (ViTs), adapting the transformer architectures commonly used in Natural Language Processing \citep{vaswani2017attention}. These models break input images into patches, combine them with positional embeddings, and use these as input tokens to self-attention modules. Others have proposed variants which require less training data \citep{touvron2021training}, have convolutional inductive biases \citep{d2021convit}, or make other modifications to the attention modules \citep{chu2021twins, liu2021swin, xu2021co}.
Subsequently, a number of authors have proposed vision models which are based solely on {\bf Multi-Layer Perceptrons} (MLPs), using insights from ViTs \citep{tolstikhin2021mlp, touvron2021resmlp, liu2021pay}. Generally, these models use patch embeddings similar to ViTs and alternate channel-wise and patch-wise linear embeddings, along with non-linearities and normalization.
We emphasize that as the latter two architecture types are recent developments, our work is the first to study them in the context of model inversion.
\section{Plug-In Inversion}\label{plugin}
Prior work on class inversion uses augmentations like jitter, which randomly shifts an image horizontally and vertically, and horizontal flips to improve the quality of inverted images
\citep{mordvintsev2015inceptionism, yin2020dreaming}. The hypothesis behind their use is that different views of the same image should result in similar scores for the target class. These augmentations are applied to the input before feeding it to the network, and different augmentations are used for each gradient step used to reconstruct $x$. In this section, we explore additional augmentations that benefit inversion before describing how we combine them to form the \emph{PII}{} algorithm.
As robust models are typically easier to invert than naturally trained models \citep{santurkar2019image, mejia2019robust}, we use a robust ResNet-50 \citep{he2016deep} model trained on the ImageNet \citep{deng2009imagenet} dataset throughout this section as a toy example to examine how different augmentations impact inversion. Note, we perform the demonstrations in this section under slightly different conditions and with different models than those ultimately used for \emph{PII}{} in order to highlight the effects of the augmentations as clearly as possible. The reader may find thorough experimental details in the appendix, section \ref{app:robust-setting}.
\subsection{Restricting Search Space}\label{plugin:search-space}
In this section, we consider two augmentations to improve the spatial qualities of inverted images:
\emph{Centering} and \emph{Zoom}. These are designed based on our hypothesis that restricting the input optimization space encourages better placement of recognizable features. Both methods start with small input patches, and each gradually increases this space in different ways to reach the intended input size. In doing so, they force the inversion algorithm to place important semantic content in the center of the image.
\paragraph{Centering}
Let $x$ be the input image being optimized. At first, we only optimize a patch at the center of $x$. After a fixed number of iterations, we increase the patch size outward by padding with random noise, repeating this until the patch reaches the full input size. Figure \ref{fig:centering} shows the state of the image prior at each stage of this process, as well as an image produced without centering. Without centering, the shift invariance of the networks allows most semantic content to scatter to the image edges. With centering, results remain coherent.
\def \varfigcen{0.0810.125\linewidth}
\def 0.1620.125\linewidth{0.1620.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{0.6pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccccc|c}
\multicolumn{9}{c|}{w/ Centering } & w/o Centering \\
Init & Step 1 & Step 2 & Step 3 & Step 4 & Step 5 & Step 6 & Step 7 & Final & Final \\
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/0_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/2_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/4_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/8_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/10_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/12_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/14_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/16_0.png}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1620.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/center/182/good/17_300.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1620.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/center/182/bad/17_300.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{An image at different stages of optimization with centering (left), and an image inverted without centering (right), for the Border Terrier class of a robust ResNet-50.}
\label{fig:centering}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Zoom}
For zoom, we begin with an image $x$ of lower resolution than the desired result. In each step, we optimize this image for a fixed number of iterations and then up-sample the result, repeating until we reach the full resolution. Figure \ref{fig:zoom} shows the state of an image at each step of the zoom procedure, along with an image produced without zoom. The latter image splits the object of interest at its edges. By contrast, zoom appears to find a meaningful structure for the image in the early steps and refines details like texture as the resolution increases.
We note that zoom is not an entirely novel idea in inversion. \citet{yin2020dreaming} use a similar technique as `warm-up' for better performance and speed-up. However, we observe that continuing zoom throughout optimization contributes to the overall success of \emph{PII}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{0.6pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{cccccccccc}
\multicolumn{9}{c}{w/ Zoom} & w/o Zoom \\
Init & Step 1 & Step 2 & Step 3 & Step 4 & Step 5 & Step 6 & Step 7 & Final & Final \\
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/0_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/2_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/4_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/8_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/10_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/12_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/14_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=\varfigcen]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/16_0.png}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1620.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/good/17_300.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1620.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/resolution/17/bad/17_300.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{An image during different stages of optimization with zoom (left), and an image inverted without zoom (right), for the Jay class of a robust ResNet-50.}
\label{fig:zoom}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Zoom + Centering}
Unsurprisingly, we have found that applying zoom and centering simultaneously yields even better results than applying either individually, since each one provides a different benefit. Centering places detailed and important features (e.g. the dog's eye in Figure \ref{fig:centering}) near the center and builds the rest of the image around the existing patch. Zoom helps enforce a sound large-scale structure for the image and fills in details later.
The combined Zoom and Centering process proceeds in `stages', each at a higher resolution than the last. Each stage begins with an image patch generated by the previous stage, which approximately minimizes the inversion loss. The patch is then up-sampled to a resolution halfway between the previous stage and current stage resolution, allowing it to fill the center of the image, leaving a border which is padded with random noise. Then next round of optimization then begins starting from this newly processed image.
\subsection{ColorShift{} Augmentation}\label{plugin:color-jitter}
The colors of the illustrative images we have shown so far are notably different from what one might expect in a natural image. This is due to \emph{ColorShift}, a new augmentation that we now present.
ColorShift is an adjustment of an image's colors by a random mean and variance in each channel. This can be formulated as follows:
$$\text{ColorShift}(\mathbf{x}) = \sigma \mathbf{x} - \mu,$$
where $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are $C$-dimensional\footnote{$C$ being the number of channels} vectors drawn from $\mathcal{U}(-\alpha, \alpha)$ and $e^{\mathcal{U}(-\beta, \beta)}$, respectively, and are repeatedly redrawn after a fixed number of iterations. We use $\alpha = \beta = 1.0$ in all demonstrations unless otherwise noted.
At first glance, this deliberate shift away from the distribution of natural images seems counterproductive to the goal of producing a recognizable image. However, our results show that using ColorShift noticeably increases the amount of visual information captured by inverted images and also obviates the need for hard-to-tune regularizers to stabilize optimization.
We visualize the stabilizing effect of ColorShift in Figure \ref{fig:tv}. In this experiment, we invert the model by minimizing the sum of a cross entropy and a total-variation (TV) penalty. Without ColorShift, the quality of images is highly dependent on the weight $\lambda_{TV}$ of the TV regularizer; smaller values produce noisy images, while larger values produce blurry ones. Inversion with ColorShift, on the other hand, is insensitive to this value and in fact succeeds when omitting the regularizer altogether.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{cYYYYYY}
$log(\lambda_{tv}):$ & $-9$ & $-8$ & $-7$ & $-6$ & $-5$ & $-4$ \\
\raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/ CS} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/no_tv/480_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/no_tv/480_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/no_tv/480_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/no_tv/480_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/no_tv/480_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/no_tv/480_0.png} \\
\raisebox{3\totalheight}{w/o CS} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/tv/480_-5.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/tv/480_-4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/tv/480_-3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/tv/480_-2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/tv/480_-1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/tv/tv/480_0.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Inversions of the robust ResNet-50 ATM class, with and without ColorShift and with varying TV regularization strength. The inversion process with ColorShift{} is robust to changes in the $\lambda_{tv}$ hyper-parameter, while without it, $\lambda_{tv}$ seems to present a trade-off between noise and blur.}
\label{fig:tv}
\end{figure}
Other preliminary experiments show that ColorShift similarly removes the need for $\ell_2$ or feature regularization, as our main results for \emph{PII}{} will show. We conjecture that by forcing unnatural colors into an image, ColorShift requires the optimization to find a solution which contains meaningful semantic information, rather than photo-realistic colors, in order to achieve a high class score. Alternatively, as seen in Figure \ref{fig:distill_comp}, images optimized with an image prior may achieve high scores despite a lack of semantic information merely by finding sufficiently natural colors and textures.
\subsection{Ensembling}
Ensembling is an established tool often used in dataset security~\citep{souri2021sleeper} to enhanced inference~\citep{opitz1999popular}.
Similarly, we find that optimizing an ensemble composed of different ColorShifts of the same image simultaneously improves the performance of inversion methods.
To this end, we minimize the average of cross-entropy losses $\mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}_i), y)$,
where the ${\mathbf{x}_i}$ are different ColorShifts of the image at the current step of optimization. Figure \ref{fig:batch_size} shows the result of applying ensembling alongside ColorShift{}. We observe that larger ensembles appear to give slight improvements, but even ensembles of size 1 or two produce satisfactory results. This is important for models like ViTs, where available GPU memory constrains the possible size of this ensemble; in general, we use the largest ensemble size (up to a maximum of $e=32$) that our hardware permits for a particular model. More results on the effect of ensemble size can be found in Figure \ref{fig:app:batch_size}. We show the effect of ensembling using other well-known augmentations and compare them to ColorShift{} in Appendix Section \ref{app:other_augs}. We empirically show that ColorShift{} is the strongest among augmentations we tried for model inversion.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYYYYYY}
$e=1$ & $e=2$ & $e=4$ & $e=8$ & $e=16$ & $e=32$ & $e=64$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/robust/625_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/robust/625_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/robust/625_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/robust/625_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/robust/625_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/robust/625_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/robust/625_64.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Effect of ensemble size in the quality of inverted images for the Tugboat class of a robust ResNet-50.}
\label{fig:batch_size}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Plug-in Inversion Method}\label{plugin:method}
We combine the jitter, ensembling, ColorShift, centering, and zoom techniques, and name the result Plug-In Inversion, which references the ability to `plug in' any differentiable model, including ViTs and MLPs, using a single fixed set of hyper-parameters. In the next section, we detail the experimental method that we used to find these hyper-parameters, after which we present our main results.
\section{Experimental Setup}\label{exp-setup}
In order to tune hyper-parameters of \emph{PII}{} for use on naturally-trained models, we use the \texttt{torchvision} \citep{paszke2019pytorch} ImageNet-trained ResNet-50 model. We apply centering + zoom simultaneously in 7 `stages.' During each stage, we optimize the selected patch for 400 iterations, applying random jitter and ColorShift{} at each step. We use the Adam \citep{kingma2014adam} optimizer with momentum $\beta_m=(0.5, 0.99)$, initial learning rate $lr=0.01$, and cosine-decay. At the beginning of every stage, the learning rate and optimizer are re-initialized. We use $\alpha=\beta=1.0$ for the ColorShift parameters, and an ensemble size of $e=32$. We ablate these choices in Figure \ref{fig:ablations}
to validate our selected settings. Further ablation studies can be found in the appendix in figures \ref{fig:app:mean_var}, \ref{fig:app:nat_centering}, and \ref{fig:app:batch_size}.
\def 0.0880.125\linewidth{0.0880.125\linewidth}
\def 0.1760.125\linewidth{0.1760.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{0.6pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccccc}
\multicolumn{8}{c}{Centering} & Not Centering \\
Init & Step 1 & Step 2 & Step 3 & Step 4 & Step 5 & Step 6 & Final & Final \\
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/308/0_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/308/2_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/308/4_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/308/8_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/308/10_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/308/12_0.png}} &
\raisebox{0.5\totalheight}{\includegraphics[width=0.0880.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/308/14_0.png}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1760.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/308/15_50.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.1760.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/nat_center/appendix/not_308.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYYYYYY}
$e=1$ & $e=2$ & $e=4$ & $e=8$ & $e=16$ & $e=32$ & $e=64$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/nat/0_1.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/nat/0_2.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/nat/0_4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/nat/0_8.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/nat/0_16.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/nat/0_32.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/batch_size/nat/0_64.png} \\
\end{tabularx}\\
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{YYYYYYYY}
Z & Z + C & C & None & Z & Z + C & C & None \\ \includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/ablate_vit/r_cj.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/ablate_vit/r_c_cj.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/ablate_vit/c_cj.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/ablate_vit/cj.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/ablate_vit/r.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/ablate_vit/r_c.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/ablate_vit/c.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/ablate_vit/basic.png} \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{w/ ColorShift} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{w/o ColorShift} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Ablation studies repeating the previous experiments for a \emph{naturally}-trained ResNet-50. (top) Inversion for target class Fly with and without Centering. (center) Effect of ensembling size in the quality of inverted images for the Tench class. (bottom) The effect of various combinations of zoom, Centering, and ColorShift{} when inverting the Dipper class.}
\label{fig:ablations}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}\label{results}
\subsection{\emph{PII}{} works on a range of architectures}
We now present the results of applying Plug-In Inversion to different types of models. We once again emphasize that we use identical settings for the \emph{PII}{} parameters in all cases.
Figure \ref{fig:various_nets} depicts images produced by inverting the Volcano class for a variety of architectures, including examples of CNNs, ViTs, and MLPs. While the quality of images varies somewhat between networks, all of them include distinguishable and well-placed visual information. Many more examples are found in Figure \ref{fig:app_various_nets} of the Appendix.
\def 0.190.125\linewidth{0.190.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/7.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/11.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/15.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/20.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/22.png} \\
MobileNet-v2 & ResNet-18 & ResNet-101 & W- ResNet-101-2 & ShuffleNet-v2\\
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/31.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/34.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/40.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/41.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/53.png} \\
VGG16-bn & ViT B-32 & DeiT P16 224 & Deit Dist P16 384 & ConViT tiny \\
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/55.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/62.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/72.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/85.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.190.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/various/87.png} \\
Mixer b16 224 & PiT Dist 224 & ResMLP 36 Dist & Swin P4 W12 & Twin PCPVT \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ Images inverted from the Volcano class for
various Convolutional, Transformer, and MLP-based networks using \emph{PII}.
For more details about networks, refer to Appendix~\ref{app:model-library}. }
\label{fig:various_nets}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:various_classes}, we show images produced by \emph{PII}{} from representatives of each main type of architecture for a few arbitrary classes. We note the distinct visual styles that appear in each row, which supports the perspective of model inversion as a tool for understanding what kind of information different networks learn during training.
\def 0.130.125\linewidth{0.150.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{} & \multirow{2}{*}{Barn} & Garbage & \multirow{2}{*}{Goblet} & Ocean & CRT & \multirow{2}{*}{Warplane}\\
& & Truck & & Liner & Screen & \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ResNet-101}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/15_425.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/15_569.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/15_572.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/15_628.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/15_782.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/15_895.png} \\
\raisebox{0.3\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ViT B-32}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/34_425.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/34_569.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/34_572.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/34_628.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/34_782.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/34_895.png} \\
\raisebox{0.3\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{DeiT Dist}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/41_425.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/41_569.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/41_572.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/41_628.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/41_782.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/41_895.png} \\
\raisebox{0.1\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{ResMLP 36}} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/72_425.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/72_569.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/72_572.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/72_628.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/72_782.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.130.125\linewidth]{iclr2022/images/var_nets_var_classes/72_895.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Inverting different model and class combinations for different classes using \emph{PII}.}
\label{fig:various_classes}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Combining \emph{PII}{} with DeepInversion}
We now consider the relative benefits of Plug-In Inversion and DeepInversion \citep{yin2020dreaming}, a state-of-the-art class inversion method for CNNs.
Figure \ref{fig:distill_comp} shows images from a few arbitrary classes produced by \emph{PII}{} and DeepInversion (along with reference examples from the robust model demonstration in section \ref{plugin}). We additionally show images produced by DeepInversion using the output of \emph{PII}, rather than random noise, as its initialization.
Using either initialization, DeepInversion clearly produces images with natural-looking colors and textures, which \emph{PII}{} of course does not. However, DeepInversion alone results in some images that either do not clearly correspond to the target class or are semantically confusing. By comparison, \emph{PII}{} again produces images with strong spatial and semantic qualities. Interestingly, these qualities appear to be largely retained when applying DeepInversion after \emph{PII}, but with the color and texture improvements that image priors afford \citep{mahendran2015understanding}.
\def \vardistill{0.150.125\linewidth}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.125\linewidth}{ccccccc}
Gown & Microphone & Mobile Home & Schooner & Cardoon & Volcano \\
\raisebox{2.0\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{PII} }
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/400/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/650/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/660/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/780/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/946/ours.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/980/ours.png} \\
\raisebox{0.0\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{PII + DeepInv} }
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/400/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/650/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/660/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/780/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/946/ours_distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/980/ours_distill.png} \\
\raisebox{0.4\totalheight}{\rotatebox[origin=lB]{90}{DeepInv} }
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/400/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/650/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/660/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/780/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/946/distill.png} &
\includegraphics[width=\vardistill]{iclr2022/images/deepinversion/980/distill.png} \\
\end{tabularx}
\caption{ PII Inversion results for a naturally-trained ResNet-50. PII can be used as initialization for other methods such as DeepInversion. }
\label{fig:distill_comp}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Image reconstruction}
Various works have sought to understand how deep vision models (particularly CNNs) `work' by reconstructing input images from their feature representations or other layer output. Some techniques train auxiliary networks which take features as inputs and give images as outputs \citep{zeiler2014visualizing, dosovitskiy2016inverting}. Another approach is that of \citep{mahendran2015understanding}, in which gradient descent is performed on a randomly initialized image until its feature representation approximately matches that of a reference image. We note that these methods require access to the model's training data, which may not be available for proprietary models.
\subsection{Model inversion}
A \emph{data-free} way to visualize information about what a model has learned is model inversion. The basic scheme is similar to the gradient descent procedure for feature inversion described above, but attempts to match the model's softmax prediction to a particular class label instead of matching feature representations. This method alone works well for shallow networks \citep{fredrikson2015model} and small datasets \citep{shokri2017membership}, but modifications are needed for more complex settings. One such modification is the use of an image prior to direct the optimization towards result which more closely resembles a natural image. The prior is enforced via regularizer(s) such as a penalty on \emph{total variation} (TV) or $\ell_2$-norm \citep{mahendran2015understanding, mordvintsev2015inceptionism}. \emph{DeepInversion} combines both of these with a feature regularization term which encourages images for which the output of each convolutional layer has mean and variance close to the corresponding BatchNorm statistics stored in the model \citep{yin2020dreaming}.
\fi
\section{Conclusion}
We studied the effect of various augmentations on the quality of class-inverted images and introduced Plug-In Inversion, which uses these augmentations in tandem. We showed that this technique produces intelligible images from a wide range of well-studied architectures, as well as the recently introduced ViTs and MLPs, without a need for model specific hyper-parameter tuning. We believe that augmentation-based model inversion is a promising direction for future research in understanding computer vision models.
\section{Ethical Considerations}
We propose Plug-In Inversion as a class inversion technique for the purpose of understanding vision models. However, we note that prior work has considered the potential of model inversion to compromise the security of a model's training data \citep{fredrikson2015model, yin2020dreaming}. These areas of progress and other data privacy concerns \citep{zhu2020deep, geiping2020inverting} make clear the need for caution when sensitive data is used to train deep learning models.
\section{Reproducibility}
All the models (including pre-trained weights) we consider in this work are publicly available from widely-used sources. Explicit details of model resources can be found in section \ref{app:model-library} of the appendix. We also make the code used for all demonstrations and experiments in this work available at \url{https://github.com/youranonymousefriend/plugininversion}.
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Dimension reduction is an important component of many data analysis tasks, but can be potentially problematic as it may ``reveal'' structure in data which is not truly present. In inference this can be addressed by principled use of a withheld test set or an analysis which addresses model selection more directly.
However, in exploratory data analysis it can be difficult to address selection problems incurred by exploration of different dimension reduction techniques, such as whether visualized structures are really present or an artifact of the chosen embedding.
In this paper, we develop the use of the interleaving distance for the purpose of quantifying the extent to which \emph{topological} features of an embedding relate to features in the original data set. Explicitly, we can compute a threshold after which features of a certain size in the persistent homology of the Vietoris-Rips filtration are in one-to-one correspondence between the data set before and after dimension reduction. Furthermore, we show how to find local minima of this threshold through optimization and demonstrate this on the task of finding optimal projections of a data set.
\subsection{Related Work}
Optimization of persistent homology-based objective functions has attracted much recent attention \cite{poulenardTopologicalFunctionOptimization2018,gabrielssonTopologyLayerMachine2020,hoferGraphFiltrationLearning2020, kimPLLayEfficientTopological2020, carrierePersLayNeuralNetwork2020a, carriereOptimizingPersistentHomology2021, leygonieFrameworkDifferentialCalculus2021} with a particular focus on applications in computational geometry and deep learning. Of particular relevance is the work of \cite{moorTopologicalAutoencoders2020} which uses a persistence-based objective to preserve critical edges in the persistent homology of the Vietoris-Rips filtration in a learned latent space of an autoencoder.
The idea of using persistent homology to compare different dimension reduction schemes was initiated by Rieck and Leitte \cite{rieckPersistentHomologyEvaluation2015, rieckAgreementAnalysisQuality2017}, which uses the $2$-Wasserstein distance to compare the persistence diagrams of a data set before and after dimension reduction. Several non-differentiable methods incorporating persistent homology have been developed \cite{desilvaPersistentCohomologyCircular2011a,yanHomologyPreservingDimensionalityReduction2018, doraiswamyTopoMap0dimensionalHomology2021}. With the development of optimization techniques for persistent homology, several differentiable methods have been proposed based on optimization of the $2$-Wasserstein metric on persistence diagrams \cite{kachanPersistentHomologybasedProjection2020, wagnerImprovingMetricDimensionality2021} and an approach based on simulated annealing \cite{yuShapePreservingDimensionalityReduction2021}. While not employed on Vietoris-Rips filtrations, the work of \cite{poulenardTopologicalFunctionOptimization2018} uses the bottleneck distance for optimization of functional maps on shapes.
The interleaving/bottleneck distance has long been a key tool developed for the study of persistent homology under perturbation of the input \cite{cohen-steinerStabilityPersistenceDiagrams2007}. The interleaving distance was first introduced by \cite{chazalProximityPersistenceModules2009}, and applied to the study of Vietoris-Rips filtrations in \cite{chazalGromovHausdorffStableSignatures2009} to bound the distance of persistent homology by the Gromov-Hausdorff distance between the input point clouds. The idea of developing confidence regions for persistence pairs was developed by \cite{fasyConfidenceSetsPersistence2014} in the context of sampling.
\subsection{Contributions}
This work presents a novel approach to dimension reduction using optimization of the interleaving/bottleneck distance between the persistent homology of Vietoris-Rips Filtrations of an original data set $X$ and the data set $Y$ after dimensionality reduction.
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength\itemsep{0em}
\item We show how the interleaving distance can be used to quantify a scale at which topological features in $X$ and features in $Y$ are in correspondence, and be used to select homological features of $Y$ in correspondence with features in $X$.
\item We show how to incorporate the interleaving distance explicitly into the optimization of the embedding $Y$ and prove the existence of descent directions under mild conditions.
\item We demonstrate this technique in finding optimal linear projections of the data set $X$ to preserve the bottleneck distance on several examples\footnote{Our implementations are made publicly available at
\url{https://github.com/CompTop/Interleaving-DR}.} with interesting topology.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Background}\label{section:Background}
\subsection{Persistent Homology of Vietoris-Rips Filtrations}
We are interested in discovering and preserving topological features of a point cloud $X$ together with a notion of dissimilarity $d$, and refer to the combination of these two data as a dissimilarity space $(X,d)$. A dissimilarity is a function $d:X\times X\to \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$, with $d(x,x)=0$ for any $x\in X$. We will typically consider dissimilarities that are metrics (in particular which satisfy triangle inequality), but many of the bounds here hold more generality.
Examples of topological features of the space $(X,d)$ include clusters formed through single-linkage clustering or ``holes'' forming loops in the $r$-nearest neighbors graph of $X$.
Vietoris-Rips filtrations are commonly used in conjunction with persistent homology to create features for finite dimensional metric spaces (point clouds) \cite{carlssonTopologicalPatternRecognition2014b}. Given a dissimilarity space $(X, d)$, a Vietoris-Rips complex consists of simplices with a maximum pairwise dissimilarity between vertices is less than some threshold $r$ :
$$
X_{r}=\left\{\left(x_{0}, \ldots, x_{k}\right) \mid x_{i} \in X, d\left(x_{i}, x_{j}\right) \leq r\right\}
$$
A Vietoris-Rips filtration is a nested sequence of Vietoris-Rips complexes $X_{r} \subseteq X_{s}$ if $r \leq s$.
Homology is a functor from the category of topological spaces and continuous maps to the category of vector spaces and linear maps (for a general introduction see \cite{hatcherAlgebraicTopology2002}). The dimension of the $k$-dimensional homology vector space $H_k(X)$ of a topological space $X$ counts $k$-dimensional topological features of $X$: $\dim H_0(X)$ is the number of connected components, $\dim H_1(X)$ counts loops, and $\dim H_k$ generally counts $k$-dimensional voids. A continuous map $f:X\to Y$ has an induced map $H_k(f):H_k(X) \to H_k(Y)$ which maps vectors associated with topological features in $X$ to vectors associated with topological features in $Y$. The computation of $H_k(X)$ begins with the construction of a chain complex $C_\ast(X) = \{C_k(X), \partial_k: C_k(X) \to C_{k-1}(X)\}_{k\ge 0}$ where $C_k(X)$ is a vector space with a basis element for each $k$-simplex in $X$, and the boundary map $\partial_k$ sends each basis element to a linear combination of basis elements of faces in the boundary of the associated simplex.
The boundary maps satisfy $\partial_k \circ \partial_{k+1} = 0$, and $H_k(X)$ is the quotient vector space $\ker \partial_k / \img \partial_{k+1}$.
Persistent homology \cite{edelsbrunnerTopologicalPersistenceSimplification2002, zomorodianComputingPersistentHomology2005} is an algebraic invariant of filtrations which captures how the topology of a filtration changes using homology. The output of persistent homology is a persistence vector space $V_\ast$, consisting of vector spaces $\{V_r = H_k(X_r)\}_{r\in \mathbb{R}}$ and linear maps induced by inclusion $\{\iota^V_{r,s}:V_r\to V_s\}_{r \le s \in \mathbb{R}}$ which satisfy a consistency condition $\iota^V_{r,t} = \iota^V_{r,s} \iota^V_{s,t}$ for all $r \le s \le t$.
Persistence vector spaces are classified up to isomorphism by birth-death pairs $\{(b_i, d_i)\}_{i\in I}$, or equivalently their persistence barcode \cite{zomorodianComputingPersistentHomology2005} or interval indecomposables \cite{carlssonZigzagPersistence2010}. Each pair $(b,d)$ is associated to the appearance of a new homology vector at filtration parameter $b$ (meaning it is not in the image of an induced map), which maps through the persistence vector space until it enters the kernel of an induced map at filtration parameter $d$. The length of the pair $(b,d)$ is the difference $|d- b|$.
Every birth and death in persistent homology is associated with the addition of a particular simplex in the filtration. This follows from the definition of homology of the quotient vector space $H_k(X) = \ker \partial_k / \img \partial_{k+1}$. The addition of a new $k$-simplex increases the dimension of $C_k(X)$ by one, and either increases the dimension of $\ker \partial_k$ by one, causing a birth in $H_k(X)$, or increases the dimension of $\img \partial_{k}$ by one, causing a death in $H_{k-1}(X)$.
Because the Vietoris-Rips filtration is determined by its edges, the filtration value of every simplex can be mapped to the largest pairwise distance. This provides a way to map the gradient of a function with respect to births and deaths to a gradient with respect to each pairwise distance -- see \cite{gabrielssonTopologyLayerMachine2020} for additional details.
\subsection{The Interleaving and Bottleneck Distances}
Interleavings allow for the comparison of two persistence vector spaces \cite{chazalProximityPersistenceModules2009}, as well as other objects filtered by some partially ordered set \cite{bubenikCategorificationPersistentHomology2014}. Let $V_\ast$ and $W_\ast$ be 1-parameter persistence vector spaces. An $\epsilon$-shift map $f_\ast:V_\ast \to W_\ast$ is a collection of maps $f_r:V_r\to W_{r+\epsilon}$ so that the following diagram commutes for all parameters $r$
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzcd}
V_r \ar[r,"\iota^V_{r,s}"]\ar[d,"f_r"] & V_s\ar[d, "f_s"]\\
W_{r+\epsilon} \ar[r,"\iota^W_{r+\epsilon, s+\epsilon}"] & W_{s+\epsilon}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
An $\epsilon$-interleaving between $V_\ast$ and $W_\ast$ is a pair of $\epsilon$-shift maps $f_\ast:V_\ast\to W_\ast$ and $g_\ast:W_\ast \to V_\ast$ so that $g_{r+\epsilon} f_r = \iota^V_{r,r+2\epsilon}$ and $f_{r+\epsilon} g_r = \iota^W_{r,r+2\epsilon}$ for all parameters $r$.
The interleaving distance \cite{chazalProximityPersistenceModules2009} on persistence modules $V_\ast$ and $W_\ast$ is
\begin{equation}
d_{\mathrm{I}}(V_\ast, W_\ast) = \inf \{\epsilon \ge 0 \mid \text{$V_\ast$ and $W_\ast$ are $\epsilon$-interleaved}\}
\end{equation}
This notion of distance satisfies triangle inequality through the composition of interleavings. Note that the addition or removal an arbitrary number of zero-length pairs to a persistence vector space $V_\ast$ to obtain $V'_\ast$ results in $d_I(V_\ast, V'_\ast) = 0$.
The construction of general interleavings, let alone those that would realize the interleaving distance, can be a daunting task. Fortunately, for 1-parameter persistent homology the interleaving distance $d_I$ is equivalent to the geometric (and easily computable) bottleneck distance $d_B$ on persistence diagrams \cite{lesnickTheoryInterleavingDistance2015}.
The bottleneck distance considers the birth-death pairs $\{(b_i,d_i)\}_{i\in I}$ as points in the 2-dimensional plane. The persistence diagram $\dgm(V_\ast)$ is the union of this discrete multi-set of the points $\{(b_i,d_i)\}$ with the diagonal $\Delta = \{(x,x) \mid x\in \mathbb{R}\}$ where points in $\Delta$ are counted with infinite multiplicity.
\begin{definition}
A matching between two persistence diagrams $\dgm_{1}$ and $\dgm_{2}$ is a subset $\Omega \subseteq \operatorname{dgm}_{1} \times \dgm_{2}$ such that every points in $\dgm_{1} \setminus \Delta$ and $\dgm_{2} \setminus \Delta$ appears exactly once in $m$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:bottleneck_dist}
The Bottleneck distance between $\dgm_{1}$ and $\dgm_{2}$ is then defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bottleneck_distance}
\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}\left(\dgm_{1}, \dgm_{2}\right)=\inf _{\text {matching }} \max _{(p, q) \in \Omega}\|p-q\|_{\infty}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The bottleneck distance on persistence diagrams is isometric to the interleaving distance on persistence vector spaces, which is a result known as the isometry theorem:
\begin{theorem} \cite{lesnickTheoryInterleavingDistance2015}
Let $\dgm(V_{\ast})$ and $\dgm(W_{\ast})$ be the persistent diagrams of $V_{\ast}$ and $W_{\ast}$ respectively. Then
$$
d_{\mathrm{I}}(V_{\ast}, W_{\ast})=d_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(V_{\ast}), \dgm(W_{\ast}))
$$
\end{theorem}
The matching in the bottleneck distance actually gives an interleaving which maps a vector associated to a persistence pair in $\dgm(V_\ast)$ to the vector associated with the matched pair in $\dgm(W_\ast)$ which realizes the interleaving distance.
\subsection{Bounds on the Interleaving Distance}
In practice, persistent homology of the Vietoris-Rips filtration can be quickly approximated using sub-sampling. Bounds on this approximation come from the Hausdorff or Gromov-Hausdorff distance on between point clouds \cite{chazalGromovHausdorffStableSignatures2009}.
\begin{definition}
The Hausdorff distance between two subsets $X$ and $Y$ within the same metric space is
$$
d_{H}(X, Y)=\max \left\{\sup _{x} \inf _{y}\|x-y\|_{\infty}, \sup _{y} \inf _{x}\|y-x\|_{\infty}\right\}
$$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A correspondence between two sets $X$ and $Y$ is a subset $C \subset X \times Y$ such that: $\forall x \in X, \exists y \in Y$ s.t. $(x, y) \in C$, and $\forall y \in Y, \exists x \in X$ s.t. $(x, y) \in C$. The set of all correspondences between $X$ and $Y$ is denoted by $\mathcal{C}(X, Y)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
The Gromov-Hausdorff distance between compact metric spaces $\left(X, \mathrm{~d}_{X}\right),\left(Y, \mathrm{~d}_{Y}\right)$ is:
$$
\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{GH}}\left(\left(X, \mathrm{~d}_{X}\right),\left(Y, \mathrm{~d}_{Y}\right)\right)=\frac{1}{2} \inf _{C \in \mathcal{C}(X, Y)}\left\|\Gamma_{X, Y}\right\|_{l ^\infty(C \times C)},
$$
where $\Gamma_{X, Y}: X \times Y \times X \times Y \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{+}$ is defined by $\left(x, y, x^{\prime}, y^{\prime}\right) \mapsto\left|\mathrm{d}_{X}\left(x, x^{\prime}\right)-\mathrm{d}_{Y}\left(y, y^{\prime}\right)\right|$ and the notation $\left\|\Gamma_{X, Y}\right\|_{l^{\infty}(C \times C)}$ stands for $\sup _{(x, y),\left(x^{\prime}, y^{\prime}\right) \in C} \Gamma_{X, Y}\left(x, y, x^{\prime}, y^{\prime}\right)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:bottleneck less than GH}
\cite{chazalGromovHausdorffStableSignatures2009} For any finite metric spaces $\left(X, \mathrm{~d}_{X}\right)$ and $\left(Y, \mathrm{~d}_{Y}\right)$, for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$, the bottleneck distance between two $k$-th persistent diagrams of Rips filtrations is bounded by the Gromov-Hausdorff between two spaces
$$
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}} (\dgm(X), \dgm(Y))
\leq \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{GH}}\left(\left(X, \mathrm{~d}_{X}\right),\left(Y, \mathrm{~d}_{Y}\right)\right) .
\end{aligned}
$$
\end{theorem}
The theorem above can also provide us an interleaving/bottleneck distance bound for sub-sampled data sets only if we can find their Gromov-Hausdorff distance.
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:bottleneck bound}
Let $X$ be a dataset and $Y$ be a low-dimensional embedding of $X$, and $X_{\text{sub}}$ and $Y_{\text{sub}}$ are their sub-sampled data sets. Then
$$
\begin{aligned}
d_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(X), \dgm(Y))
& \leq d_{\mathrm{GH}}(X, X_{\text{sub}}) \\
& + d_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(X_{\text{sub}}), \dgm(Y_{\text{sub}})) \\
& + d_{\mathrm{GH}}(Y, Y_{\text{sub}})
\end{aligned}
$$
\end{corollary}
The proof only needs the triangle inequality of metrics.
\section{Measuring Embedding Distortion through Interleavings}\label{section: Measuring Embedding Distortion through Interleavings}
The interleaving distance provides a natural way to measure how accurately a transformation of a data set $X$ with dissimilarity $d_X$ into a low-dimensional embedding $Y$ with dissimilarity $d_Y$ distorts topology. In particular, it provides a way to eliminate topological type-I errors and reduce topological type-II errors when inferring information about the space $(X, d_X)$ via the embedding $(Y,d_Y)$, as might be done in data visualization.
In order to have a notion of topological error, we must select topological features of $(Y,d_Y)$ which are believed to be significant, meaning that they are believed to correspond to topological structures in $(X,d_X)$.
\begin{definition}
A topological type-I error in $(Y,d_Y)$ is the selection of a feature in $(Y,d_Y)$ which has no corresponding feature in $(X,d_X)$.
\end{definition}
For example, if the embedding $(Y,d_Y)$ splits a single cluster in $(X,d_X)$ into two clusters, then making a distinction between the two clusters by selecting both $H_0$ pairs in $(Y,d_Y)$ would be a topological type-I error.
\begin{definition}
A topological type-II error in $(Y,d_Y)$ is made when a structure which corresponds to a structure in $(X,d_X)$ is not selected as significant.
\end{definition}
For example, if two clusters in $(X,d_X)$ merge into a single cluster in $(Y,d_Y)$ then we are forced to make a topological type-II error since we can select at most one persistent $H_0$ feature in $(Y,d_Y)$.
\subsection{Selection of Homological Features}
Let $H_k(X;r) = H_k(\mathcal{R}(X,d_X;r))$ denote the $k$-dimensional homology of the Vietoris-Rips complex at parameter $r$, and $H_k(X)$ denote the $k$-dimensional persistent homology of the Vietoris-Rips filtration. Similarly, we have $H_k(Y;r)$ and $H_k(Y)$. We refer to each persistence pair in $H_k(X)$ or $H_k(Y)$ as a homological feature of $(X,d_X)$ or $(Y,d_Y)$ respectively. We would like to select features of $(Y,d_Y)$ which are in correspondence with features of $(X,d_X)$.
A simple selection procedure is to compute the interleaving distance $\epsilon = d_{\mathrm{I}}(H_k(\mathcal{R}(Y, d_Y), H_k(\mathcal{R}(X,d_X))$, and to select any homology class $(b,d)\in H_k(\mathcal{R}(Y, d_Y))$ with $|d - b| > 2\epsilon$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:no_typeI_errors}
No type-I errors are made using this selection procedure.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that a selected homology vector has birth $b$ and death $d$ in $H_k(Y)$ with $|d - b| > 2\epsilon$.
We consider the $\epsilon$-shift maps that realize the interleaving
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=-2em]
{H_k(Y; b)}\ar[rr]\ar[dr] & {} & {H_k(Y; b+2\epsilon)} \\
& {H_k(X; b + \epsilon)}\ar[ur]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
Because $|d-b| > 2\epsilon$ and the above diagram commutes, the selected vector must have a non-zero image in $H_k(X;b+\epsilon)$.
Furthermore, if two selected vectors have the same image in $H_k(X)$ then their difference must be zero in the image back in $H_k(Y)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:type2_control}
Every persistence pair in $H_k(X)$ with $|d-b|> 4\epsilon$ has a corresponding persistence pair in $H_k(Y)$ which is selected.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that a homology vector in $H_k(X)$ has birth $b$ and death $d$, with $|d-b|> 4\epsilon$. Then in the following diagram the associated vector must have non-zero image in each vector space in the $\epsilon$-interleaving
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=-0.7em]
{H_k(X;b)}\ar[rr]\ar[dr] && {\cdots}\ar[rr]\ar[dr] && {H_k(X; d)} \\
& {H_k(Y; b + \epsilon)}\ar[rr]\ar[ur] &&{H_k(Y; d - \epsilon)}\ar[ur]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
Which implies that the persistence pair in $H_k(X)$ is in correspondence with a persistence pair $(b',d')\in H_k(Y)$, where $b'\le b+\epsilon$ and $d'\ge d-\epsilon$. This pair has length $>(d-\epsilon) - (b+\epsilon) = 2\epsilon$, so is selected by our procedure.
\end{proof}
As a result, not only does this selection procedure guarantee that we will make no topological type-I errors, but we also will not make any type-II errors involving a homological feature of $(X,d_X)$ of sufficient size. Note that if we lower our threshold for selecting pairs of $H_k(Y)$
then we could introduce the possibility of homological type-I errors, and that there is always the possibility of homological type-II errors when neither pair in the correspondence has sufficient length.
\subsection{Application to General Dimension Reduction}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\subfigure[Dimension reduction result]
{
\label{subfig:tendril_pca}
\includegraphics[width=.2\textwidth]{images/tomato/tomato_PH.pdf}
}
\subfigure[Persistence diagram with unconfident band]
{
\label{subfig:tendril_isomap}
\includegraphics[width=.2\textwidth]{images/tomato/tomato_PH_uncertain.pdf}
}
\subfigure[Longest uncertain H1 representative (Blue) and certain H1 representative (Red)]
{
\label{subfig:tendril_pca}
\includegraphics[width=.2\textwidth]{images/tomato/tomato_PH_2H1_rep.pdf}
}
\caption{Dimension reduction results of Tomato dataset by first using PCA to reduce dimension to 10 and then using our PH optimization to reduce to 2.}
\label{fig:tomato_viz}
\end{figure*}
This selection procedure can be used to assess how well any transformation of point cloud data $X$ preserves topology. In particular, we can compute the bottleneck distance $\epsilon = d_\mathrm{I}(H_k(X),H_k(Y))$, the number of features of $H_k(Y)$ with $|d-b| > 2\epsilon$ and the number of features of $H_k(X)$ with $|d-b| > 4\epsilon$. In the context of dimension reduction, it would be desirable to minimize the interleaving distance in order to maximize the number of features we can identify which are in correspondence with features in the original data set. This is the approach we pursue in \cref{sec:interleaving_opt}.
In table \cref{tab:tomato_selected} we compare several algorithms for dimension reduction on a set of images from the Columbia Object Image Library (COIL-100) \cite{Nene96objectimage} taken of a tomato at various angles in a circle which has a single large $H_1$ homological feature in the original data. Methods compared include PCA, MDS \cite{kruskalMultidimensionalScalingOptimizing1964}, and ISOMAP \cite{tenenbaumGlobalGeometricFramework2000} with a method based on minimizing the bottleneck distance developed in \cref{sec:interleaving_opt}, PH, and a hybrid PH + PCA. Because every Vietoris-Rips filtration has a single $H_0$ pair with death at $\infty$, at least one $H_0$ feature will always be selected. Only PH + PCA allows for the selection of an $H_1$ feature. Visualization of each embedding can be found in the appendix, and a more detailed visualization of the PH + PCA embedding can be found in \cref{fig:tomato_viz}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
Method & max $H_1$ & $\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{I}}$ $H_0$ & $\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{I}}$ $H_1$ & $H_0$ & $H_1$ \\
\hline
PCA & 4.854 & 5.148 & 10.852 & 1 & 0\\
MDS & 5.626 & 4.782 & 10.217 & 1 &0\\
ISOMAP & 113.968 & 1.935 & 108.623 & 1 &0\\
PH & 7.543& 5.295 &5.295 & 1 & 0\\
PH + PCA & 9.234 &4.689 &4.532 & 1 & 1\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Selection of topological features. $\max H_1$ is the length of the largest $H_1$ pair in $Y$. The last two columns indicate the number of features which are in correspondence with the original data in $H_0$ and $H_1$ via the interleaving.}
\label{tab:tomato_selected}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{images/tomato/tomato.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{images/tomato/tomato_50.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{images/tomato/tomato_100.pdf}
\caption{Tomato pictures token from 0, 50, and 100 degree angles. In total, there are 72( = $\frac{360}{5}$) different angles.}
\vspace{-1.5ex}
\label{fig:tomato}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Homological Caveats}
Some care must be taken in interpreting the interleaving as presented here. Importantly, the correspondence between persistence pairs of $H_k(X)$ and $H_k(Y)$ is entirely algebraic; there are not necessarily topological
shift maps $f:\mathcal{R}(X; r) \to \mathcal{R}(Y;r+ \epsilon)$
and $g: \mathcal{R}(Y; r) \to \mathcal{R}(X;r+ \epsilon)$
which induce the interleaving on homology.
Even if the interleaving distance between $X$ and $Y$ is zero, there is no guarantee that there is a natural topological map between the two spaces. There are many possible spaces which have identical persistent homology \cite{curryFiberPersistenceMap2018}, and to maintain some level of geometric interpretability of persistence pairs of $Y$ in terms of the persistence pairs of $X$, it is desirable to incorporate additional constraints onto the embedding $Y$, as is often the case in dimension reduction algorithms.
\section{Optimizing Interleaving Distance}\label{sec:interleaving_opt}
We now turn to explicitly optimizing an embedding $Y$ to minimize the interleaving distance to the original data set $X$.
\subsection{Optimizing Persistent Homology}\label{sec:opt_ph}
Gradient-based optimization techniques can be applied to persistent homology by backpropagating the gradient of a function of the persistence pairs back to the input values of a filtration. This is often done by considering a featurization of the persistence pairs such as algebraic functions of the pairs \cite{gabrielssonTopologyLayerMachine2020} or persistence landscapes \cite{kimPLLayEfficientTopological2020,carrierePersLayNeuralNetwork2020a}, but in our situation, we will use the bottleneck distance $\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(X),\dgm(Y))$.
Optimization with Vietoris-Rips filtrations is described in detail in \cite{gabrielssonTopologyLayerMachine2020}, which we summarize here. The key is that every simplex addition in the filtration either creates or destroys homology and the corresponding birth or death takes that filtration value. If $f$ is a function of persistence pairs, this allows for the mapping of $\partial f/\partial b$ or $\partial f/\partial d$ to $\partial f/\partial w_\sigma$ where $w_\sigma$ is the filtration value of the unique simplex $\sigma$. In the case of Vietoris-Rips filtrations, the filtration value of a simplex $(x_0,\dots,x_k)$ is the maximum pairwise distance $d_Y(x_i,x_j)$ where $x_i,x_j$ are vertices in the simplex, so this can then be backpropagated to a gradient $\partial f/\partial d_Y(x_i,x_j)$. There is a potential issue here which is that a single edge may map to multiple higher-order simplices, but \cref{thm:descent_dir} indicates that this is not generally a problem. Finally, if we choose a differentiable metric on $Y$ such as the Euclidean metric, we can backpropagate the gradient to point locations in the embedding.
\subsection{Optimizing the Bottleneck Distance}
We are interested in optimizing the embedding $Y$ to minimize the interleaving distance via the bottleneck distance $\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(Y), \dgm(X))$. Because the original data set $X$ is fixed, we have a function $f(\dgm(Y)) = \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(Y), \dgm(X))$ which we can fit into the optimization framework for persistent homology.
First, we recall that the bottleneck distance uses a matching between persistence pairs of $Y$ and $X$ and the diagonal $\Delta$ representing potential zero-length pairs, and that the distance is computed from the maximum-weight matching. This leads to three possibilities.
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength\itemsep{0em}
\item The maximum weight matching occurs between two non-diagonal pairs.
\item The maximum weight matching occurs between a pair in $\dgm(Y)$ and the diagonal in $\dgm(X)$.
\item The maximum weight matching occurs between the diagonal in $\dgm(Y)$ and and a pair in $\dgm(X)$.
\end{enumerate}
The bottleneck distance does not consider matchings between two diagonal points. In the first two cases, it is possible to find a descent direction. In the third case, $Y$ is at a local saddle point of the bottleneck distance.
We will show that under the condition that a single pair attains the maximum-weight matching, we may obtain a descent direction for $\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}$ with respect to the point locations in $Y$. This is a mild condition observed in practice in our empirical experiments.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:two_pairwise}
If a single pair $(b,d)$ in the maximum-weight matching of $\dgm(Y)$ and $\dgm(X)$ realizes the bottleneck distance, then the backpropagated $\frac{\partial \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}}{\partial d(y_i,y_j)}$ is non-zero for at most two pairwise distances in $Y$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Because a single pair realizes the distance, it must have non-zero length. In this case, the associated simplex filtration values must map to distinct distances in $Y$. Let $q$ denote the matched point in $\dgm(X)$, so $\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(Y), \dgm(X)) = \|(b,d) - q\|_\infty$, one or both distances may admit a non-zero gradient.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:descent_dir}
If a single pair in $\dgm(Y)$ realizes the bottleneck distance, then $\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(Y),\dgm(X))$ admits a descent direction on the point embedding $Y$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From \cref{prop:two_pairwise}, there are at most two pairwise distances which have a non-zero backpropagated gradient. Let these distances be $d_Y(y_0,y_1)$ and $d_Y(y_2,y_3)$. If the points $y_0,y_1,y_2,y_3$ are distinct, then we can simply backpropagate the gradient to each point location.
One point might possibly participate in both distances -- if two points are redundant, then the distances are not distinct. In this case, let us have $b = d_Y(y_0,y_1)$ and $d=d_Y(y_1,y_2)$. In this case, we can take a step in the directions $\frac{\partial \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}}{\partial y_0} = \frac{\partial \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}}{\partial b} \frac{\partial b}{\partial y_0}$, $\frac{\partial \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}}{\partial y_2} = \frac{\partial \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}}{\partial d} \frac{\partial d}{\partial y_2}$, and leave $y_1$ unchanged. Because $\frac{\partial d_Y(y_0,y_1)}{\partial y_0}$ and $\frac{\partial d_Y(y_0,y_1)}{\partial y_1}$ are non-zero, and at least one of $\frac{\partial \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}}{\partial d}$ or $\frac{\partial \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}}{\partial d}$ is non-zero, this step direction will decrease the bottleneck distance.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:db_subgradient}
$\nabla_Y \mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{B}}(\dgm(Y), \dgm(X))$ admits a generalized subdifferential.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Any persistence pair in $\dgm(Y)$ that does not participate in the bottleneck matching can be perturbed without affecting the bottleneck distance.
\end{proof}
\cref{prop:db_subgradient} implies that we have great freedom to perturb the embedding $Y$ while minimizing the bottleneck distance. In the third case above, when the diagonal of $\dgm(Y)$ is involved in the maximum weight matching, we have the freedom to perturb $Y$ in any direction. This allows for easy optimization of the bottleneck distance in conjunction with a secondary objective.
\section{Experiments}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.15\textwidth]{images/tendril/PCA.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.15\textwidth]{images/tendril/ISOMAP.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.15\textwidth]{images/tendril/PH.pdf}
%
\caption{Dimension reduction results of 5-Tendril left to right: PCA, MDS and PH}
\label{fig:Tendril Result}
\end{figure}
In this section, we will introduce the experiments and results using our dimension reduction method. For convenience, we will call our method PH optimization as it based on persistent homology.
We implement a form of projection pursuit \cite{friedmanProjectionPursuitAlgorithm1974} which seeks to find a linear projection $P$ which minimizes the bottleneck distance between $X$ and $Y=XP$. We add the orthogonality constraint to the optimization candidate space (also called Stiefel manifold) and the optimization gradient descent algorithm will use the Cayley transform introduced in \cite{Wen2013AFMStifelOpt}.
In our dimension reduction method, since optimization requires repeated computation of persistent homology, controlling the number of points is crucial.
In an effort to obtain a sample with close persistent homology, we use a greedy strategy based on minimizing the Hausdorff distance from the sample to the full point cloud.
However, recall that \Cref{corollary:bottleneck bound} requires Gromov–Hausdorff distance which requires solving quadratic assignment problem. We will bound the Gromov–Hausdorff distance by Hausdorff returned from the greedy sampling algorithm.
Our procedure is implemented in Pytorch, which supports automatic differentiation without explicitly passing gradients once we have defined two layers: a Vietoris-Rips layer and a bottleneck distance layer.
The Rips layer based on BATS
\footnote{https://bats-tda.readthedocs.io/}
will compute persistent homology of a Rips filtration and find the inverse map described in \cref{sec:opt_ph}. The bottleneck distance layer is supported by Hera \cite{jea_hera}, which can efficiently find the matching for bottleneck distance.
\subsection{5-Tendril}
We generate a data set, 5-Tendril consisting of 500 points in 5 dimensions sampled along 5 tendrils, each of which consists of 50 randomly generated points on a canonical basis vector $e_i$ of Euclidean space. Here, our PH optimization method will first sample 100 points
and then optimize the bottleneck distance on H0 persistent diagram.
We perform 3 different dimension reduction algorithms: PCA, MDS and PH optimization. In \cref{fig:Tendril Result}, the results show that PCA and MDS can only see 3 branches, while PH optimization can see 5.
\subsection{Orthogonal Cycle}
We generate a data set of 500 samples in 5 dimensions with $\binom{5}{2} = 10$ cycles, each of which consists of 50 points and lies in a 2-dimensional plane spanned by two canonical bases $e_i$ and $e_j$ with center $e_i$ + $e_j$ and radius one. For speedup, our PH optimization method samples 200 points and then optimizes bottleneck distance on $H_1$.
Since the dataset consists of cycles in orthogonal planes and our PH optimization method will also purse an orthonormal projection, there is no way to find a projection that can show and divide all cycles apart within the orthogonality constraint. In \Cref{fig:Cycle Result}, we show the dimension reduction results with 4 different methods: PCA will lead to a tangle where cycles cross with each other, and if without labels, one cannot tell how many cycles exist in this plot; ISOMAP will provide us a five-star with half of orthogonal cycles missed, but without labels, it is hard to determine if there are cycles exists; MDS can provide a 5-ring, but some of are not comprised of a single orthogonal cycle, for example, the yellow orthogonal cycle lies on two rings; our PH method can provide 3 cycles and the three straight lines between can indicate the collapse of orthogonal structure in the projection.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.24\textwidth]{images/cycle/PCA.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.21\textwidth]{images/cycle/ISOMAP.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.2\textwidth]{images/cycle/PH.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.215\textwidth]{images/cycle/MDS.pdf}
%
\caption{Dimension Reduction Results of Orthogonal cycles data set. Left to right: PCA, MDS, ISOMAP and PH}
\label{fig:Cycle Result}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{COIL-100}
The Columbia Object Image Library (COIL-100) \cite{Nene96objectimage} dataset contains 7200 colorful images of 100 objects, where each object has 72 $128\times128$ images with 3 color channels taken at pose intervals of 5 degrees. We pick the tomato dataset (see \Cref{fig:tomato}) with shape $72 \times 49152(= 128*128*3)$ from COIL-100 and perform our PH optimization algorithm on both $H_1$ and $H_0$ persistent diagrams. Although the number of points is only 72, the high feature dimension makes the direct running of our procedure on Pytorch prohibitive due to the memory issue of Cayley transform. To solve the problem, we devise two procedures: a) Optimizing the projection directly using the Cayley transform to handle orthogonality; b) first we perform PCA on the tomato dataset to reduce dimension to 10 and then keep reducing the dimension to 2 by our Pytorch PH optimization algorithm, denoted by PH+PCA.
We include visualization of the results using methods PH, PH+PCA, PCA, ISOMAP, MDS into the Appendix and show the result of PH+PCA in \cref{fig:tomato_viz}. In \Cref{fig:tomato_viz}a), we can see that the 72 points in $\mathbb{R}^2$ constitute a great circle, which demonstrate that the dataset consists of pictures taken at 360 degrees at pose interval 5 around the tomato. In \Cref{fig:tomato_viz}b), we draw the persistence diagram of the projected data set and a unconfident band with width 9.065, which is the twice of bottleneck distance between the original and projected tomato dataset. By the discussion in \Cref{section: Measuring Embedding Distortion through Interleavings}, there is only one H1 class in the projected data that we can ensure also exists in the original one. In \Cref{fig:tomato_viz}c), we then draw the certain H1 representative in red and the longest uncertain H1 representative in blue.
\subsection{Natural Image Patches}
Natural image patches are a well-studied data set with interesting topological structures at various densities \cite{carlssonLocalBehaviorSpaces2008}. We follow the data processing procedure of \cite{leeNonlinearStatisticsHighContrast2003} to sample $3\times 3$ patches from the van Hateren natural images database \cite{vanhaterenIndependentComponentFilters1998}. We further refine a sub-sample of 50,000 patches using the co-density estimator of \cite{desilvaTopologicalEstimationUsing2004} with $k=5, p=40\%$ to obtain a data set of 20,000 patches which resembles the ``three-circle'' model of \cite{desilvaTopologicalEstimationUsing2004}.
In \cref{fig:image_patches} we apply our procedure to two initial projections. In both cases, we use a greedy subsampling of 100 points in the data which contains 5 robust $H_1$ pairs, agreeing with the three-circle model. We first initialize the projection with the first two principal components of the data and then refine by optimizing the bottleneck distance on $H_1$ pairs. The initial projection onto principal components displays a clear ``primary circle,'' with the two secondary circles projecting onto two chords. Our procedure decreases the $H_1$ bottleneck distance on the 100 sampled points from $5.6$ to $4.7$ but there is minimal visual difference between the two projections, indicating that the initialization was near a local optimum.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{images/VH/pca_before}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{images/VH/pca_after}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{images/VH/rand_before}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{images/VH/rand_after}
\caption{Projections of a $3\times 3$ image patch data set. Top row, left to right: principal component embedding, and further refinement from minimizing $H_1$ bottleneck distance. Bottom row: random projection and further refinement from minimizing $H_1$ bottleneck distance.}
\vspace{-1.5ex}
\label{fig:image_patches}
\end{figure}
The second row of \cref{fig:image_patches} starts with a random projection into two dimensions. We again optimize to minimize the bottleneck distance on the $H_1$ pairs, and decrease the bottleneck distance on the sampled points from $7.9$ to $3.7$. In this case, there is a noticeable visual difference between the two projections. In the first projection, a noisy projection of the primary circle is visible, and in the second projection, we see a clear visualization of one of the two secondary circles, with the primary circle and other secondary circle collapsed to a chord.
In both these experiments, our $H_1$ bottleneck distance bounds do not allow us to confidently select any features in the visualization. As with the orthogonal cycle data, the reason is fundamental: the three circle model embeds into a Klein bottle \cite{carlssonLocalBehaviorSpaces2008}, and any projection to fewer than 4-dimensions (necessary to embed the Klein bottle) will result in spurious intersections of at least two of the three circles. Despite these limitations, our method is still able to present a subset of the important $H_1$ features of this data.
\section{Discussion}
In this paper, we propose the use of the interleaving distance in dimensionality reduction. We show that this distance can be used to identify topological features in correspondence between a full data set $X$ and a low dimensional embedding $Y$ using any dimension reduction procedure. We also demonstrate how optimization of the equivalent bottleneck distance can increase the significance of important topologcial features in $X$ in the embedding $Y$.
We incorporate bottleneck distance optimization into projection pursuit and find that our method can preserve topological information when projecting from high dimensional spaces to two dimensions for visualization. We find in several cases, our method will focus on visualizing a subset of the important topological structures as orthogonality of subspaces in the full data set prohibit the visualization of all structures using a single projection.
Our method could be combined with other optimization objectives such as the maximization of variance in the projection as in PCA. One limitation of our method is that the bottleneck distance is non-smooth and has many local minima. Hybrid schemes which combine bottleneck distance optimization with other objectives may generally help with optimization.
One direction of future work that could help improve the ability to detect if topological features in embeddings has correspondence with the original data set would be to develop interleaving techniques based on non-linear shift maps. Because the interleaving distance focuses on the worst possible distortion between persistent homologies, a more fine-grained analysis may reveal that more information is preserved in practice.
\section*{Acknowledgements:} BN was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under Agreement No.
HR00112190040.
\bibliographystyle{acm}
|
\section{Introduction}
Core-collapse Supernovae (SNe) count among the brightest sources of low energy neutrinos ($E_\nu\lesssim 50$\,MeV). A supernova occurring within the Milky Way will cause an intense burst of events in currently running neutrino detectors. The signal will encode details of the astrophysics of the explosion superimposed with the effects of neutrino properties and oscillations (for a comprehensive review, see e.g., Ref.\ \cite{Mirizzi:2015eza}). However, even compared to the decades of operation of large-volume neutrino observatories, galactic SNe are rare. This makes the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background (DSNB), i.e.,~the faint but constant flux of neutrinos emitted by core-collapse SNe on cosmological distances, an attractive research objective \cite{Ando:2004hc,Beacom:2010kk,Vissani:2011kx,Lunardini:2012ne,Nakazato:2015rya,Horiuchi:2017qja,Priya:2017bmm,Moller:2018kpn,Riya:2020wpw,Kresse:2020nto}. A first measurement of the DSNB has the potential to provide valuable information on the redshift-dependent SN rate as well as on the average and variability of the SN neutrino spectrum.
Given the minute expected flux of ${\cal O}(10^2)$ per cm$^2$s and red-shifted energy of DSNB neutrinos and anti\-neutrinos of all flavors, an experimental observation has proven to be very challenging. Detector target masses on the order of $\sim$10 kilotons are required to obtain one signal event per year. The current best upper limit on the DSNB's $\bar\nu_e$ flux component is held by the Super-Kamiokande (Super-K, SK) water Cherenkov experiment at 2.7\,cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ above 17.3\,MeV \cite{Super-Kamiokande:2021jaq}. This result is already cutting into the parameter range predicted by current DSNB models (e.g., \,\cite{Kresse:2020nto}).
During the next decade, a first detection of the long-sought DSNB signal is finally coming within reach. The two neutrino observatories most likely to achieve first evidence ($3\sigma$) of the DSNB signal are Super-Kamiokande and JUNO. In 2020, the Super-Kamiokande collaboration has performed an upgrade of the detector by dissolving gadolinium salt in the water target. This greatly enhances neutron detection capabilities \cite{Vagins:2005ii,Vagins:2007zz,Sekiya:2016xji}, leading to a significant improvement in the efficiency and background rejection for the Inverse Beta Decay (IBD) detection channel and thus the $\bar\nu_e$ component of the DSNB. Data taking in the new SK-Gd configuration commenced in August 2020. In parallel, the JUNO liquid scintillator (LS) experiment in southern China is entering its construction phase \cite{JUNO:2015zny}. With first data expected in 2023, JUNO will acquire IBDs at a rate only slightly lower than SK-Gd, relying on the intrinsic neutron tag and pulse-shape discrimination (PSD) capabilities of liquid scintillator \cite{JUNO:2015zny,JUNO:2021vlw}.
We would like to note that beyond the operational SK-Gd and the soon-to-be operational JUNO, there are a number of other experiments on the horizon with varying degrees of sensitivity to the DSNB. In particular, Hyper-Kamiokande, which is currently under construction, will directly continue the search of SK from $\sim$2027 using eight times SK’s fiducial volume~\cite{Abe:2011ts}. This is briefly discussed in Section~\ref{sec:hk}. Large noble-liquid detectors, while challenged by expected low signal event rates and as-yet undetermined backgrounds, could in principle provide sensitivity for other neutrino flavors (DUNE/liquid argon for $\nu_e$, DARWIN/liquid xenon for $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$ flavors), while conceptual hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detectors such as Theia, if someday realized, could feature enhanced detection efficiencies for $\bar\nu_e$'s~\cite{Abi:2018dnh, Suliga:2021hek, Wei:2016vjd, Sawatzki:2020mpb}.
The present article aims to review the DSNB detection potential of the two experiments. Based on the relatively simple model of the DSNB flux and spectrum presented in Section~\ref{sec:dsnb1}, we discuss the signal and background rates expected for SK-Gd and JUNO (Sections~\ref{sec:sk} and \ref{sec:juno}). Based on these numbers, Section~\ref{sec:sensitivity} tracks the signal rates and sensitivities of both experiments as a function of their respective measuring times. Since both experiments can hope to gain first $3\sigma$-evidence of the DSNB signal within the next decade, a $5\sigma$-observation may be achieved by a combination of their results over a similar time scale.
\section{Signal of the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background}
\label{sec:dsnb1}
The DSNB flux and spectrum results from a superposition of the neutrino bursts from core-collapse SNe happening on cosmic distance scales. Given the large numbers and distances to the parent SNe, the resulting DNSB flux is of the order of $10^2$ per cm$^2$s and nearly isotropic. The effective energy spectrum represents an average of the entire population of stellar core collapses from a wide range of progenitor stars, including failed explosions that lead to the formation of a Black Hole (BH). Spectral contributions from far-out SNe are substantially red-shifted. Hence, the signal range detectable in SK-Gd and JUNO (above $\sim$10\,MeV, see below) is dominated by relatively close-by SNe up to red-shifts $z \approx 1$ (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Ando:2004hc}).
The expectation for the differential electron antineutrino flux of the DSNB is given by the integral
\begin{equation} \label{eq:diffflux}
\frac{d\Phi(E_\nu)}{dE_\nu}=\ \frac{c}{H_{0}}\int_{0}^{z_{\rm max}} {R_{\rm CC}\left(z\right)\frac{dN_\nu(E'_\nu)}{dE_\nu}\frac{dz}{\sqrt{{\Omega}_{\Lambda}+\Omega_m(1+z)^3}}},
\end{equation}
where $E_\nu$ ($E'_\nu$) is the (redshifted) neutrino energy, $c$ is the speed of light and $H_0$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, $\Omega_m$ are cosmological parameters (e.g.~\cite{Priya:2017bmm}). $R_{\rm CC}(z)$ is the redshift-dependent rate of core-collapse SNe, whose $z$ dependence is derived from the star formation rate~\cite{Hopkins:2006bw} with the \mbox{following relation}:
\begin{equation}\label{R_SF}
R_\mathrm{CC}(z) = R_\mathrm{CC}(0)\frac{(a+bz)h}{ah[1+(z/c)^d]}\,,
\end{equation}
where $a=0.0170$, $b=0.13$, $c=3.3$, $d=5.3$ and $h = 0.7$ parametrize the $z$-dependence. $R_\mathrm{CC}(0)$ is the present rate of core-collapse SNe and taken as $1.0\times 10^{-4} \mathrm{yr^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}}$ in the following DSNB \emph{reference model}.
An important choice for the DSNB modeling is the average SN neutrino energy spectrum $ {{dN}/{dE_{\nu}}}$. In accordance with Ref.~\cite{Priya:2017bmm}, we take into account the contributions from both successful and failed SNe:
\begin{equation}\label{Flux_CCSN}
\frac{dN(E_\nu)}{dE_\nu} = (1-f_\mathrm{BH})\frac{dN_\mathrm{SN}(E_\nu)}{dE_\nu}
+ f_\mathrm{BH} \frac{dN_\mathrm{BH}(E_\nu)}{dE_\nu},
\end{equation}
with $f_\mathrm{BH}$ indicating the fraction of black hole (BH) forming core-collapse SNe in the total event sample.
The average energy spectrum for both types of SNe can be parametrized as
\begin{equation}\label{Spectrum_CCSN}
\frac{dN_\nu}{dE_\nu} = \frac{E_\mathrm{total}}{\langle E_\nu \rangle^2}
\frac{(1+\gamma_\alpha)^{1+\gamma_\alpha}}{\Gamma(1+\gamma_\alpha)}
\left( \frac{E_\nu}{\langle E_\nu \rangle} \right)^{\gamma_\alpha} \exp\left( -(1+\gamma_\alpha) \frac{E_\nu}{\langle E_\nu \rangle} \right),
\end{equation}
where $ E_\mathrm{total} $ is the total energy emitted, $ \langle E_\nu \rangle $ is the average energy of the SN neutrino spectrum, and
\begin{equation}\label{gamma_alpha}
\gamma_\alpha = \frac{\langle E_\nu^2 \rangle - 2 \langle E_\nu \rangle^2 }
{\langle E_\nu \rangle^2 -\langle E_\nu^2 \rangle}
\end{equation}
describes the spectral deviation from a thermal Fermi-Dirac spectrum (pinching) \cite{Keil:2003}.
Inspired by the current state-of-the-art on DSNB modeling, we choose the following parameters to define our DSNB \emph{reference model}: For successful SNe, we take $ E_\mathrm{total} = 5.0\times 10^{52} \ \mathrm{erg} $, $\gamma_\alpha = 3$ and $\langle E_\nu \rangle = 15\ \mathrm{MeV}$. For failed SNe, we assume $E_\mathrm{total} = 8.6\times 10^{52} \ \rm{erg} $, $ \langle E_\nu \rangle = 18.72 \ \rm{MeV} $ and $ \langle E_\nu^2 \rangle = 470.76 $ as in Ref.~\cite{Priya:2017bmm}. For the relative fraction of BH forming SNe, we use $f_\mathrm{BH} = 0.27$ adopted from Refs.~\cite{Horiuchi:2017qja,Priya:2017bmm}.
Given that many of the discussed input parameters are not known with great precision, the actual DSNB spectrum might deviate considerably from our DSNB \emph{reference model}. Consequently, we have introduced value ranges for the parameters that have the largest impact on the final DSNB event rate. In particular, we scan $\langle E_\nu \rangle$ from 12 to 18 MeV, $ f_\mathrm{BH}$ from 0 to 40\%, and
$0.5 \times 10^{-4}\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}}\leq R_\mathrm{SN}(0)\leq 2.0 \times 10^{-4}\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}} $. The corresponding variability in the signal prediction is indicated by the shaded areas in Figure \ref{fig:ibd_rates}. The parameters and ranges of the \emph{reference model} are summarized in Table \ref{tab:DSNB_model}. We note that the relatively wide ranges quoted implicitly envelope a wide span of astrophysical observations (e.g.~the soft neutrino spectrum emitted by SN1987A or possible variations in the total explosion energy) and the effects of flavor oscillations on the detected $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum (with a potential for spectral hardening by the admixture of a higher-temperature $\nu_x$ component).
\begin{table}[t]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3.4mm}
\caption{Parameters of the DSNB \emph{reference model} based on current most-likely predictions \cite{Priya:2017bmm}. The parameter ranges adopted to reflect the uncertainties of these predictions are indicated in brackets. \label{tab:DSNB_model}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Parameter} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Successful SNe}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Failed SNe}} \\
\hline
Total energy $E_{\rm total}$ [erg] & $5.0\times 10^{52}$ & & $ 8.6\times 10^{52}$ \\
Mean energy $\langle E_\nu \rangle$ [MeV] & 15 & (12 .. 18)& 18.72\\
Relative fraction $f_{\rm BH}$ & 0.73 & $(1-f_{\rm BH})$ & 0.27 & (0 .. 0.4) \\
\hline
Present SN rate $R_{\rm SN}(0)$ & $1.0\times 10^{-4}$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$(0.5\,..\,2.0)\times 10^{-4}$} & $\mathrm{yr^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To obtain the energy-dependent interaction rate $d R/dE_\nu$ of electron antineutrino interactions shown in Figure \ref{fig:ibd_rates}, we evaluate the product
\begin{equation}
\frac{d R(E_\nu)}{dE_\nu}= \frac{d \Phi(E_\nu)}{dE_\nu}\cdot\sigma_{\rm IBD}(E_\nu)\cdot N_p
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{\rm IBD}(E_\nu)$ is the IBD cross-section taken from \cite{Strumia:2003zx} and $N_p$ is the number of free protons contained per unit detector mass. Figure \ref{fig:ibd_rates} depicts the interaction rates as function of the prompt energy, i.e.,~the energy of the positron created in the IBD reaction that is experimentally observable. Due to the reaction kinematics, the prompt positron signal nearly preserves the energy information of the initial $\bar\nu_e$. The final-state neutron thermalizes by scattering off hydrogen in the water/scintillator targets within \textmu{}s, and is later on captured either on hydrogen with $\tau_n={\cal O}(200\,\mu{\rm s}$) or considerably faster in case of gadolinium-loading. Detecting the gamma ray(s) from the delayed captures will be the key ingredient for a successful DSNB detection (see below).
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{DSNB_water_and_LS.pdf}
\caption{The DSNB interaction rates as a function of the prompt energy of the IBD reaction for WC and LS detectors. Shaded areas reflect the impact of the range of parameter predictions listed in Table~\ref{tab:DSNB_model} on the expected rates. \label{fig:ibd_rates}}
\end{figure}
\section{Super-Kamiokande with Gadolinium-Doping (Sk-Gd)}
\label{sec:sk}
\subsection{A Brief History of Super-Kamiokande}
Since the start of data taking on 1st April 1996, the
Super-Kamiokande experiment has
spent the last quarter century conducting ground-breaking studies of neutrinos from the
Earth's atmosphere~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:1998kpq}, the Sun~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:2001ljr,Super-Kamiokande:2013mie}, and
long-baseline accelerator-generated beams from KEK~\cite{K2K:2002icj} and J-PARC~\cite{T2K:2011ypd}, while also searching for nucleon decay~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:2012zik,Super-Kamiokande:2014otb,Super-Kamiokande:2016exg,Super-Kamiokande:2020wjk}, dark matter~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:2004pou,Super-Kamiokande:2020sgt},
and both galactic~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:2007zsl,Super-Kamiokande:2016kji} and diffuse supernova neutrinos~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:2021jaq,Super-Kamiokande:2002hei,Super-Kamiokande:2011lwo,Super-Kamiokande:2013ufi}. The discovery of neutrino oscillations in SK's atmospheric neutrino
data resulted in a share of the 2015 Nobel Prize in physics, while those results plus
SK's solar and long-baseline neutrino measurements led to a share of {\em two} 2016
Breakthrough Prizes. As depicted in Figure~\ref{SK_hist}, Super-Kamiokande has operated
under various configurations during its \mbox{long history}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{SK_hist.pdf}
\caption{History of Super-Kamiokande's operational phases. For SK-I through
SK-V the detector was filled with ultrapure water. From SK-VI in 2020 onward
the detector's water has dissolved gadolinium in it to enhance neutron visibility. \label{SK_hist}}
\end{figure}
Despite all of this success, one notable limitation SK had to operate under was the
inability to efficiently detect thermal neutrons. These were captured on free
protons (hydrogen nuclei) in the pure water which filled Super-K, leading to the release
of a single 2.2~MeV gamma. Not only was this energy below typical SK trigger
thresholds, but it
also fell in an energy range strongly contaminated with backgrounds from a variety of
naturally occurring radioactive decays such as radon. While great efforts have been
made to overcome these limitations, the most advanced hydrogen-based studies still
only achieved neutron tagging efficiencies around 20$\%$ at the cost of 1 in 100 of
the copious accidental backgrounds getting through~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:2013ufi}.
\subsection{A Blend with Benefits}
To enable highly efficient neutron tagging while simultaneously providing powerful background rejection, Beacom and Vagins first proposed a concept they
called ``GADZOOKS!''
(\underbar{G}adolinium \underbar{A}ntineutrino \underbar{D}etector \underbar{Z}ealously
\underbar{O}utperforming \underbar{O}ld \underbar{K}amiokande,
\underbar{S}uper\underbar{!}), dissolving a
gadolinium (Gd) salt -- such as gadolinium chloride, GdCl$_3$, or the somewhat less
soluble but also considerably
less corrosive gadolinium sulfate, Gd$_2$(SO$_4$)$_3$ -- in Super-Kamiokande's pure water~\cite{Beacom:2003nk}. The primary goal of this proposal was to make observing the DSNB in
Super-K possible; in fact, this paper is where the term ``DSNB'' was first introduced
to help explicitly differentiate this subtle supernova neutrino signal from other
``relic'' fluxes.
Gadolinium has the highest cross section for the capture of thermal
neutrons of any naturally occurring stable substance, more than 100,000 times that
of hydrogen, and following neutron capture the excited Gd nucleus emits an easily detected
gamma cascade of $\sim$8~MeV. This leads to a distinct IBD signature sometimes
called the ``gadolinium heartbeat'': a prompt positron event followed a few 10s
of microseconds later by a delayed neutron capture event. The Cherenkov light of
both events appears to originate nearly from the same place in the detector, as they
typically occur close enough to fall within the position resolution of SK's vertex
fitter. Requiring such a double flash of light within such a short period of time,
about 1/10$^{\mbox{th}}$ the delay for captures on hydrogen in pure water, serves
to reduce accidental backgrounds by a factor of roughly 10,000, or 100 times cleaner
than relying on captures on hydrogen alone.
\subsection{Putting the Gd in SK-Gd}
After years of R\&D to develop the necessary water filtration technology as
well as establish that loading gadolinium into Super-K would be both safe and effective~\cite{Marti:2019dof}, on 14 July 2020, the first
dissolved gadolinium salt was injected into the SK detector. This first stage of
loading, which was completed on 17th August 2020, saw 13.2 tons of gadolinium
sulfate octahydrate added to the SK water, resulting in a gadolinium concentration of
0.01$\%$ by mass~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:2021the}. As shown in Figure~\ref{Gd_conc}, with
0.01$\%$ Gd$^{3+}$ in
solution about half of all thermal neutrons will visibly capture on the gadolinium,
with the rest being collected near invisibly on hydrogen. As everything has been
running as expected, the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration plans to dissolve an additional
27 tons of gadolinium sulfate octahydrate in 2022, bringing the total Gd ion concentration to
0.03$\%$ by mass and the visible neutron fraction to 75$\%$.
It is expected that somewhere between 1 and 6 DSNB interactions with neutrino energies
between 12 and 30~MeV should occur each year inside SK's fiducial volume of 22.5 ktons.
Assuming the middle of this range and taking into account detector efficiencies yields
an expected DSNB signal rate of around 2.5 events per year with 0.03$\%$ Gd in \linebreak the
detector.
As described above, there will be no remaining accidental backgrounds to speak of, and
requiring the DSNB events to be above 12~MeV and below 30~MeV effectively suppresses the
physics backgrounds arising from nuclear power reactor antineutrinos causing low energy IBD
events and atmospheric neutrinos' charged current (CC)
reactions, respectively. Muon cuts in combination with the 12~MeV energy threshold will
remove almost all background events
caused by nuclear spallation, with the efficient neutron tagging now provided by gadolinium
allowing even better spallation cut efficiencies than those employed by SK to
date~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:2011lwo,Li:2015kpa,Li:2015lxa}. Most of the remaining physics background are therefore
expected to come from neutral current (NC) interactions involving energetic
atmospheric neutrinos interacting with oxygen nuclei, but a recent paper has
shown that these can be significantly and efficiently suppressed through the
use of a machine learning (specifically a convolutional neural network) approach,
removing 98$\%$ of the NC background at the expense of just 4$\%$ of the signal yielding
a signal-to-background rate of 4:1~\cite{Maksimovic:2021dmz}. In all, we rather conservatively
assume a total residual background rate of 0.8 events per year in this energy range.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.67\textwidth]{Gd_conc.pdf}
\caption{Percentage of thermal neutron captures on gadolinium (Gd) as a function of
dissolved mass percentage of Gd in water. The first phase of loading in Super-Kamiokande
is known as T$_1$, while the second phase is called T$_{1.5}$. Thermal neutron capture
cross sections of the four elements in the SK water are shown; nearly all neutrons
not captured by Gd end up on H as it is thousands of times more abundant
inside SK than sulfur. \label{Gd_conc}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Future of Gd-Loaded Water Cherenkov Detectors}
\label{sec:hk}
Data collection in the Gd-enhanced Super-Kamiokande has been underway since the middle
of 2020, and is expected to continue until at least 2028. In 2027, the
new Hyper-Kamiokande (Hyper-K, HK) detector, some eight times the fiducial
volume of SK and currently under construction, is scheduled to come online~\cite{Abe:2011ts,Hyper-Kamiokande:2021frf}. As was the case with Kamiokande ceding the field to Super-Kamiokande
and turning off in 1997, it is expected that Super-K will also be permanently decommissioned
once Hyper-K is complete and operating stably. While HK will not contain gadolinium
on Day 1, it is assumed that gadolinium will very likely be added to the new
detector eventually, such that all proposed HK detector components and materials
must be certified to be compatible with extended immersion in Gd-loaded water.
From simple scaling, a Gd-loaded Hyper-K can be expected to observe an SN1987A-like
number of supernova neutrino events from the DSNB every year it is in operation, an
exciting prospect indeed.
\section{The Juno Experiment}
\label{sec:juno}
The JUNO experiment is located at Jiangmen in South China. Its primary goal is to determine the neutrino mass ordering and precision measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters using reactor neutrinos from the powerful Taishan and Yangjiang nuclear power plants~\cite{JUNO:2015zny,JUNO:2021vlw}.
JUNO will build a Liquid Scintillation (LS) detector of 20 kton with an overburden of 700 m rock for shielding the cosmic rays.
As a multiple-purpose neutrino observatory, the JUNO detector complexes, from the inner to outer layers, include the Central Detector (CD), the Veto Detectors and the Calibration System. An illustration for the JUNO detector detector complex is provided in Figure~\ref{JUNO_detector}.
The CD contains 20 kton LS in an acrylic shell with an inner diameter of 35.4 m, and 17,612 high-quantum-efficiency 20-inch Photo Multiplier Tubes (PMTs) and around 25,600 3-inch PMTs are closely packed around the LS sphere in order to guarantee the precision neutrino energy measurement with the energy resolution of 3\%~\cite{JUNO:2020xtj}.
Other sub-systems include the water pool and top tracker veto system, the calibration system, the online LS monitoring system, and a satellite TAO reference reactor spectrum detector~\cite{JUNO:2020ijm}.
JUNO is expected to take data in 2023.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{JUNO-detector.pdf}
\caption{An illustration for the JUNO detector detector complex. The figure is taken from {Ref.}
~\cite{JUNO:2021vlw}. \label{JUNO_detector}}
\end{figure}
The primary detection channel for the DSNB is the IBD reaction on free protons, in which the prompt positron signal takes away most of the neutrino energy, and the delayed neutron capture signal is correlated with the prompt signal with distinct energy, time interval, and spatial interval relations.
With the different model predictions mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:dsnb1}, it is estimated that around 1--5 DSNB IBD events per year can be observed between 12 and 30 MeV~\cite{JUNO:2021vlw}. After background cuts, there remain 1.4 IBD events per year for the DSNB \emph{reference model} (see below).
Compared to water Cherenkov detectors, LS detectors such as JUNO have intrinsically high neutron tagging efficiencies for neutron capture on free protons. Given the high scintillation light yield, the 2.2\,MeV gamma rays emitted in the capture provide a delayed signal easy to identify. Given the excellent vertex reconstruction capabilities and expected low background levels, prompt and delayed signals can be correlated with high efficiency, close to unity in the LS bulk volume.
In the visible energy of interest relevant to the DSNB search, there are different categories of backgrounds in JUNO:
\begin{itemize}
\item First, there are two intrinsic backgrounds from other $\overline{\nu}^{}_e$ sources. In the vicinity of the low energy part of the DSNB $\overline{\nu}^{}_e$ spectrum, the irreducible background is from those $\overline{\nu}^{}_e$'s emitted from nearby nuclear power reactors, whose fluxes are highly decreased above the neutrino energy of around $\mathcal{O}(10)$ MeV. A choice of the lower boundary of the search window at 12 MeV can reduce this background to a negligible level.
The high energy part of the indistinguishable background is composed of the IBD interactions of the low energy tail of atmospheric $\overline{\nu}^{}_e$ with free protons.
\item The second category of the main backgrounds for the DSNB searches is from the cosmic muon spallation.
Fast neutrons are generated by spallation events outside the CD. The event rate is higher for larger radii, in particular within the upper and equator regions because of the shallow water buffer. Therefore, the fast neutron background can be reduced by proper selection of the fiducial volume of the CD.
The $^{9}$Li/$^{8}$He background is produced from radioactive decays of long-lived spallation isotopes in the CD, and is correlated with the parent muons and associated neutrons. Therefore, the $^{9}$Li/$^{8}$He background can be effectively reduced by muon veto strategies. Moreover, excellent energy resolution at JUNO will ensure most of the $^{9}$Li/$^{8}$He background below 12 MeV of the visible energy and can be safely neglected if 12 MeV is chosen as the lower boundary of the search window.
\item Finally the dominant background for the DSNB search is from the neutral current (NC) interactions of atmospheric neutrinos with the carbon nuclei. When high energy atmospheric neutrinos interact with carbon, copious neutrons, protons, $\gamma$'s and $\alpha$'s are generated in association with the outgoing leptons, where those interaction channels with single neutron production may contaminate the IBD signals.
To model the NC interaction between the atmospheric neutrinos and the carbon nuclei, one needs to employ both the neutrino interaction generator tools~\cite{Andreopoulos:2009rq,Golan:2012rfa}
and the package for deexcitations of the final-state nuclei~\cite{Koning:2005ezu}. A careful investigation of the atmospheric neutrino NC background has been accomplished in
Refs~\cite{Cheng:2020oko, Cheng:2020aaw}, which are shown to be larger than the DSNB signal by one order of magnitude.
\end{itemize}
Pulse shape discrimination (PSD) is expected to be a very efficient technique to further improve the signal-to-background ratio. Regarding all the possible IBD-like backgrounds, the prompt signal of fast neutron and atmospheric neutrino NC events is predominantly created by heavy particles such as neutrons, protons and $\alpha$'s. In LS detectors, the distinct time profiles of different types of particles permit effectively distinguishing between the light $\gamma$-like particles (i.e., $e^{+}$, $e^{-}$, and $\gamma$) and heavy proton-like particles (i.e., proton, neutron, and $\alpha$). By virtue of the high light yield and excellent time resolution at JUNO, it is estimated that the atmospheric NC background
can be reduced by two orders of magnitude while the signal efficiency of the DSNB remains at least above 50\%~\cite{JUNO:2021vlw}.
Recent studies indicate that JUNO's sensitivity could be substantially improved based on a refined scheme for the PSD-based particle identification~\cite{Cheng:2021ais}.
To summarize, with all the possible background contributions and suppression techniques are taken into account, a total background level of 0.7 events per year is estimated and---depending on the DSNB event rate---an excellent signal-to-background ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 can be achieved. Therefore, we can anticipate a good discovery sensitivity of the DSNB in the coming decade.
\section{Projected Dsnb Sensitivities}
\label{sec:sensitivity}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{dsnb_rates_v4.pdf}
\caption{Time development of the cumulated number of signal event for SK-Gd and JUNO, using the time and rate information as quoted in Table~\ref{tab:rates}. The solid lines correspond to the rates of the DSNB \emph{reference model}, the shaded areas reflect the range implied by the variability of the signal (Section~\ref{sec:dsnb1}). Please note that recent studies for JUNO indicate that a higher signal efficiency could be reached~\cite{Cheng:2021ais}, thus the event rates per year for both experiments are rather compatible.}
\label{fig:rates}
\end{figure}
Even in experiments the size of Super-Kamiokande and JUNO, accumulating the data for a DSNB detection is a waiting game. Table \ref{tab:rates} provides a short summary of the DSNB signal efficiences and detected event rates as well as the background rates expected for SK-Gd and JUNO for the DSNB \emph{reference model} described in Section \ref{sec:dsnb1}. The following assumptions are made in the calculations:
\begin{itemize}
\item We refer to the nominal fiducial masses, i.e., 22.5\,kt (or $N_p=1.50\times10^{33} $) for SK-Gd and 17\,kt ($N_p=1.22\times10^{33}$) for JUNO.
\item For easy comparison, we choose in both cases the same observation window, ranging in visible energy from 12\,MeV to 30\,MeV. This range is defined by the irreducible backgrounds for the DSNB observation, i.e., reactor and atmospheric $\bar\nu_e$ fluxes. Please note that while the reactor $\bar\nu_e$ background at the location of SK will be smaller, this advantage is at least partially compensated for by the better energy resolution of JUNO \cite{JUNO:2021vlw}.
\item For background rates, we use the numbers lined out in sections \ref{sec:sk} and \ref{sec:juno}. The dominant contribution in JUNO is formed by NC interactions of atmospheric neutrinos. In SK-Gd, invisible muons will play an important role.
\item Finally, for SK-Gd, we cite two sets of numbers in dependence of the gadolinium concentration that is set to be increased in mid-2022 from 0.01\% to 0.03\% (Section~\ref{sec:sk}).
\end{itemize}
Please note that both experiments feature a rather similar ratio of signal ($S$) and background ($B$) rates of $S:B\sim2$.
\begin{table}[t]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.5mm}
\caption{DSNB fiducial masses, signal efficiencies and rates as well as background rates expected for SK-Gd and JUNO~\cite{JUNO:2021vlw} for the DSNB \emph{reference model} in the energy range of 12$-$30\,MeV. The two rows quoted for SK-Gd reflect the conditions for the initial 0.01\% as well as the increase to 0.03\% Gd loading foreseen for mid-2022. \label{tab:rates}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
& \textbf{Fiducial} & & \textbf{Signal} & \textbf{Signal} & \textbf{Background} \\
\textbf{Experiment} & \textbf{Mass} \textbf{[kt] }& \textbf{Time Range} & \textbf{Efficiency} & \textbf{Rate} \textbf{[yr}$^{\boldmath-1}$\textbf{]} & \textbf{Rate} \textbf{[yr}$^{\boldmath-1}$\textbf{]}\\
\hline
SK-Gd & 22.5 & 8/20--06/22 & 50\% & 1.7 & 0.8 \\
& & 7/22-- & 75\% & 2.5 & 1.2 \\
\hline
JUNO & 17.0 & 1/23-- & 50\% & 1.4 & 0.7 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The discovery potential for the DSNB lastly depends on the total number of signal and background events accumulated over a longer period of measuring time. Figure \ref{fig:rates} displays the time development of the DSNB signal rates over time. For this, we used the information given in Table~\ref{tab:rates} regarding signal and background rates as well as the different dates for start of data taking (and SK-Gd upgrade). We show as well the development of the total number of DSNB events. A level of $\sim$40 DSNB events detected is reached after 10 years. This number refers to our \textit{DSNB reference model} (Section~\ref{sec:dsnb1}). Based on the uncertainties of the DSNB signal prediction, the actual event number and thus rate of signal collection might substantially deviate from the reference prediction.
The corresponding ambiguity is reflected by the shaded areas. Naturally, a low signal rate would affect both experiments in the same way. Therefore, the shaded regions should not be mistaken to be classical uncertainty bands but are instead fully correlated.
Given the earlier start, larger fiducial mass and higher efficiency after the increase in Gd concentration, SK-Gd is expected to accumulate statistics somewhat faster than JUNO. However, we note here that recent studies for JUNO indicate that a higher signal efficiency could be reached using a more advanced method of pulse shape discrimination, bringing both experiments roughly on par~\cite{Cheng:2021ais}.
Based on these numbers, it becomes possible to estimate the experimental sensitivities of the individual and combined measurements. While the eventual DSNB analyses will apply more sophisticated techniques, here we restrict ourselves to a simple count rate analysis for signal and background in the energy window of interest (12$-$30\,MeV). As a measure of sensitivity, we adopt the ratio $S/\sqrt{S+B}$, i.e.,~the significance of the signal strength over the expected statistical variation of the count rate. Clearly, this simplified approach has many short-comings. Most notably, it neglects the relevant systematic uncertainties in the predicted background rates. However, it provides an easy-to-understand measure of the sensitivity, its development over time and permits the comparison and combination of \mbox{the experiments}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{dsnb_sensitivity_v4.pdf}
\caption{Statistical significance of a DSNB signal rate $S$ excess over background rate $B$ based on the figure of merit $S/\sqrt{S+B}$. Individually, both experiments can reach a $3\sigma$ significance level over about 10 years of measuring. The combined sensitivity reaches $5\sigma$ in the early 2030s.
\label{fig:sensitivity}}
\end{figure}
Using the signal and background numbers listed in Table \ref{tab:rates}, we display the time-development of the signal significance in Figure \ref{fig:sensitivity}. We display the significance levels for both experiments individually and for their combination. While the solid lines correspond to the DSNB \emph{reference model}, the shaded areas indicate the predicted signal range. Both experiments individually are expected to reach a $3\sigma$ statistical evidence of the DSNB signal within a decade of measuring time, with a clear lead of SK-Gd due to the earlier start of measurement and faster signal accumulation.
The combined sensitivity curve of Figure \ref{fig:sensitivity} illustrates that the sum signal of both experiments could be used to achieve a level of $5\sigma$ observation of the DSNB \emph{reference model} within the next 10 years. The corresponding signal and background rates as well as statistical sensitivities are summarized in Table \ref{tab:comparison}. As before, we have neglected systematic uncertainties on the estimated background levels. Arguably, a combined analysis might achieve better sensitivity, since both experiments will collect somewhat complementary data sets on the atmospheric neutrino NC background (Cherenkov vs.~scintillation signals) that are potentially useful to better constrain the associated systematic uncertainties on background rate and spectrum.
Finally, it should be noted that---even if the data sets of both experiments were combined---only several tens of signal events are expected for the \emph{reference model}, reaching close to $10^2$ under the most optimistic assumptions. Consequently, the spectral information that can be obtained from this next generation of DSNB experiments will be rather limited, at best comparable to the accuracy gained from the neutrino burst of SN1987A. Therefore, while indeed a first positive detection of the DSNB is within reach within the next decade, a substantially larger detector such as HK-Gd (i.e.,~with enhanced neutron tagging) will be required to extract details on the DSNB spectrum, thus offering a window to the underlying physics of SN core collapse, black-hole formation and redshift-dependent collapsar rate.
\begin{table}[t]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.2mm}
\caption{Cumulated number of signal ($S$) and background ($B$) events expected for SK-Gd and JUNO for mid-2031, i.e., about 11 years after the start of the SK-Gd measurement. The quoted figure of merit $S/\sqrt{S+B}$ corresponds roughly to the signal sensitivity in standard deviations. The combined sensitivity reaches $5\sigma$ at this time. \label{tab:comparison}}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
& \textbf{Mesuring} & \textbf{Signal} & \textbf{Background} & \textbf{Sensitivity}\\
\textbf{Experiment} & \textbf{Time} \textbf{[yrs]} & \textbf{($\boldmath S$)} & \textbf{($\boldmath B$)} & \textbf{($\boldmath S/\sqrt{\textbf{\emph{S}}+B}$)}\\
\hline
SK-Gd & 11 & 26 & 12 & 4.1 \\
JUNO & 8.5 & 12 & 6 & 2.7 \\
\hline
total & & 38 & 18 & 5.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
The start of SK-Gd data taking in late 2020 and the expected start of JUNO data taking in 2023 indicate a substantial improvement of the worldwide sensitivity for diffuse Supernova neutrinos (or, more precisely, its $\bar\nu_e$ component). Given the large unknowns of the signal flux and spectrum and the potential systematics associated with background rates and subtraction, it is difficult to forecast the exact level of sensitivity to be achieved by the two experiments. However, using our DSNB \emph{reference model} (Section \ref{sec:dsnb1}) and making simplified assumptions on the signal significance (Section \ref{sec:sensitivity}), we can conclude that both experiments on their own are likely to obtain statistical evidence of the signal ($3\sigma$ level) within about 10 years of running time. The combination of their results may even allow a $5\sigma$ discovery of the DSNB in the same time frame. After more than 20 years of experimental searches, a first observation of the DSNB signal seems thus well in reach within the \linebreak next decade.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
YFL' work was supported in part by National Key R\&D Program of China under Grant No. 2018YFA0404101, by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 11835013, and by the CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics.
M.V.'s work was supported by MEXT KAKENHI Grant Numbers 17H06357 and 17H06365.
M.W.'s work was supported by the DFG Research Unit ''JUNO'' (FOR 2319).
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
The User Plane Function (UPF) in the 3GPP 5G core network \cite{3gppupf} needs new techniques for building
software that implements network functions at the edge quickly, reliably with provable guarantees, and inexpensively.
Provisioning devices will likely be fully automatic and the software can be complex.
Practical network functions are reactive systems responding to inputs based on history and time.
They're not just packet-processing pipelines.
They have control logic that manages timers, caches and mutable state.
Much work has been done in the design of high-level network programming languages
\cite{michel2021,
foster2011,
loozhou2012,
openbox,
voellmy2011,
P42014,
dobrescu2014,
liu2018,
neves2018,
haoli2020b,
netkat,
temporalnetkat,
click2000,
balldin20}.
In general, they are either too narrow in scope or lack support for reuse and scalable
proofs about mutable state and timers.
Godefroid observed that model checking a concurrent reactive system conceptually amounts to
modeling each component of the system as an extended finite-state machine and then
verifying the product of all such machines \cite{godefroid2016}.
This idea can be applied to the UPF, instances of
which can be defined as the product of independent
concurrent components represented by finite-state recognizers.
A product can be transformed into branching logic and then implemented
on a specific target platform.
The approach is illustrated for a basic switch function
implemented on an open target platform using Intel's
Data Plane Development Kit (DPDK) \cite{dpdk}.
\section{A basic switch function}
We give four independent concurrent components for a 4-port switch UPF.
It has one uplink port, namely port 1, which is
in a different broadcast domain than ports 2-4.
The components are
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H$ -- (hub) floods a frame to every port except
the port at which it arrived and the uplink port.
\item $B$ -- (bridge) forwards a frame to the port behind which the frame's destination MAC address was learned.
\item $M$ -- learns the ports of MAC addresses.
\item $I$ -- interleaves ingress and egress activity
guaranteeing that every received frame is transmitted.
\end{enumerate}
No component depends on another so all are independent and form reusable building blocks of a switch.
Components are recognizers that run concurrently on a trace.
For example, Table~\ref{trace} shows a trace of our 4-port switch in the presence of the ARP protocol \cite{Stevens2012}.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{A trace of 4-port switch with uplink port 1}
\small
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
{\em time} & {\em dest address\/} ({\em da}) & {\em src address\/} ({\em sa}) & {\em proto} & {\em location} \\
t & ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff & 04:0c:ce:d2:08:6c & arpreq & $\{\rid{2i}\}$ \\
t + 1 & ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff & 04:0c:ce:d2:08:6c & arpreq & $\{\rid{3e},\rid{4e}\}$ \\
t + 2 & 04:0c:ce:d2:08:6c & 7c:d1:c3:e8:a4:67 & arpreply & $\{\rid{3i}\}$ \\
t + 3 & 04:0c:ce:d2:08:6c & 7c:d1:c3:e8:a4:67 & arpreply & $\{\rid{2e}\}$
\end{tabular}
\label{trace}
\end{table}
Each port is divided into an ingress and egress interface, denoted by $i$ and $e$.
At time $t$, an ARP request arrives at the ingress interface of port 2.
Then at time $t+1$, the request is at the egress interfaces of ports 3 and 4
as we would expect since port 1 is uplink and the frame is flooded to all ports except its ingress port.
An ARP reply is received at time $t+2$ at port 3 and fowarded
to port 2 at time $t+3$ because its destination address was learned there at time $t$.
Elements of a trace are referenced within a recognizer by free variables
$t$ (current time), $f$ (frame in the trace at time $t$),
$\id{loc}$ (location of $f$) and
$\id{port}$ (the ingress port of $f$ when $f$ is located at an ingress interface).
\subsection{Hub component $H(\id{self})$}
Hub component $H(\id{self})$
is defined in Table~\ref{relay} using a special type of recognizer called a $\lambda$-SFA.
It is a type of deterministic symbolic
finite automaton (SFA) \cite{vannoord2001, veanes2010} with lambda bindings that
allow it to more succinctly remember
history.\footnote{
$\lambda$ is an input binding operator as in $\lambda$ calculus, not a name for the null
string as in finite automata.}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{$H(\id{self})$ relays between non-uplink ports}
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\bf H1} $\rightarrow$ {\bf H1} \\ $\begin{array}{l}
\id{loc} = \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\} \Rightarrow (\id{port} = \id{uplink-port} \vee f.\id{da} = \id{haddr}(\id{port}))
\end{array}$ \\
{\bf H1} $\rightarrow$ {\bf H2} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda x.\;\id{loc} =\{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\}\wedge
\id{port}\neq\id{uplink-port}\wedge
f.\id{da}\neq \id{haddr}(\id{port})
\end{array}$ \\
{\bf H2} $\rightarrow$ {\bf H1} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
(\id{self}\;\rid{e} \in\id{loc} \wedge ((\id{bcast}(x.f.\id{da})\wedge \neg\id{arp-reqrx}(x.f,x.\id{port}))\; \vee \\
\id{ucast}(x.f.\id{da}))) \Rightarrow
(f = x.f \wedge \id{self} \neq x.\id{port} \wedge \id{self} \neq \id{uplink-port})
\end{array}$
\end{tabular}
\label{relay}
\end{table}
$H(\id{self})$ has three transitions and two states H1 and H2 where H1 is the start state (the first transition listed
is always from the start state).
The proposition that labels a transition is shown below it.
A transition from H1 to H2 occurs when a frame arrives at an ingress port other than the uplink port and
its destination hardware address $f.\id{da}$ doesn't match the hardware address of the port,
which indicates link-layer forwarding rather than handling traffic destined for the switch.
Otherwise it stays in H1.
Notice that if $H(\id{self})$ were started in state H1 at time $t+1$, then it stays in H1 because $\id{loc}=\{\rid{3e},\rid{4e}\}$
at that time, and thus $\id{loc}=\{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\}$ is false then.
This is a stutter step that allows the SFA to ignore actions in a trace that are not of interest to it
in state H1, namely egress activity \cite{TLA1994}.
For the trace in Table~\ref{trace},
the bindings of the free variables of $H(\id{self})$
are given in Table~\ref{bindings}.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Free variables of $H(\id{self})$ bound by trace in Table~\ref{trace}}
\small
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
{\em time} & $\id{f.da}$ & $\id{x.f.da}$ & {\em port} & $\id{x.port}$ \\
t & ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff & $-$ & 2 & $-$ \\
t + 1 & ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff & ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff & $-$ & 2 \\
t + 2 & 04:0c:ce:d2:08:6c & ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff & 3 & $-$ \\
t + 3 & 04:0c:ce:d2:08:6c & 04:0c:ce:d2:08:6c & $-$ & 3
\end{tabular}
\label{bindings}
\end{table}
With respect to our 4-port switch, $H(\id{self})$ has four recognizer instances $H(1)$$-$$H(4)$, one for each port.
Assuming that the ARP request in the trace is not a request for the hardware address of port 2
($\neg\id{arp-reqrx}(x.f,2)$ is true),
each instance can make a transition on every entry in the trace, albeit for different reasons in some states.
At time $t+3$, for instance, all but $H(2)$ move from H2 to H1 by vacuously satisfying its condition
since only 2e is a member of {\em loc\/}.
But $H(2)$ must satisfy its consequent
($f = x.f \wedge 2 \neq 3 \wedge 2 \neq 1$).
If {\em loc\/} were $\{\rid{2e},\rid{3e}\}$ then while $H(2)$ can transition out of state H2, $H(3)$ cannot.
We say $H(3)$ is ``stuck'' in this case.
If {\em loc\/} were $\{\rid{2e},\rid{4e}\}$ then $H(2)$ and $H(4)$ can both
transition out of H2 as $H(4)$ would also satisfy its consequent
($f = x.f \wedge 4 \neq 3 \wedge 4 \neq 1$).
The fact that {\em loc\/} doesn't include 4e in the trace suggests the switch learned the port for MAC address 04:0c:ce:d2:08:6c.
That brings us to our second component, namely bridging.
\subsection{Bridging component $B(\id{self})$}
The bridging component is given in Table~\ref{switch}.
It forwards a unicast frame only to the port behind which the unicast destination
address was learned.
Like $H$, it is parameterized on {\em self\/}.
The port behind which a MAC address is learned is stored in MAC learning table {\em mlt\/} and
{\em mto\/} is the MAC learning table timeout governing when table entries expire.
For all $i\in\id{dom}(\id{mlt})$,
$\id{mlt}(i).\id{mac}$ is a MAC address that was last seen as an ingress source address at time $\id{mlt}(i).t$
at port $\id{mlt}(i).\id{port}$.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{$B(\id{self})$ bridges between non-uplink ports}
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\bf B1} $\rightarrow$ {\bf B1} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
\id{loc} = \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\} \Rightarrow (\id{port} = \id{uplink-port} \vee f.\id{da} = \id{haddr}(\id{port}))
\end{array}$ \\
{\bf B1} $\rightarrow$ {\bf B2} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
\id{loc} =\{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\}\wedge
\id{port}\neq\id{uplink-port}\wedge
f.\id{da}\neq \id{haddr}(\id{port})
\end{array}$ \\
{\bf B2} $\rightarrow$ {\bf B1} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
(\id{self}\;\rid{e}\in \id{loc} \wedge \id{ucast}(f.\id{da})) \Rightarrow (\\
\dashuline{\exists i.\,\id{mlt}(i).\id{mac} = f.\id{da}\, \wedge \,
t - \id{mlt}(i).t \leq \id{mto} \wedge \id{mlt}(i).\id{port} = \id{self}} \;\vee \\
\underline{\forall i.\,\id{mlt}(i).\id{mac} \neq f.\id{da} \vee t - \id{mlt}(i).t > \id{mto}}\hspace{0.15em})
\end{array}$
\end{tabular}
\label{switch}
\end{table}
From state B2, a unicast frame can exit port {\em self\/} only if
the frame's destination address has an entry in {\em mlt\/}, the entry is unexpired and
the port at which the destination address was learned matches the egress port
(dash underlined condition), or the port for the
destination address is unknown or expired (underlined condition).
The latter condition allows a unicast frame to be flooded.
\subsection{Learning component $M$}
The MAC learning table is managed by the learning component defined in Table~\ref{mlt}.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{$M$ learns MAC addresses at non uplink ports}
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\bf ML} $\rightarrow$ {\bf ML} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda x.\,
\dashuline{[(\id{loc} = \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\} \wedge \id{port} \neq \id{uplink-port} \wedge \id{ucast}(f.sa) \;\wedge} \\
\hspace{1em}\dashuline{(\exists k.\,x.\id{mlt}(k).\id{mac}=f.\id{sa} \;\vee} \;
\dashuline{\exists k.\,t-x.\id{mlt}(k).t > \id{mto}))\; \Rightarrow} \\
\hspace{2em}\dashuline{\exists k.\,\id{mlt}=x.\id{mlt}(k)\,\{\id{mac}=f.\id{sa},t=t,\id{port}=\id{port}\}]} \;\wedge \\
\hspace{1em}\underline{[(\id{loc} \neq \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\} \;\vee\;}
\underline{\id{port} = \id{uplink-port} \vee \neg\id{ucast}(f.\id{sa}) \;\vee} \\
\hspace{2em}\underline{(\forall k.\,x.\id{mlt}(k).\id{mac}\neq f.\id{sa} \;\wedge\;
\forall k.\,t-x.\id{mlt}(k).t\leq\id{mto})} \\
\hspace{1.75em}\underline{) \Rightarrow \id{mlt} = x.\id{mlt}]}
\end{array}$
\end{tabular}
\label{mlt}
\end{table}
It has only one state and merely constrains the MAC learning table in that
either the table is updated (dash underlined condition) or remains unchanged (underlined condition).
An update occurs if a frame arrives at a non-uplink port with a unicast source MAC address and
either that address is already in the table or it's not but there's room in the table for it
because there's an expired entry.
Otherwise the table remains unchanged ($\id{mlt} = x.\id{mlt}$).
It also remains unchanged on egress activity in a trace ($\id{loc}\neq\{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\}$).
We expect a frame to be output in response to every frame input.
The response can be the input frame, a rewrite of it or some other response frame.
This much will be determined by other components, however, we still need a component to enforce
an egress action after every ingress action.
The interleaving component $I$ accomplishes this.
It has an ingress transition $\bid{I1}\rightarrow\bid{I2}$ labeled with
$\id{loc} = \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\}$ and an egress transition $\bid{I2}\rightarrow\bid{I1}$ labeled with
$\id{loc} \subseteq \id{egress}$.
\section{Tensor product} \label{monitor tensor product}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{$\lambda$-SFA for $H(\id{self})\times B(\id{self})\times I\times M$}
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\bf H1B1I1ML} $\rightarrow$ {\bf H1B1I2ML} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda x.\;\id{loc} = \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\} \wedge
\underline{(\id{port} = \id{uplink-port} \vee f.\id{da} = \id{haddr}(\id{port}))} \;\wedge \\
((\id{port} \neq \id{uplink-port} \wedge \id{ucast}(f.\id{sa}) \;\wedge \\
(\exists k.\, x.\id{mlt}(k).\id{mac} = f.\id{sa} \vee
\exists k.\, t- x.\id{mlt}(k).t > \id{mto})) \Rightarrow \\
\hspace{1em}\exists k.\, \id{mlt} = x.\id{mlt}(k)\{\id{mac} = f.\id{sa}, t = t, \id{port} = \id{port}\}) \hspace{2em}\wedge \\
((\id{port} = \id{uplink-port} \vee \neg\id{ucast}(f.\id{sa}) \vee
(\forall k.\, x.\id{mlt}(k).\id{mac} \neq f.\id{sa} \\
\hspace{1em}\wedge\; \forall k. \, t-x.\id{mlt}(k).t \leq \id{mto} )) \Rightarrow \id{mlt} = x.\id{mlt} )
\end{array}$ \\[4em]
{\bf H1B1I1ML} $\rightarrow$ {\bf H2B2I2ML} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda x.\;\id{loc} = \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\} \wedge
\dashuline{\id{port} \neq \id{uplink-port} \wedge f.\id{da} \neq \id{haddr}(\id{port})} \;\wedge \\
((\id{ucast}(f.\id{sa}) \;\wedge \\
(\exists k.\, x.\id{mlt}(k).\id{mac} = f.\id{sa} \vee
\exists k.\, t- x.\id{mlt}(k).t > \id{mto})) \Rightarrow \\
\hspace{1em}\exists k.\, \id{mlt} = x.\id{mlt}(k)\{\id{mac} = f.\id{sa}, t = t, \id{port} = \id{port}\}) \hspace{2em}\wedge \\
((\neg\id{ucast}(f.\id{sa}) \vee
(\forall k., x.\id{mlt}(k).\id{mac} \neq f.\id{sa} \;\wedge \\
\hspace{1em}\forall k. \, t-x.\id{mlt}(k).t \leq \id{mto} )) \Rightarrow \id{mlt} = x.\id{mlt} )
\end{array}$ \\[4em]
{\bf H1B1I2ML} $\rightarrow$ {\bf H1B1I1ML} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
\id{loc}\subseteq\id{egress}\hspace{2em}\rid{No action taken for frames destined for switch.}
\end{array}$ \\[1em]
{\bf H2B2I2ML} $\rightarrow$ {\bf H1B1I1ML} \\
$\begin{array}{l}
\id{self}\;\rid{e} \in \id{loc}\Rightarrow [\hspace{0.5em}{\color{blue}(}\\
\hspace{1em}((\neg\id{bcast}(x.f.\id{da}) \vee \id{arp-reqrx}(x.f, x.\id{port})) \wedge
\neg\id{ucast}(x.f.\id{da})) \;\vee \\
\hspace{1em}(f = x.f \wedge \id{self} \neq x.\id{port} \wedge \id{self} \neq \id{uplink-port})\hspace{0.5em}{\color{blue})} \;\wedge \\
\hspace{2em}{\color{red}(}\neg\id{ucast}(f.\id{da}) \; \vee \\
\hspace{1em}(\exists i.\, \id{mlt}(i).\id{mac} = f.\id{da} \wedge t-\id{mlt}(i).t \leq \id{mto} \wedge \id{mlt}(i).\id{port} = \id{self}\\
\hspace{1em}\vee\; \forall j.\, \id{mlt}(j).\id{mac} \neq f.\id{da} \vee t-\id{mlt}(j).t > \id{mto})
{\color{red})}\hspace{0.5em}] \\
\wedge\; \id{loc}\subseteq\id{egress}
\wedge \id{mlt} = x.\id{mlt}
\end{array}$
\end{tabular}
\label{HBIM}
\end{table}
Tensor product $H(\id{self})\times B(\id{self}) \times I \times \id{M}$ gives the
semantics of our 4-port switch function and is shown in Table~\ref{HBIM}.
The product is computed with the help of the Yices SMT solver \cite{yices},
which eliminates transitions with unsatisfiable propositions.
Notice how the product automatically creates the desired control logic, splitting frame processing into handling frames destined
for the switch (e.g. management frames or frames to be routed), conveyed by the
underlined condition, and those that are not (switched), conveyed by the dash underlined condition.
This happens because interleaving component $I$ doesn't allow the hub component to spin
on successive ingress frames arriving at the uplink port and remain in state H1.
In state H1I2, $\id{loc}\subseteq\id{egress}$ is true which makes constraint
$\id{loc} = \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\} \Rightarrow (\id{port} = \id{uplink-port} \vee f.\id{da} = \id{haddr}(\id{port}))$
on $\rid{H1}\rightarrow \rid{H1}$ vacuously true.
Handling frames destined for the switch function occurs in state H1B1I2ML,
which is incomplete with respect to the components presented because none of them is concerned
with handling such frames.
Thus this state merely requires $\id{loc}\subseteq\id{egress}$ to transition out.
The switch function between non-uplink ports, on the other hand, is complete.
On the ingress side (state H1B1I1ML), a frame arriving at a non uplink port that is not destined
for the hardware address of the port causes an update to the MAC learning table if its source hardware
address is unicast.
If the source address is already in the table or there's an expired entry allowing it to be inserted
then the learned port and timestamp fields are reset.
If for some reason the source address is not unicast or it is but it's not already in the table and
no entries in the table are expired then the MAC learning table remains unchanged.
On the egress side (state H2B2I2ML), we have {\em self\/} among the egress ports for the output
frame if the input frame is a broadcast but not an ARP request for the ingress
port's hardware address or it's a unicast.
In this case, the current frame $f$ to be output is constrained to be $x.f$ and
{\em self\/} cannot be the uplink port or the ingress port ($x.\id{port}$).
In addition, if the destination hardware address of $f$, which is the destination
address of $\id{x}.\id{f}$ since $f=\id{x}.\id{f}$,
is unicast then {\em self\/} is governed by the learning component.
\section{Code generation for DPDK platform}
Every formula governing a transition in a product is converted into a minimum disjunctive normal form (DNF).
Branching logic is then computed for each DNF formula.
Finally, the disjuncts of these formulas are discharged into C code using the DPDK API.
Ideally, both branch size and expected running time should be optimized but this isn't always possible.
Minimizing expected running time requires minimizing expected residuals:
\begin{definition}
Given a predicate $p$ and a set of disjuncts $D$, let $\id{res}(p,D)=\emptyset$
if $p\in D$.
Otherwise, a predicate $q$ is in $\id{res}(p,D)$ if $\neg q\not\in\id{res}(p,D)$, $q\neq p$ and there's
a disjunct $d\in D$ such that $q$ occurs in $d$ and $d\wedge p$ is satisfiable.
If $A$ is a truth assignment for members of $\id{res}(p,D)$
then the expected residual of $p$ relative to $D$ and $A$ is
\[
\rid{Pr}[p\,|\,A] \times
|\id{res}(p,D)| +
(1 - \rid{Pr}[p\,|\,A]) \times
|\id{res}(\neg p,D)|
\]
\end{definition}
For instance, consider DNF formula $(C\wedge B)\vee (F\wedge B)\vee E$, so $D=\{C\wedge B, F\wedge B, E\}$.
Suppose predicate $B$ is more likely to be true than $E$, $C$ and $F$, reflected say
by the distribution
$\rid{Pr}[B]=12/16$,
$\rid{Pr}[C]=2/16$ and
$\rid{Pr}[F]=
\rid{Pr}[E]=1/16$.
If $B$ is true then $C$, $F$ and $E$ remain to be evaluated, thus $|\id{res}(B,D)|=3$.
And if it's false then only $E$ remains, so $|\id{res}(\neg B,D)|=1$.
Residuals can likewise be computed for the other predicates.
The expected residuals of the predicates then with respect to $D$
and $A=\emptyset$ become:
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\rid{Pr}[B] \times 3 + (1 - \rid{Pr}[B]) \times 1 = 36/16 + 4/16 = 40/16 \\
\rid{Pr}[C] \times 3 + (1 - \rid{Pr}[C]) \times 3 = 6/16 + 42/16 = 48/16 \\
\rid{Pr}[F] \times 3 + (1 - \rid{Pr}[F]) \times 3 = 3/16 + 45/16 = 48/16 \\
\rid{Pr}[E] \times 0 + (1 - \rid{Pr}[E]) \times 3 = 0 + 45/16 = 45/16
\end{array}
\]
Since $B$ has the least expected residual,
branching would begin by evaluating $B$ to minimize expected running time.
Note that by starting this way, the final branch size will not be minimal
since the minimum size is achieved by evaluating $E$ first.
So it is not always possible to minimize both size and expected running time.
Residual calculations are then made for $D=\{C, F, E\}$ for the ``then'' branch and for $D=\{E\}$ for
the ``else'' branch, each with respect
to $A=\{B\}$.
If $B$ is a predicate asserting a frame is a broadcast, for instance, and $C$ is a predicate
asserting the frame is an ARP request then $\rid{Pr}[C|A]$ is the probability the frame is
an ARP request given it's a broadcast.
This can vary depending on the network environment of the UPF.
An advantage of our approach is that branching logic can be regenerated continuously in response
to observed traffic that causes the distribution to change.
So the UPF can adapt in real time and remain optimal for the given environment.
After branching is computed for each DNF formula,
the formula's disjuncts are discharged in the context of declarations provided by
a service-discipline wrapper.
This requires distinguishing checkable predicates from enforceable ones.
The former translates into guards
and the latter into statements of the generated C code.
An {\em enforceable\/} predicate is one whose truth can always be guaranteed at run time,
otherwise, it is {\em checkable\/}.
For example, the formula on the transition from H2B2I2ML in Table~\ref{HBIM} has disjunct:
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\id{self}\;\rid{e}\in\id{loc} \wedge
\underline{\id{ucast}(\id{x}.\id{f}.\id{da})} \wedge
f = \id{x}.\id{f} \;\wedge \\
\underline{\id{self}\neq x.\id{port} \wedge \id{self}\neq\id{uplink-port}} \;\wedge \\
\underline{\exists i.\, \id{mlt}(i).\id{mac} = \id{f}.\id{da} \wedge t-\id{mlt}(i).t\leq\id{mto} \wedge
\id{mlt}(i).\id{port} = \id{self}} \;\wedge \\
\id{loc}\subseteq\id{egress} \wedge \id{mlt}=x.\id{mlt}
\end{array}
\]
Underlined predicates are checkable and all others are enforceable.
Our wrapper code within which generated code runs always guarantees $\id{loc}\subseteq\id{egress}$,
so this predicate can be eliminated at compile time.
Further, the wrapper code runs on a single Intel core so there's no way for a concurrent thread
to change the MAC learning table before entering state H2B2I2ML.
Thus $\id{mlt}=x.\id{mlt}$ can be eliminated (no locking required at run time).
Both predicates are enforceable.
In contrast, the existential constraint on {\em mlt\/} is checkable.
On the surface, there's nothing to suggest it cannot be enforced by an implementation that sets the fields of {\em mlt\/}
as prescribed.
But this cannot be done as it implies control over network function inputs!
$M$ has a single state invariant $\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize ML}}$ given in
Table~\ref{state invariants}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{State invariants $\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize B1}}$ and $\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize ML}}$.}
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize B1}}(w_0\cdots w_n,\tau_0\cdots\tau_n)$ : \\[0.25em]
\hspace{0.5em}$\forall i.\,0\leq i< n.$ \\
\hspace{1em}$(\;
((w_i,\tau_i)\models \id{loc} = \{\id{port}\;\rid{i}\}\wedge
\id{port}\neq\id{uplink-port}\wedge
\id{f}.\id{da}\neq \id{haddr}(\id{port}))\;\wedge\;
((w_{i+1},\tau_{i+1}) \models \id{self}\;\rid{e}\in \id{loc} \wedge
\id{ucast}(\id{f}.\id{da}))\hspace{0.25em}) \Rightarrow $ \\
\hspace{1.5em}$(w_{i+1},\tau_{i+1}) \models (
\exists i.\,\id{mlt}(i).\id{mac} = f.\id{da} \wedge
\tau_{i+1} - \id{mlt}(i).\id{t} \leq \id{mto} \wedge \id{mlt}(i).\id{port} = \id{self} \;\vee\;$ \\
\hspace{7.5em}$\forall i.\,\id{mlt}(i).\id{mac} \neq f.\id{da} \vee t - \id{mlt}(i).t > \id{mto}$ \\
\hspace{7.5em}$)$ \\[0.5em]
$\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize ML}}(w_0\cdots w_n,\tau_0\cdots\tau_n)$ : \\[0.25em]
\hspace{0.5em}$\forall d\in\id{dom}(\id{mlt}).\,\forall m,p.\,\forall k.\,0\leq k \leq n.$ \\
\hspace{1em}$((w_k,\tau_k) \models \id{mlt}(d).\id{mac}=m \wedge
\tau_k - \id{mlt}(d).t \leq \id{mto} \; \wedge \;
\id{mlt}(d).\id{port} = p\hspace{0.25em}) \Leftrightarrow$ \\
\hspace{1.5em}$(w_0\cdots w_k,\tau_0\cdots\tau_k) \models
\exists j.\, 0 \leq j < k.\,\hspace{0.25em}($ \\
\hspace{3em}$(w_j,\tau_j) \models (\id{loc} = \{p\;\rid{i}\} \wedge \id{f}.\id{sa} = m \wedge
\id{ucast}(\id{f}.\id{sa}) \wedge
\exists i.\,\tau_j - \id{mlt}(i).t > \id{mto} \vee \id{mlt}(i).\id{mac} = f.\id{sa}) \;\wedge$ \\
\hspace{3em}$(w_k,\tau_k) \models \tau_k - \tau_j \leq \id{mto} \wedge \id{mlt}(d).t = \tau_j$ \\
\hspace{3em})
\end{tabular}
\label{state invariants}
\end{table*}
It relates the contents of the MAC learning table to an input sequence,
specifically that $\id{f}.\id{da}$ was learned at port {\em self\/} in the past.
This prevents enforcement of the constraint since no implementation can control what is learned at a port.
A discharge table maps predicates to be discharged into C, leveraging
Intel's Data Plane Development Kit (DPDK) \cite{dpdk}.
The DPDK provides a rich API.
For instance, checkable predicate $\id{ucast}(\id{f.da})$ can be discharged directly into C using the DPDK Ethernet API:
\[
\verb+is_unicast_ether_addr(dst_haddr(bufs[buf])) +
\]
It will be much easier to prove discharge tables correct than to prove entire C programs correct.
Furthermore, it need only be done once.
Thereafter, proving any property of C code generated for a network function will reduce
to proving properties of finite-state machines ($\lambda$-SFA),
which are easier to reason about than C code.
Our service-discipline wrapper is a simple round-robin service wrapper written in C (580 lines of code)
using the DPDK API (v17.05) \cite{dpdk}
and running on an 8-core Intel Xeon 2.1Ghz server
with 4 X540-AT2 10Gb Ethernet NICs, one for each port of our switch function.
It repeatedly gets for each port a burst of frames using the DPDK API.
For each ingress frame, it resets the port mask and current time by reading
the timestamp counter register.
It then executes our generated code, producing an output frame and a port mask
defining the egress ports of the frame.
It is a simple service discipline.
Other disciplines like deficit round robin could be used instead.
\section{Proving component properties} \label{Invariants}
The correctness of a given component is established relative to a requirement formulated
as a property of a timed state sequence \cite{tptl}.
One formulates invariants for the states of the component and proves them by mutual induction.
As examples, we have formulated invariants for
state $\rid{B1}$ of learned forwarding component $B(\id{self})$ and state $\rid{ML}$ of MAC learning component $M$.
They are shown in Table~\ref{state invariants}.
$\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize B1}}$ relates the current frame to the MAC learning table, and
$\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize ML}}$ relates the MAC learning table to timed state sequences.
More precisely, $\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize B1}}$ says if a unicast frame, arriving at a non-uplink port,
is not destined for the switch and at the next time step $\tau_{i+1}$ it exits at port {\em self\/}
then the MAC learning table at time $\tau_{i+1}$ either has an unexpired entry for it, consisting
of its destination MAC address and the port {\em self\/}, or does not.
$\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize ML}}$ on the other hand states what is true of all destination MAC address/port pairs $(m,p)$
stored in the MAC learning table relative to timed state sequences.
Specifically, destination address $m$ is the source MAC address of a frame that arrived at port $p$ at some
time $\tau_j$ prior to $\tau_k$ where $\tau_k - \tau_j \leq \id{mto}$.
Putting the two invariants together then gives us that $p$ is the port at which destination address $m$
was seen as a source MAC address within the last
{\em mto\/} seconds.
Note the invariants alone are insufficient for relating the current frame to a timed state sequence but together
they accomplish it in the product state $\rid{H1B1I1ML}$, which has partial invariant
$\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize B1}}\wedge\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize ML}}$.
The invariant of a product state in general is the conjunction of invariants of its component states.
The proof is a straight-forward extension of the standard correctness proof for product automata \cite{Kozen97}.
This homomorphic property is what allows proofs about properties of individual components to scale up to
proofs about properties of products at no extra cost.
This is key to making verification practical for 5G providers.
State invariants are proven by mutual induction on the length of a timed state sequence.
Suppose $\hat{\delta}$ is the multistep transition function for a transition function $\delta$ \cite{Kozen97},
defined as $\hat{\delta}(q,(w_0,\tau_0),\sigma)=(q,\sigma)$ and for $n > 0$,
$\hat{\delta}(q,(w_0 \cdots w_n,\tau_0\cdots\tau_n),\sigma)=(p,\sigma'')$
if
\[
\hat{\delta}(q,(w_0\cdots w_{n-1},\tau_0\cdots \tau_{n-1}),\sigma)=(q',\sigma')
\]
and $\delta(q',(w_n,\tau_n),\sigma')=(p,\sigma'')$.
Note there is no empty timed state sequence; $(w_0,\tau_0)$ reflects the initial state and $\tau_0$ the time
at which initialization of that state is complete.
It forms the base case for induction over sequences.
Then we can show for all
MAC addresses $m$ and sequences
$\mu = (w_0\;w_1\;\cdots\;w_n,\tau_0\;\tau_1\;\cdots\;\tau_n)$ satisfying
\[
(w_0,\tau_0) \models
\forall d.\,\tau_0 - \id{mlt}(d).t > \id{mto} \wedge
\id{mlt}(d).\id{mac}\neq m
\]
if $\sigma$ and $\sigma_0$ are mappings where $\sigma_0(x)=(w_0,\tau_0)$
and $\hat{\delta}(\rid{ML},\mu,\sigma_0) = (\rid{ML},\sigma)$ then
$\Phi_{\rid{\scriptsize ML}}(\mu)$ holds.
Proof is by induction on $n$.
\section{Related work} \label{related work}
Much work has been done in the design of high-level network programming languages
to configure multiple packet-forwarding devices into a particular network topology \cite{michel2021}.
Frenetic \cite{foster2011}, NDlog \cite{loozhou2012}, OpenBox \cite{openbox},
Nettle \cite{voellmy2011} and P4 \cite{P42014}.
All lack an explicit treatement of time and the ability to reason about timeouts.
In \cite{dobrescu2014}, the aim is to verify bounded execution and crash freedom
for dataplanes constructed as a packet processing pipeline of Click elements that
do not share mutable state beyond the packet and its metadata.
The efforts of \cite{liu2018,neves2018} involve annotating P4 dataplane code with
assertions and looking for an initial state that leads to their violation.
None of this work can reason about time, history or mutable state.
OpenBox is unique in that it attempts to define the intersection of packet-processing pipelines
via a merge algorithm on packet processing graphs.
However the algorithm is described informally so its soundness is difficult to assess, especially
with potential packet modification conflicts.
An intermediate network program representation, called a network transaction automaton, is described
in \cite{haoli2020,haoli2020b}.
However the product of such automata is not well defined.
A transition can assign to a variable and the product construction requires taking the union of two assignments.
But what is the union of $x:=0$ and $x:=1$?
NetKat \cite{netkat} allows one to specify forwarding policies via a small set of primitive commands
and combinators.
NetKat expressions can be represented as deterministic finite automata (DFA).
So the intersection of policies is defined by the standard product of DFA,
which is an instance of a tensor product.
Temporal NetKat \cite{temporalnetkat}, NetKat extended with linear temporal operators, also lacks
an explicit treatment of time.
Emphasis on reusability can be found in the early work around kernel network stack
development: $x$-kernel \cite{hutchinson1991}, Scout \cite{mosberger1996, peterson1999},
and later in extensible routers \cite{decasper1998, click2000, keller2002} and
decomposition of security services in SDN networks \cite{fresco2013}.
Click \cite{click2000}, is a Linux-based platform
for building a single network stack from reusable C++ classes or ``elements'' linked together to form a
packet-processing chain.
An element can be an arbitrarily-complex computation though in practice it usually implements some
basic step in a network stack like fetching a route or decrementing a TTL.
The work does not facilitate rigorous construction of network functions from reusable parts.
Although packet-processing functions may be reusable they are not expressed in a way that is well suited
for combining them algorithmically.
In Click, they are C++ programs.
On the formal verification front,
work has been done verifying controllers of software-defined networks (SDN) and dataplanes.
A compiler and run-time system for NetCore \cite{netcore} is verified with mechanical support in \cite{gurefo2013}.
NICE \cite{nice2012}, FlowLog \cite{flowlog2014}, Kuai \cite{kuai2014} and Kinetic \cite{kinetic2015} use model checking
to verify temporal and nontemporal properties of applications like MAC address learning.
Vericon \cite{vericon} takes a different approach, formulating invariants of networks and
properties of SDN programs in first-order logic and then checking satisfiability using Z3.
In \cite{dobrescu2014}, the aim is to verify bounded execution and crash freedom
for dataplanes constructed as a packet processing pipeline of Click elements that
do not share mutable state beyond the packet and its metadata.
The efforts of \cite{liu2018,neves2018} involve annotating P4 dataplane code with
assertions and looking for an initial state that leads to their violation.
None of this work can reason about time, history or mutable state.
Zen is a modeling language that allows one to express and analyze a wide variety of network functions
written in C\# \cite{zen2020}.
Composing two Zen models is purely operational in that a function of one model can
call a function of the other.
No attempt is made to define it denotationally, for instance,
in terms of a new a property exhibited by the composition that a programmer can inspect.
A declarative language limited to application-layer gateway processing is given in \cite{balldin20}.
Using Z3 one can verify the correctness of packet filtering and rewrite rules.
\section{Conclusions} \label{conclusions}
Rather than writing networking software and then reasoning about it, the approach presented here involves
generating code from products of primitive reusable components that capture various
network behaviors.
An example product was given with four components.
These can be mechanically combined to produce a new functional specification from which code is
ultimately generated.
It is easy to add other components that introduce new features like per-port stateful firewalling,
network address translation and so on.
No ex post facto reasoning about generated code is needed once discharge tables are proved correct.
Generated code is not modified directly since changes
are made at the reusable component level.
Consequently, opportunities for introducing low-level bugs in C are eliminated.
Contrast this with the state of the art where bugs can be introduced and then
code must be analyzed to detect them.
If such analysis requires one to annotate dataplane code with assertions and then check whether
the code is a model of them then why bother write the code at all?
Instead one should focus on the assertion logic and derive code from it, making model checking unnecessary.
Others are reaching the same conclusion for SDN controller software \cite{mcclurg2018}.
The challenge then shifts from verifying code to compiling logical assertions into code that rivals
the performance of handwritten dataplane code, a challenging but more tractable problem.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the last two decades, Decision Forests have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in a wide variety of machine learning settings. More recently, Deep Networks have become very popular and demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in settings on which Decision Forests, in forms that currently exist, do not perform as well.
\includegraphics[width = 155mm]{figs/polytopes.pdf}
\newline
\includegraphics[width = 155mm]{figs/killer_fig.png}
\newline
\includegraphics[width = 155mm]{figs/KDF_sxor.png}
\newline
\includegraphics[width = 155mm]{figs/KDN_sxor.png}
\section{Background and Related Works}
\section{Weighted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (WMLE)}
\begin{align}
\label{mle}
l(\mu , \Sigma| \mathbf{X}^i) &= \log \Pi_{i=1}^m f( \mathbf{X}^i | \mu, \Sigma)^{w_i} \nonumber\\
&= \log \Pi_{i=1}^m \left( \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{p/2} |\Sigma|^{1/2}} \exp (-0.5 (\mathbf{X}^i - \mu)^T \Sigma^{-1}(\mathbf{X}^i - \mu)) \right)^{w_i} \nonumber\\
&= -0.5 \sum mp w_i \log (2 \pi) - 0.5 \sum w_i \log |\Sigma| - 0.5 \sum _{i=1}^m (\sqrt{w_i}(\mathbf{X}^i - \mu))^T \Sigma^{-1} (\sqrt{w_i}(\mathbf{X}^i - \mu))
\end{align}
if we maximize \eqref{mle}, we get
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mu} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^m w_i \mathbf{X}^i}{\sum_{i=1}^m w_i}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{final_eq1}
\hat{\Sigma} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^m w_i (\mathbf{X}^i - \hat{\mu})(\mathbf{X}^i - \hat{\mu})^T}{\sum_{i=1}^m w_i}
\end{equation}
Now, consider the unweighted likelihood function with the centered data $\mathbf{X}_c^i$ wieghted by $\sqrt{w_i}$,
\begin{align}
\label{mle2}
l(\mu , \Sigma| \mathbf{X}^i_c) &= \log \Pi_{i=1}^m \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{p/2} |\Sigma|^{1/2}} \exp (-0.5 w_i(\mathbf{X}_c^i)^T \Sigma^{-1}(\mathbf{X}^i_c)) \nonumber\\
&= -0.5 \sum mp \log (2 \pi) - 0.5 m \log |\Sigma| - 0.5 \sum _{i=1}^m (\sqrt{w_i}(\mathbf{X}_c^i))^T \Sigma^{-1} (\sqrt{w_i}(\mathbf{X}_c^i))
\end{align}
This gives the MLE estimate of the covariance as
\begin{equation}
\label{final_eq2}
\hat{\Sigma} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^m w_i (\mathbf{X}^i - \hat{\mu})(\mathbf{X}^i - \hat{\mu})^T}{m}
\end{equation}
If we compare \eqref{final_eq1} and \eqref{final_eq2}, it is apparent that we can use any MLE estimation algorithm to estimate the covariance matrix by feeding it the centered data and then rescaling the estimated covariance by $\frac{m}{\sum_{i=1}^m w_i}$.
\section{WMLE with Every Gaussian having the same Covariance Matrix}
\begin{align}
\label{mle}
l(\mu_j , \Sigma| \mathbf{X}) &= \log \Pi_{j=1}^k \Pi_{i=1}^{m_k} f( \mathbf{X}^{ij} | \mu_j, \Sigma)^{w_{ij}} \nonumber\\
&= \log \Pi_{j=1}^k \Pi_{i=1}^{m_k} \left( \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{p/2} |\Sigma|^{1/2}} \exp (-0.5 (\mathbf{X}^{ij} - \mu_j)^T \Sigma^{-1}(\mathbf{X}^{ij} - \mu_j)) \right)^{w_{ij}} \nonumber\\
&= -0.5 \sum \sum m_kp w_{ij} \log (2 \pi) - 0.5 \sum \sum w_{ij} \log |\Sigma| \nonumber\\
& - 0.5 \sum_{j=1}^k \sum _{i=1}^{m_k} (\sqrt{w_{ij}}(\mathbf{X}^{ij} - \mu_j))^T \Sigma^{-1} (\sqrt{w_{ij}}(\mathbf{X}^{ij} - \mu_j))
\end{align}
if we maximize \eqref{mle}, we get
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mu}_j = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{m_k} w_{ij} \mathbf{X}^{ij}}{\sum_{i=1}^{m_k} w_{ij}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{final_eq1}
\hat{\Sigma} = \frac{\sum_{j=1}^k \sum_{i=1}^{m_k} w_{ij} (\mathbf{X}^{ij} - \hat{\mu}_j)(\mathbf{X}^{ij} - \hat{\mu}_j)^T}{\sum_{j=1}^k \sum_{i=1}^{m_k} w_{ij}}
\end{equation}
\nocite{*}
\section{Background}
In this section, we formulate the problem we are going to address and provide necessary background information about the OOD overconfidence problem in random forests and deep networks.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
Consider a supervised learning problem with independent and identically distributed training samples $\{ (x_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^N$ such that $(X, Y) \sim \mathcal{P}_{X\times Y}$, where $X \sim \mathcal{P}_{in}$ is a $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ valued input and $Y$ is a $\mathcal{Y} = \{1, \cdots, K\}$ valued label. We consider the OOD-distributions $\mathcal{P}_{out}$ with their support spanning the whole feature space excluding the support of $\mathcal{P}_{in}$. In other words, $\mathcal{P}_{out} := \bigcup_{j} \mathcal{P}_j$, where $\mathcal{P}_j$ is any distribution having no overlap with $\mathcal{P}_{in}$. Note that this notion of OOD is different from that of the traditional OOD learnability literature \cite{geisa_towards_2021} where the OOD distribution may share support with the training distribution. Here the goal is to learn a model $g: \mathbb{R}^d \times \{\mathbb{R}^d \times \{1, \cdots, K\}\}^N \rightarrow [0, 1]^k$ such that,
\begin{equation}
g(x) =
\begin{cases}
P[Y=k|X=x],& \forall k ~\text{if}~x \sim \mathcal{P}_{in}\\
P[Y=k],& \forall k ~\text{if}~x \sim \mathcal{P}_{out}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $P[Y=k|X=x]$ is the true posterior probability of class $k$ given by,
\begin{equation}
P[Y=k|X=x] = \frac{f_k(x)P[Y=k]}{\sum_{i=1}^K f_i(x)P[Y=i]}
\end{equation}
Here, $f_i(x)$ is the true training class conditional density function of class $i$.
The class prediction $\hat{y}$ for a test sample $x$ is obtained by,
\begin{equation}
\hat{y} = \arg \max(g(x))
\end{equation}
\subsection{Overconfidence Problem in Random Forests}
Random forests (RFs) split the feature space $\mathbb{R}^d$ into a union of axis aligned polytopes $Q_r$ such that $ \mathbb{R}^d = \bigcup_{r=1}^p Q_r$, and calculate a constant posterior over those polytopes by counting the number of training samples within each polytope. For instance, the posterior probability of class $k$ w.r.t to the polytope $Q_r$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polytope_posterior}
P[Y=k|x \in Q_r] = \frac{N_{rk}}{N_r}
\end{equation}
where $N_{rk}$ is the total number of samples with class label $y$ in the polytope $Q_r$ and $N_r$ is the total number of samples in the same polytope. The polytopes lying at the boundary of the training data extend to the whole feature space and hence encompass all the OOD samples. Since the posterior probability for a class is constant across each of those outer polytopes, decision trees and random forests (ensemble of decision trees) tend to be overconfident when making predictions for the OOD inputs.
\subsection{Overconfidence Problem in Deep Networks}
\label{sec:overconf_nn}
Consider a deep network (DN) $F:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow [0,1]^K$ with $L+1$ number of layers. If $W^{(l)} \in \mathbb{R}^{u_l \times u_{l-1}}$ is the weight matrix and $b^{(l)} \in \mathbb{R}^{u_l}$ is the bias vector of layer $l$, then for $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$ we can recursively define the pre- and post-activation output of each layer $l$ $(l= 1, \dots, L+1$) as,
$$ F^{(l)} = W^{(l)}G^{(l-1)}(x) + b^{(l)} $$
and
$$ G^{(l)} = \sigma(F^{(l)}(x)) $$
respectively. Here, $\sigma(t) = \max \{ 0, t \}$ is the ReLU activation function and $G^{(0)}(x) = x$.
A trained deep network, at the penultimate layer ($l = L$), induces a finite set of convex polytopes $\{ Q_i \}_{i=1}^p$ in the input space $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $\bigcup_{i=1}^p Q_i = \mathbb{R}^d$. Every point $x$ contained within a polytope $Q_i$ activates the same unique subset of neurons in the network. Therefore, when restricted to $Q_i$, the penultimate layer output $F^{L+1}(.)$ reduces to an affine function:
$$ F^{(L+1)}(x) = V_i^{(L+1)} x + a_i^{(L+1)} \quad \forall x \in Q_i$$
where $V_i^{(L+1)}$ and $a_i^{(L+1)}$ are unique to $Q_i$. \citet{hein2019relu} provides explicit expressions for $V_i^{(L+1)}$ and $a_i^{(L+1)}$ in their work.
In summary, a deep network partitions the input space into a finite number of polytopes and learns a unique affine function over each polytope. Since the polytopes located at the training data (in-distribution) boundary extend to infinity, evaluating an affine function over such regions would amount to producing predictions with high confidence scores for inputs that are far away from the training data. This gives rise to the overconfidence problem of the deep networks when it comes to OOD inputs.
\section{Discussion}
In this paper, we have introduced a simple concept---replace the constant or affine function in each polytope of an ML model with a Gaussian kernel, which is locally fitted over the data within the corresponding and the neighboring polytopes. This leads to a lower class conditional likelihood for sample points far away from the convex hull of the training data compared to that for the sample points within in-distribution region. Adding a suitable bias to all the class conditional likelihoods makes this bias dominate in the OOD region yet negligible in the in-distribution region. Such a method results in the uniform posteriors over the classes in the OOD region without using OOD data for training.
Experiments with human subjects show that this property correspond with human intelligence. Thus, KDFs and KDNs could be used to further explore how natural intelligence evaluate OOD information with existing knowledge.
Our proposed methods can have useful applications in learning scenarios like lifelong \cite{dey2022representation} and OOD learning \cite{geisa_towards_2021}, where the detection of OOD data can enable better transfer of knowledge between tasks.
Moreover, the kernel density polytopes could be extended to many other algorithms, including convolutional neural networks.
In other words, we can take the output from a certain layer in convolutional networks and fit a kernel density convolutional neural network (KDCNN) model that can achieve similar properties on image data. This could motivate future works on a KDCNN model that is robust to OOD data and adversarial attacks.
In conclusion, kernel density polytopes enable OOD detection without sacrificing any in-distribution performance. Models augmented with such a method could achieve better overall performance than the original and produce posteriors that resemble human decisions.
In the meantime, our code, including the package and the experiments in this manuscript, is available from \url{https://github.com/neurodata/kdg}.
\section{Theory}
\begin{theorem}
Given the polytope size $h_r \to 0$, the number of samples within each polytope $N_{rk} \to \infty$ and $N_{rk}$ grows slowly compared to the total sample size $\frac{N_{rk}}{N_k} \to 0$, kernel density polytope is an unbiased estimator of the true class conditional in-distribution density function $f_k(x)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider a point $x \in Q_s$. The class conditional density estimate for $x$ can be written as-
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\hat{f}_k(x) &= \frac{1}{N_k} \sum_{r=1}^{p} N_{rk} \mathcal{K}_r(x)\\
&= \frac{1}{N_k} \sum_{r=1}^p \sum_{i=1}^{N_k} \mathds{1}_{\{x_i \in Q_r\}} \mathcal{K}_r(x)\\
&= \frac{1}{N_k} \sum_{i=1}^{N_k} \mathds{1}_{\{x_i \in Q_s\}} \mathcal{K}_s(x) + \frac{1}{N_k} \sum_{r=1, r \neq s}^p \sum_{i=1}^{N_k} \mathds{1}_{\{x_i \in Q_r\}} \mathcal{K}_r(x)\\
&= \frac{N_{sk} \mathcal{K}_s(x)}{N_k} + \sum_{r=1, r \neq s}^p \frac{N_{rk} \mathcal{K}_r(x)}{N_k}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Now the polytope sample counts $N_{sk}, N_{rk}$ can be considered as binomially distributed as $N_{sk} \sim B(N_k, P_s)$, $N_{rk} \sim B(N_k, P_r)$. By using mean value theorem, $P_r = h_r f_k(\zeta_r)$, where $\zeta_r \in Q_r$. Now,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}[\hat{f}_k(x)] &= \frac{N_{k} P_s \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{K}_s(x)]}{N_k} + \frac{\text{Cov}(N_{sk}, \mathcal{K}_s(x))}{N_k} \\
&~~~~~+ \sum_{r=1, r \neq s}^p \frac{N_{k} P_r \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{K}_r(x)]}{N_k} + \sum_{r=1, r \neq s}^p\frac{\text{Cov}(N_{rk}, \mathcal{K}_r(x))}{N_k}\\
&= h_s f_k(\zeta_s) \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{K}_s(x)] + \frac{\text{Cov}(N_{sk}, \mathcal{K}_s(x))}{N_k}\\
&~~~~~+ \sum_{r=1, r \neq s}^p h_r f(\zeta_r) \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{K}_r(x)] + \sum_{r=1, r \neq s}^p\frac{\text{Cov}(N_{rk}, \mathcal{K}_r(x))}{N_k}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Consider, a forest with infinitely deep trees, i.e., $h_s, h_r \rightarrow 0$. For this case, $w_{rs} = 0$ whenever $Q_r \neq Q_s$. Therefore, as $h_s, h_r \rightarrow 0$, $f_k(\zeta_s) \rightarrow f_k(x)$ and $\mathcal{K}_r(x) \rightarrow 0$ (as $x \notin Q_r$). Again, as $N_k \rightarrow \infty$ and $h_s \rightarrow 0$, the kernel bandwidth goes to zero and its center converges to $x$. Moreover, as the kernel bandwidth reduces, $\mathcal{K}_s(\cdot)$ decays faster and the kernel resembles a uniform distribution over the polytope $Q_s$. As the area under the kernel is $1$, $\mathbb{E}(\mathcal{K}_s(x)) \rightarrow \frac{1}{h_s}$. Again, as $N_k \rightarrow \infty$ and $\frac{N_{sk}}{N_k} \to 0$, all the covaraince terms go to $0$. Therefore, $\mathbb{E}[\hat{f}_k(x)]$ becomes an asymptotically unbiased estimator of $f_k(x)$.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank the support of the NSF-Simons Research Collaborations on the Mathematical and Scientific Foundations of Deep Learning (NSSF grant 2031985). This work is graciously supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Lifelong Learning Machines program through contracts FA8650-18-2-7834 and HR0011-18-2-0025. Research was partially supported by funding from Microsoft Research and the Kavli Neuroscience Discovery Institute.
\section{Introduction}
For biological agents, experience is not only important to excel in the relevant skills but also to learn where the agent should not be confident at all. From an evolutionary perspective, it is a mandatory property for the biological intelligence to ensure its survival. In short, any intelligent system should get more conscious about its limitations with more experience. However, most of the traditional machine learning models seem to defy this natural law of being intelligent. Although with more training data (experience) they get better at inferring on the samples lying within the convex hull of the training data \citep{hein2019relu, pmlr-v70-guo17a, pmlr-v119-kristiadi20a, xu_when_2021}, they yield highly confident predictions over the samples lying far away from the training data. Uniform confidence over the classes in the out-of-distribution (OOD) region is crucial for applications like autonomous driving and computer-assisted surgery, where any aberrant reading should be detected and taken care of immediately \citep{hein2019relu, meinke2021provably}. An intelligent model capable of detecting OOD data can be a life-saver in these cases.
Intuitively, the easiest solution for OOD sample detection is to learn a function that gives higher scores for in-distribution data and lower scores for OOD data, and thereby re-scale the posterior from the original model accordingly \citep{liang2017enhancing}. However, any model that could learn how to detect OOD samples, would have its own problem of being overconfident for the corresponding OOD samples \citep{hendrycks2018deep, nalisnick2018deep}. Again, as mentioned in \citet{hein2019relu}, re-scaling the posteriors cannot solve the OOD overconfidence problem in ReLU (rectified linear unit) networks. Many previous algorithms \cite{hein2019relu, hendrycks2018deep, devries2018learning} tried different approaches by modifying the training loss function. Among them, \citet{hein2019relu} and \citet{hendrycks2018deep} tried to calibrate the network confidence over the OOD data by exhaustively training the network to be less confident on the OOD data. However, this process would require infinite OOD data for a satisfactory robustness against all possible OOD scenarios. Moreover, these huge OOD data would require a model with larger capacity. At the same time, one can adversarially manipulate an OOD sample to find another OOD sample where the model is overconfident \citep{nguyen2015deep, hein2019relu, sehwag2019better}. \citet{erdil2020unsupervised} proposed kernel density estimation techniques over the features learned at different layers of a deep network and combined the scores from all the layers using logistic regression. However, a single model having both good in-distribution performance and OOD robustness is highly desirable.
In this paper, we consider replacing the constant or affine functions learned over the polytopes in random forests and ReLU networks, respectively \citep{breiman_random_2001, hein2019relu, xu_when_2021}. We propose two novel kernel density polytope techniques named \textit{Kernel Density Forest} (KDF) and \textit{Kernel Density Network} (KDN). They converge to the true training distribution in the limit when we have infinite training samples for random forests and ReLU networks with sufficient complexity, respectively. At the same time, the estimated likelihood from the kernel density polytopes decreases for samples far away from the training samples. By adding suitable bias to the kernel density estimate, we can achieve uniform posterior over the classes in the OOD region. It completely excludes the need for providing OOD examples to the model. We conduct several simulation studies that show both KDF and KDN are robust against OOD samples while maintain good performance in the in-distribution region.
\section{Kernel Density Polytopes}
In this section, we describe how we fit Gaussian kernels over the polytopes learnt using RFs and DNs, respectively. This leads to the two main contributions of our work, KDFs and KDNs.
\begin{algorithm}[!htb]
\caption{Fit a \sct{KDX} model.
}
\label{alg:kdx}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\Statex (1) $M$ \Comment{the parent learner (random forest or deep network model)}
\Statex (2) $\mathcal{D}_n = (\mathbf{X},\mathbf{y}) \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d} \times \{1,\ldots, K\}^N$ \Comment{training data}
\Ensure $g$ \Comment{a KDX model}
\Function{\sct{KDX}.fit}{$M,\mathbf{X},\mathbf{y}$}
\State $\theta \gets$ $M$.\Call{fit}{$\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{y}$}
\Comment train the parent learner
\For{$k = 1, \ldots, K$}
\State $\mathbf{X}_k \gets$ input samples with label $k$ \Comment{$\mathbf{X}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{N_k \times d}$}
\State $\{Q_r\}_{r=1}^{m_k} \gets$ \Call{getPolytopes}{$\mathbf{X}_k, \theta$} \Comment{$Q_r = [x_1, \dots, x_{N_{kr}}]$}
\For{$r = 1, \ldots, m_k$}
\Comment iterate over each polytope in class $k$
\State $\mathbf{w}_{rk} \gets$ \Call{computeWeights}{$Q_r,\mathbf{X}_k, \theta$} \Comment{$\mathbf{w}_{rk} \in [0, 1]^{N_k}$}
\State $g.N_{rk} \gets$ number of input samples with weight $1$ \Comment{$N_{rk}$ is the number of input samples in $Q_r$}
\State $g. \mu_{rk}, g. \Sigma_{rk} \gets$ \Call{estimateParameters}{$\mathbf{X}_k, \mathbf{w}_{rk}$} \Comment Estimate parameters using weighted MLE
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State \Return $g$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Kernel Density Forests}
Consider $T$ number of decision trees in a random forest ensemble. Each tree $t$ partitions the feature space into $M_t$ polytopes resulting in a set of $\{\{Q_{t,r}\}_{r=1}^{M_t}\}_{t=1}^T$ polytopes. The intersection of these polytopes gives a new set of polytopes $\{Q_r\}_{r=1}^p$ for the forest. We are interested in fitting a Gaussian kernel $\mathcal{K}_r(\cdot)$ for each polytope $Q_r$ for each class $k$. Naturally, we would estimate the parameters $\mu_{rk}$ and $\Sigma_{rk}$ of $\mathcal{K}_r(\cdot)$ from the samples with label $k$ contained within $Q_r$. However, in order to improve the estimates for these parameters, we also incorporate the samples from other polytopes $Q_s$ based on the similarity between $Q_r$ and $Q_s$.
In order to measure this similarity, for any point $x_r \in Q_r$ with label $k$, we push every other sample point $x_s \in Q_s$ with the same label down the trees. If the two points end up in the same leaf across all the trees, they belong to the same polytope, i.e. $Q_r = Q_s$. The two points belong to different polytopes ($Q_r \neq Q_s$) if they only share a fraction or none of matching leaves. Hence, we weigh down the contribution from a neighboring polytope $Q_s$ for estimating the kernel in the current polytope $Q_r$ using the following weighting scheme:
\begin{equation}
w_{rs} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{l_{rs}}{T},& \text{if } Q_r \neq Q_s\\
1,& \text{if } Q_r = Q_s
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $l_{rs}$ is the total number trees $x_r$ and $x_s$ end up in the same leaf node. The higher the weight, the closer two polytopes are to each other in the feature space. With the weights defined above, we estimate the parameters of kernel $\mathcal{K}_r(\cdot)$ using weighted maximum likelihood estimator over the sample points for each label. By summing over the estimated kernels, we arrive at an estimate $\hat{f}_k(x)$ for the class conditional density:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:class_density1}
\hat{f}_k(x) = \frac{1}{N_k} \sum_{r=1}^{p} N_{rk} \mathcal{K}_r(x)
\end{equation}
where $N_{rk}$ is the total number of samples that end up in the current polytope $Q_r$ and $N_k = \sum_{r=1}^pN_{rk}$ is the total number of training samples with class $k$.
\begin{algorithm}[!htb]
\caption{Computing weights in \sct{KDF}}
\label{alg:kdf_weight}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\Statex (1) $Q_r$ \Comment{a polytope in class $k$}
\Statex (2) $\mathbf{X}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{N_k \times d}$ \Comment{input samples with class label $k$}
\Statex (3) $\theta$ \Comment{parent random forest model}
\Ensure $\mathbf{w} \in [0, 1]^{N_k}$ \Comment{weights for each input sample in class $k$}
\Function{computeWeights}{$Q_r, \mathbf{X}_k, \theta$}
\State $\mathbf{L} \gets$ \Call{pushDownTrees}{$\mathbf{X}_k$}
\Comment{push the samples $\mathbf{X}_k$ down the $T$ trees in total and store the leaf number they end up in $\mathbf{L} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times T}$}
\State $\mathbf{l} \gets$ \Call{countMatches}{$\mathbf{L}$}
\Comment{count the number times the samples end up in the leaf as those for the samples in the current polytope and $\mathbf{l} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_k}$}
\State $\mathbf{w} \gets \frac{\mathbf{l}}{T}$
\State \Return $\mathbf{w}$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Kernel Density Networks}
Consider the deep network $F$ described in section \ref{sec:overconf_nn}. We can obtain the set of polytopes $\{ Q_{rk}\}_{r=1}^{m_k}$ by grouping the samples having label $k$ that activate the same subset of neurons in the network. Note that $Q_{r_1k} \cap Q_{r_2k} = \emptyset, \forall r_1 \neq r_2$. From \citet{hein2019relu} it follows that for each $x \in Q_{rk}$, the pre-activation function $F^{(l)}(x)$ of layer $l$ reduces to the affine function $V_{rk}^{(l)}x + a_{rk}^{(l)}$, for $l = 1, \dots, L$.
We are interested in fitting a Gaussian kernel $\mathcal{K}_r(\cdot)$ over the polytope $Q_{rk}$. The simplest way of estimating the mean $\mu_{rk}$ and bandwidth (covariance) matrix $\Sigma_{rk}$ of $\mathcal{K}_r(.)$ is to estimate them from the $|Q_{rk}| = N_{rk}$ number of training samples within $Q_{rk}$. However, in order to improve the kernel parameter estimates we also incorporate samples that lie within a neighborhood of $Q_{rk}$. To this end, we employ a weighting function $w(\cdot)$ that assigns a weight of 1 for samples within $Q_{rk}$ and decreasing weights for input samples outside $Q_{rk}$ as they move away from it:
\begin{equation}
\label{kdn_weighting_1}
w(x) =
\begin{cases}
\exp(-d/h), & \text{if } \exp(-d/h) \geq T \\
0, & \text{else}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{kdn_weighting_2}
d = \sum_{l=1}^{L} \| F^{(l)}(x) - (V_{rk}^{(l)}x + a_{rk}^{(l)}) \|_2
\end{equation}
For a given sample $x$, \eqref{kdn_weighting_2} measures the difference between pre-activation output of each layer and the affine restriction of $Q_{rk}$ at that layer across the network. It is apparent that $d=0$ for every $x \in Q_{rk}$ and $d$ gets higher as $x$ moves away from $Q_{rk}$. This measure is converted to a weight within $[0, 1]$ by \eqref{kdn_weighting_1}. $T$ is a threshold used to set the extremely small weights to zero, and $h$ is a parameter that controls the neighborhood size.
Based on the weights above, we estimate the parameters of $\mathcal{K}_r(.)$ from the samples having label $k$ using the weighted maximum likelihood estimator.
By summing over the kernels learnt over each $Q_{rk}$, we arrive at the class conditional density estimate $\hat{f}_k(x)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:class_density2}
\hat{f}_k(x) = \frac{1}{N_k} \sum_{r=1}^{m_k} N_{rk} \mathcal{K}_r(x)
\end{equation}
where, $N_k = \sum_{r=1}^{m_k} N_{rk}$ is the total number of training samples in class $k$.
\begin{algorithm}[!htb]
\caption{Computing weights in \sct{KDN}}
\label{alg:kdn_weight}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\Statex (1) $Q_r$ \Comment{a polytope in class $k$}
\Statex (2) $\mathbf{X}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{N_k \times d}$ \Comment{input samples with class label $k$}
\Statex (3) $\theta$ \Comment{parent deep network model with parameters $\{ \mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{b}_l \}_{l=1}^{L+1}$}
\Ensure $\mathbf{w} \in [0, 1]^{N_k}$ \Comment{weights for each input sample in class $k$}
\Function{computeWeights}{$Q_r, \mathbf{X}_k, \theta$}
\State $\{ \mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{b}_l \}_{l=1}^{L+1} \gets \theta$
\State $\mathbf{A}_0 \gets \mathbf{X}_k^\top$
\State $\mathbf{A}_{0, ref} \gets \mathbf{X}_k^\top$
\State $\mathbf{d} = 0$ \Comment{$\mathbf{d} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$}
\For{$l = 1, \dots, L$}
\State $\mathbf{m}_l \gets $ ReLU activation pattern induced by any $x \in Q_r$ in the layer $l$ of $\theta$
\State $\mathbf{Z}_l \gets \mathbf{W}_{l} \mathbf{A}_{l-1} + \mathbf{b}_l $
\State $\mathbf{A}_l \gets \text{ReLU}(\mathbf{Z}_l)$
\State $\mathbf{Z}_{l, ref} \gets \mathbf{W}_{l} \mathbf{A}_{l-1, ref} + \mathbf{b}_l $
\State $\mathbf{A}_{l,ref} \gets \text{diag}(\mathbf{m}_l) \mathbf{Z}_{l, ref} $
\State $\mathbf{d} \gets \mathbf{d} + d(\mathbf{A}_l - \mathbf{A}_{l,ref})$ \Comment{$d(\mathbf{M}_{r \times c}) \in \mathbb{R}^c$ returns the L2-norms of the column vectors of $\mathbf{M}$}
\EndFor
\State $\mathbf{w} \gets e^{-\mathbf{d}/h}$
\State $\mathbf{w} \gets$ \Call{threshold}{$\mathbf{w}, T$} \Comment{Set the weights less than $T$ to zero}
\State \textbf{return} $\mathbf{w}$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Inference}
So far we have the class conditional densities estimated in \eqref{eq:class_density1} and \eqref{eq:class_density2}. Note that these density functions are estimated as summation of Gaussian kernels. Hence, the likelihoods out of these functions decrease for sample points far away from the training samples. We can exploit this phenomenon to detect OOD samples. To be specific, we add the a bias to the class conditional density $\hat{f}_k$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:likelihood}
\tilde{f}_k(x) = \hat{f}_k(x) + \delta
\end{equation}
where the bias is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bias}
\delta = \frac{\min(\{\min(\{\hat{f}_k(x_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_k})\}_{k=1}^{K})}{C N}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant. Intuitively, the point in the training sample which yields minimum likelihood out of $\hat{f}_k$ lies in the training data boundary. By multiplying it with a suitable constant, we can make $\hat{f}_k$ in \eqref{eq:likelihood} dominant compared to the bias in the in-distribution region whereas the bias term would dominate in the OOD region. Note that in \ref{eq:bias}, $\delta \rightarrow 0$ as the total training points, $N \rightarrow \infty$.
Now the inference step is common to both KDF and KDN. During inference, the class posterior probability (confidence) $\hat{P}[Y=k|X=x]$ of class $k$ for a test point $x$ is estimated using the Bayes rule as follows:
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}[Y=k|X=x] = \frac{\tilde{f}_k(x) \hat{P}[Y=k]}{\sum_{i=1}^{K} \tilde{f}_i(x) \hat{P}[Y=i]}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{P}[Y=k]$ is the prior probability of class $k$ estimated from the training data.
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we illustrate how KDFs and KDNs perform better than their respective parent models on simulation datasets. We also demonstrate how our algorithms' posterior estimates better correspond to those of human intelligence.
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/simulations.pdf}
\caption{Simulation distributions and posterior estimates by different algorithms.
Binary simulation data are generated within the region bounded by $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$, then posteriors are estimated within the $[-2,2] \times [-2,2]$ region. Kernel Density Forests (KDFs) and Kernel Density Networks (KDNs) yield better estimates when compared to their respective parent models---random forests (RFs) and ReLU deep networks (DNs). They achieve particularly good posteriors in the out-of-distribution (OOD) region, while RFs and DNs yield overconfident posteriors.
}
\label{fig:simulations}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/simulation_res.pdf}
\caption{Binary classifications on simulation data. Each line shows median results from $45$ repetitions and the shadowed regions represent the $25$ and $75$-th quantiles.
}
\label{fig:sim_res}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[htb]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{RF}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{KDF}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{DN}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{KDN}} \\
\hline
Simulation & AUROC & FPR@95 & AUROC & FPR@95 & AUROC & FPR@95 & AUROC & FPR@95\\
\hline
Gaussian XOR & $0.80 (\pm 0.03)$ & $0.83(\pm 0.13)$ & $\mathbf{0.98 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.32 (\pm 0.28)}$ & $0.14 (\pm 0.01)$ & $0.93 (\pm 0.05)$ & $\mathbf{0.98 (\pm 0.01)}$ & $\mathbf{0.41 (\pm 0.37)}$ \\
\hline
Spiral & $0.55 (\pm 0.02)$ & $0.75 (\pm 0.16)$ & $\mathbf{0.99 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.39 (\pm 0.36)}$ & $0.33 (\pm 0.10)$ & $0.97 (\pm 0.04)$ & $\mathbf{0.99 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.39 (\pm 0.38)}$ \\
\hline
Circle & $0.29 (\pm 0.13)$ & $0.81 (\pm 0.19)$ & $\mathbf{0.97 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.32 (\pm 0.25)}$ & $0.02 (\pm 0.00)$ & $0.87 (\pm 0.14)$ & $\mathbf{0.99 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.34 (\pm 0.31)}$ \\
\hline
Sinewave & $0.86 (\pm 0.03)$ & $0.68 (\pm 0.11)$ & $\mathbf{0.99 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.31 (\pm 0.27)}$ & $0.29 (\pm 0.01)$ & $0.88 (\pm 0.12)$ & $\mathbf{0.99 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.31 (\pm 0.29)}$ \\
\hline
Polynomial & $0.82 (\pm 0.03)$ & $0.64 (\pm 0.14)$ & $\mathbf{0.99 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.28 (\pm 0.26)}$ & $0.08 (\pm 0.01)$ & $0.79 (\pm 0.20)$ & $\mathbf{0.99 (\pm 0.00)}$ & $\mathbf{0.28 (\pm 0.26)}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Performance metrics on the out-of-distribution (OOD) region: area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and false negative rates at 95\% recall (FPR@95).}
\label{table:data}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Simulations}
\label{sec:simulations}
We construct five types of binary class simulations:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Gaussian XOR} is a two-class classification problem with equal class priors. Conditioned on being in class 0, a sample is drawn from a mixture of two Gaussians with means $\pm[0.5,-0.5]^\top$ and standard deviations of $0.25$. Conditioned on being in class 1, a sample is drawn from a mixture of two Gaussians with means $\pm[0.5,-0.5]^\top$ and standard deviations of $0.25$.
\item \textit{Spiral} is a two-class classification problem with the following data distributions: let $K$ be the number of classes and $S \sim$ multinomial$(\frac{1}{K}\vec{1}_{K}, n)$. Conditioned on $S$, each feature vector is parameterized by two variables, the radius $ r $ and an angle $ \theta $. For each sample, $r$ is sampled uniformly in $[0, 1]$. Conditioned on a particular class, the angles are evenly spaced between $\frac{4\pi(k-1)t_{K}}{K}$ and $\frac{4\pi(k)t_{K}}{K}$, where $t_{K}$ controls the number of turns in the spiral. To inject noise along the spirals, we add Gaussian noises to the evenly spaced angles $\theta': \theta = \theta' + \mathcal{N}(0,0.09)$. The observed feature vector is then $(r \; \cos(\theta), r \; \sin(\theta))$.
\item \textit{Circle} is a two-class classification problem with equal class priors. Conditioned on being in class 0, a sample is drawn from a circle centered at $(0,0)$ with a radius of $r = 0.75$. Conditioned on being in class 1, a sample is drawn from a circle centered at $(0,0)$ with a radius of $r = 1$, which is cut off by the region bounds. To inject noise along the circles, we add Gaussian noises to the circle radii $r': r = r' + \mathcal{N}(0,0.01)$.
\item \textit{Sinewave} is a two-class classification problem based on sine waves. Conditioned on being in class 0, a sample is drawn from the distribution $y = \cos (\pi x)$. Conditioned on being in class 1, a sample is drawn from the distribution $y = \sin(\pi x)$. We inject Gaussian noises to the sine wave heights $y': y = y' + \mathcal{N}(0,0.01)$.
\item \textit{Polynomial} is a two-class classification problem with the following data distributions: $y = x^a$. Conditioned on being in class 0, a sample is drawn from the distribution $y = x^1$. Conditioned on being in class 1, a sample is drawn from the distribution $y = x^3$. Gaussian noises are added to variables $y': y = y' + \mathcal{N}(0,0.01)$.
\end{itemize}
As in Figure \ref{fig:simulations}, all data samples (10,000 per simulation) are bounded within the $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$ region and equally divided into two classes (5,000 per class).
We evaluate model performance of RFs, KDFs, DNs, and KDNs using in-distribution generalization errors, in-distribution Hellinger distances between true and estimate class posteriors, area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), false positive rate at 95 recall (FPR@95), and mean maximum confidence scores for both in-distribution and OOD regions \citep{hein2019relu}. We consider the the annular region between $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$ and $[-5,5] \times [-5,5]$ as the OOD region for the purpose of computing the relevant evaluation metrics.
\subsection{Machine Experiments}
Five types of simulation data (Section \ref{sec:simulations}) are sampled within $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$ to fit KDFs and KDNs along with their respective parent models: RFs and DNs. Each parent random forest has $500$ trees, and each tree is split until class purity. Each parent deep network has four hidden layers with $10$ nodes in each layer and is trained using the Adam optimizer at a learning rate of $3 \times 10^{-4}$.
Figure \ref{fig:simulations} illustrates the posteriors learned using these four models along with the true posteriors. It is apparent that RFs and DNs yield highly confident predictions outside the in-distribution regions, demonstrating their overconfidence problems. Meanwhile, both KDFs and KDNs yield uniform posteriors ($0.5$) over the classes outside $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$, which is consistent with human intelligence as described in Section \ref{sec:human}. Furthermore, KDFs and KDNs also improve the posteriors within the in-distribution regions, showing no compromise while overcoming the overconfident problems in their parent models.
Figure \ref{fig:sim_res} reports the algorithms' in-distribution performance and confidence scores in both in-distribution and OOD regions.
In terms of generalization error, both KDFs and KDNs achieve similar or even better performance compared to that of their respective parent models. Furthermore, our proposed models always achieve posteriors closer to the true posteriors compared to those of RFs and DNs, as illustrated in the Hellinger distance curves (Figure \ref{fig:sim_res}, second column).
The mean maximum confidence scores for both KDFs and KDNs become comparable with those of their parent models only at large sample sizes for the in-distribution region (Figure \ref{fig:sim_res}, third column), which are more reasonable.
More interestingly, for KDFs and KDNs, the mean maximum confidence scores in the OOD regions always stay around $0.5$. In stark contrast to that, RFs and DNs maintain very high scores (close to $1$) in the OOD regions, which correspond to their overconfident posteriors (Figure 1).
Again, in Table \ref{table:data}, we show the OOD performance of KDFs and KDNs along with their parent models. RFs perform better than DNs in detecting OOD inputs, which is also evident in the human experiments (Section \ref{sec:human}). However, both KDFs and KDNs are significantly better than RFs and DNs in terms of AUROC and FPR@95 for OOD detection. The two overconfident parent models result in a much higher number of false positives.
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{figs/human_experiment_spiral.pdf}
\caption{Linear evaluation of posterior estimates by reference algorithms and 126 human subjects. Binary spiral simulation data are generated within the region bounded by $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$, then posteriors are estimated within the $[-3,3] \times [-3,3]$ region. The line plot \textbf{(right)} shows the mean posteriors over affine lines at 82 degrees \textbf{(left bottom)}. In the out-of-distribution region, Humans generate reasonable mean posteriors around chance probabilities ($0.5$), while ReLU deep networks with a single hidden layer (DNs) and random forests (RFs) become much more confident.
}
\label{fig:human_exp}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Human Experiments}
\label{sec:human}
To assess our assumptions about OOD confidence of natural intelligence, we also conducted experiments with human subjects.
Two types of simulations are used for the experiments: Gaussian XOR and Spiral (Section \ref{sec:simulations}).
We recruited $150$ participants from the Amazon Mechanical Turks platform. The participants were provided with basic instructions and the structural information regarding the experiments.
They were subsequently asked to start the experiments where each individual was exposed to $100$ trials of randomly chosen Gaussian XOR and Spiral simulations. Each simulation visualizes 100 randomly distributed points parameterized to aforementioned simulations confined within the $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$ region.
The participants were asked to provide a single estimate of confidence per each trial for a randomly distributed test point over the range of $[-3,3] \times [-3,3]$. Of 150 participants, $24$ subjects were excluded from the analyses for failing to meet the following two criteria: 1. pass at least $4$ out of $5$ catch trials designed to challenge attention 2. do not miss more than $1\%$ of the data.
We analyzed the enumerated posterior estimates at all test points and their corresponding 2-dimensional coordinates. Figure \ref{fig:human_exp} shows the estimated posteriors along a line at $82^\circ$ through the origin at $(0,0)$.
We can see human subjects give uniform posterior over the classes, i.e. $0.5$ as we move farther away from the data convex hull specified by $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$.
In contrast, random forest and deep net models show significantly more confident posteriors in OOD regions than in-distribution regions.
The results further confirm that, in terms of OOD detection, our algorithms built on kernel density polytopes resemble natural intelligence, avoiding the overconfidence of RFs and DNs.
\section{Pseudocode}
\label{sec:pseudocode}
\subsection{KDX Algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[!htb]
\caption{Fit a \sct{KDX} model.
}
\label{alg:kdx}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\Statex (1) $M$ \Comment{the parent learner (random forest or neural network model)}
\Statex (2) $\mathcal{D}_n = (\mathbf{X},\mathbf{y}) \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times n} \times \{1,\ldots, K\}^n$ \Comment{training data}
\Ensure $g$ \Comment{a KDX model}
\Function{\sct{KDX}.fit}{$M,\mathbf{X},\mathbf{y}$}
\State $\theta \gets$ $M$.\Call{fit}{$\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{y}$}
\Comment train the parent learner
\For{$k = 1, \ldots, K$}
\State $\mathbf{X}_k \gets$ input samples with label $k$ \Comment{$\mathbf{X}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k \times d}$}
\State $\{Q_r\}_{r=1}^{m_k} \gets$ \Call{getPolytopes}{$\mathbf{X}_k, \theta$} \Comment{$Q_r = [x_1, \dots, x_{N_{kr}}]$}
\For{$r = 1, \ldots, m_k$}
\Comment iterate over each polytope in class $k$
\State $\mathbf{w}_{kr} \gets$ \Call{computeWeights}{$Q_r,\mathbf{X}_k, \theta$} \Comment{$\mathbf{w}_{kr} \in [0, 1]^{n_k}$}
\State $g.N_{kr} \gets$ number of input samples with weight $1$ \Comment{$N_{kr}$ is the number of input samples in $Q_r$}
\State $g. \mu_{kr}, g. \Sigma_{kr} \gets$ \Call{estimateParameters}{$\mathbf{X}_k, \mathbf{w}_{kr}$} \Comment Estimate parameters using weighted MLE
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State \Return $g$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[!htb]
\caption{Computing weights in \sct{KDF}}
\label{alg:kdf_weight}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\Statex (1) $Q_r$ \Comment{a polytope in class $k$}
\Statex (2) $\mathbf{X}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times n_k}$ \Comment{input samples with class label $k$}
\Statex (4) $\theta$ \Comment{parent random forest model}
\Ensure $\mathbf{w} \in [0, 1]^{n_k}$ \Comment{weights for each input sample in class $k$}
\Function{computeWeights}{$Q_r, \mathbf{X}_k, \theta$}
\State
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[!htb]
\caption{Computing weights in \sct{KDN}}
\label{alg:kdn_weight}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\Statex (1) $Q_r$ \Comment{a polytope in class $k$}
\Statex (2) $\mathbf{X}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times n_k}$ \Comment{input samples with class label $k$}
\Statex (4) $\theta$ \Comment{parent neural network model with parameters $\{ \mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{b}_l \}_{l=1}^{L+1}$}
\Ensure $\mathbf{w} \in [0, 1]^{n_k}$ \Comment{weights for each input sample in class $k$}
\Function{computeWeights}{$Q_r, \mathbf{X}_k, \theta$}
\State $\{ \mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{b}_l \}_{l=1}^{L+1} \gets \theta$
\State $\mathbf{A}_0 \gets \mathbf{X}_k$
\State $\mathbf{A}_{0, ref} \gets \mathbf{X}_k$
\State $\mathbf{d} = 0$ \Comment{$\mathbf{d} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$}
\For{$l = 1, \dots, L$}
\State $\mathbf{m}_l \gets $ ReLU activation pattern induced by any $x \in Q_r$ in the layer $l$ of $\theta$
\State $\mathbf{Z}_l \gets \mathbf{W}_{l} \mathbf{A}_{l-1} + \mathbf{b}_l $
\State $\mathbf{A}_l \gets \text{ReLU}(\mathbf{Z}_l)$
\State $\mathbf{Z}_{l, ref} \gets \mathbf{W}_{l} \mathbf{A}_{l-1, ref} + \mathbf{b}_l $
\State $\mathbf{A}_{l,ref} \gets \text{diag}(\mathbf{m}_l) \mathbf{Z}_{l, ref} $
\State $\mathbf{d} \gets \mathbf{d} + d(\mathbf{A}_l - \mathbf{A}_{l,ref})$ \Comment{$d(\mathbf{M}_{r \times c}) \in \mathbb{R}^c$ returns the L2-norms of the column vectors of $\mathbf{M}$}
\EndFor
\State $\mathbf{w} \gets e^{-\mathbf{d}/h}$
\State $\mathbf{w} \gets$ \Call{threshold}{$\mathbf{w}, T$} \Comment{Set the weights less than $T$ to zero}
\State \textbf{return} $\mathbf{w}$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
|
\section{Introduction}
The motivation of this paper is the study of holomorphic automorphisms of Danielewski surfaces.
These are affine algebraic surfaces defined by
an equation $D_p := \{xy - p(z) = 0\}$ in $\C^3$, where $p \in \C[z]$ is a polynomial with simple zeros. These surfaces are intensively studied in affine algebraic geometry, their algebraic automorphism group has been determined by Makar-Limanov \cite{MakarLimanov, MakarLimanov2}. More results on algebraic automorphisms of Danielewski surfaces can be found in \cite{Crachiola}, \cite{Daigle}, \cite{Daigle2}, \cite{Dubouloz}, \cite{DuboulozPoloni}.
From the holomorphic point of view their
study began in the paper of Kaliman and Kutzschebauch \cite{KutzschebauchKaliman} who proved
they have the density and volume density property, important features of the so called Anders\'en-Lempert theory.
For definitions and an overview over Anders\'en-Lempert theory we refer to \cite{ForstnericKutzschebauch}.
Another important study in the borderland between affine algebraic geometry and complex analysis is the classification
of complete algebraic vector fields on Danielewski surfaces by Leuenberger \cite{Leuenberger}. In fact we explain in Remark \ref{Cstarfibration} how to use his results together with our Classification Theorem \ref{action} to find holomorphic automorphisms
of Danielewski surfaces which are not contained in the overshear group.
In~\cite{KutzschebauchLind} we defined the notion of an overshear and shear on Danielewski surfaces as follows.
\begin{definition}
A mapping $O_{f,g} : D_p \to D_p$ of the form
\[
O_{f,g}(x, y, z) = \left( x, y + \frac{1}{x}\left(p(z e^{x f(x)} + x g(x)) - p(z)\right), z e^{x f(x)} + x g(x) \right)
\]
(or with the role of 1\textsuperscript{st} and 2\textsuperscript{nd} coordinates exchanged, $IO_{f,g}I$) is called an an \emph{overshear map}, where $f, g : \C \to \C$ are holomorphic functions (and the involution $I $ of $ D_p$ is the map interchanging $x$ and $y$). When $f \equiv 0$, we say that $S_g := O_{0,g}$ is a \emph{shear map} on $D_p$.
\end{definition}
These mappings are automorphisms of $D_p$. The maps of the form $O_{f,g}$
form a group, which we call $O_1$. It can be equivalently described as the subgroup of $\Aut(D_p)$, leaving the function $x$ invariant. It is therefore a closed subgroup of $\Aut(D_p)$ (endowed with compact open topology).
Analogously the maps $I O_{f,g} I$
form a group, the closed subgroup of $\Aut(D_p)$ leaving $y$ invariant, which we call $O_2$.
The main result of \cite{KutzschebauchLind} says that the group generated by overshears, i.e. by $O_1$ and $O_2$, (we call it the {\em overshear group} $\text{OS}(D_p)$) is dense (w.r.t. the compact-open topology) in the component of the identity of the holomorphic automorphism group $\Aut (D_P)$ of $D_p$. This fact generalizes the classical results of Anders\'en and Lempert, see~\cite{AndersenLempert}, from $\C^n$. It is worth to be mentioned at this point that $D_p$ for $p$ of degree $1$ is isomorphic to $\C^2$.
In \cite{AndristKutzschebauchLind} the authors together with Andrist proved
the following structure result of the overshear group.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem $5.1$ in~\cite{AndristKutzschebauchLind}]\label{StructureTheorem}
Let $D_p$ be a Danielewski surface and assume that $\deg(p) \geq 4$, then the overshear group, $\text{OS}(D_p)$, is a free amalgamated product of $O_1$ and $O_2$.
\end{theorem}
The main result of our paper is the following classification result for Lie group actions on Danielewski
surfaces by elements of the overshear group.
\begin{theorem}\label{action} Let $D_p$ be a Danielewski surface and assume that $\deg(p) \geq 4$. Let a real connected Lie group $G$ act on $D_p$ by automorphisms in
$\text{OS} (D_p)$. Then $G$ is abelian, isomorphic to the additive group $(\R^n,+)$ and is conjugated (in $\text{OS} (D_p)$) to a subgroup of $O_1$.
\end{theorem}
The exact formulas for such actions are described in Corollary \ref{action:formula}.
For the overshear group of $\C^2$ (instead of Danielewski surfaces) many results in the same spirit have been proven by Ahern and Rudin in \cite{AhernRudin} for $G$ a finite cyclic group, by Kutzschebauch and Kraft in~\cite{KutzschebauchKraft} for compact $G$, for one-parameter subgroups in the thesis of Anders\'en \cite{Andersen2}, by de Fabritiis in \cite{Fabritiis3}, by Ahern, Forstneri\v c and Varolin \cite{AhernForstneric}, \cite{AhernForstnericVarolin}. For Danielewski surfaces our result is the first of that kind. The proof relies on our second main result, which seems to be of independent interest.
\begin{theorem}\label{Lie}
Let $\mathcal G$ be a topological group which is a free amalgamated product $O*_{O \cap L} L$ of two closed subgroups $O, L$. Furthermore let $G$ be a Lie group with finitely many connected components and $\varphi \colon G \to \mathcal G$ be a continuous group homomorphisms. Then $\varphi(G)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $O$ or $L$.
\end{theorem}
The outline of this paper is the following. In section~\ref{LieSubgroups} we prove Theorem \ref{Lie}. In section \ref{Classification} we prove Theorem
\ref{action}. In section \ref{Examples} we apply Theorem \ref{StructureTheorem} to give new examples of holomorphic automorphisms of $D_p$ not contained in the overshear group $\text{OS} (D_p)$.
\section{Lie subgroups of a free amalgamated product}\label{LieSubgroups}
The aim of this section is to prove the following theorem. For the notion of amalgamated product we refer the reader to \cite{Serre}.
\begin{theorem}\label{Liesubgroup}
Let $\mathcal G$ be a topological group which is a free amalgamated product $O*_{O \cap L} L$ of two closed subgroups $O, L$. Furthermore let $G$ be a Lie group with finitely many connected components and $\varphi \colon G \to \mathcal G$ be a continuous group homomorphism . Then $\varphi(G)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $O$ or $L$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent We need the following facts:
\begin{proposition}\label{ConjugateProp}
Every element of a free amalgamated product $O*_{O \cap L} L$ is conjugate either to an element of $O$ or $L$ or to a cyclically reduced element. Every cyclically reduced element is of infinite order.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
See Proposition~$2$ in section~$1.3$ in~\cite{Serre}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{bounded}
A subgroup $H$ of a free amalgamated product $O*_{O \cap L} L$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $O$ or $L$ if and only if $H$ is of bounded length.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is a direct consequence of Proposition~\ref{ConjugateProp}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{CommutingLemma}
Let $g_1$ and $g_2$ be two commuting elements of $O *_{O \cap L} L$ with lengths $\geq 1$, then $l(g_1)$ and $l(g_2)$ are both even or both odd.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $g_1=a_1\cdots a_m$ and $g_2 = b_1 \cdots b_n$ are two commuting elements. Assume, for a contradiction, that $l(g_1)$ is even and that $l(g_2)$ is odd. Since $g_1$ has even length, the first and last element of the chain $a_1, \dots, a_m$ have to alter between $O$ and $L$. Similarly, the first and last element of the chain $g_2$s has to be contained in either $O$ or $L$.
Assume first that $a_1 \in O$ and $a_m \in L$ and that $b_1,b_n \in O$. Then, since $a_m$ and $b_1$ alter between $L$ and $O$, $l(g_1g_2) = m+n$. The assumption that $g_1$ and $g_2$ are commuting, yields that the corresponding length of $g_2 \cdot g_1$ has to be the same as the length of $g_1 \cdot g_2$. Clearly
$$b_1 \cdots b_n \cdot a_1 \cdots a_m = b_1 \cdots b_{n-1} \cdot c \cdot a_2 \cdots a_m,$$
where $c=b_n \cdot a_1 \in O$. Hence $l(g_2g_1) = m + n -1 < m+n = l(g_1g_2)$, which contradicts our assumption.
If we assume that $a_1 \in O$ and $a_m \in L$ and that $b_1,b_n \in L$ a similar contradiction is obtained. In fact, $l(g_1g_2)=m+n-1 < m+n = l(g_2g_1)$.
Similar calculations are obtained if $a_1 \in L$ and $a_m \in O$, where we have to consider both of the cases $b_1,b_n \in L$ and $b_1,b_n \in O$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{roots}
If an element $g$ of a free amalgamated product $O*_{O \cap L} L$ has roots of arbitrary order, then it
is conjugate to an element in $O$ or to an element in $L$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $g$ is not conjugate to an element in $O$ or to an element in $L$. Then, by Proposition~\ref{ConjugateProp}, $g$ is conjugate to a cyclically reduced element, say $h^{-1}gh$, which has even length $\geq 2$ by definition of a cyclically reduced element. For each $n > 0$ we have that $h^{-1}gh= h^{-1}(g^{1/n})^nh$, since $g$ as roots of arbitrary order. Hence $h^{-1}g^{1/n}h$ is not an element of $O$ or $L$, since it equals $h^{-1}gh$. Furthermore
\begin{multline*}
h^{-1}(g^{1/n})^nh \cdot h^{-1}gh = h^{-1}(g^{1/n})^ngh = h^{-1} ggh = \\
= h^{-1}g (g^{1/n})^n h = h^{-1}g h \cdot h^{-1} (g^{1/n})^n h
\end{multline*}
\noindent we conclude that $h^{-1}gh$ and $h^{-1}g^{1/n}h$ commute. Whence, Lemma~\ref{CommutingLemma} implies that $h^{-1}g^{1/n}h$ has even length (since $h^{-1}gh$ has even length), and is thus cyclically reduced. Hence
$$l(h^{-1}gh)=l(h^{-1}(g^{1/n})^nh)= |n|l(h^{-1}g^{1/n}h) \geq |n|\;,$$
for all $n > 0$, contradicting the fact that all elements of $O*_{O \cap L} L$ have finite length.
\end{proof}
First let us establish Theorem~\ref{Liesubgroup} in the case of a one-parameter subgroup:
\begin{proposition}\label{oneparameter}
Let $\mathcal G$ be a topological group which is a free amalgamated product $O*_{O \cap L} L$ of two closed subgroups $O$ and $L$. Let $\varphi \colon \R \to \mathcal G$ be a continuous one-parameter subgroup. Then $\varphi(\R)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $O$ or $L$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $\varphi$ is a group homomorphism, we know that $\varphi(1)$ and $\varphi(\sqrt{2})$ have roots of all orders. Hence, we can use Lemma~\ref{roots} to conjugate both elements to $O$ or $L$. Consider the dense subgroup $H = \{ m+n\sqrt{2} : m,n \in \mathbb{Z}\}$ of $\mathbb{R}$. Since
$$l(\varphi(m+n\sqrt{2})) = l(\varphi(m)\varphi(n\sqrt{2})) \leq l(\varphi(1)^m\varphi(\sqrt{2})^n)$$
we conclude that $\varphi(H)$ have bounded length. Therefore, Lemma~\ref{bounded} implies that $\varphi(H)$ is conjugate to $O$ or $L$. Let $c \in O *_{O \cap L} L$ be an element such that $c \varphi(H) c^{-1}$ is contained in $O$ or $L$. Finally, as $O$ and $L$ are closed we get that $$c\varphi(\overline{H})c^{-1} = c\varphi(\mathbb{R})c^{-1} \subseteq \overline{c\varphi(H)c^{-1}}$$
is contained in $O$ or $L$.
\end{proof}
The key ingredient in the proof of Theorem~\ref{Lie} will rely on the following result which seems to be of independent interest. In the language
of \cite{SilvaLeite} this means that every Lie group $G$ is uniformly finitely generated by one-parameter subgroups.
\begin{proposition}\label{main}
For any connected real Lie group $G$ there are finitely many elements $V_i \in \text{Lie}(G)$, $i=1, 2, \ldots , N$ for which the product map of the one-parameter subgroups
$$\Phi_{V_1, V_2, \dots, V_N} : \R^N \to G$$
defined by
$$(t_1, t_2, \ldots , t_N) \mapsto \exp(t_1 V_1) \exp(t_2 V_2) \cdots \exp(t_N V_N)$$
is surjective.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Levi-Malcev decomposition \cite{Levi} and Iwasawa decomposition \cite{Iwasawa} we can write
$$G = S \cdot R = K\cdot A\cdot N\cdot R\;,$$
where $S$ is semisimple, $R$ is solvable, $A$ is abelian, $N$ is nilpotent and $K$ is compact.
If we can prove the claim of the proposition for each of the factors in the above decomposition we will be done.
\noindent For abelian groups the fact holds trivially.
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf Case 1:} $K$ a compact connected Lie group: Take any basis $(k_1,\dots , k_n)$ of the Lie algebra $\text{Lie} (K)$.
Then the product map $\Phi_{k_1, k_2, \ldots, k_n} : \R^n \to K$ is a submersion at the unit element.
Thus its image contains an open neighborhood $U$ of the unit element. Since the powers of a neighborhood
$U$ of the unit element in any connected Lie group cover the whole group, for a compact Lie group $K$ there is a finite number $m$ such that $U^m = K$. This means that for our purpose $\Phi_{k_1, k_2, \ldots, k_n}^m : \R^{nm} \to K$ is surjective.
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf Case 2:} Consider $N$, a nilpotent connected Lie group.
Then $N \cong \tilde N /\Gamma$ for the universal covering $\tilde N$ and $\Gamma $ a normal discrete subgroup of $\tilde N$. Since the exponential map for $\tilde N$ factors over $\pi : \tilde N \to N $ it is enough to prove
the claim for simply connected $N$.
Then, the following fact (due to Malcev~\cite{Malcev}) is true:
If $N$ is simply connected then for a certain (Malcev) basis $(V_1, \dots, V_n)$ of $\text{Lie}(N)$ the map $(t_1, t_2, \ldots , t_n) \mapsto \exp{t_1 V_1 + t_2 V_2 + \ldots + t_n V_n}$ is a diffeomorphism.
We will now prove the claim by induction of the length of the lower central series of $\text{Lie} (N)$. For length $1$ the group is abelian and the fact holds trivially.
Let $g = \exp (t_1 V_1 + t_2 V_2 + \ldots t_n V_n)$.
By repeated use of Lemma \ref{Campbell} we write
\begin{multline}
g = \exp (t_1 V_1) \exp (t_2 V_2 + \ldots +t_n V_n) \exp K_1 \\
= \exp (t_1 V_1) \exp (t_2 V_2) \exp (t_3 V_3 + \ldots +t_n V_n) \exp K_2 \exp K_1 \\
= \exp (t_1 V_1) \exp (t_2 V_2) \ldots \exp (t_n V_n) \exp K_n \ldots \exp K_2 \exp K_1
\end{multline}
with $K_i \in [\text{Lie} (N),\text{Lie} (N)]$.
Since $[\text{Lie} (N),\text{Lie} (N)]$ has shorter length of lower central series, by the induction hypothesis each of the factors $\exp K_i$ is a product of one parameter subgroups. This proves the claim.
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf Case 3:} $R$ is solvable: Let $R'$ denote denote the commutator subgroup of $R$. Then $R'$ is
nilpotent and $A:=R/ R'$ is abelian. If $x \in R$ is any element, we can per definition write its image $\bar x$ in $A$
as $\bar x = \exp (t_1 A_1) \cdots \exp (t_n A_n)$ for some $A_i$:s in $\text{Lie}(A)$ which form a basis. Let $\pi : \text{Lie} (R) \to \text{Lie}(A)$ denote the quotient map and let $\tilde A_i \in \text{Lie} (R)$ be elements with $\pi (\tilde A_i) = A_i$. Thus we get $x = \exp (t_1 \tilde A_1) \cdots \exp (t_n \tilde A_n) g$ for some
$g \in R'$. Since $R'$ is nilpotent this reduces our problem to case 2.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{Campbell} For a nilpotent Lie group $G$ with Lie algebra
$\mathfrak{g} =Lie (G)$ and $x, y \in \mathfrak{g}$ there is $K(x,y) \in [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}] $ with $$\exp (x+y) = \exp (x) \exp (y) \exp (K(x,y))$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The key fact is the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula proven by Dynkin in \cite{Dynkin}. In the nilpotent case it says that the is a finite sum of iterated Lie brackets $Z (x,y)$ (number of iterations of brackets bounded by the lower central series of $\mathfrak{g}$) such that for all $x, y\in \mathfrak{g}$
$$\exp (x) \exp (y) = \exp Z(x,y).$$
Moreover $Z(x, y) = x + y + [x, y] + \mathrm{ higher \ brackets}$.
Now
\begin{multline}
\exp (x+y) = \exp (x) \exp (y) \exp (-Z(x,y) \exp (x+y)) \\
=\exp (x) \exp (y) \exp (Z(-Z(x,y), x+y))
\end{multline}
Setting $K(x,y) := Z(-Z(x,y), x+y))$ finishes the proof, since
the terms without bracket cancel, i.e., $K(x,y) \in [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]$.
\end{proof}
\noindent Now we are ready to prove the main result of this section.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Lie}]
Let $G_0$ denote a connected component of $G$ containing the identity. By Proposition~\ref{main}, there are finitely many one-parameter subgroups $\R_i$ such that the product map $\R_1 \times \R_2 \times \cdots \times \R_N \to G_0$ is surjective. By Proposition~\ref{oneparameter} and Lemma~\ref{bounded}, the elements of each of the $\varphi (\R_i)$ have bounded length, say
$a(i)$. Thus the length of the elements in $\varphi (G_0)$ is bounded by $\sum_{i=1}^N a(i)$. As
$G$ has only finitely many connected components the lengths of elements of $\varphi (G)$
are bounded. The assertion now follows from Lemma~\ref{bounded}.
\end{proof}
\section{Classification of Lie group actions by overshears}
\label{Classification}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{action} from the introduction. We assume $\text{deg} (p) \ge 4$ and use Theorem \ref{StructureTheorem} from the introduction stating that $\text{OS}(D_p)$ is a free amalgamated product $O_1 * O_2$, where $O_1$ is generated by $O_{f,g}^x$ and $O_2$ is generated by $IO_{f,g}^xI$. By Theorem~\ref{Liesubgroup} we can conjugate any Lie group $G$ with finitely many components acting continuously on $D_p$ by elements of $\text{OS}(D_p)$ into $O_1$ or $O_2$. Without loss of generality
we can assume that we can conjugate any connected Lie subgroup $G$ of $\text{OS}(D_p)$, in particular any one-parameter subgroup, to $O_1$.
Now we have reduced our problem to classify Lie subgroups of $O_1$. We start
with one-parameter subgroups.
We recall the definitions of overshear fields and shear fields from \cite{KutzschebauchLind}.
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(V1)$] $OF_{f,g}^x := p'(z)(zf(x)+g(x))\frac{\partial}{\partial y} + x(zf(x)+g(x))\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$
\item [$(V2)$] $SF_f^x := p^\prime(z)f(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial y} + xf(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$
\end{itemize}
where $f,g$ are entire functions on $\C$. In the special case $f \equiv 0$ then $OF_{f,g}^x$ is the shear field $SF_g^x$.
The set of overshear fields is a Lie algebra which consists of complete vector fields only. The formula for the bracket is given by equation~\ref{OvershearGivesShear}.
Any one-parameter subgroup of $\Aut (D_p)$ which is contained in the overshear group $O_1$ is the flow of an overshear field. Let us prove this. The connection between a vector field
$V(x,y,z)$ and the flow $\varphi (x,y,z,t)$ is given by the ODE
\begin{equation}
\frac {d} {dt}\vert_{t=t_0} \varphi (x,y,z,t) = V (\varphi (x,y,z,t_0)), \quad \varphi (x,y,z,0)=(x,y,z))
\label{flow}
\end{equation}
Since any action of a real Lie group on a complex space by holomorphic automorphisms is real analytic \cite[1.6]{Akhiezer} we can write the flow
$\varphi (x,y,z,t)= (x, \ldots , z \exp (x f(t,x)) + x g(t,x))$ contained in $O_1$ as
$$\left( x, \ldots , z \exp( x \sum_{i=0}^\infty f_i(x) t^i) + x \sum_{i=0}^\infty g_i (x) t^i \right)$$ for
entire functions $f_i$ and $g_i$. Using equation~\ref{flow} for $t_0=0$ leads to
$V(x,y,z,t) = p'(z)(z f_0(x)+g_1(x))\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+\{x f_1(x) \exp (x f_0 (x)) z + x g_1 (x) \}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$, an overshear field.
Calculating the commutator we find that for any $f,g,h$ and $k$, entire functions on $\C$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{OvershearGivesShear}
[OF_{f,g}^x, OF_{h,k}^x] = x \cdot SF_{gh-kf}\end{equation}
In particular shear fields commute and
\begin{equation}\label{ShearAndOvershear}
[SF_h^x,OF_{f,g}^x] = x\cdot SF_{fh}^x = xf(x)\cdot SF_h^x.
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}\label{Infinite}
Let $f,g$ and $h$ be fixed holomorphic functions with $f,h \not\equiv 0$. Then the Lie algebra ${\text Lie}(OF_{f,g}^x,SF_h^x)$ generated by $OF_{f,g}^x$ and $SF_h^x$ is of infinite dimension.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By expression (\ref{ShearAndOvershear}), and the fact that shear fields commute, we get that
$$\text{Lie}(OF_{f,g}^x,SF_h^x) = \text{span}\{OF_{f,g}^x,SF_{x^nf^nh}; n=0,1,2\dots\}$$
Assume that the Lie algebra is of finite dimension. This means that there is an $n$ and there are constants $a_0,\dots,a_n,b$ such that
$$bOF_{f,g}^x + \sum_{j=0}^n a_jx^jf^j(x)SF_h^x = x^{n+1}f^{n+1}(x)SF_h^x.$$
It follows that $b=0$, whence we get a functional equation of the form
$$\sum_{j=0}^n a_jy^j(x) = y^{n+1}(x)\;,$$
where $y$ is holomorphic and has a zero at $x=0$. This is impossible for non-zero functions $y$, since the right hand side has a higher order of vanishing at $x=0$ than the left hand side.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{Abelian}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie algebra contained in $\text{OS}_1$ and suppose that $ {\text dim}(\mathfrak{g}) < +\infty$. Then $\mathfrak{g}$ is abelian.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\mathfrak{g}$ is not abelian. Let $\Theta_1, \Theta_2 \in \mathfrak{g}$ be two non-commuting vector fields. As explained above they are
overshear fields and since they do not commute their bracket $[\Theta_1, \Theta_2]$
is by equation~\ref{OvershearGivesShear} a non-trivial shear field. Now the result follows from Proposition \ref{Infinite}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof} (of Theorem \ref{action})
As explained in the beginning of the section, the action of $G$ on $D_p$ by overshears can be conjugated into $O_1$. The action of $G$ by elements of $O_1$ gives rise to a Lie algebra homomorphism of $\text{Lie} (G)$ into the Lie algebra of vector fields on $D_p$ fixing the variable $x$. This Lie algebra is exactly the set of overshear vector fields $OF^x_{f,g}$ (which consists of complete fields only). By Proposition \ref{Abelian} the finite dimensional Lie algebra $\text{Lie} (G)$ has to be abelian.
Since all one-parameter subgroups of $G$ give rise to an overshear vector field, they are isomorphic to $(\R,+)$ (not $S^1$). Thus $G$ is isomorphic to the additive group $\R^n$ generated by the flows of $n$ linear independent commuting
overshear vector fields $OF^x_{f_i, g_i}, i= 1, 2, \ldots, n$ which commute. By formula \ref{OvershearGivesShear} this is equivalent to $f_i g_j - f_j g_i = 0$ $\forall i, j$. An equivalent way of expressing this is that the meromorphic functions
$h_i := \frac {g_i }{f_i} $ are the same for all $i$ or that all $f_i$ are identically zero.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{action:formula} Suppose $\deg (p) \ge 4$. Every one-parameter subgroup of $\text{OS} (D_p)$ is conjugate by elements of $\text{OS}(D_p)$ to the flow of an overshear field $OF^x_{f,g}$ which in turn is given by the formula
\begin{multline*}
(x,y,z,t) \mapsto \\ \left(x, y + \frac{p\left(e^{x f(x) t} z + \frac{g(x)}{f(x)} (e^{x f(x) t} -1)\right)-p(z) } {x}, e^{x f(x) t} z + \frac{g(x)}{f(x)} (e^{x f(x) t} -1) \right).
\end{multline*}
Here the expression $\frac{e^{ab}-1}{a}$ for $a=0$ is interpreted as the limit of this expression for $a\to 0$,i .e., as $b$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark} It is directly seen from Theorem \ref{action} that any action of a real Lie group $G$ on $D_p$ extends to a holomorphic action of the universal complexification $G^\C$, which in our case has just the additive group $\C^n$ as connected component. This is a general fact proven by the first author in \cite{Kutzschebauch}.
\end{remark}
\section{Examples of automorphisms of $D_p$ not contained in $\text{OS} (D_p)$}\label{Examples}
In~\cite{AndristKutzschebauchLind} it is shown that the overshear group is a proper subset of the automorphism group. In fact, using Nevanlinna theory, there it is shown that the hyperbolic mapping
$$(x,y,z) \mapsto (xe^z, ye^{-z}, z)$$
is not contained in the overshear group. This is analogous to the result by Anders\'en,~\cite{Andersen}, who showed that the automorphism of $\C^2$ defined by
$$(x,y) \mapsto (xe^{xy}, ye^{-xy})$$
is not a finite compositions of shears. Hence the shear group is a proper subgroup of the group of volume-preserving automorphisms. For another proof of this fact see also \cite{KutzschebauchKraft}.
Note that our Classification Theorem \ref{action} immediately implies that the elements of the $\C^*$-action $\lambda \mapsto (\lambda x, \lambda^{-1} y, z)$ can not all be contained in $\text{OS} (D_p)$, since there are no $S^1$-actions
in $\text{OS} (D_p)$.
We will present yet another way of finding an automorphism of a Danielewski surface which is not a composition of overshears.
\begin{theorem}\label{HyperbolicAut}
Assume that $\deg(p) \geq 4$. Then, the overshear group $\text{OS}(D_p)$ is a proper subset of the component of the identity of $\text{Aut}_\text{hol}(D_p)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We look at complete algebraic vector fields on Danielewski surfaces. These are algebraic vectorfields which are globally integrable, however their flow maps are merely holomorphic maps. As shown in \cite{KalimanKutzschebauchLeuenberger}
there is always a $\C$- or a $\C^*$-fibration adapted to these vector fields. That is, there is a map $\pi: D_p \to \C$ such that the flow of the complete field $\theta$ maps fibers of $\pi$ to fibers of $\pi$. These maps $\pi$ have general fibre $\C$
or $\C^*$. In case of at least two exceptional fibers the vector field $\theta$ has to preserve each fibre, i.e., it is tangential to the fibers of $\pi$. For example the overshear fields in $\text{OS}_1$ have adapted fibration $\pi_0 : (x,y,z) \mapsto x$. They are tangential to this $\C$-fibration, the fibres outside $x=0$ are parametrized by $z \in \C$ via $\displaystyle z \mapsto \left(x, \frac {p(z)}{x}, z\right) $. The exceptional fibre is $\pi_0^{-1} (0)$ consisting of $\deg (p)$ copies of $\C$, one for each zero $z_i$ of the polynomial $p$ and parametrized by $y \in \C$ via $y \mapsto (0, y, z_i)$. A typical example of a field with adapted $\C^*$-fibration is the hyperbolic field $x \frac{ \partial} {\partial x} -y \frac{ \partial} {\partial y}$ with adapted fibration $(x,y,z) \mapsto z$. There are $\deg (p)$ exceptional fibers at the zeros of the polynomial $p$, each of them isomorphic to the cross of axis $x y =0$. The same $\C^*$-fibration is adapted to the field $\displaystyle f(z) \left(x \frac{ \partial} {\partial x} -y \frac{ \partial} {\partial y}\right)$ for a nontrivial polynomial $f$.
Now take any complete algebraic vector field $\theta$ with an adapted $\C^*$-fibration (and thus generic orbits $\C^*$). Assume that the flow maps (or time-$t$ maps) $\varphi_t \in {\rm Aut}_{hol} (D_p)$ of $\theta$ are all contained in the overshear group $\text{OS} (D_p)$.
Then by Theorem \ref{action} this one-parameter subgroup $t \mapsto \varphi_t$ can be conjugated into $O_1$. This would mean that the one-parameter subgroup would be conjugate to a one-parameter subgroup of an overshear field $OF^x_{f,g}$ (since these are all complete fields respecting the fibration x). This would imply that the generic orbit of the overshear field is $\C^*$, which is equivalent to $f\ne 0$. However, the generic orbits of these fields $OF_{f,g}$ (isomorphic to $\C^*$) are not closed in $D_p$, they contain a fixed point in their closure. Thus our assumption that all $\varphi_t$ are contained in $\text{OS}(D_p)$ leads to a contradiction. In particular we have shown that for any non-zero entire function $f$ there is a $t \in \R$ such that the time $t$-map of the hyperbolic field given by $$ (x,y,z) \mapsto (xe^{f(z)t},ye^{-f(z)t},z)$$ is not contained in $\text{OS}(D_p)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{Cstarfibration} More examples of complete algebraic vector fields on $D_p$ with adapted $\C^*$-fibration can be found in the work of Leuenberger \cite{Leuenberger} who up to automorphism classifies all complete algebraic vector fields
on Danielewski surfaces. Interesting examples (whose flow maps are not algebraic) are fields whose adapted $\C^*$-fibration is given by $(x,y,z) \mapsto x^m(x^l (z +a)+Q(x))^n$ for coprime numbers $m, n \in \N$,
$a\in \C$ and $0 \leq l < \deg(Q)$. The exact formula for these fields can be found in the Main Theorem of loc.cit.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Without specifying a concrete automorphism which is not in the group generated by overshears, Anders\'en and Lempert use an abstract Baire category argument in~\cite{AndersenLempert} to show that the group generated by overshears
in $\C^n$ is a proper subroup of the group of holomorphic automorphisms $ \rm{Aut}_{hol} (\C^n)$ of $\C^n$. We do believe that such a proof could work in the case of Danielewski surfaces as well.
\end{remark}
\def\listing #1#2#3{{\sc #1}:\ {\it #2},\ #3.}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
Astronomical objects ranging over various scales, from planets to cosmological structures, are associated with magnetic fields \citep{Durrer:2013pga}. The origin of these magnetic fields is one of the most important questions of our universe, and constraints on cosmological magnetic fields are placed from many observations \citep{BICEP2:2017lpa,Yamazaki:2018gmr,Minoda:2018gxj,Jedamzik:2020krr,Katz:2021iou}, and cosmological \citep{2006Sci...311..827I} and astrophysical \citep{2005ApJ...633..941H} origins of Galactic magnetic fields have been investigated. If a magnetic field is generated during a postulated inflationary expansion of the universe \citep{1992ApJ...391L...1R} before the Big Bang, and pertains to the observed magnetic fields in galaxies and galaxy clusters, the magnetic field energy is constrained to be much less than (of the order of $10^{-5}$ of) the cosmic microwave background (CMB) energy \citep{BICEP2:2017lpa,Yamazaki:2018gmr,Katz:2021iou}. However, cosmic magnetic fields are also generated during electroweak phase transition \citep{Vachaspati:2020blt} and neutrino decoupling \citep{Dolgov:2001nv} before Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). Primordial elemental abundances are the best probes for the magnetic fields generated after the Big Bang. These magnetic fields have small coherence lengths within the horizons at those times that correspond to $\sim 10^{-4}$ pc (phase transition) and $\sim 10$ pc (neutrino decoupling) in the present universe, far below the galaxy size. Such small-scale magnetic fields dissipate during later cosmic evolution \citep{Durrer:2013pga}. Therefore, they would affect physics in the early universe but probably have decayed and escaped from current astronomical observations.
The BBN offers the deepest reliable probe of the early universe based on well-understood standard model physics \citep{Pitrou:2018cgg}. The standard BBN (SBBN) theory predicts that $\sim25$ \% of the baryonic mass of the universe consists of $^4$He, $\sim0.004$ \% consists of deuterium, and $\sim 3 \times 10^{-9}$ consists of $^7$Li. In SBBN, the primordial plasma is assumed to be an ideal gas, where nonthermal nuclear reactions contribute negligibly to abundance evolution \citep{Voronchev:2012zz}. Nonthermal cosmic ray (CR) nucleosynthesis during BBN has been studied since \citet{Reno:1987qw,Dimopoulos:1987fz}. The most interesting possibility is that, if a low-energy CR component exists in the early universe, the reaction $^7$Be($p$,$p\alpha$)$^3$He\footnote{The expression A(a,b)B is used for the reaction A+a$\rightarrow$b+B.} reduces $^7$Be abundance \citep{Kang:2011vz,Kang:2018dsd}. The primordial $^7$Li abundance is inferred from observations of metal-poor stars (MPSs \citep{Sbordone:2010zi,Spite:1982dd}, but it is a factor 3--4 smaller than the yield of the SBBN model \citep{Hayakawa:2021jxf}. Because the primordial Li abundance predominantly originates from $^7$Be produced in the nucleosynthesis epoch that eventually decays into $^7$Li via electron capture, destruction of $^7$Be by CRs can solve the Li problem. We note that, if hard CRs involving the creation of protons, neutrons, and their antiparticles are assumed \citep{Reno:1987qw,Dimopoulos:1987fz}, no solution is found as a result of D overproduction \citep{Kusakabe:2014ola}.
The cosmic expansion enhanced by the magnetic field \citep{Greenstein1969} reduces primordial Li abundance because of the stronger destruction of $^7$Be via $^7$Be($n$,$p$)$^7$Li by more abundant neutrons \citep{Kawasaki:2012va}. In addition, if the magnetic field and temperature fluctuate such that the total energy density is homogeneous, the effects on abundance depend on the fluctuation pattern \citep{Luo:2018nth}. However, Li reduction under a magnetic field is constrained by large effects on the D and $^4$He abundances.
Observations of solar energetic particles \citep{Reames:2013hma} provide important evidence of the particle acceleration process during magnetic reconnection \citep{2010RvMP...82..603Y}. If strong primordial magnetic fields dissipate and their energy triggers the generation of energetic nuclei in the early universe, nonthermal reactions are induced and elemental abundances are altered. In this Letter, we investigate the effect of magnetic dissipation on primordial abundances and provide the first numerical result of nonthermal nuclear reactions that take into account CR production via magnetic reconnection as in solar flares and the Coulomb energy loss process during CR propagation.
We adopt the natural units of $\hbar=k=c=1$ for the reduced Planck constant $\hbar$, the Boltzmann constant $k$ and the light speed $c$.
\section{Model}
We derive the steady-state spectra of CRs by adopting injection spectra from the observation of solar energetic particles, that is, solar CRs consisting of protons, electrons, $^2$H and $^3$H, and helium (namely $^3$He and $^4$He). In solar flares, magnetic reconnection \citep{2010RvMP...82..603Y} can release some energy in the form of kinetic energies of charged particles. Charged particles accelerated by the magnetic energy experience energy loss through Coulomb scattering off the background electrons and positrons in the early universe. In our model, strong magnetic fields and their dissipation are assumed. The gain in energy of the accelerated charged particles is proportional to the nuclear charge \citep{Reames:2013hma}. Moreover, collisions of energetic particles with background particles cause destruction or production of elements and affect primordial nuclear abundances.
Various time scales relevant to particle acceleration via cosmological magnetic reconnection are estimated in the Appendix. Reconnections of the large-scale magnetic fields on scales of $L \mbox{$^>_\sim$} 10$ km generate jets of accelerated plasma around reconnection regions in the early universe. The bulk velocity of the accelerated plasma under the resistive regime of the Sweet--Parker model \citep{1958IAUS....6..123S,1957JGR....62..509P} evolves from $v_\mathrm{out} \sim 1$ (cf. Equation (\ref{eq_conservation}) with small $l_\mathrm{jet}$ values) initially and to $v_\mathrm{out} \ll 1$ (Equation (\ref{eq_final_v})) finally.
%
Such bulk flows effectively enhance the reactivities of only nuclei because of the far larger enhancements of kinetic energies compared with those of electrons and photons. Collisions of jets with surrounding static background plasma trigger nonthermal nuclear reactions. Therefore, nonthermal nucleosynthesis caused by magnetic field reconnection proceeds over macroscopic scales, which is analogous to local collisions of fast hypernova ejecta with circumstellar matter rather than reactions of individual CRs with the interstellar medium occurring universally in the Galaxy.
A typical CR nuclear energy per nucleon inside the jets is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
E &=&m_\mathrm{u} \frac{v_\mathrm{out}^2} {2}
=0.419~\mathrm{MeV}/A \left( \frac{v_\mathrm{out}}{0.03} \right)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where
$m_\mathrm{u}$ is the atomic mass unit and
$A$ is the nuclear mass number.
Then, if dissipations occur for magnetic fields with energy densities of the order of $10^{-4}$--$10^{-3}$ of the total energy density, CR nuclei accelerated via the dissipation have kinetic energies sufficient for the soft-CR nucleosynthesis investigated in this study (see Appendix).
\subsection{$^7$Be($p,p\alpha$)$^3$He cross section}
The threshold energy is $E_\mathrm{th}=1.586$ MeV. We calculate the resonant cross section by taking into account the second excited state of $^8$B with excitation energy $E_X=2.32$ MeV ($J^\pi=3^+$), which dominates at low temperatures during BBN. The decay width for the exit channel is calculated by assuming that a proton is emitted and escapes from the $^8$B compound nucleus with a relative energy of $< E-E_\mathrm{th}$ and that a remnant ($^4$He+$^3$He) spontaneously separates. We adopted the penetration factor corresponding to the relative energy $E-E_\mathrm{th}$ at which the proton penetrability is maximum.
The Coulomb functions are calculated with a subroutine by Barnett\footnote{www.fresco.org.uk/programs/barnett/index.htm}, with an angular momentum $l=1$ between $p$ and $^7$Be assumed. For the exit channel, the reduced width was set to unity to evaluate the maximum possible effect of this reaction. The proton decay width of the entrance channel was fixed to the experimental total decay width \citep{Tilley:2004zz}. \citet{Kang:2011vz,Kang:2018dsd} adopted the $^2$H($p$, $pn$)$^1$H cross section as a function of $E-E_\mathrm{th}$ as a substitute for the $^7$Be($p$,$p\alpha$)$^3$He reaction as a trial. Because the Coulomb penetration factors differ between the two reactions, the cross section we derived improves upon the previous value.
\subsection{Experimental cross-sectional data}
Table \ref{tab1} lists the 31 nonthermal reactions included in our computation. Cross-sectional data are mainly adopted from Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data (EXFOR) \citep{ZERKIN201831}, and threshold energies for respective reactions are based on the Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory Nuclear Data Evaluation Project \footnote{https://nucldata.tunl.duke.edu/index.shtml}.
\begin{table
\caption{\label{tab1} Nonthermal reactions included in this work and references to their cross sections}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
Reactions & References \\
\hline
$^2$H($d$,$n$)$^3$He,~
$^2$H($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^6$Li & \\%[2mm]
$^3$He($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^7$Be,~
$^7$Li($\alpha$,$t$)$^8$Be & \\%[2mm]
$^7$Li($t$,$\alpha$)$^6$He,~
$^3$H($d$,$n$)$^4$He & \\%[2mm]
$^2$H($d$,$p$)$^3$H,~
$^2$H($p$,$\gamma$)$^3$He & \\%[2mm]
$^3$H($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^7$Li,~
$^3$H($\alpha$,$n$)$^6$Li & \\%[2mm]
$^3$He($t$,$d$)$^4$He,~
$^3$He($t$,$np$)$^4$He & \\%[2mm]
$^6$Li($p$,$^3$He)$^4$He,~
$^6$Li($t$,$p$)$^8$Li & \citet{ZERKIN201831}
\\%[2mm]
$^7$Li($\alpha$,$n$)$^{10}$B,~
$^7$Li($d$,$p$)$^8$Li & \\%[2mm]
$^7$Li($d$,$t$)$^6$Li,~
$^7$Li($^3$He,$t$)$^7$Be & \\%[2mm]
$^7$Li($p$,$\alpha$)$^4$He,~
$^7$Li($p$,$n$)$^7$Be & \\%[2mm]
$^7$Li($t$,$n$)$^9$Be,~
$^7$Be($d$,$n$)$^8$B & \\%[2mm]
$^7$Be($p$,$\gamma$)$^8$B,~
$^2$H($p$,$np$)$^1$H & \\
$^2$H($\alpha$,$\alpha n$)$^1$H & \\
\hline
$^2$H($n$,$\gamma$)$^3$H & \citet{ZERKIN201831}, \\
& \citet{2006PhRvC..74b5804N} \\%[2mm]
\hline
$^6$Li($\alpha$,$p$)$^9$Be,~
$^6$He($\alpha$,$n$)$^9$Be &\citet{2013ApJ...767....5K} \\%[2mm]
\hline
$^6$Li($\alpha$,$d$)$^8$Be &\citet{Fujiwara:1993nm} \\%[2mm]
\hline
$^7$Be($p$,$p\alpha$)$^3$He & this work \\%[2mm]
\hline
$^7$Be($\alpha$,$p$)$^{10}$B &\citet{Yamaguchi:2012sz} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Source spectra case A (exponential cutoff)}
The following CR source spectrum was adopted from the observed spectra of solar energetic particles accelerated during solar magnetic field dissipation \citep{Reames:2013hma}:
\begin{equation}
Q_i^\mathrm{A}(E ;T) = Q_0^\mathrm{A}(T) Y_i E_\mathrm{MeV}^{-\gamma}
\exp \left(-E /E_{0i} \right),
\label{eq_s1}
\end{equation}
where $E$ is the nuclear kinetic energy per nucleon, $T$ is the temperature, $Y_i=X_i/A_i$ is the nuclear mole fraction, $E_\mathrm{0i}=E_0 (Z_i/A_i)$ is the cutoff scale, $X_i$ is the mass fraction, and $Z_i$ and $A_i$ are the charge and mass numbers of nuclide $i$, respectively. The subscript MeV indicates a quantity in units of MeV/$A$, and $Q_i^\mathrm{A}$ and $Q_0^\mathrm{A}$ have dimensions of cm$^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$ (MeV/$A$)$^{-1}$. The amplitude of the source spectrum is related to the total energy injection rate $\varepsilon^\mathrm{tot}$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon^\mathrm{tot}(T) &=& \int_{E_\mathrm{min}}^\infty \sum_i A_i Q_i^\mathrm{A}(E;T) E dE \label{eq_total1} \\
&\approx&
(\mathrm{MeV})
\frac{Q_0^\mathrm{A}(T)}{(\mathrm{MeV}/A)^{-1}}
C(\gamma, E_0, E_\mathrm{min}(T); Y_\mathrm{p})~~~
\label{eq_cr1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
C(\gamma, E_0, E_\mathrm{min}(T); Y_\mathrm{p}) \hspace{-5eM} && \nonumber \\
&\approx&
X_\mathrm{p} E_{0,\mathrm{MeV}}^{2 -\gamma} \Gamma \left(2 -\gamma, \frac{E_\mathrm{min}}{E_{0}} \right) \nonumber \\
&& + Y_\mathrm{p} \left( \frac{E_{0,\mathrm{MeV}}}{2} \right)^{2 -\gamma}
\Gamma \left(2 -\gamma, \frac{2E_\mathrm{min}}{E_{0}} \right),~~~
\label{eq_norm1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\Gamma(b,x) =\int_x^\infty t^{b-1} e^{-t} dt$ is the upper incomplete gamma function and
$X_\mathrm{p}$ and $Y_\mathrm{p}$ are the mass fractions of $^1$H and $^4$He, respectively.
$C$ is a normalization constant, and we neglected contributions from CR nuclei, except for $^1$H and $^4$He because of their predominance in background abundance.
Typically, background charged particles have a kinetic energy of $~\sim T$. Therefore, the lower bound of the CR energy is taken as $E_\mathrm{min} =T$.
We adopt the parameterization given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon^\mathrm{tot}(T) =\frac{f_\mathrm{dis} \rho_\mathrm{rad}(T)}{\Delta t},
\label{eq_budget1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the dimensionless parameter $f_\mathrm{dis}$ is the ratio of the total CR energy to the background radiation energy,
$\rho_\mathrm{rad}(T)$ is the background radiation energy density, and
$\Delta t$ is the duration of CR generation. In this study, we assume that CR generation operates from $T_9 \equiv T /(10^9~\mathrm{K})$=0.2 to 0.1.
In the standard cosmology \citep{Kolb:1990vq}, $T_9=0.2$ and 0.1 correspond to $t=4.4436 \times 10^3$ and $1.7774 \times 10^4$ s, respectively, and the duration is $\Delta t=1.33 \times 10^4$ s.
By using Equations (\ref{eq_cr1})--(\ref{eq_budget1}),
the amplitude of the CR source spectra is related by
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_0^\mathrm{A}(T) &=& 4.32 \times 10^{22}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}~(\mathrm{MeV}/A)^{-1}
f_\mathrm{dis} \nonumber \\
&& \times C(\gamma, E_0, T; Y_\mathrm{p})^{-1}
\left( \frac{\rho_\mathrm{rad}(T)}{\mathrm{g~cm}^{-3}} \right)
\left( \frac{\Delta t}{1.3 \times 10^4~\mathrm{s}} \right)^{-1}. \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Case B (sharp cutoff)}
As another case, we adopt a CR source spectrum given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Q^\mathrm{B}_i(E ;T) = Q_0^\mathrm{B}(T) Y_i \frac{E_\mathrm{MeV}^{-\gamma}}
{\exp \left[\left( E -E_{0i} \right) /a_\mathrm{dif} \right] +1},
\label{eq_s2}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$a_\mathrm{dif}$ is the diffuseness of the spectral cutoff.
This spectrum can accommodate a sharper cutoff than that in case A. The CR source amplitude was normalized using Equation (\ref{eq_budget1}), which is similar to case A.
\subsection{Steady-state CR spectra}
Scattering by abundant electrons and positrons in the early universe quickly thermalizes low-energy CR nuclei accelerated by magnetic fields. For slow CR nuclei, the Coulomb energy loss \citep{Reno:1987qw} is much faster than destruction by nuclear reactions. Therefore, the Coulomb loss process determines the shape of the spectra from the generated moment. The steady-state spectra are given by
\begin{equation}\label{10}
n_{2i}^X(E) =\frac{1}{(dE/dt)^\mathrm{Coul}_i} \int_{E/A_i}^\infty Q_i^{X}(E'/A_i) d(E'/A_i),
\end{equation}
where $X$ = A or B depending on the source spectra $Q_i^X$,
$E$ is the kinetic energy of nuclei $i$, and
$(dE/dt)^\mathrm{Coul}_i$ is the Coulomb loss rate.
Note that this agrees with the limit of Coulomb loss dominance for the steady-state spectra of Galactic CRs \citep{2006A&A...448..665P}. The loss rate of nuclei in nonrelativistic $e^\pm$ background (i.e., $T \mbox{$^<_\sim$} m_e$ where $m_e$ is the electron mass) is adopted from \citet{Reno:1987qw,Kawasaki:2004qu}.
\subsection{Nonthermal reaction rates}
Nonthermal reactions between a background nucleus (particle 1) and a CR nucleus (particle 2) were considered. The nonthermal reaction rates are given \citep{Kang:2011vz,Kang:2018dsd} by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{13}
\langle \sigma v \rangle_{ij}^X(T; \bm{Z}^X)
&=& \int_{-1}^1 d\mu \int_0^\infty dE_1 f_1(E_1;T) \nonumber \\
&& \times \int dE_2 f_{2j}^X(E_2;T; \bm{Z}^X) \sigma(v) v(E_1, E_2, \mu), \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle \sigma v \rangle^X$ is the average of the product of cross section $\sigma$ and relative velocity $v$ for $X$=A and B,
$f_1(E_1;T)$ is a Maxwell--Boltzmann distribution function for the energy of background nuclei, $E_1$,
$f_{2j}^X(E_2) =n_{2j}^X(E_2)/n_{2j,\mathrm{tot}}^X$
is the normalized nonthermal distribution function of the energy $E_2$ of CR nuclei $j$ with $n_{2j,\mathrm{tot}}^X =\int n_{2j}^X(E_2) dE_2$ being the total CR number density,
$\bm{Z}^X$ are parameters of the CR source spectra ($\bm{Z}^\mathrm{A} =(\gamma, E_\mathrm{0})$ and $\bm{Z}^\mathrm{B} =(\gamma, E_\mathrm{0}, a_\mathrm{dif})$), and
$\mu =\cos \theta$ is the cosine of the incidence angle $\theta$.
We define the $G$-function as
\begin{equation}\label{15}
\begin{split}
G(E_2; T) =
\int_0^\infty dE_1 f_1(E_1;T)
\int_{-1}^1 d\mu
\left[ \sigma v \right] (E_1, E_2, \mu).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This is the reaction rate of a CR with energy $E_2$ at a background temperature $T$, which is independent of the CR source spectrum. By utilizing this generic quantity, the integrated reaction rate can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{13}
\langle \sigma v \rangle^X(T; \bm{Z}^X)
&=& \int dE_2 f_{2j}^X(E_2;T; \bm{Z}^X)
G(E_2; T).~~~
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{BBN calculation}
We adopted the SBBN code NUC123 \citep{Kawano:1992ua,Smith:1992yy} and updated the reaction rates of nuclei with mass numbers of $\le 10$ using the JINA REACLIB database \citep{2010ApJS..189..240C} (updated on May 14, 2021) and reaction rates of $^2$H($p$,$\gamma$)$^3$He, $^2$H($d$,$n$)$^3$He, and $^2$H($d$,$p$)$^3$H \citep{Coc:2015bhi}. In addition, $^6$He was included as a new nuclear species with nuclear data from \citet{Wang:2021xhn}, and a new reaction type, that is, A+B$\rightarrow$C+D+E, was encoded. The baryon-to-photon ratio was set to $\eta =6.133 \times 10^{-10}$ from the Planck CMB power spectra, CMB lensing, and baryon acoustic oscillation for the base-$\Lambda$CDM model, $\Omega_\mathrm{b} h^2 = 0.0224 \pm 0.0001$ \citep{Aghanim:2018eyx}. The neutron lifetime is the central value of $\tau =879.4 \pm 0.6$ s \citep{Zyla:2020zbs}.
\section{Results}
Figure \ref{1} shows the nonthermal reaction rates as a function of the CR energy $E_2$ at fixed temperatures, that is, $G(E_2;T)$ (Eq. \ref{15}). The rates are the average reaction rates weighted by the background nuclear distribution. A finite temperature background effect was found as the difference between various temperatures. The $^2$H$(p,np)^1$H and $^7$Be$(p,p\alpha)^3$He reactions have positive threshold energies, and their cross sections are zero below the thresholds when the energy of the background target nucleus is neglected. However, at high temperatures, there are abundant energetic nuclei in the background, which help the reactions of low-energy CRs. Therefore, the nonthermal reaction rates at low-$E_2$ levels are significantly enhanced at high temperatures. We note that this finite temperature effect on CR reaction rates has not been considered in the Galactic CR nucleosynthesis calculations \citep{2006A&A...448..665P}. Although the effect is small for low background temperatures in Galactic interstellar matter and high typical CR energies of the order of 0.1--1 GeV, it affects nonthermal nucleosynthesis by soft CR nuclei in the early hot universe, as investigated in this study.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{G25halfN-eps-converted-to.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{G27half-eps-converted-to.pdf}\\
\caption{Nonthermal rates for the reactions $^2$H$(p,np)^1$H (top) and $^7$Be$(p,p\alpha)^3$He (bottom) as a function of the CR proton energy $E_2$ for cosmic temperature $T=1$, 0.1, and 0.01 GK, respectively. At high temperatures, less-energetic protons below threshold energies can react because of energetic background nuclei in the tail of the Maxwell--Boltzmann distribution. Also shown are data points of $\sigma v$ values \citep{Gibbons:1959zz} that correspond to $T=0$.}\label{1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{2} shows the reaction rates of the CR protons for $^2$H$(p,np)$$^1$H and $^7$Be$(p,p\alpha)$$^3$He reactions in case B. The adopted cutoff scale $E_0=3$ MeV for proton energy is higher than the threshold energy of $^2$H destruction (3.337 MeV) and lower than that of $^7$Be (1.813 MeV). Therefore, the reaction rate for the $^2$H($p,np$)$^1$H reaction is more sensitive to the sharpness of the cutoff. The nonthermal reaction rates monotonically decrease with increasing temperature for $T < m_e /26$ because the Coulomb energy loss rate increases. However, above the critical temperature $T = m_e /26$, the rates decrease suddenly with increasing temperature because electrons and positrons gradually become relativistic, and their number densities increase exponentially \citep[Appendix in][]{Reno:1987qw}. This figure clarifies that nonthermal reactions triggered by magnetic field dissipation are effective after the critical temperature corresponding to the completion of electron--positron annihilation. In the temperature range of $m_e /26 \leq T \mbox{$^<_\sim$} 1$ GK, the electron-to-baryon ratio decreases by nine orders of magnitude. Before the end of annihilation, nonthermal nuclei quickly lose energy via scattering off of abundant electrons and positrons. The resulting low reaction rates lead to minor effects on elemental abundances. However, after the end of annihilation, a small number of electrons result in large amplitudes of the steady-state spectra of CR nuclei. Therefore, nonthermal reactions effectively affect elemental abundances. We note that the magnetic field energy per baryon decreases with decreasing temperature because of the dilution of the magnetic field. This reduces the effects of nonthermal reactions at low temperatures. In the following, we concentrate on the epoch of effective nonthermal reactions. For example, we adopt a case of CR generation in the range of $T_9=0.2$--0.1.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{25H2Bmod-eps-converted-to.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{27BEB-eps-converted-to.pdf}\\
\caption{Integrated rates of the reactions $^2$H$(p,np)$$^1$H (top) and $^7$Be$(p,p\alpha)$$^3$He (bottom) as a function of temperature $T_9=T/(10^9~\mathrm{K})$. For the rates, $n_b$ is the baryon number density. It is assumed that the CR source spectrum of protons has a power-law index $\gamma=0$ and a sharp cutoff at $E_0=3$ MeV with diffuseness values of $a_\mathrm{dif}=0.05$, 0.5, and 1 MeV, respectively (case B).
}\label{2}
\end{figure}
The results of nonthermal nucleosynthesis calculations were compared to $2\sigma$ observational constraints adopted as follows: $^4$He abundance $Y_p=0.2453 \pm 0.0034$ in H\,{\sc ii}~regions in metal-poor galaxies \citep{2021JCAP...03..027A},
D abundance D/H= $(2.545 \pm 0.025)\times10^{-5} $ in Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption systems of quasar emissions \citep{2018MNRAS.477.5536Z},
$^3$He abundances $^3$He/H=$(1.9\pm 0.6)\times 10^{-5}$ in Galactic H\,{\sc ii}~regions~\citep{Bania:2002yj} (where only the upper limit is taken),
$^7$Li abundance log($^7$Li/H) = $-12+(2.199\pm0.086)$ in Galactic MPSs \citep{Sbordone:2010zi},
and $^6$Li abundance $^6$Li$/$H$ = (0.85 \pm 4.33) \times 10^{-12}$ (where only the upper limit is taken) in Galactic MPS G64-12 \citep{Lind:2013iza}. For D abundance, our SBBN result is below the $2 \sigma$ limit, and the investigated parameter spaces do not have a 2$\sigma$ allowed region. Therefore, regions with 5\% and 10\% destruction of D are shown instead.
Constraints on the magnetic dissipation are shown for cases A and B in Fig. \ref{3}. $^7$Be destruction in the early universe leads to lower primordial Li abundance after unstable $^7$Be decays into $^7$Li. The $^7$Li abundance after this decay is consistent with the observations in the colored bands. Areas to the right of the colored regions are excluded by a $^7$Li abundance that is too low. In contrast, areas to the left of the colored regions are still possibly allowed, although the $^7$Li abundance is higher than the observed level. After the BBN epoch, the $^7$Li abundance may be altered by the development of inhomogeneity in $^7$Li$^+$ ionic abundance during structure formation \citep{Kusakabe:2014dta} or Li depletion during the pre-main sequence \citep{2015MNRAS.452.3256F} and stellar evolution \citep{Korn:2006tv} of the observed MPSs. Therefore, it is also possible that nonthermal nuclear reactions are partially responsible for the Li problem. This case is located on the left side of the colored bands.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{A1-eps-converted-to.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{B-eps-converted-to.pdf}\\
\caption{Contours of calculated primordial abundances in the parameter planes of ($f_\mathrm{dis}$, $E_0$) (case A, top) and ($f_\mathrm{dis}$, $a_\mathrm{dif}$) (case B, bottom). In the colored regions, the $^7$Li abundance agrees with observations of MPSs \citep{Sbordone:2010zi}. The lower and upper curves for D/H correspond to 95\% and 90\% of standard model value, respectively. Above the upper curve, significant destruction of D occurs. In the regions above the line for $^6$Li, the $^6$Li abundance is more than the upper limit from observations of MPSs \citep{Lind:2013iza}. A solution to the Li problem is located at the lower region inside the colored bands below the curves of D/H.}
\label{3}
\end{figure}
The $^6$Li abundance is higher than the observational upper limit above the loosely inclined lines. Although $^6$Li is fragile against nuclear burning via $^6$Li($p$,$\alpha$)$^3$He in stars, primordial $^6$Li abundance elevated by CRs above the upper limit may be observable in the near future by spectroscopic observations of MPSs. Above the $^6$Li lines, $^6$Li abundance rapidly increases with the cutoff scale (case A) and diffuseness of the cutoff (case B) of the CR source spectra. Therefore, areas far from these lines are excluded. The D abundance is significantly lower than that in the standard model above the two lines for D/H. The lower and upper lines correspond to 5\% and 10\% reductions, respectively, of the D/H value in the SBBN model. Regions above these lines are excluded from the overdestruction of D. We note that the existence of a magnetic field during BBN affects abundance evolution mainly through an increased cosmic expansion rate \citep{Greenstein1969}. For example, the primordial D/H abundance is most sensitively increased by 13\% if the magnetic field energy amounts to 13\% of total radiation energy during thermal nucleosynthesis operating at $T \mbox{$^>_\sim$} 1$ GK \citep{Kawasaki:2012va}. This effect works in the opposite direction of nonthermal nucleosynthesis and can be responsible for the high observed value of primordial D/H. Currently, a discrepancy in D abundance between the observations and the SBBN model is suspected \citep{2018MNRAS.477.5536Z}. This indicates the possibility that observations of the abundances of both $^7$Li and D have already revealed magnetic field effects in the early universe. In both cases A and B, below the bound from D/H, CR nucleosynthesis predicts nuclear abundances that fall into the observationally allowed ranges. These regions allow us to solve the problem of Li. It is found that $\sim$0.01\%--0.1 \% of cosmic energy density is needed for acceleration of background nuclei and that CR source spectra must have a sharp cutoff below the threshold energy of D spallation.
The effects of magnetic field dissipation in case B on the evolution of the elemental abundances are shown in Fig. \ref{4}. In the SBBN model \citep{Pitrou:2018cgg}, abundances freeze out at $T\mbox{$^<_\sim$} 1$ GK. However, if nuclear accelerations are realized from magnetic field dissipation, the abundances of $^7$Be, $^6$Li, and D evolve at the dissipation time. It was confirmed that $^7$Be and D are disintegrated via $^7$Be$(p,p\alpha)$$^3$He and $^2$H$(p,np)^1$H, respectively, and $^6$Li is predominantly produced via $^3$H$(\alpha,n)^6$Li. If an appropriate amount of energy is used for CR acceleration, primordial Li abundance can decrease to the abundance level of MPSs. However, the CR source spectrum must have a sharp cutoff. Otherwise, energetic protons excessively destroy D, and energetic tritons produce $^6$Li.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{abundanceNC1-eps-converted-to.pdf}\\
\caption{Nuclear abundances as a function of cosmic temperature $T_9=T/(10^9~\mathrm{K})$. Solid and dashed lines correspond to ($f_\mathrm{dis}$, $a_\mathrm{dif}$) = ($2\times 10^{-4}$, $0.1$) and ($2\times 10^{-4}$, $0.5$), respectively, in case B for magnetic field dissipation, while dash-dotted lines correspond to the standard model without a magnetic field. Cosmic ray generation at $T_9=0.2$--0.1 results in nonthermal nuclear reactions.
}
\label{4}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec4}
Nonthermal nuclear reactions induced by soft CRs originating from magnetic field dissipation in the early universe were investigated. We adopted two types of CR source spectra with reference to the observed spectra of solar energetic particles energized by solar magnetic fields. Our findings are as follows:
The CR flux can be significantly high only after the completion of $e^\pm$ pair annihilation. Therefore, nonthermal nucleosynthesis affects primordial abundance after the annihilation epoch.
The magnetic dissipation after the annihilation can explain the observations of the primordial Li and D abundances if the dissipated energy amounts to 0.01\%--0.1\% of the total cosmic energy.
The CR source spectra should be very soft, so that D overdestruction is not triggered.
When we assume that reconnection of large-scale magnetic fields with energy densities of 0.01\%--0.1\% of the total energy density generates jets of tightly coupled electron--nuclei plasma, the kinetic energies of the CR nuclei in the jets evolve and can temporarily match the order of 1 MeV/$A$ required to solve the Li problem.
\software{NUC123 \citep{Kawano:1992ua}, \\
Fresco (www.fresco.org.uk/programs/barnett/index.htm)}
|
\section{Electronic Submission}
\label{submission}
Submission to ICML 2022 will be entirely electronic, via a web site
(not email). Information about the submission process and \LaTeX\ templates
are available on the conference web site at:
\begin{center}
\textbf{\texttt{http://icml.cc/}}
\end{center}
The guidelines below will be enforced for initial submissions and
camera-ready copies. Here is a brief summary:
\begin{itemize}
\item Submissions must be in PDF\@.
\item \textbf{New to this year}: If your paper has appendices, submit the appendix together with the main body and the references \textbf{as a single file}. Reviewers will not look for appendices as a separate PDF file. So if you submit such an extra file, reviewers will very likely miss it.
\item Page limit: The main body of the paper has to be fitted to 8 pages, excluding references and appendices; the space for the latter two is not limited. For the final version of the paper, authors can add one extra page to the main body.
\item \textbf{Do not include author information or acknowledgements} in your
initial submission.
\item Your paper should be in \textbf{10 point Times font}.
\item Make sure your PDF file only uses Type-1 fonts.
\item Place figure captions \emph{under} the figure (and omit titles from inside
the graphic file itself). Place table captions \emph{over} the table.
\item References must include page numbers whenever possible and be as complete
as possible. Place multiple citations in chronological order.
\item Do not alter the style template; in particular, do not compress the paper
format by reducing the vertical spaces.
\item Keep your abstract brief and self-contained, one paragraph and roughly
4--6 sentences. Gross violations will require correction at the
camera-ready phase. The title should have content words capitalized.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Submitting Papers}
\textbf{Paper Deadline:} The deadline for paper submission that is
advertised on the conference website is strict. If your full,
anonymized, submission does not reach us on time, it will not be
considered for publication.
\textbf{Anonymous Submission:} ICML uses double-blind review: no identifying
author information may appear on the title page or in the paper
itself. \cref{author info} gives further details.
\textbf{Simultaneous Submission:} ICML will not accept any paper which,
at the time of submission, is under review for another conference or
has already been published. This policy also applies to papers that
overlap substantially in technical content with conference papers
under review or previously published. ICML submissions must not be
submitted to other conferences and journals during ICML's review
period.
Informal publications, such as technical
reports or papers in workshop proceedings which do not appear in
print, do not fall under these restrictions.
\medskip
Authors must provide their manuscripts in \textbf{PDF} format.
Furthermore, please make sure that files contain only embedded Type-1 fonts
(e.g.,~using the program \texttt{pdffonts} in linux or using
File/DocumentProperties/Fonts in Acrobat). Other fonts (like Type-3)
might come from graphics files imported into the document.
Authors using \textbf{Word} must convert their document to PDF\@. Most
of the latest versions of Word have the facility to do this
automatically. Submissions will not be accepted in Word format or any
format other than PDF\@. Really. We're not joking. Don't send Word.
Those who use \textbf{\LaTeX} should avoid including Type-3 fonts.
Those using \texttt{latex} and \texttt{dvips} may need the following
two commands:
{\footnotesize
\begin{verbatim}
dvips -Ppdf -tletter -G0 -o paper.ps paper.dvi
ps2pdf paper.ps
\end{verbatim}}
It is a zero following the ``-G'', which tells dvips to use
the config.pdf file. Newer \TeX\ distributions don't always need this
option.
Using \texttt{pdflatex} rather than \texttt{latex}, often gives better
results. This program avoids the Type-3 font problem, and supports more
advanced features in the \texttt{microtype} package.
\textbf{Graphics files} should be a reasonable size, and included from
an appropriate format. Use vector formats (.eps/.pdf) for plots,
lossless bitmap formats (.png) for raster graphics with sharp lines, and
jpeg for photo-like images.
The style file uses the \texttt{hyperref} package to make clickable
links in documents. If this causes problems for you, add
\texttt{nohyperref} as one of the options to the \texttt{icml2022}
usepackage statement.
\subsection{Submitting Final Camera-Ready Copy}
The final versions of papers accepted for publication should follow the
same format and naming convention as initial submissions, except that
author information (names and affiliations) should be given. See
\cref{final author} for formatting instructions.
The footnote, ``Preliminary work. Under review by the International
Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). Do not distribute.'' must be
modified to ``\textit{Proceedings of the
$\mathit{39}^{th}$ International Conference on Machine Learning},
Baltimore, Maryland, USA, PMLR 162, 2022.
Copyright 2022 by the author(s).''
For those using the \textbf{\LaTeX} style file, this change (and others) is
handled automatically by simply changing
$\mathtt{\backslash usepackage\{icml2022\}}$ to
$$\mathtt{\backslash usepackage[accepted]\{icml2022\}}$$
Authors using \textbf{Word} must edit the
footnote on the first page of the document themselves.
Camera-ready copies should have the title of the paper as running head
on each page except the first one. The running title consists of a
single line centered above a horizontal rule which is $1$~point thick.
The running head should be centered, bold and in $9$~point type. The
rule should be $10$~points above the main text. For those using the
\textbf{\LaTeX} style file, the original title is automatically set as running
head using the \texttt{fancyhdr} package which is included in the ICML
2022 style file package. In case that the original title exceeds the
size restrictions, a shorter form can be supplied by using
\verb|\icmltitlerunning{...}|
just before $\mathtt{\backslash begin\{document\}}$.
Authors using \textbf{Word} must edit the header of the document themselves.
\section{Format of the Paper}
All submissions must follow the specified format.
\subsection{Dimensions}
The text of the paper should be formatted in two columns, with an
overall width of 6.75~inches, height of 9.0~inches, and 0.25~inches
between the columns. The left margin should be 0.75~inches and the top
margin 1.0~inch (2.54~cm). The right and bottom margins will depend on
whether you print on US letter or A4 paper, but all final versions
must be produced for US letter size.
Do not write anything on the margins.
The paper body should be set in 10~point type with a vertical spacing
of 11~points. Please use Times typeface throughout the text.
\subsection{Title}
The paper title should be set in 14~point bold type and centered
between two horizontal rules that are 1~point thick, with 1.0~inch
between the top rule and the top edge of the page. Capitalize the
first letter of content words and put the rest of the title in lower
case.
\subsection{Author Information for Submission}
\label{author info}
ICML uses double-blind review, so author information must not appear. If
you are using \LaTeX\/ and the \texttt{icml2022.sty} file, use
\verb+\icmlauthor{...}+ to specify authors and \verb+\icmlaffiliation{...}+ to specify affiliations. (Read the TeX code used to produce this document for an example usage.) The author information
will not be printed unless \texttt{accepted} is passed as an argument to the
style file.
Submissions that include the author information will not
be reviewed.
\subsubsection{Self-Citations}
If you are citing published papers for which you are an author, refer
to yourself in the third person. In particular, do not use phrases
that reveal your identity (e.g., ``in previous work \cite{langley00}, we
have shown \ldots'').
Do not anonymize citations in the reference section. The only exception are manuscripts that are
not yet published (e.g., under submission). If you choose to refer to
such unpublished manuscripts \cite{anonymous}, anonymized copies have
to be submitted
as Supplementary Material via CMT\@. However, keep in mind that an ICML
paper should be self contained and should contain sufficient detail
for the reviewers to evaluate the work. In particular, reviewers are
not required to look at the Supplementary Material when writing their
review (they are not required to look at more than the first $8$ pages of the submitted document).
\subsubsection{Camera-Ready Author Information}
\label{final author}
If a paper is accepted, a final camera-ready copy must be prepared.
For camera-ready papers, author information should start 0.3~inches below the
bottom rule surrounding the title. The authors' names should appear in 10~point
bold type, in a row, separated by white space, and centered. Author names should
not be broken across lines. Unbolded superscripted numbers, starting 1, should
be used to refer to affiliations.
Affiliations should be numbered in the order of appearance. A single footnote
block of text should be used to list all the affiliations. (Academic
affiliations should list Department, University, City, State/Region, Country.
Similarly for industrial affiliations.)
Each distinct affiliations should be listed once. If an author has multiple
affiliations, multiple superscripts should be placed after the name, separated
by thin spaces. If the authors would like to highlight equal contribution by
multiple first authors, those authors should have an asterisk placed after their
name in superscript, and the term ``\textsuperscript{*}Equal contribution"
should be placed in the footnote block ahead of the list of affiliations. A
list of corresponding authors and their emails (in the format Full Name
\textless{}[email protected]\textgreater{}) can follow the list of affiliations.
Ideally only one or two names should be listed.
A sample file with author names is included in the ICML2022 style file
package. Turn on the \texttt{[accepted]} option to the stylefile to
see the names rendered. All of the guidelines above are implemented
by the \LaTeX\ style file.
\subsection{Abstract}
The paper abstract should begin in the left column, 0.4~inches below the final
address. The heading `Abstract' should be centered, bold, and in 11~point type.
The abstract body should use 10~point type, with a vertical spacing of
11~points, and should be indented 0.25~inches more than normal on left-hand and
right-hand margins. Insert 0.4~inches of blank space after the body. Keep your
abstract brief and self-contained, limiting it to one paragraph and roughly 4--6
sentences. Gross violations will require correction at the camera-ready phase.
\subsection{Partitioning the Text}
You should organize your paper into sections and paragraphs to help
readers place a structure on the material and understand its
contributions.
\subsubsection{Sections and Subsections}
Section headings should be numbered, flush left, and set in 11~pt bold
type with the content words capitalized. Leave 0.25~inches of space
before the heading and 0.15~inches after the heading.
Similarly, subsection headings should be numbered, flush left, and set
in 10~pt bold type with the content words capitalized. Leave
0.2~inches of space before the heading and 0.13~inches afterward.
Finally, subsubsection headings should be numbered, flush left, and
set in 10~pt small caps with the content words capitalized. Leave
0.18~inches of space before the heading and 0.1~inches after the
heading.
Please use no more than three levels of headings.
\subsubsection{Paragraphs and Footnotes}
Within each section or subsection, you should further partition the
paper into paragraphs. Do not indent the first line of a given
paragraph, but insert a blank line between succeeding ones.
You can use footnotes\footnote{Footnotes
should be complete sentences.} to provide readers with additional
information about a topic without interrupting the flow of the paper.
Indicate footnotes with a number in the text where the point is most
relevant. Place the footnote in 9~point type at the bottom of the
column in which it appears. Precede the first footnote in a column
with a horizontal rule of 0.8~inches.\footnote{Multiple footnotes can
appear in each column, in the same order as they appear in the text,
but spread them across columns and pages if possible.}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{icml_numpapers}}
\caption{Historical locations and number of accepted papers for International
Machine Learning Conferences (ICML 1993 -- ICML 2008) and International
Workshops on Machine Learning (ML 1988 -- ML 1992). At the time this figure was
produced, the number of accepted papers for ICML 2008 was unknown and instead
estimated.}
\label{icml-historical}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\subsection{Figures}
You may want to include figures in the paper to illustrate
your approach and results. Such artwork should be centered,
legible, and separated from the text. Lines should be dark and at
least 0.5~points thick for purposes of reproduction, and text should
not appear on a gray background.
Label all distinct components of each figure. If the figure takes the
form of a graph, then give a name for each axis and include a legend
that briefly describes each curve. Do not include a title inside the
figure; instead, the caption should serve this function.
Number figures sequentially, placing the figure number and caption
\emph{after} the graphics, with at least 0.1~inches of space before
the caption and 0.1~inches after it, as in
\cref{icml-historical}. The figure caption should be set in
9~point type and centered unless it runs two or more lines, in which
case it should be flush left. You may float figures to the top or
bottom of a column, and you may set wide figures across both columns
(use the environment \texttt{figure*} in \LaTeX). Always place
two-column figures at the top or bottom of the page.
\subsection{Algorithms}
If you are using \LaTeX, please use the ``algorithm'' and ``algorithmic''
environments to format pseudocode. These require
the corresponding stylefiles, algorithm.sty and
algorithmic.sty, which are supplied with this package.
\cref{alg:example} shows an example.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Bubble Sort}
\label{alg:example}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} data $x_i$, size $m$
\REPEAT
\STATE Initialize $noChange = true$.
\FOR{$i=1$ {\bfseries to} $m-1$}
\IF{$x_i > x_{i+1}$}
\STATE Swap $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$
\STATE $noChange = false$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\UNTIL{$noChange$ is $true$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Tables}
You may also want to include tables that summarize material. Like
figures, these should be centered, legible, and numbered consecutively.
However, place the title \emph{above} the table with at least
0.1~inches of space before the title and the same after it, as in
\cref{sample-table}. The table title should be set in 9~point
type and centered unless it runs two or more lines, in which case it
should be flush left.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Classification accuracies for naive Bayes and flexible
Bayes on various data sets.}
\label{sample-table}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lcccr}
\toprule
Data set & Naive & Flexible & Better? \\
\midrule
Breast & 95.9$\pm$ 0.2& 96.7$\pm$ 0.2& $\surd$ \\
Cleveland & 83.3$\pm$ 0.6& 80.0$\pm$ 0.6& $\times$\\
Glass2 & 61.9$\pm$ 1.4& 83.8$\pm$ 0.7& $\surd$ \\
Credit & 74.8$\pm$ 0.5& 78.3$\pm$ 0.6& \\
Horse & 73.3$\pm$ 0.9& 69.7$\pm$ 1.0& $\times$\\
Meta & 67.1$\pm$ 0.6& 76.5$\pm$ 0.5& $\surd$ \\
Pima & 75.1$\pm$ 0.6& 73.9$\pm$ 0.5& \\
Vehicle & 44.9$\pm$ 0.6& 61.5$\pm$ 0.4& $\surd$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
Tables contain textual material, whereas figures contain graphical material.
Specify the contents of each row and column in the table's topmost
row. Again, you may float tables to a column's top or bottom, and set
wide tables across both columns. Place two-column tables at the
top or bottom of the page.
\subsection{Theorems and such}
The preferred way is to number definitions, propositions, lemmas, etc. consecutively, within sections, as shown below.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:inj}
A function $f:X \to Y$ is injective if for any $x,y\in X$ different, $f(x)\ne f(y)$.
\end{definition}
Using \cref{def:inj} we immediate get the following result:
\begin{proposition}
If $f$ is injective mapping a set $X$ to another set $Y$,
the cardinality of $Y$ is at least as large as that of $X$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Left as an exercise to the reader.
\end{proof}
\cref{lem:usefullemma} stated next will prove to be useful.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:usefullemma}
For any $f:X \to Y$ and $g:Y\to Z$ injective functions, $f \circ g$ is injective.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:bigtheorem}
If $f:X\to Y$ is bijective, the cardinality of $X$ and $Y$ are the same.
\end{theorem}
An easy corollary of \cref{thm:bigtheorem} is the following:
\begin{corollary}
If $f:X\to Y$ is bijective,
the cardinality of $X$ is at least as large as that of $Y$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{assumption}
The set $X$ is finite.
\label{ass:xfinite}
\end{assumption}
\begin{remark}
According to some, it is only the finite case (cf. \cref{ass:xfinite}) that is interesting.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Citations and References}
Please use APA reference format regardless of your formatter
or word processor. If you rely on the \LaTeX\/ bibliographic
facility, use \texttt{natbib.sty} and \texttt{icml2022.bst}
included in the style-file package to obtain this format.
Citations within the text should include the authors' last names and
year. If the authors' names are included in the sentence, place only
the year in parentheses, for example when referencing Arthur Samuel's
pioneering work \yrcite{Samuel59}. Otherwise place the entire
reference in parentheses with the authors and year separated by a
comma \cite{Samuel59}. List multiple references separated by
semicolons \cite{kearns89,Samuel59,mitchell80}. Use the `et~al.'
construct only for citations with three or more authors or after
listing all authors to a publication in an earlier reference \cite{MachineLearningI}.
Authors should cite their own work in the third person
in the initial version of their paper submitted for blind review.
Please refer to \cref{author info} for detailed instructions on how to
cite your own papers.
Use an unnumbered first-level section heading for the references, and use a
hanging indent style, with the first line of the reference flush against the
left margin and subsequent lines indented by 10 points. The references at the
end of this document give examples for journal articles \cite{Samuel59},
conference publications \cite{langley00}, book chapters \cite{Newell81}, books
\cite{DudaHart2nd}, edited volumes \cite{MachineLearningI}, technical reports
\cite{mitchell80}, and dissertations \cite{kearns89}.
Alphabetize references by the surnames of the first authors, with
single author entries preceding multiple author entries. Order
references for the same authors by year of publication, with the
earliest first. Make sure that each reference includes all relevant
information (e.g., page numbers).
Please put some effort into making references complete, presentable, and
consistent, e.g. use the actual current name of authors.
If using bibtex, please protect capital letters of names and
abbreviations in titles, for example, use \{B\}ayesian or \{L\}ipschitz
in your .bib file.
\section*{Accessibility}
Authors are kindly asked to make their submissions as accessible as possible for everyone including people with disabilities and sensory or neurological differences.
Tips of how to achieve this and what to pay attention to will be provided on the conference website \url{http://icml.cc/}.
\section*{Software and Data}
If a paper is accepted, we strongly encourage the publication of software and data with the
camera-ready version of the paper whenever appropriate. This can be
done by including a URL in the camera-ready copy. However, \textbf{do not}
include URLs that reveal your institution or identity in your
submission for review. Instead, provide an anonymous URL or upload
the material as ``Supplementary Material'' into the CMT reviewing
system. Note that reviewers are not required to look at this material
when writing their review.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\textbf{Do not} include acknowledgements in the initial version of
the paper submitted for blind review.
If a paper is accepted, the final camera-ready version can (and
probably should) include acknowledgements. In this case, please
place such acknowledgements in an unnumbered section at the
end of the paper. Typically, this will include thanks to reviewers
who gave useful comments, to colleagues who contributed to the ideas,
and to funding agencies and corporate sponsors that provided financial
support.
\nocite{langley00}
\section{Introduction}
We consider a fundamental sequential learning problem in which an agent must play one option at a time from an infinite set of options with non-stationary reward distributions, where the mean reward of an option decreases at each play of this option. This is naturally studied as the infinitely many-armed bandit problem with rotting rewards. The assumption of infinitely many arms models practical situations when there is a finite but large number of arms relative to the number of available experiments. There is an abundance of applications in which one must choose from a large set of options with rotting rewards, e.g. online advertising where arms correspond to ads and rewards decrease over exposures of an ad to a user, content recommendation systems where arms correspond to media items and rotting arises because of user boredom when watching the same content, and clinical trials where the efficacy of a medicine
may decrease because of drug tolerance when a patient takes the same medicine several times.
While there has been a lot of work on multi-armed bandits with a finite number of arms with stationary or non-stationary rewards, and an infinite number of arms with stationary rewards, not much seems to be known for the case of infinitely many arms with non-stationary rewards.
In this paper we make first steps to understand the fundamental limits of sequential learning for infinite number of arms whose mean rewards decrease with the number of pulls---the case commonly referred to as the \emph{rested rotting bandits}. Our focus is on rotting trends where the mean reward of an arm decreases arbitrary for at most a fixed amount $\varrho$ at each pull of this arm. The initial mean rewards of arms are assumed to be independent and identically distributed according to uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. The objective is to find a policy that minimizes the expected cumulative regret over a time horizon of $T$ time steps with respect to playing the best arm.
We show that the worst-case regret for this problem is lower bounded by $\Omega(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\})$,
where $\varrho$ is the maximum rotting rate, and show that this lower bound is tight up to a poly-logarithmic factor.
This reveals that the rotting trend starts to have an effect on regret precisely at the threshold $\varrho = \Theta(1/T^{3/2})$. Our result implies that the rotting rested bandit problem with infinitely many arms is harder than for the stationary rewards case, as in the latter case the regret lower bound is $\Omega(\sqrt{T})$ \cite{Wang}. This stands in stark contrast to the case of finite $K$ arms in which case it is known that
$\tilde{O}(\sqrt{KT})$ can be achieved for the rotting case \cite{Seznec}, which matches the optimal bound in the stationary case \cite{auer} up to a poly-logarithmic factor.
In the case of infinitely many arms with stationary rewards, it is not possible to explore all arms to find an optimal arm, hence, it is required to find a near-optimal arm; contrast this with the case of finitely many arms, where all arms must be explored to identify an optimal arm. Further, when we consider rotting rewards, the learner must keep exploring new arms because a near-optimal arm may become suboptimal as it is being pulled. Based on this fact, we design algorithms for the rotting infinitely many-armed bandit problem to achieve tight regret bounds. We summarize our contributions in more details in what follows.
\subsection{Summary of our contributions}
We show an $\Omega(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\})$ worst-case regret lower bound for the rotting rested bandit case with maximum rotting rate $\varrho = o(1)$. This regret lower bound matches the regret lower bound $\Omega(\sqrt{T})$ that is known to hold for the case of stationary rewards, when rotting is sufficiently small---precisely when $\varrho = O(1/T^{3/2})$. Otherwise, when $\varrho = \omega(1/T^{3/2})$, the regret lower bound becomes worse than for the stationary case.
We show that an $\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\})$ regret can be achieved by an algorithm when the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$ is known to the algorithm. This algorithm uses a UCB index to decide whether to continue pulling an arm or remove the arm from further consideration and switch to exploring a new arm by comparing the index with a threshold. This threshold is set to account for rotting of rewards.
We further show that an $\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,T^{3/4}\})$ regret can be achieved by an algorithm that does not know the value of the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$. This algorithm uses an adaptive UCB index and an adaptive threshold value to compare the UCB index of an arm with the threshold to decide whether to continue pulling this arm or remove the arm from further consideration. This upper bound matches the lower bound up to poly-logarithmic factors when the rotting rate $\varrho$ is sufficiently large, i.e. when $\varrho=\Omega(1/T^{3/4})$.
We present results of numerical experiments for randomly generated problem instances of rotting infinitely many-armed bandits. These results validate the insights derived from our theoretical results.
\subsection{Related work}
The work on multi-armed bandits can be distinguished with respect to two criteria, first whether the number of arms is finite or infinite, and second whether rewards of arms are stationary or non-stationary. For the case of non-stationary rewards, we can further distinguish rested from restless multi-armed bandit problems --- in the former case, an arm's distribution of reward may change only when the arm is pulled, while in the latter case, it may change at each time step. Our work falls in the category of multi-armed bandit problems with infinitely many non-stationary rested arms.
The case of finitely many arms with stationary rewards has been studied by many, following on \citet{lai,auer2002finite}. There exist algorithms having $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{KT})$ worst-case regret, where $K$ is the number of arms, and this matches the lower bound $\Omega(\sqrt{KT})$ up to a poly-logarithmic factor \cite{auer,Slivkins}.
We next discuss the case of finitely many arms with non-stationary rewards. The non-stationarity in rewards can be quantified by the number of abrupt changes or a variation budget, which is referred to as \textit{abrupt-changing} and \textit{slow-varying} environments, respectively. The non-stationary environments were studied by \citet{auer,Garivier,Besbes,auer2019adaptively} in which proposed algorithms are based on a strategy of adapting current state rapidly and fading old history memory (e.g. sliding window, discount factor, and restarting).
In addition to this, non-stationary environments were studied under various assumptions, e.g. contextual bandits and MDPs \cite{cheung2019learning,chen2019new,zhao2020simple,russac2019weighted,cheung2020reinforcement}, mortal bandits where arms have a stochastic lifetime \cite{Chakrabarti,Traca}, and bandits where arm rewards evolve according to a continuous-time stochastic process \cite{Brownian}.
The multi-armed bandit problem with a finite number of arms, where each arm's mean reward decays with the number of pulls of this arm, was first studied by \citet{Komiyama,Heidari,Bouneffouf,Levine}. Following \citet{Levine}, this problem is referred to as \emph{rotting bandits} problem. \citet{Levine} showed that a sliding-window algorithm has a $\tilde{O}(K^{1/3}T^{2/3})$ regret in a non-parametric rested rotting setting where the only assumption is that mean rewards are positive and non-increasing in the number of pulls.
The non-parametric rotting bandit problem, allowing mean rewards to be negative with bounded decay, was subsequently studied by \citet{Seznec}, showing an algorithm that has
an $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{KT})$ problem instance independent bound. \citet{Seznec2} showed that a single algorithm, an adaptive-window UCB index policy, achieves near-optimal regret for both rested and restless rotting bandits. In this paper, we follow the non-parametric rested rotting setting where mean rewards can only decrease with bounded decrements.
We next discuss the case of infinitely many arms with stationary rewards. \citet{Berry,Bonald} proposed algorithms with asymptotically optimal regret $O(\sqrt{T})$ for the case of arms with Bernoulli rewards and independent mean values according to uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. \citet{Wang} studied the case where the mean reward distribution has support on $[0,\mu^*]$ with $\mu^*\leq 1$, and for each arm $a$ the distribution of mean reward $\mu(a)$ is such that $\mathbb{P}(\mu(a) \geq \mu^* - z) = \Theta(z^\beta)$, for some $\beta > 0$.
\citet{Carpentier} studied the same problem but focused on simple regret, defined as the instantaneous regret at time step $T$. \citet{Bayati} showed that a subsampled UCB algorithm (SSUCB) that samples $\Theta(\sqrt{T})$ arms and executes UCB only on this subset of arms has $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ regret under 1-sub-Gaussian rewards with mean rewards according to uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. In this setting, for mean reward distributions such that there is a large enough number of near-optimal arms, an algorithm may find a near-optimal arm by exploring a restricted number of arms. There also exist several works dealing with infinitely many arms under structured reward functions such as contextual linear bandits \cite{abbasi2011improved} and Lipschitz bandits \cite{bubeck2011lipschitz}. In this paper, however, we focus on infinitely many arms under a mean reward distribution, where the structured-reward assumptions may not hold because of rotting.
Our work is different from the work discussed in this section in that we consider the case of infinitely many arms with non-stationary rotting arms.
In the case of rotting bandits with a finite number of arms, as we mentioned, \citet{Seznec,Seznec2} achieves worst-case regret bound $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{KT})$ which matches the near-optimal regret in the stationary stochastic setting. This result indicates that the rotting in the finitely many arms setting is not a harder problem than in the stationary rewards setting. However, in the setting of infinitely many arms, rotting of rewards makes the problem harder than in the stationary rewards case.
This is because the value of the optimal mean reward is not decreasing as the arms are being pulled as there are infinitely many near-optimal arms, which requires an additional exploration to recurrently search for a new optimal arm outside of the set of already pulled arms.
Our algorithms are different from previously-proposed algorithms for the case of infinitely many arms with stationary rewards in keeping to explore new arms to find a near-optimal arm over time because of rotting rewards. In more details, our algorithms use UCB policies to decide whether to continue pulling an arm or remove the arm from further consideration and explore a new arm, by comparing its UCB index with a threshold which is adjusted by using the rotting rate or an estimated value of the rotting rate.
\section{Problem formulation}
\label{sec:prob}
We consider a non-stationary bandit problem with infinitely many arms where the reward distributions of arms vary over time. We consider the case when the mean reward of an arm may decrease only when this arm is pulled by an agent that uses a policy $\pi$, which is referred to as the \emph{rested rotting bandit} setting. Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an infinite set of arms, $\mu_t(a)$ be the mean reward of arm $a$ at time $t$ before pulling an arm at time $t$, and $n_t(a)$ be the number of times arm $a\in\mathcal{A}$ is pulled by $\pi$ before time $t$. Also, denote by $r_t$ the stochastic reward gained by pulling arm $a_t^\pi$ at time $t$. Let $r_t=\mu_t(a_t^\pi)+\eta_t$ where $\eta_t$ is a noise term with a $1$-sub-Gaussian distribution. We assume that initial mean rewards $\{\mu_1(a)\}_{a\in \mathcal{A}}$ are i.i.d. random variables with uniform distribution on $[0,1]$.
The rotting of arms is defined as follows. Given a rotting rate $0\le \varrho_t\le \varrho$ at time $t\ge1$ with maximum rotting rate $\varrho=o(1)$, the mean reward of the selected arm at time $t$ changes as follows
\begin{align*}
\mu_{t+1}(a_t^\pi)=\mu_t(a_t^\pi)-\varrho_t
\end{align*}
whereas the mean rewards of other arms remain unchanged.
The mean reward of every arm $a\in\mathcal{A}$ at time $t>1$ can be represented as follows. With $0\le\varrho_s\le \varrho$ for all time steps $0< s < t$, $$\mu_t(a)=\mu_1(a)-\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}\varrho_s\mathbbm{1}(a_s^\pi=a).$$
\begin{comment}
The rotting of arms is defined by a \emph{rotting function} $\rho:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{N}_0\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, where $\mathbb{N}_0 =\mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$, which defines the mean reward of an arm $a$ after a given number of pulls of this arm, so that $\mu_t(a) = \rho(\mu_1(a), n_t(a))$, for each arm $a\in \mathcal{A}$. Function $\rho(\mu,n)$ is assumed to be increasing in $\mu$ and decreasing in $n$, and such that $\rho(\mu,0) = \mu$. Note that when $\rho$ is such that $\rho(\mu,n)=\mu$ for all integer $n\geq 0$ we have the case of stationary rewards.\end{comment}
The objective is to find a policy that minimizes the expected cumulative regret over a time horizon of $T$ time steps, which for a given policy $\pi$ is defined as follows
$$
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t=1}^T(1-\mu_t(a_t^\pi))\right].
$$
In the regret definition, we use that the mean reward of the optimal arm at any time $t$ is equal to $1$. This is because there is an infinite number of arms in $\mathcal{A}$ with i.i.d. mean rewards according to uniform distribution on $[0,1]$, so that there always exist sufficiently many arms whose mean rewards are close enough to $1$. In what follows, `selecting an arm' means that a policy chooses an arm in $\mathcal{A}$ before playing it and `pulling an arm' means that the policy plays a selected arm and receives a reward.
\begin{comment}
We are interested in understanding how the rotting function $f$ affects the regret for the learning problem with infinitely many-armed bandits. We consider two special cases of rotting bandits: (a) a \emph{linear rotting} case under which the mean reward of an arm decreases linearly with the number of pulls of this arm, and (b) an \emph{exponential rotting} case under which the mean reward of an arm decreases exponentially with the number of pulls of this arm. For the linear rotting case, we define $\rho(\mu,n) = \mu - \epsilon n$, where $\epsilon > 0$ is \emph{a linear decay rate} parameter, hence, we have $\mu_t(a)=\mu_1(a)-\epsilon n_t(a)$. For the exponential rotting case, we define $\rho(\mu,n) = \mu (1-\gamma)^n$, where $0<\gamma < 1$ is the \emph{exponential decay rate} parameter, hence, we have $\mu_t(a)=\mu_1(a)(1-\gamma)^{n_t(a)}$. For obtaining non-trivial regret bounds, we will impose some conditions on $\epsilon$ and $\gamma$, which are provided later. For simplicity of notation, we write $\varrho$ in lieu of the linear decay rate parameter $\epsilon$ and the exponential decay rate parameter $\gamma$.
\end{comment}
\section{Regret lower bound}
\label{sec:lb}
We first discuss two different regimes for regret depending on the value of the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$. When $\varrho\le 1/T^{3/2}$, the mean reward of any arm over the time horizon of $T$ time steps changes for at most $\varrho T\le1/\sqrt{T}.$ Therefore, for any arm, there can be at most a gap of $1/\sqrt{T}$ between the initial mean reward and the mean reward after $T$ time steps, which causes an additional regret of at most $\sqrt{T}$ over the horizon of $T$ time steps to the case of stationary arms (i.e. when $\varrho = 0$). In Theorem 3 in \citet{Wang}, the optimal regret for the stationary case, with uniform distribution of mean rewards of arms, is shown to be of the order $\sqrt{T}$. Therefore, the extra regret of $\sqrt{T}$ from the rotting with $\varrho\le 1/T^{3/2}$ does not affect the order of the regret. When $\varrho>1/T^{3/2}$, we expect that the regret lower bound may be different than for the stationary case.
By analyzing the regret lower bound for the specific case with $\varrho_t=\varrho$ for all time steps $t>0$, we provide a lower bound for the worst-case regret with respect to arbitrary rotting as given in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} For the rotting infinitely many-armed bandit problem, there exist rotting rates $0\le\varrho_t\le \varrho=o(1)$ for all time steps $t>0$ such that any policy $\pi$ has the regret over a time horizon of $T$ time steps such that
$$
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\Omega(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\}).
$$\label{thm:lower_bd_e}
\end{theorem}
From the result of the theorem, when the rotting is small enough, i.e. precisely when $\varrho \leq 1/T^{3/2}$, the lower bound corresponds to $\Omega(\sqrt{T})$, which is known to hold when rewards are stationary. Otherwise, when the rotting is sufficiently large, then the lower bound is $\Omega(\varrho^{1/3}T)$. For example, when $\varrho = 1/T^\gamma$ for some $\gamma > 0$, we have the lower bound $\Omega(\sqrt{T})$, if $\gamma \geq 3/2$ (small rotting case), and, otherwise (large rotting case), we have $\Omega(T^{1-\gamma/3})$. We can observe that $\varrho=\Theta(1/T^{3/2})$ is a transition point at which the lower bound switches from $\Omega(\sqrt{T})$ to $\Omega(\varrho^{1/3}T)$.
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
Here we present a proof sketch of the theorem with the full version of the proof provided in Appendix~\ref{app:lower_bd_e}.
We assume that $\varrho_t=\varrho=o(1)$ for all time steps $t>0$.
When $\varrho=O( 1/T^{3/2})$, the lower bound for the stationary case of the order $\sqrt{T}$ \citep{Wang} is tight enough for the non-stationary case. This is because we only need to pay an extra regret of at most of order $\sqrt{T}$ for small $\varrho$. Therefore, when $\varrho=O( 1/T^{3/2})$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\Omega(\sqrt{T}).
\label{eq:lowbd_small}
\end{align}
We note that even though the mean rewards are rotting in our setting, we can easily obtain \eqref{eq:lowbd_small} by following the same proof steps of Theorem 3 in \citet{Wang}. For the sake of completeness, we provide a proof in the Appendix~\ref{app:lower_bd_e}.
When $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/2})$, however, the lower bound of the stationary case is not tight enough. Here we provide the proof of the lower bound $\Omega(\varrho^{1/3}T)$ for the case when $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/2})$.
For showing the lower bound, we will classify each arm to be either bad or good or else according to the definition given shortly. To distinguish bad and good arms, we use two thresholds $1-c$ and $1-\delta$, respectively, where $c$ and $\delta$ are such that $0< 1-c < 1-\delta < 1$, $\delta=\varrho^{1/3}$, and $c$ is a constant. An arm $a$ is said to be a \emph{bad arm} if $\mu_1(a) \leq 1-c$, and is said to be a \emph{good arm} if $\mu_1(a) > 1-\delta$.
Let $N_T$ be the number of distinct selected good arms until time step $T$.
We separately consider two cases when $N_T < m$ and $N_T\ge m$, where $m=\lceil (1/2)T\varrho^{2/3}\rceil$, and show that each case has $\Omega(\varrho^{1/3}T)$ as the regret lower bound. The main ideas for each case are outlined as follows. When the number of selected good arms is relatively small ($N_T<m$), any policy $\pi$ must pull arms with mean rewards less than $1-\delta$ at least $T/2$ time steps until $T$, amounting to at least $\delta$ regret for each pull (gap between 1 and mean reward of a pulled arm). Therefore, the regret is lower bounded by $\Omega(\delta(T/2))=\Omega(\varrho^{1/3}T)$. When the number of selected good arms is relatively large ($N_T\ge m$), we can show that any policy $\pi$ is likely to select at least of order $\varrho^{1/3}T$ number of distinct bad arms until $T$. From the fact that the selected bad arms are pulled at least once and each pull adds a constant regret of value at least $c$, the regret is shown to be lower bounded by $\Omega (c\varrho^{1/3}T)= \Omega (\varrho^{1/3}T)$.
Therefore, when $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/2})$, we can obtain
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]\cr&=\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)\mathbbm{1}(N_T<m)+R^\pi(T)\mathbb{1}(N_T\ge m)]\cr&=\Omega(\varrho^{1/3}T). \label{eq:lowbd_large}
\end{align}
Finally, from \eqref{eq:lowbd_small} and \eqref{eq:lowbd_large}, we have
$\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\Omega(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\}).$
\begin{comment}
For getting a lower bound for $N_T \ge m$, we use the fact that the selected bad arms are pulled at least once and each pull induces a constant regret at least $c$. We thus study the number of selected bad arms when $N_T \ge m$. Let $K_m$ be the number of bad arms before selecting the $m$-th good arm.
When $N_T \ge m$ and $K_m\ge \kappa$, where $\kappa=m/\delta^\prime-m-\sqrt{m}/\delta^\prime$ and $\delta^\prime=\delta/(1-c+\delta)$, the number of selected bad arms until $T$ is at least $\kappa$. \jk{This is because the number of selected good arms until $T$ is at least $m$ and, at the same time, the number of selected bad arms until selecting $m$-th good arm is at least $\kappa$.} Therefore, the regret when $N_T >m$ and $K_m >\kappa$ is lower bounded by $\Omega (c\kappa) = \Omega (T\varrho^{1/3})$. \jk{From the regret lower bound for the case of $N_T>m$ and $K_m>\kappa$, we get a lower bound for the regret of the case $N_T>m$.}
Then, from the above results, we have
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]\cr &= \mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)\mathbbm{1}(N_T<m)+R^\pi(T)\mathbb{1}(N_T\ge m)]
\cr &=\Omega(T\varrho^{1/3}\mathbb{P}(N_T<m)+T\varrho^{1/3}\mathbb{P}(N_T\ge m,K_m\ge \kappa))\cr&
\ge\Omega(T\varrho^{1/3}\mathbb{P}(N_T<m,K_m\ge \kappa)\cr &\qquad+T\varrho^{1/3}\mathbb{P}(N_T\ge m,K_m\ge \kappa))\cr&=\Omega( T\varrho^{1/3}\mathbb{P}(K_m\ge \kappa)).
\end{align*}
Since $\mu_1 (\bar{a}_i)$ is uniformly random on $[0,1]$ for all $i$,
$K_m$ follows a negative binomial distribution with $m$ successes and the success
probability $\Theta(\delta).$
By using a concentration inequality from Theorem 1 in \cite{brown2011wasted}, we can show that
$\mathbb{P}(K_m\ge \kappa)\ge 1-\exp(-1/6),$
which implies that $$\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]\ge \Omega(T\varrho^{1/3}).$$
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Exponential rotting case}
As in the linear rotting case, we first discuss two regimes for the regret lower bound depending on the rotting rate $\varrho$. When $\varrho\le 1/T^{3/2}$, the difference of the initial mean reward of an arm $a$ and the mean reward after any number of pulls of arm $a$ over $T\ge 2$ time steps is bounded as
\begin{align*}
\mu_1(a)(1-(1-\varrho)^T)&\le 1-(1-1/T^{3/2})^T\cr
&\le 1-\exp\left(-\frac{1/T^{1/2}}{1-1/T^{3/2}}\right) \cr
&\le \frac{1/T^{1/2}}{1-1/T^{3/2}}\cr
&\le 2/\sqrt{T},
\end{align*}
where the second inequality is obtained from $\log(x) \ge 1-1/x$ for all $x>0$ and the third inequality is from $1-x\le \exp(-x)$ for all $x$. Therefore, there exists at most a gap of order $1/\sqrt{T}$ between the initial mean reward and the decayed mean reward of an arm, which causes at most $\sqrt{T}$ additional regret to the stationary case. The extra regret of $\sqrt{T}$ from the rotting when $\varrho\le 1/T^{3/2}$ does not affect the order of the optimal regret in the stationary case. When $\varrho>1/T^{3/2}$, we would expect that the regret lower bound may be different from the stationary case. We provide a regret lower bound for the exponential rotting case in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} For the non-stationary infinitely many-armed bandit problem with exponential rotting with rate $\varrho=o(1)$, any policy $\pi$ has the regret over a time horizon of $T$ time steps such that
$$
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\Omega(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\}).
$$\label{thm:lower_bd_gam}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
When $\varrho=o(1)$, the required number of pulls of a good arm $a$ (satisfying $\mu_1(a)> 1-\delta$ for some $\delta>0$) to become an arm that is not a good arm anymore because of rotting is bounded by $O(\delta/\varrho)$. Since the required number of pulls for the linear rotting is bounded by $O(\delta/\varrho)$, this implies that $\varrho$ in the exponential rotting has a similar role as $\varrho$ in the linear rotting case. Using this fact, we can prove the theorem by following the proof steps in Theorem~\ref{thm:lower_bd_e}. The detailed proof is deferred to Appendix~\ref{app:proof_lower_bd_gam}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\section{Algorithms and regret upper bounds}
\label{sec:algo}
In this section, we first present an algorithm for the rested rotting bandit problem with infinitely many arms for the case when the algorithm knows the value of the maximum rotting rate. We show a regret upper bound of the algorithm that matches the regret lower bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:lower_bd_e} up to a poly-logarithmic factor. Second, we present an algorithm that does not know the maximum rotting rate and show a regret upper bound that matches the regret lower bound up to a poly-logarithmic factor, when the maximum rotting rate is large enough.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{UCB-Threshold Policy (UCB-TP)}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Given: $T, \delta, \mathcal{A}$; Initialize: $ \mathcal{A}^\prime\leftarrow\mathcal{A}$
\STATE Select an arm $a\in\mathcal{A}^\prime$
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_1$
\FOR{$t=2,\dots,T$}
\STATE Update the initial mean reward estimator $\tilde{\mu}_t^o(a)$
\IF{$\mathrm{UCB}_t(a)\ge 1-\delta$}
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_t$
\ELSE
\STATE$\mathcal{A}^\prime\leftarrow \mathcal{A}^\prime/\{a\}$
\STATE Select an arm $a\in\mathcal{A}^\prime$
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_t$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:Alg1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{An algorithm knowing maximum rotting rate}
We present an algorithm which requires knowledge of the maximum rotting rate in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1}. The algorithm selects an arm and pulls this arm as long as the arm is tested to be a good arm, by using a test comparing an upper confidence bound of this arm with a threshold value. Specifically, if $a$ is the selected arm at time step $t$, the algorithm computes an estimator $\tilde{\mu}_t^o(a)$ of the initial mean reward of arm $a$ and uses this estimator to compute an estimator of the mean reward of arm $a$ at time step $t$, considering the worst-case rotting rate $\varrho$ for the estimators. Comparing the upper confidence bound for the mean reward with the threshold $1-\delta$, the algorithm tests whether the arm is a good arm. If the arm is tested to be a good arm, then the algorithm continues to pull this arm. Otherwise, it discards the arm and selects a new one, and repeats the procedure described above until time horizon $T$.
We consider Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} with the initial mean reward estimator defined as
$$
\tilde{\mu}_t^o(a)\coloneqq\frac{\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}(r_s+\varrho n_{s}(a))\mathbbm{1}(a_s=a)}{n_t(a)}
$$
and the upper confidence bound term defined as
$$
\mathrm{UCB}_t(a)\coloneqq \tilde{\mu}_t^o(a)-\varrho n_t(a)+\sqrt{8\log(T)/n_t(a)}.
$$
Note that when $\varrho_s=\varrho$ for all $0<s<t$, $\tilde{\mu}_t^o(a)$ is an unbiased estimator of the initial mean reward $\mu_1(a)$ of arm $a$
and $\tilde{\mu}_t^o(a)-\varrho n_t(a)$ is an unbiased estimator of the mean reward $\mu_t(a)$ of arm $a$ at time step $t$. The upper confidence bound $\mathrm{UCB}_t(a)$ follows the standard definition of an upper confidence bound. By designing the estimators to deal with the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$, for any arbitrary $\rho_t\le \varrho$ for all time steps $t>0$, we show that it has a near-optimal worst-case regret upper bound in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} For the policy $\pi$ defined by Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} with $\delta=\max\{\varrho^{1/3},1/\sqrt{T}\}$, and $\varrho=o(1)$, the regret satisfies
$$
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\}).
$$
\label{thm:R_upper_bd_e}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
Here we present a proof sketch of the theorem with a full version of the proof provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_thm_R_upper_bd_e}.
Observe that initial mean rewards of selected arms are i.i.d. random variables with uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. We first define arms to be good or bad arms depending on the initial mean rewards. We assume $\varrho=o(1)$ and set $\delta=\max\{\varrho^{1/3},1/\sqrt{T}\}$. Then we define an arm $a$ to be a good arm if $\Delta(a)\le \delta/2$, where $\Delta(a)=1-\mu_1(a)$, and otherwise, $a$ is a bad arm. Because of rotting, initially good arm may become bad by pulling the arm several times. Therefore, the policy $\pi$ may select several good arms over the entire time and we analyze the regret over time episodes defined by the selections of good arms. Given the policy, we refer to the period starting from selecting the $i-1$-st good arm until selecting the $i$-th good arm as the $i$-th episode. Because of the uniform distribution of mean rewards with small $\delta/2$, it is likely to have several consecutive selected bad arms in each episode.
\begin{figure}[t
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{image/episode.png}
\caption{Episodes in a time line.}
\label{fig:episode}
\end{figure}
We do an episodic analysis. We first analyze the expected regret per episode and multiply it by the expected number of episodes in $T$. However, this proof strategy has an issue that the regret of each episode and the number of episodes in $T$ are not independent. To resolve the issue, we fix the number of episodes to $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ and analyze the regret not for $T$ but for $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ episodes. Note that $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ is a fixed value, and the time after $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ episodes can exceed $T$. For obtaining a regret bound, we set $m^{{\mathcal{G}}}$ so that the total number of time steps for $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ episodes is larger than $T$ with high probability and thus $R^\pi(T)\le R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$ where $R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$ is the regret accumulated for $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ episodes. For the regret analysis, we denote by $m^{{\mathcal{B}}}_i$ the number of selections of distinct bad arms in the $i$-th episode. See Figure~\ref{fig:episode} for an illustration of the episodes in a time line.
In what follows, we provide an overview of the regret analysis by considering two separate cases depending on the value of the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$; one for a large rotting case, and the other for a small rotting case, which we may interpret as a near-stationary case.
For the analysis, we use $R_i^{\mathcal{G}}$ to denote the regret accumulated by pulling the good arm in the $i$-th episode, and $R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ to denote the regret accumulated by pulling the $j$-th bad arm in the $i$-th episode.
\textbf{Case of large rotting $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/2})$}: We first show that by setting $m^{\mathcal{G}}=\lceil2T\varrho^{2/3}\rceil$, we have $R^\pi(T)\le R_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}^\pi$. If the policy selects a good arm $a$, where $\mu_1(a)\ge 1- \delta/2$, then it must pull the arm at least $\delta/(2\varrho)$ times, with high probability, to decrease the mean reward below the threshold $1-\delta$. Then the total number of time steps for $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ episodes is at least $(\delta/(2\varrho))m^{\mathcal{G}}=(1/(2\varrho^{2/3}))\lceil2T\varrho^{2/3}\rceil\ge T$. This implies that $R^\pi(T)\le R_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}^\pi$. We next provide a bound for $\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]$ using $\mathbb{E}[R^\pi_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]$. For bounding $\mathbb{E}[R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]$,
we can show that for any $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]
=\tilde{O}\left(\frac{1}{\varrho^{1/3}}\right) \text{ and }
\mathbb{E}[R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}]= \tilde{O}\left(1\right).\label{eq:R_good_bad_bd}
\end{align}
Observe that $m^{\mathcal{B}}_1,\ldots, m^{\mathcal{B}}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$ are i.i.d. random variables with geometric distribution with parameter $\delta/2$. Therefore, for any non-negative integer $k$, we have $\mathbb{P}(m^{\mathcal{B}}_i=k)=(1-\delta/2)^k\delta/2$ and $\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]=(2/\delta)-1$ for all $i\in [m^{\mathcal{G}}]$. We have set $\delta=\max\{\varrho^{1/3},1/\sqrt{T}\}$.
Then when $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/2})$, with $m^{\mathcal{G}}=\lceil 2T\varrho^{2/3}\rceil$ and from \eqref{eq:R_good_bad_bd}, $\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]=2/\delta-1$, and $\delta=\varrho^{1/3}$, we have
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=O(\mathbb{E}[R^\pi_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}])\cr &=O\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]}\left(R^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}R^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j}\right)\right]\right)\cr
&= \tilde{O}\left(\left(\frac{1}{\varrho^{1/3}}+\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]\right)m^{\mathcal{G}}\right)=\tilde{O}\left(\varrho^{1/3}T\right).
\label{eq:regret_bd_large_ps}
\end{align}
\textbf{Case of small rotting $\varrho=O( 1/T^{3/2})$}: By setting $m^{\mathcal{G}}=C$ for some large constant $C>0$, we can show that $R^\pi(T)\le R^\pi_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$. This is because if the policy selects a good arm $a$, then it must pull the arm for at least order $T$ times with high probability. This is because the small rotting case is a near-stationary setting so that the policy can pull a good arm for a large amount of time steps. For bounding $\mathbb{E}[R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]$, we can show that for any $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]
=O(\sqrt{T})
\text{ and } \mathbb{E}[R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}]=\tilde{O}\left(1\right).\label{eq:R_good_bad_bd_small_e}
\end{align}
Then when $\varrho=O( 1/T^{3/2})$, with $m^{\mathcal{G}}=C$ and from \eqref{eq:R_good_bad_bd_small_e}, $\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]=2/\delta-1$, and $\delta=\Theta(1/\sqrt{T})$, we have
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=O(\mathbb{E}[R^\pi_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]) \cr
&=\tilde{O}\left(\left(\sqrt{T}+\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]\right)m^{\mathcal{G}}\right)=\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T}).
\label{eq:regret_bd_small_ps}
\end{align}
We note that in the small rotting case, the policy achieves $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ which matches a near-optimal bound for the stationary setting \cite{Wang}.
\textbf{Putting the pieces together}: From \eqref{eq:regret_bd_large_ps} and \eqref{eq:regret_bd_small_ps},
by taking $\varrho=o(1)$ and $\delta=\max\{\varrho^{1/3},1/\sqrt{T}\}$, it follows
$$
\mathbf{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\}).
$$
\begin{comment}
\jk{***working on this***}
We define some notations for the episodic analysis. Let $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ denote the number of selections of distinct good arms which also indicates the number of episodes and $m^{{\mathcal{B}}}_i$ be the number of consecutive selections of distinct bad arms between the $i-1$-st and $i$-th selection of a good arm among $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ good arms.
Observe that $m^{\mathcal{B}}_1,\ldots, m^{\mathcal{B}}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$ are i.i.d. random variables with geometric distribution with parameter $\delta/2$, conditional on the value of $m^{\mathcal{G}}$. Therefore, for any non-negative integer $k$, we have $\mathbb{P}(m^{\mathcal{B}}_i=k)=(1-\delta/2)^k\delta/2$ and $\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]=(2/\delta)-1$, for $i = 1, \ldots, m^{\mathcal{G}}$. Without loss of generality, we assume that policy $\pi$ selects arms in the order of the sequence $\bar{a}_1,\bar{a}_2,\ldots$. Under the policy $\pi$, let $R_i^{\mathcal{G}}$ be the regret accumulated by pulling the good arm in the $i$-th episode and $R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ be the regret accumulated by pulling the $j$-th bad arm in the $i$-th episode. Then, let $R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}=\sum_{i=1}^{m^{\mathcal{G}}}(R_i^{\mathcal{G}}+\sum_{j\in[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]}R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}})$, which is the regret accumulated over the period of $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ episodes.
For obtaining a regret bound, we first focus on finding $m^{{\mathcal{G}}}$ such that $R^\pi(T)\le R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$ and then focus on bounding $\mathbb{E}[R^\pi_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]$ with the fixed $m^{\mathcal{G}}$. In what follows, we provide overview of regret analysis by separately considering two cases depending on the value of the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$, one for a large rotting case and the other for a small rotting case which indicates a near-stationary case.
\textbf{Case $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/2})$}: We have $\delta=\varrho^{1/3}.$ Then we can show that by setting $m^{\mathcal{G}}=\lceil2T\varrho^{2/3}\rceil$, $R^\pi(T)\le R_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}^\pi$. This comes from the following. If the policy selects a good arm $a$, where $\mu_1(a)\ge 1- \delta/2$, then it pulls the arm at least $\delta/(2\varrho)$, with high probability, to decrease the mean reward below the threshold $1-\delta.$ Then the total number of time steps for $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ episodes is at least $(\delta/(2\varrho))m^{\mathcal{G}}=(1/(2\varrho^{2/3}))\lceil2T\varrho^{2/3}\rceil\ge T$. This implies that $R^\pi(T)\le R_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}^\pi$.
Now we provide a bound for $\mathbb{E}[R_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}^\pi]$ by bounding $\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $\mathbb{E}[R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}]$ for all $i,j$. First we analyze the regret from good arms. For getting a regret bound, we need to analyze the number of pulling each good arm by the policy. Let $a(i)$ be the selected arm for the $i$-th good arm and $n_i^{\mathcal{G}}$ be the total number of pulls of arm $a(i)$ under the policy. For a selected arm $a(i)$, the larger $n_t(a(i))$, the smaller $\mathrm{UCB}_t(a(i))$ because of rotting and variance (confidence interval) reduction by pulling the arm. For getting $n_i^{\mathcal{G}}$, which is a required number of pulls of arm $a(i)$ to satisfies $\mathrm{UCB}_i(a(i))<1-\delta$, reducing mean rewards from rotting to become below the threshold $1-\delta$ instead of reducing variance, is a dominant factor. Therefore, we can show that $n_i^{\mathcal{G}}=\tilde{O}(\delta/\varrho)=\tilde{O}(1/\varrho^{2/3}).$ Also we can easily show that $\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]\le \mathbb{E}[\Delta(a(i))n_i^{\mathcal{G}}+(n_i^{\mathcal{G}})^2\varrho]=(\delta/4)n_i^{\mathcal{G}}+(n_i^{\mathcal{G}})^2\varrho$, in which the first term comes from the initial mean reward and the second term comes from accumulated rotting, by considering that $\Delta(a(i))$ is according to a uniform distribution on $[0,\delta/2]$ and the rotting rate is maximized by $\varrho$. Then we have $\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]=\tilde{O}(1/\varrho^{1/3})$ for all $i$.
Next we analyze the regret from bad arms. Let $a(i,j)$ be a selected arm for the $j$-th bad arm in the $i$-th episode and $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ be the total number of pulls of arm $a(i,j)$ under the policy. In the case of bad arms, we separate them into two. One is the case when $\delta/2\le \Delta(a(i,j))\le \delta+\varrho^{1/3},$ in which the dominant factor to get $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ is reducing mean rewards from rotting, the other is the case when $\delta+\varrho^{1/3}\le \Delta(a(i,j))\le 1,$ in which the dominant factor is reducing variance. Then we get $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}=\tilde{O}(1/\varrho^{2/3})$ for the former case and $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}=\tilde{O}(1/(\Delta(a(i,j))-\delta)^2)$ for the latter case. We can observe that the former case is the same with the case of good arms because the initial mean rewards are close to good arms. For the latter case, $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ depends on the gap between the threshold $1-\delta$ and $\mu_1(a(i,j))$ to reduce the confidence interval. From that $\Delta(a(i,j))$ follows a uniform distribution on $[\delta/2,1]$, we can show that $\mathbb{E}[R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}]\le \mathbb{E}[\Delta(a(i,j))n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}+(n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}})^2\varrho]=\tilde{O}(1)$.
Therefore, for any $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]
=\tilde{O}\left(\frac{1}{\varrho^{1/3}}\right) \text{ and }
\mathbb{E}[R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}]= \tilde{O}\left(1\right).\label{eq:R_good_bad_bd}
\end{align}
Then, with $m^{\mathcal{G}}=\lceil 2T\varrho^{2/3}\rceil$, from \eqref{eq:R_good_bad_bd}, and the fact that $\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]=2/\delta-1$, we have
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)] =O\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]}\left(R^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}R^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j}\right)\right]\right)\cr
&= \tilde{O}\left(\left(\frac{1}{\varrho^{1/3}}+\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]\right)m^{\mathcal{G}}\right)
=\tilde{O}\left(\varrho^{1/3}T\right).
\end{align*}
\jk{***working on this***}
We define an arm $a$ to be a \emph{good} arm if $\Delta(a)\ge \delta/2$, where $\Delta(a)=1-\mu_1(a)$ and $\delta$ is set to $\max\{\varrho^{1/3},1/\sqrt{T}\}$, and otherwise, $a$ is a \emph{bad} arm. Let $\bar{a}_1,\bar{a}_2,\dots,$ be a sequence of arms in $\mathcal{A}$, with i.i.d. mean rewards according to uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. Given a policy selecting arms in the sequence order, let $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ denote the number of selections of a good arm and $m^{{\mathcal{B}}}_i$ be the number of consecutive selections of a bad arm between the $i-1$-st and $i$-th selection of a good arm among $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ good arms. We refer to the period starting from selecting the $i-1$-st good arm before selecting the $i$-th good arm as the $i$-th \emph{episode}.
Observe that $m^{\mathcal{B}}_1,\ldots, m^{\mathcal{B}}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$ are i.i.d. random variables with geometric distribution with parameter $\delta/2$, conditional on the value of $m^{\mathcal{G}}$. Therefore, for any non-negative integer $k$, we have $\mathbb{P}(m^{\mathcal{B}}_i=k)=(1-\delta/2)^k\delta/2$, for $i = 1, \ldots, m^{\mathcal{G}}$. Without loss of generality, we assume that policy $\pi$ selects arms in the order of the sequence $\bar{a}_1,\bar{a}_2,\ldots$. Let $\mathcal{A}_T$ be the set of selected arms over the horizon of $T$ time steps.
Let
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mu}_t(a)=\frac{\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}r_s\mathbbm{1}(a_s=a)}{n_t(a)} \text{ and }\cr \bar{\mu}_t(a)=\frac{\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}\mu_s(a)\mathbbm{1}(a_s=a)}{n_t(a)}.
\end{align*}
We define the event $E_1=\{|\hat{\mu}_t(a)-\bar{\mu}_t(a)|\le \sqrt{2\log(T^{4})/n_t(a)} \hbox{ for all } t\in [T], a\in\mathcal{A}_T\}$. Then we show that $E_1$ holds true with high probability. Otherwise, we can show that the regret is negligible. Therefore, we assume that $E_1$ holds in what follows.
Under a policy $\pi$, let $R_i^{\mathcal{G}}$ be the regret accumulated by pulling the good arm in the $i$-th episode and $R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ be the regret accumulated by pulling the $j$-th bad arm in the $i$-th episode. Then, let $R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}=\sum_{i=1}^{m^{\mathcal{G}}}(R_i^{\mathcal{G}}+\sum_{j\in[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]}R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}})$, which is the regret accumulated over the period of $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ episodes.
We show that if we set $m_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ such that $\mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\le R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}})\ge 1-\delta^\prime$ where $\delta^\prime\in[0,1]$, then $\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)] = O(\mathbb{E}[R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}])$ by taking $\delta^\prime=1/T^2$.
Therefore, for obtaining a regret bound, we first focus on finding $m^{{\mathcal{G}}}$ such that $\mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\le R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}})\ge 1-\delta^\prime$ and then focus on bounding $\mathbb{E}[R^\pi_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]$ with fixed $m^{\mathcal{G}}$, which allows us to leverage the assumption that initial mean rewards of arms are i.i.d. random variables. We separately consider two cases depending on the value of the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$.
\textbf{Case $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/2})$}: We have $\delta=\varrho^{1/3}.$ Then we can show that by setting $m^{\mathcal{G}}=\lceil 2T\varrho^{2/3}\log(1/\delta^\prime)\rceil$, for any $\delta^\prime\in[0,1]$, it holds
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\le R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}})\ge 1-\delta^\prime.\label{eq:R_bd_prob}
\end{align}
For bounding $\mathbb{E}[R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]$,
first, we need to get an upper bound on $\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]$. Let $a(i)$ be the selected arm for the $i$-th good arm and $n_i^{\mathcal{G}}$ be the total number of pulls of arm $a(i)$ under policy $\pi$. Under $E_1$, we show that
$\mathrm{UCB}_{t}(a(i))\le 1-(\varrho/2)(n_t(a(i))-1)+2\sqrt{8\log(T)/n_t(a(i))}$. Let $n=2(\delta+\varrho^{1/3})/\varrho+1+C\log(T)/\varrho^{2/3}$ for a large enough constant $C>0$. Using the fact that $a(i)$ is pulled until $\mathrm{UCB}_t(a(i))< 1-\delta$ is satisfied, we show that if $n_t(a(i))=n$, then $\mathrm{UCB}_t(a(i))<1-\delta.$ Hence, $n_i^{\mathcal{G}}=O(n)=\tilde{O}(1/\varrho^{2/3})$ which leads to have
$\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]\le \mathbb{E}[\Delta(a(i))n_i^{\mathcal{G}}+(n_i^{\mathcal{G}})^2\varrho]=\tilde{O}(1/\varrho^{1/3}).$
Next, in a similar way, we can get $\mathbb{E}[R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}]=\tilde{O}(1)$. Therefore, for any $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]
=\tilde{O}\left(\frac{1}{\varrho^{1/3}}\right) \text{ and }
\mathbb{E}[R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}]= \tilde{O}\left(1\right).\label{eq:R_good_bad_bd}
\end{align}
Then, with $\delta^\prime=1/T^2$ and $m^{\mathcal{G}}=\lceil 2T\varrho^{2/3}\log(1/\delta^\prime)\rceil$, from \eqref{eq:R_bd_prob} and \eqref{eq:R_good_bad_bd}, and the fact that $m_i^{\mathcal{B}}$'s are i.i.d. random variables with geometric distribution with $\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]=2/\delta-1$, we have
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)] =O\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]}\left(R^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}R^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j}\right)\right]\right)\cr
&= \tilde{O}\left(\left(\frac{1}{\varrho^{1/3}}+\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]\right)m^{\mathcal{G}}\right)
=\tilde{O}\left(\varrho^{1/3}T\right).
\end{align*}
\textbf{Case $\varrho=O( 1/T^{3/2})$}: We have $\delta=\Theta(1/\sqrt{T})$. By setting $m^{\mathcal{G}}=C$ for some large constant $C>0$, we can show that $\mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\le R^\pi_{m^{\mathcal{G}}})=1$. For bounding $\mathbb{E}[R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]$, we show that for any $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_i^{\mathcal{G}}]
=\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T})
\text{ and } \mathbb{E}[R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}]=\tilde{O}\left(1\right).\label{eq:R_good_bad_bd_small_e
\end{align}
Then from \eqref{eq:R_good_bad_bd_small_e} and $\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]=2/\delta-1$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]
=O\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]}\left(R_i^{\mathcal{G}}+\sum_{j\in[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]}R_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}\right)\right]\right)\cr
&=\tilde{O}\left(\left(\sqrt{T}+\mathbb{E}[m_i^{\mathcal{B}}]\right)m^{\mathcal{G}}\right)=\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T}).
\end{align*}
\textbf{Putting the pieces together}:
By taking $\varrho=o(1)$ and $\delta=\max\{\varrho^{1/3},1/\sqrt{T}\}$, it follows
$$
\mathbf{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\}).
$$
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\jk{not completed below}
We first define an arm $a$ to be a \emph{good} arm if $\Delta(a)\ge \delta/2$, and, otherwise, if $\Delta(a) < \delta/2$, arm $a$ is a \emph{bad} arm.
Let $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ be the number of selections of a good arm and $m^{{\mathcal{B}}}_i$ be the number of consecutive selections of a bad arm between the $i-1$-st and $i$-th selection of a good arm among $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ good arms. We refer to the period starting from selecting $i-1$-st good arm before selecting $i$-th good arm as $i$-th episode.
Observe that $m^{\mathcal{B}}_1,\ldots, m^{\mathcal{B}}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$ are independent and identically distributed according to geometric distribution with parameter $\delta/2$, conditional on the value of $m^{\mathcal{G}}$. Therefore, $\mathbb{P}(m^{\mathcal{B}}_i=k)=(1-\delta/2)^k\delta/2$. Let $\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i=\min\left\{m^{\mathcal{B}}_i,\max\left\{T-\sum_{k\in[i-1]}(m^{\mathcal{B}}_k+1),0
\right\}\right\}$ for all $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$. \mv{Need to explain the boundary case.}
Let $\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}$ be the largest integer $i$ such that $i\le m^{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\sum_{k\in[i]}(m^{\mathcal{B}}_k+1)\le T$. Let $R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}$ denote the cumulative regret from the policy $\pi$ until $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ good arms are selected or the total number arm selections is equal to $T$. Then it is true that $R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}\le T^2$ since there are at most $T$ arms with pulling each arm at most $T$. If we have a fixed $m_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ such that $\mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\le R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}})\ge 1-\delta^\prime$ where $\delta^\prime\in[0,1]$, then $\mathbb{E}[R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}]$ is an upper bound of $\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]$ with small enough $\delta^\prime$ as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]&=\int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\ge x)dx \cr
&=\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbb{E}\left[\int_0^{R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}}\mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\ge x)dx+\int_{R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}}^{T^2}\mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\ge x)dx \mid R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}\right]\right]
\cr
&\le\mathbb{E}[R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}+T^2\delta^\prime]=O(\mathbb{E}[R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}]).
\end{align}
For getting a regret bound, we now focus on finding $m_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ such that $\mathbb{P}(R^\pi(T)\le R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}})\ge 1-\delta^\prime$.
For all $i\in \tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}, j\in \tilde{m}_i^{\mathcal{B}}$, let $n_i^{\mathcal{G}}$ be the number of pulling the good arm in the $i$-th episode and $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ be the number of pulling the $j$-th bad arm in the $i$-th episode by the policy $\pi$. We define an event $E_1=\{|\hat{\mu}_t^o-\mu_1(a)|\le \sqrt{2log(TT_1^3)/n_t(a)} \hbox{ for all } t\in [T_1], a\in[T]\}$ to guarantee that the estimators of initial mean reward are well estimated. With $n_t(a)=n$, by using the Chernoff's bound, we have $$\mathbb{P}(E_1^c)\le \sum_{a\in[T]}\sum_{t=1}^{T_1}\sum_{n=1}^t 1/(TT_1^3)\le TT_1^2/(TT_1^3)=1/T_1.$$ We set $T_1$ to be equal to $T^2$. Then the regret when $E_1$ does not hold, is negligible so we assume that $E_1$ holds true for the following poofs. Conditional on $\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_1,\ldots, \tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$, observe that $n^{\mathcal{G}}_i$ for $i\in [\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}]$ are i.i.d. random variables and $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ for $i\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$ are i.i.d. random variables. From $E_1$, after time $T_1$ we cannot guarantee the good behavior of the policy $\pi$. Therefore, we define that for all $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]/[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$, $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ and $n_{i}^{\mathcal{G}}$ follow the same corresponding distribution.
It is true that $$\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}]}\left(n^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}n^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j}\right)+\sum_{j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}+1}]}n^{\mathcal{B}}_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}+1,j}\mathbbm{1}(\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}\neq m^{\mathcal{G}})\ge T\right)\le \mathbb{P}( R_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}\ge R^\pi(T)).$$
\jk{(need to show)} Also, we can show that
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}]}\left(n^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}n^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j}\right)+\sum_{j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}+1}]}n^{\mathcal{B}}_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}+1,j}\mathbbm{1}(\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}\neq m^{\mathcal{G}})\ge T\right)\cr = & \mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]}\left(n^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}n^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j}\right)\ge T\right).
\end{align}
Therefore, we need to find $m^{{\mathcal{G}}}$ such that
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]}(n^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}n^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j})\le T\right)\le \delta^\prime.
\end{align}
We define an event $E_1=\{|\hat{\mu}_t^o-\mu_1(a)|\le \sqrt{2log(TT_1^3)/n_t(a)} \hbox{ for all } t\in [T_1], a\in[T]\}$ to guarantee that the estimators of initial mean reward are well estimated. By using the Chernoff's bound, we have $$\mathbb{P}(E_1^c)\le \sum_{a\in[T]}\sum_{t=1}^{T_1}\sum_{n_t(a)=1}^t 1/(TT_1^3)\le TT_1^2/(TT_1^3)=1/T_1.$$ We set $T_1$ to be equal to $T^2$. Then the regret when $E_1$ does not hold, is negligible so we assume that $E_1$ holds true for the following poofs. Conditional on $\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_1,\ldots, \tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$, $n^{\mathcal{G}}_i$ for $i\in [\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}]$ are i.i.d. random variables and $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ for $i\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$ are i.i.d. random variables. From $E_1$, after time $T_1$ we cannot guarantee the behavior of the policy $\pi$. Therefore, we define that for all $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]/[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$, $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ and $n_{i}^{\mathcal{G}}$ follow the same corresponding distribution.
\jk{need to complete the followings}
We define an event $E_1=\{|\hat{\mu}_t^o-\mu_1(a)|\le \sqrt{2log(TT_1^3)/n_t(a)} \hbox{ for all } t\in [T_1], a\in[T]\}$ to guarantee that the estimators of initial mean reward are well estimated. By using the Chernoff's bound, we have $$\mathbb{P}(E_1^c)\le \sum_{a\in[T]}\sum_{t=1}^{T_1}\sum_{n_t(a)=1}^t 1/(TT_1^3)\le TT_1^2/(TT_1^3)=1/T_1.$$ We set $T_1$ to be equal to $T^2$, which is for a reason explained later. Then the regret when $E_1$ does not hold, is negligible so we assume that $E_1$ holds true.
Conditional on $\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_1,\ldots, \tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}$, $n^{\mathcal{G}}_i$ for $i\in [\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}]$ are i.i.d. random variables and $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ for $i\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$ are i.i.d. random variables.
We define that for all $i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]$ and $j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]$, $n_{i,j}^{\mathcal{B}}$ and $n_{i}^{\mathcal{G}}$ follow the same corresponding distribution.
Now we need to find a fixed $m^{\mathcal{G}}$ such that $\mathbb{P}(\sum_{i\in[m^{\mathcal{G}}]}(n^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[m^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}n^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j})\le T)\le \delta_2$ where $\delta_2\in [0,1]$.
Let $R^{\mathcal{G}}_i$ be the regret contributed by the $i$-th selection of a good arm, and let $R^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j}$ be the regret contributed by the $j$-th selection of a bad arm following the $i$-th selection of a good arm. Note that
$$
R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}=\sum_{i=1}^{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}}\left(R^{\mathcal{G}}_i+\sum_{j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_i]}R^{\mathcal{B}}_{i,j}\right)+\sum_{j\in[\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{B}}_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}+1}]}R^{\mathcal{B}}_{\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}+1,j}\mathbbm{1}(\tilde{m}^{\mathcal{G}}\neq m^{\mathcal{G}}).
$$
When $m_1=\Theta\left(\frac{\varrho T+\ln(\delta_2)(\delta-\varrho)}{\varrho/2\delta+\delta-\varrho}\right)$, we have $\mathbb{P}(R(T)\le R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}})\ge 1-\delta_2$. We know that $R_{{\mathcal{G}}}\le T_1 = T^2$. Then, with $\delta_2=1/T_1$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R(T)]&=\int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(R(T)\ge x)dx \cr
&=\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbb{E}\left[\int_0^{R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}}\mathbb{P}(R(T)\ge x)dx+\int_{R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}}^{T_1}\mathbb{P}(R(T)\ge x)dx \mid R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}\right]\right]
\cr
&\le\mathbb{E}[R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}+T_1\delta_2]=O(\mathbb{E}[R^{\pi}_{m^{\mathcal{G}}}]).
\end{align}
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{Exponential rotting case}
For the exponential rotting case, we consider Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} with the initial mean reward estimator defined as
$$
\hat{\mu}_t^o(a)\coloneqq\frac{\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}r_s(1-\varrho)^{-n_s(a)}\mathbbm{1}(a_s=a)}{n_t(a)}
$$
and the upper confidence bound term is defined as
\begin{align*}
&\mathrm{UCB}_t(a) \cr &\coloneqq \hat{\mu}_t^o(a)(1-\varrho)^{n_t(a)}+\sqrt{\frac{(1-\varrho)^{2n_t(a)}-1}{1-(1-\varrho)^{-2}}}\frac{\sqrt{6\log(T)}}{n_t(a)} .
\end{align*}
\mv{*** Check the UCB definition. $(1-\varrho)^{-2}$ ? $n_t(a)$ not under square root?***}
We provide a regret upper bound of the algorithm in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} For the policy $\pi$ defined by Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} with $\delta=\max\{\varrho^{1/3},1/\sqrt{T}\}$, and $\varrho=o(1)$, the regret satisfies
$$
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,\sqrt{T}\}).
$$
\label{thm:R_upper_bd_gam}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is deferred to Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_thm_R_upper_bd_gam}. \mv{*** Missing ref? ***}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\subsection{An algorithm not knowing maximum rotting rate}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Adaptive UCB-Threshold Policy (AUCB-TP)}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Given: $T,H,\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{A},\alpha$
\STATE Initialize: $\mathcal{A}^\prime\leftarrow\mathcal{A},w(\beta)\leftarrow 1$ for $ \beta\in \mathcal{B}$
\FOR{$i=1,2,\dots,\lceil T/H\rceil$}
\STATE Select an arm $a\in\mathcal{A}^\prime$
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_{(i-1)H+1}$
\STATE $p(\beta)\leftarrow(1-\alpha)\frac{w(\beta)}{\sum_{k\in \mathcal{B}}w(k)}+\alpha\frac{1}{B}$ for $\beta\in \mathcal{B}$
\STATE Select $\tilde{\beta}\leftarrow \beta$ with probability $p(\beta)$ for $\beta\in \mathcal{B}$
\STATE $\delta\leftarrow \tilde{\beta}^{1/3}$
\FOR{$t=(i-1)H+2,\dots,i\cdot H\wedge T$}
\IF{$\mathrm{UCB}_{i,t}(a,\tilde{\beta})\ge 1-\delta$}
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_t$
\ELSE
\STATE$\mathcal{A}^\prime\leftarrow \mathcal{A}^\prime/\{a\}$
\STATE Select an arm $a\in\mathcal{A}^\prime$
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_t$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE $w(\tilde{\beta})$
\STATE $\quad \leftarrow w(\tilde{\beta})\exp\left(\frac{\alpha}{Bp(\tilde{\beta})}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sum_{t=(i-1)H}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}r_t}{186H\log T+4\sqrt{H\log T}}\right)\right)$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:Alg2}
\end{algorithm}
In this section we present an algorithm which does not require information about the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$ defined in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2}, and provide a regret upper bound for this algorithm. The algorithm adopts the strategy of hierarchical bandit algorithms similar to BOB (bandit-over-bandit)~\cite{cheung2019learning}. It consists of a master algorithm and several base algorithms, where EXP3 \cite{auer} is used for the master algorithm whose goal is to find a near-optimal base algorithm, and for each base algorithm, a UCB index policy similar to that in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} is used with a candidate rotting rate and an adaptive threshold to decide whether to continue pulling currently selected arm. In Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2}, the time horizon of $T$ time steps is partitioned into blocks of $H$ time steps. Before starting each block, the master algorithm selects a rotting estimator $\tilde{\beta}$ of the unknown maximum rotting rate $\varrho$ from a set of candidate values denoted by $\mathcal{B}$. Then it runs a base algorithm over $H$ time steps which decides whether to continue pulling the selected arm based on a UCB index and a threshold tuned using the selected $\tilde{\beta}$.
By utilizing the obtained rewards over the block as a feedback for the decision of the master algorithm, it updates the master to find a near-optimal base and repeats the procedure described above until time horizon $T$.
We note that the term $1/2+\sum_{t=(i-1)H}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}r_t/(186H\log T+4\sqrt{H\log T})$ in updating $w(\tilde{\beta})$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} is for re-scaling and translating rewards, which makes the rewards lie in $[0,1]$ with high probability. Also by optimizing the block size $H$, we can control regrets induced from the master and a base. By increasing $H$, the regret induced from the master increases and the regret induced from a base decreases. Those facts are shown later in the poof of Theorem~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_no_e}.
In what follows, we define the inputs $\mathcal{B}$ and $\alpha$, and the upper confidence bound index $\mathrm{UCB}_{i,t}(a,\beta)$ for $\beta\in\mathcal{B}$.
$\mathcal{B}$ contains candidate values of $\beta$ to optimize $\mathrm{UCB}_{i,t}(a,\beta)$ and the threshold parameter $\delta$. We find that the optimal base parameter $\beta^\dagger\in\mathcal{B}$ is when $\beta^\dagger=\max\{1/H^{3/2},\varrho\}$ including a clipped domain for the optimal threshold value $\delta$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_e}. This implies that the optimized $\beta^\dagger\ge 1/H^{3/2}=2^{-3/2\log_2 H}$. Also from $\varrho=o(1)$, $\beta^\dagger \leq 1/8$.
Therefore, we set \[\mathcal{B}=\{2^{-3},2^{-4},\dots,2^{-\lceil(3/2)\log_2H\rceil} \},\] in which the cardinality of the set is restricted by $O(\log H)$ which does not hurt the regret from EXP3 up to a logarithmic factor. Let $B=|\mathcal{B}|$. Then we set $\alpha=\min\{1,\sqrt{B\log B/((e-1)\lceil T/H\rceil)}\},$ which is used to guarantee a least selection probability for each base.
Let $n_{i,t}(a)$ be the number of times that arm $a\in\mathcal{A}$ is pulled by the algorithm from time step $(i-1)H+1$ before time step $t$.
Let $\tilde{\mu}_{i,t}^o(a,\beta)$ be defined as
$$
\tilde{\mu}_{i,t}^o(a,\beta)\coloneqq\frac{\sum_{s=(i-1)H+1}^{t-1}(r_s+\beta n_{i,s}(a))\mathbbm{1}(a_s=a)}{n_{i,t}(a)}
$$
and the $\mathrm{UCB}_{i,t}(a,\beta)$ index be defined as
$$
\mathrm{UCB}_{i,t}(a,\beta)\coloneqq \tilde{\mu}_{i,t}^o(a,\beta)-\beta n_{i,t}(a)+\sqrt{8\log(H)/n_{i,t}(a)}.
$$
We provide a worst-case regret upper bound for Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
With $\varrho=o(1)$, for the policy $\pi$ defined by Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} with $H=\lceil T^{1/2}\rceil$, the regret satisfies
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,T^{3/4}\}).
\end{align*}
\label{thm:R_upper_bd_no_e}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
Here we present a proof sketch of the theorem with a full version of the proof given in Appendix~\ref{sec:R_upper_bd_no_e_proof}.
The policy $\pi$ consists of two strategies: EXP3 for the master and UCB-Threshold Policy (Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1}) for bases. We can decompose the regret into two parts: regret incurred by playing a base with $\beta\in\mathcal{B}$ over each block of $H$ time steps and regret incurred due to the master trying to find a near-optimal base parameter in $\mathcal{B}$. In what follows, we define the regret decomposition formally.
Let $\pi_i(\beta)$ for $\beta \in \mathcal{B}$ denote the base policy with $\beta$ for time steps between $(i-1)H+1$ and $i\cdot H\wedge T$. Denote by $a_t^{\pi_i(\beta)}$ the pulled arm at time step $t$ by policy $\pi_i(\beta).$ Then, for $\beta^\dagger \in \mathcal{B}$, which is set later for a near-optimal base, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]&=\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t=1}^T 1-\sum_{i=1}^{\lceil T/H\rceil}\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}\mu_t(a_t^{\pi})\right] \cr &= \mathbb{E}[R_1^\pi(T)]+\mathbb{E}[R_2^\pi(T)],\label{eq:R_decom}
\end{align}
where
$$
R_1^\pi(T) = \sum_{t=1}^T 1-\sum_{i=1}^{\lceil T/H\rceil}\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}\mu_t(a_t^{\pi_i(\beta^\dagger)}),
$$
$$
R_2^\pi(T) = \sum_{i=1}^{\lceil T/H\rceil}\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}\left(\mu_t(a_t^{\pi_i(\beta^\dagger)})-\mu_t(a_t^{\pi})\right).
$$
Note that $R_1^\pi(T)$ accounts for the regret caused by the near-optimal base algorithm $\pi_i(\beta^\dagger)$ against the optimal mean reward and $R_2^\pi(T)$ accounts for the regret caused by the master algorithm by selecting a base with $\beta\in\mathcal{B}$ at every block against the base with $\beta^\dagger$ as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:regret_decom}. We set $\beta^\dagger$ to be the smallest value in $\mathcal{B}$ which is larger than $\max\{\varrho,1/H^{3/2}\}.$ Then the base has the threshold parameter ${\beta^{\dagger}}^{1/3}$ of order $\max\{\varrho^{1/3},1/\sqrt{H}\}$ which coincides with the optimal threshold parameter of Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} by replacing $T$ with $H$.
We note that the policy $\pi$ does not require knowing $\beta^\dagger$ and it is defined only for the proof.
\begin{figure}[t
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{image/regret_decom.png}
\caption{Regret decomposition for Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2}.}
\label{fig:regret_decom}
\end{figure}
In what follows, we provide upper bounds for each regret component. We first provide an upper bound for $\mathbb{E}[R_1^\pi(T)]$ by following the proof steps in Theorem~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_e}. We can easily find that regret of the base with $\beta^\dagger$ for each block of size $H$ that has the same regret bound as in Theorem~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_e} by replacing $T$ with $H$ amounting to $\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}H,\sqrt{H}\})$. Then by adding the regret for $\lceil T/H\rceil$ number of blocks, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_1^\pi(T)]&=\tilde{O}((T/H)\max\{\varrho^{1/3}H,\sqrt{H}\})\cr &=\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,T/\sqrt{H}\}).\label{eq:R_1_bd}
\end{align}
Then we provide an upper bound for $\mathbb{E}[R_2^\pi(T)]$ using a regret bound for EXP3 in \cite{auer}. The EXP3 in policy $\pi$ selects a base in $\mathcal{B}$ before starting a block and gets feedback at the end of the block and repeats this over $\lceil T/H \rceil$ blocks. Therefore,
EXP3 in $\pi$ can be thought to be run for $\lceil T/H \rceil$ decision rounds and the number of decision options for each round is $B$. Let $Q$ be an upper bound for the absolute sum of rewards for any block with length $H$ with high probability. Then from Corollary 3.2 in \cite{auer}, we can show that
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_2^\pi(T)]=\tilde{O}(Q\sqrt{B(T/H)}).\label{eq:R_2_bd_1}
\end{align}
By considering that mean rewards may become negative because of rotting and using a Chernoff's bound, we show that with high probability
\begin{align}
\left|\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}r_t\right|\le 93H\log T + 2\sqrt{H\log T}.\label{eq:Q_bd}
\end{align}
Then with $B=O(\log T)$, from \eqref{eq:R_2_bd_1} and \eqref{eq:Q_bd}, we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_2^\pi(T)] &= \tilde{O}\left(H\log( T)\sqrt{B(T/H)}\right)\cr&=\tilde{O}\left(\sqrt{HT}\right).\label{eq:R_2_bd_2}
\end{align}
Finally, from \eqref{eq:R_decom}, \eqref{eq:R_1_bd}, and \eqref{eq:R_2_bd_2}, with $H=\lceil T^{1/2}\rceil$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]
&=\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,T/\sqrt{H}\}+\sqrt{HT})\cr
&=\tilde{O}(\max\{\varrho^{1/3}T,T^{3/4}\}).
\end{align*}
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Upper bounding $\mathbb{E}[R_1^\pi(T)]$}. We refer to the period starting from time step $(i-1) H+1$ to time step $i\cdot H\wedge T$ as the $i$-th \textit{block}.
For any $i\in\lceil T/H-1\rceil$, policy $\pi_i(\beta^\dagger)$ runs over $H$ time steps independent to other blocks so that each block has the same expected regret and the last block has a smaller or equal expected regret than other blocks. Therefore, we focus on finding a bound on the expected regret from the first block equal to $\mathbb{E}[\sum_{t=1}^{ H}1-\mu_t(a_t^{\pi_1(\beta^\dagger)})]$.
By following the proof steps in Theorem~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_e}, we can show that
$\mathbb{E}[R^{\pi_1(\beta^\dagger)}(H)]=\tilde{O}(\max\{H\varrho^{1/3},\sqrt{H}\}).$
Therefore, by summing regrets of $\lceil T/H\rceil$ blocks, we have shown that
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_1^\pi(T)]&=\tilde{O}((T/H)\max\{H\varrho^{1/3},\sqrt{H}\})\cr &=\tilde{O}(\max\{T\varrho^{1/3},T/\sqrt{H}\}).\label{eq:R_1_bd}
\end{align}
\textbf{Upper bounding $\mathbb{E}[R_2^\pi(T)]$}. Denote the maximum absolute sum of rewards of any block with length $H$ by a random variable $Q$.
We first provide a bound for $Q$. For any $i\in[\lceil T/H\rceil]$ we have
\begin{align}
&\left|\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}\mu_t(a_t^\pi)+\eta_t\right|\cr &\le \left|\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}\mu_t(a_t^\pi)\right|+\left|\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}\eta_t\right|
\label{eq:Q_bd}
\end{align}
By considering that mean rewards may become negative because of rotting and using a Chernoff's bound, we show that with high probability
\begin{align}
\left|\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}\mu_t(a_t^\pi)\right|\le 93H\log T \text{ and} \cr
\left|\sum_{t=(i-1)H+1}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}\eta_t\right|\le 2\sqrt{H\log T}.\label{eq:Q_bd_1}
\end{align}
Then, from \eqref{eq:Q_bd} and \eqref{eq:Q_bd_1}, we have $Q\le 93H\log T+2\sqrt{H\log T}.$ We observe that EXP3 in the policy can be thought to be run for $\lceil T/H \rceil$ decision rounds and the number of policies (i.e. $\pi_i(\beta)$ for $\beta\in\mathcal{B}$) is $B=O(\log H)$. Also by re-scaling and translating rewards in EXP3, we have
$1/2+\sum_{t=(i-1)H}^{i\cdot H\wedge T}r_t/(186H\log T+4\sqrt{H\log T})\in[0,1]$ with high probability. Then from Corollary 3.2. in \cite{auer}, we can show that
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[R_2^\pi(T)]&= \tilde{O}\left((93H\log T+2\sqrt{H\log T})\sqrt{B(T/H)}\right)\cr&=\tilde{O}\left(\sqrt{HT}\right).\label{eq:R_2_bd_2}
\end{align}
\textbf{Putting the pieces together}: From \eqref{eq:R_decom}, \eqref{eq:R_1_bd}, and \eqref{eq:R_2_bd_2}, with $H=\sqrt{T}$, we have
$$
\mathbb{E}[R^\pi(T)]=\tilde{O}\left(\max\{T^{3/4},\varrho^{1/3}T\}\right),$$ which concludes the proof.
\end{comment}
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
The regret bound for Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} in Theorem~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_no_e} is larger than or equal to that for Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} in Theorem~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_e}. This is because the master in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} needs to learn the unknown maximum rotting rate to find a near-optimal base algorithm, which produces extra regret. In the following remarks, we discuss the region of the maximum rotting rate $\varrho$ for which Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} achieves the near-optimal regret and discuss the computation and memory efficiency of our algorithms.
\begin{remark}
When $\varrho=\Omega(1/T^{3/4})$, Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} achieves the optimal regret bound $\tilde{O}(\varrho^{1/3}T)$ up to a poly-logarithmic factor. This is because when $\varrho=\Omega(1/T^{3/4})$, the additional regret from learning the maximum rotting rate is negligible compared with the regret from the rotting of rewards. It is an open problem to achieve the optimal regret bound for any value of $\varrho$, without knowing the value of this parameter.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} Note that we can achieve the same regret bounds as in Theorems~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_e} and \ref{thm:R_upper_bd_no_e} for the worst-case rotting by replacing our UCB index with adaptive-window UCB index in \cite{Seznec2} which is known to achieve near-optimal regret for the case of rotting with a finite number of arms. However, computing the adaptive-window UCB over horizon $T$ has high computation cost, $O(T^2)$ and $O(TH)$, and memory space $O(T)$ and $O(H)$, in Algorithms~\ref{alg:Alg1} and \ref{alg:Alg2}, respectively, for optimizing the window size. On the other hand, our proposed UCB index has a lower computation cost of $O(T)$ and requires only $O(1)$ memory space using a simple trick for updating mean estimators in online computation settings \cite{welford1962note}.
\end{remark}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{An algorithm not requiring information about rotting function parameters}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Algorithm 2}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Given: $T, n, \mathcal{A}$; Initialize: $\mathcal{A}^\prime\leftarrow\mathcal{A}$
\FOR{$t=1,\dots,n$}
\IF{$t \mod 2==1 $}
\STATE Select an arm $a\in\mathcal{A}^\prime$
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_t$
\STATE $\mathcal{A}^\prime\leftarrow \mathcal{A}^\prime/\{
a\}$
\ELSE
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_t$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE Compute the rotting trend estimator $\hat{\beta}$
and set $\delta=\hat{\beta}^{1/3}$
\FOR{$t=n+1,\dots,T$}
\IF{$\mathrm{UCB}_t(a)\ge 1-\delta$}
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_t$
\ELSE
\STATE$\mathcal{A}^\prime\leftarrow \mathcal{A}^\prime/\{a\}$
\STATE Select an arm $a\in\mathcal{A}^\prime$
\STATE Pull arm $a$ and get reward $r_t$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:Alg2}
\end{algorithm}
In this section, we present an algorithm, in Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2}, which does not require information about rotting function parameters. This algorithm uses a general UCB index to decide whether to continue pulling currently selected arm, which does not make any assumptions about the rotting function. The algorithm consists of two phases. The first phase is an exploration phase that consists of $n$ arm pulls, which is done by selecting arms one after the other, and pulling each selected arm twice. The observed rewards in the first phase are used to estimate a rotting trend parameter. The second phase consists of selecting arms by using a decision rule that compares the value of the UCB index of currently selected arm with a threshold value set to be a function of the estimated rotting trend parameter. The rotting trend estimator, denoted as $\hat{\beta}$, is defined as
$$
\hat{\beta}\coloneqq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{s=1}^n(r_{2s-1}-r_{2s}).
$$
Observe that $\hat{\beta}$ is an unbiased estimator of the linear decay rate parameter $\varrho$ in the linear rotting case. It turns out that we can use the same definition of the rotting trend estimator $\hat{\beta}$ in the exponential decay rotting case, in the regime of slow rotting when $\varrho = o(1)$. The decision threshold $\delta$ is set as $\delta=\hat{\beta}^{1/3}$. The algorithm uses the adaptive-window UCB index, proposed in \cite{Seznec2}, to optimize the bias-variance trade-off in estimators, which is defined as follows. Let $\hat{\mu}_t^h(a)$ be the sliding-window estimator of the mean reward of arm $a$, with window of size $h > 0$, defined as
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mu}^h_t(a)=\frac{1}{h}\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}\mathbbm{1}((a_s=a)\wedge (n_s(a)>n_{t-1}(a)-h))r_s.
\end{align*}
Then, the adaptive-window UCB index is defined as
$$
\mathrm{UCB}_t(a) = \min_{h\in [n_t(a)]}\left\{\hat{\mu}_t^h(a)+\sqrt{9\log(T)/h}\right\}.
$$
In the linear rotting case, from the regret lower bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:lower_bd_e}, it is allowed to pull arms at most $C\varrho^{1/3}T$ times without hurting the regret for any constant $C>0$. Since in the exploration phase we get a sample for estimating $\varrho$ at each arm selection time by subtracting the consecutive number of reward samples, we can get an estimator $\hat{\varrho}$ of the linear decay rate $\varrho$ with $\varrho^{1/3}T$ samples such that $|\hat{\varrho}-\varrho|=O( \sqrt{\log (T)/(\varrho^{1/3}T)})$ with high probability, which follows from the Chernoff's bound for sub-Gaussian random variables. Because of the inevitable statistical estimation error of the estimator $\hat{\varrho}$, it may be reasonable to assume that $\varrho={\omega}(\sqrt{1/(\varrho^{1/3}T)})$ ignoring a logarithmic factor, which implies $\varrho={\omega}(1/T^{3/7})$. Otherwise, the value of the linear decay rate $\varrho$ is too small for estimating its value accurately within the time horizon $T$. Therefore, we provide a regret bound with the additional assumption of $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/7})$ as stated in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} In the linear rotting case, for the policy $\pi$ defined by Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} with $n=\lceil T^{6/7}\log(T)\rceil$, and assumptions $\varrho=o(1)$ and $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/7})$, the regret satisfies
\begin{align}
R^\pi(T)=\tilde{O}(\varrho^{1/3}T).
\end{align}\label{thm:R_upper_bd_no_e}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is deferred to Appendix~\ref{sec:R_upper_bd_no_e_proof}.
\end{proof}
In the exponential rotting case, there is also an inevitable statistical estimation error for estimating the exponential decay rate parameter $\varrho$. Therefore, we provide a regret bound for the exponential rotting with the additional assumption of $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/7})$ as stated in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} In the exponential rotting case, for the policy $\pi$ defined by Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} with $n=\lceil T^{6/7}\log(T)\rceil$, and assumptions $\varrho=o(1/(\log T)^{3/2})$ and $\varrho=\omega(1/T^{3/7})$, the regret satisfies
\begin{align}
R^\pi(T)=\tilde{O}(\varrho^{1/3}T).
\end{align}
\label{thm:R_upper_bd_no_gam}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The proof is deferred to Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_R_upper_bd_no_gam}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\section{Numerical experiments}
\label{sec:num}
\begin{figure}[t
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.237\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{image/Rvsrho_2.png}\caption{}\end{subfigure
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.237\textwidth}\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{image/RvsT_0.5.png}\caption{}\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.237\textwidth}\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{image/RvsT_0.6.png}\caption{}\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.237\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{image/RvsT_1.5.png}\caption{}\end{subfigure}
\caption{Performance of Algorithms~\ref{alg:Alg1} and \ref{alg:Alg2}, and SSUCB: (a) regret versus $\varrho^{1/3}$ for fixed time horizon $T$, and (b,c,d) regret versus time horizon $T$ with rotting rates $\varrho=1/T^{1/2}$ (b), $1/T^{3/5}$ (c), and $1/T^{3/2}$ (d).
}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
In this section we present results of our numerical experiments using synthetic data in the rotting setting with infinitely many arms\footnote{Our code is available at \url{https://github.com/junghunkim7786/rotting_infinite_armed_bandits}}.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no previously-proposed algorithms for the setting of rotting with infinitely many arms. We compare the performance of Algorithms~\ref{alg:Alg1} and \ref{alg:Alg2} with SSUCB \cite{Bayati}, which was proposed for infinitely many arms with stationary rewards, and is known to have a near-optimal regret for stationary sub-Gaussian reward distributions.
From the theoretical results in Section~\ref{sec:lb} and Section~\ref{sec:algo}, we expect that Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} and SSUCB would have similar performance when the maximum rotting rate is sufficiently small, which may be regarded as a nearly stationary case, and that both Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} and Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} would outperform SSUCB when the rotting rate is sufficiently large. We expect that Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} would not be competitive in the nearly stationary case because of the extra regret from the rotting rate estimation. It requires the rotting rate to be sufficiently large to have the near-optimal regret bound. We will confirm these insights by our numerical results in what follows.
In our experiments, we consider the case of identical rotting with $\varrho_t=\varrho$ for all $t\in[T]$. We generate initial mean rewards of arms by sampling from uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. In each time step, stochastic reward from pulling an arm has a Gaussian noise with mean zero and variance $1$. We repeat each experiment $10$ times and compute confidence intervals for confidence probability 0.95.
We first investigate the performance of algorithms for varied rotting rate $\varrho$ and fixed time horizon $T$. We ran experiments for rotting rate $\varrho$ set to $1/T,1/T^{0.9},1/T^{0.8},\ldots,1/T^{0.3},$ and measured the expected regret for the time horizon $T=10^6$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:1} (a), we can confirm that our algorithms show more robust performance than SSUCB for various rotting rates with linearly increasing regret with respect to $\varrho^{1/3}$ for large rotting, which matches Theorems~\ref{thm:R_upper_bd_e} and \ref{thm:R_upper_bd_no_e}. We observe that for large rotting cases, our algorithms have similar performance and both outperform SSUCB. For sufficiently small rotting, we can observe that all the three algorithms have comparable performance while Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} performs slightly worse. These results conform to the insights derived from our theoretical analysis.
We next investigate the performance of algorithms versus time horizon $T$ and rotting rate $\varrho$ depending on $T$. We ran experiments for time horizon $T$ taking values $1, 1\times 10^5, 2\times 10^5, \ldots, 10^6$, and measured expected regret of each case. We set the rotting rate $\varrho$ to $ 1/T^{1/2}$, $ 1/T^{3/5}$ and $1/T^{3/2}$. Note that the case $1/T^{3/2}$ may be considered as a nearly-stationary case, because in this case the regret lower bound is $\Omega(\sqrt{T})$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:lower_bd_e}. In Figure~\ref{fig:1} (b) and (c), corresponding to large rotting rates, we observe that Algorithms \ref{alg:Alg1} and \ref{alg:Alg2} have similar performance and outperform SSUCB. The gaps between regrets of our algorithms and SSUCB become smaller by decreasing the rotting rate from $1/T^{1/2}$ to $1/T^{3/5}$. This is because SSUCB is designed for the case of stationary rewards and has a near-optimal regret in the stationary case. In the near-stationary case, in Figure~\ref{fig:1} (d), we observe that Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} has best performance and, as expected, Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} has worst performance.
\begin{comment}
We present our numerical results in Figure~\ref{fig:1}. In the large rotting case (a), we observe that our proposed algorithms perform better than SSUCB for any sufficiently large time horizon $T$. Specifically, Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} and ~\ref{alg:Alg2} outperform SSUCB for any time horizon $T$ greater than $1$, \jk{while Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} and ~\ref{alg:Alg2} show comparable performance}. This is according to our expectations because SSUCB is designed for the case of stationary rewards \jk{ and our suggested algorithms achieve near-optimal regret bounds for the large rotting case. The qualitative observations made for the large rotting case remain to hold in the medium rotting cases (b,c) with the gaps between regrets of our algorithms and SSUCB being smaller.} In the small rotting case (d), which we may regard as a nearly-stationary case, we observe that Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg1} has best performance, and, as expected, Algorithm~\ref{alg:Alg2} has worst performance.
\end{comment}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conc}
In this paper we studied the infinitely many-armed bandit problem with rested rotting rewards. We provided a regret lower bound and proposed an algorithm which achieves a near-optimal regret, when the the maximum rotting rate is known to the algorithm. We also proposed an algorithm which does not require knowledge of the rotting rate and we showed that it achieves a near-optimal regret for any large enough rotting rate.
In future work, it may be of interest to relax the assumption of uniform distribution for initial mean rewards.
|
\section{Introduction}
Deep neural networks (DNNs) have achieved great success in artificial intelligence, scientific computing and other machine learning tasks (\cite{hinton2012ml7,lecun2015ml2,schmidhuber2015ml3,goodfellow2016ml1,razzak2018ml4,voulodimos2018ml5,young2018ml6,zhang2018ml8}). DNNs produce a large class of nonlinear functions through compositional construction. Due to their powerful universal approximation ability, in recent years, DNNs have been applied for solving partial differential equations (PDEs), and several DNN-based methods (\cite{ee2017spde1,berg2018spde4,han2018spde2,he2018spde6,ee2018drm,raissi2019pinn,chen2019spde5,fan2019spde7,khoo2019spde3,long2019spde10,li2020spde8,liu2020spde9}) were proposed to overcome the difficulty so-called the ``curse of dimensionality" of the traditional PDE solvers such as finite element method (FEM), which requires a discretization of the interested domain, while the number of the mesh points will increase exponentially fast with respect to the problem dimension and make it quickly become computationally intractable. In such a situation, the generation of meshes is very time-consuming as well.
Among these DNN-based methods, one approach is to establish the algorithm with the strong form and minimize the residual of the original PDEs, such as physical informed neural networks (PINNs), deep Galerkin method (DGM), mixed residual method (MIM), local extreme learning machines (locELM) and so on. Specifically, PINN was proposed in \cite{raissi2019pinn} to use neural networks to approximate the solution of PDEs, and the neural networks are trained by minimizing the mean squared errors of the residual of the observed data, the differential equation, boundary conditions, and/or initial conditions. After that, some other model variants, like fractional PINNs and nonlocal PINNs are put forward in \cite{pang2019fpinn,pang2020npinn,zhang2020tpinn}. DGM designs the loss function as PDE residual in the least-square sense to measure how well the approximate solution satisfies the differential operator and boundary conditions (\cite{sirignano2018dgm}). MIM rewrites the PDE into a lower-order system and then uses the system residual as the loss function (\cite{lyu2022mim}). Combining the ideas of domain decomposition and extreme learning machines (ELM), locELM achieves high-precision results by solving the parameters of the neural network with least-square computations rather than training by an optimizer (\cite{dong2021elm}).
Another approach focuses on the weak formulations of the PDEs. Based on the variational principle, the deep Ritz method (DRM) uses the variational formulation of symmetric PDEs and integral of the boundary residual as the loss function, and the DNNs are trained by minimizing the numerical quadrature of the loss function (\cite{ee2018drm}). The deep Nitsche method (\cite{liao2019dnm}) adopts Nitsche's formulation as the loss function to deal with the essential boundary conditions rather than a penalty in DRM. Based on the Euler-Lagrange equation of the energy functional, a penalty-free neural network method (\cite{sheng2021pfnn}) is proposed to solve the second-order boundary-value problems on complex geometries. Weak adversarial networks (\cite{zang2020wan}) reformulate the PDEs as a saddle-point problem in the weak formulation and approximate trial and test functions by two neural networks and then train them alternately as an operator norm minimization problem.
These DNN-based methods have made achievements in some aspects, such as being able to solve problems in high dimensions or on irregular domains, including the observed data into the loss function so that it can handle inverse problems easily. However, some difficulties arise and need to be explored further. One of the biggest problems is the accuracy limitation of the numerical solutions obtained by these methods due to the weakness of the optimizer for the training process, even DNNs have very nice approximation properties (\cite{jagtap2020limit}). Meanwhile, the training process could cost a huge amount of time. For example, a DNN-based method may take hours to train the neural network to reach a certain accuracy, and it just takes a few seconds for FEM. They are not sufficiently efficient in solving general PDEs, and more researches need to be explored further.
On the other hand, providing rigorous error analysis like FEM is a very challenging task for these DNN-based methods. For PINNs, the convergence analysis is provided in \cite{mishra2020errorpinn3,shin2020errorpinn1, shin2020errorpinn2}, and a PINN with ReLu$^3$ network is analyzed and the convergence rate was given in $C^2$ norm (\cite{jiao2021errorpinn4}). The error analysis of DRM was established in \cite{luo2006barron1,xu2020barron4,hong2021barron3,lu2021barron2} via assuming that the exact solution is contained in the spectral Barron space which has the property of being approximated by a two-layer neural network. The convergence rate of DRM with smooth activation functions like logistic or hyperbolic tangent was derived in $H^1$ norm for elliptic equations (\cite{duan2021errordrm1,jiao2021errordrm2}). Such analysis can help us comprehend the convergence property with respect to the depth, width, and parameters in the neural networks.
Least-square methods have been studied for solving partial differential equations as well (\cite{aziz1985lsq1,carey1988lsq5,bochev2001lsq2,bochev2001lsq4,sterck2004lsq6,bochev2009lsfem,bochev2016lsq3}). By employing the least-square functional as its loss function, a least-square neural network method (LSNN) is proposed to solve the advection-reaction problem with discontinuous solution (\cite{cai2021lsnn}), and deep least-square method based on the least-square functional of the first-order system is studied in \cite{cai2020dlsq}. It is worth mentioning that the locELM can be regarded as a least-square method by obtaining the parameters of the neural network through solving a least-square problem, and it appears to be more accurate and computationally efficient (\cite{dong2021elm}).
In this paper, based on variational principle, we proposed a Deep Petro-Galerkin Method (DPGM) in which the numerical solutions are approximated by DNNs while test functions can be chosen by different approaches. The parameters of the neural network are given randomly and fixed except for the last layer, which not only reduces the parameters that need to be trained but also facilitates the assembling process of the linear system, then we solve it by a least-square method. This approach indeed improves the accuracy of the numerical solution and reduces the computational cost as well. Meanwhile, for solving time-dependent problems, temporal and spatial variables are treated jointly and equally, and we adopt the space-time approach in the DPGM framework so that the initial conditions are treated as boundary conditions. Therefore, DPGM can solve time-dependent problems without any iteration steps, and the resulted neural networks can supply the value of the numerical solution at any given space-time point without interpolation as the traditional numerical methods do.
To deal with the boundary conditions, one approach is the penalty method adopted by PINNs, DRM, DGM, and some other methods, and another way is to construct a special neural network satisfying the boundary condition intentionally (\cite{lagaris1988bc3,lagaris2000bc4,lyu2008mimb,berg2018spde4,khoo2019spde3}). However, the first approach is suffering difficulty of choice of penalty parameters, which is crucial for balancing the residual of the interior and boundary items; and the second one is not practical for the domain with complicated boundary geometry. Instead, in DPGM, we adopt the ideas of the least-square method by assembling the boundary conditions and variational formulation to the linear systems simultaneously and solving it by a least-square method to determine the unknown parameters. In this way, no penalty parameter is involved and the boundary conditions can be satisfied easily. Furthermore, DPGM maintains the advantages of the DNN-based methods, for example, the computation for the numerical quadrature can be adopted by quasi-Monte Carlo method (\cite{niederreiter1992qmc1,caflisch1998qmc2,dick2013qmc3,chen2019spde5}), which produces a mesh-free method and is essential for high-dimensional PDEs, and thus DPGM can be used to solve the PDEs on complicated geometries. The proposed DPGMs have the following advantages: neural networks are used to approximate the numerical solution to guarantee excellent approximation property; the ideas of extreme learning machine and least-square method are adopted so that the resulted discrete problem can be solved efficiently; both the essential and natural boundary conditions can be treated easily; DPGM can be applied with mixed formulations without worrying the stability issues through solving the discrete problem by the least-square method; time-dependent problems can be solved by DPGM in space-time approach efficiently.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the basic ideas of the DPGM for solving an elliptic partial differential equation. In Section 3, taking the Poison problem as an example, we establish mixed-DPGM with four mixed formulations. Then we consider solving time-dependent problems by DPGM in the space-time approach in Section 4. In Section 5, numerical examples are provided to show the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed DPGM. Finally, conclusions and discussions are drawn in the last section.
\section{Deep Petrov-Galerkin Method}\label{prem}
In this section, we introduce the basic ideas of the deep Petrov-Galerkin method and show how to apply it to solve an elliptic partial differential equation.
Consider a partial differential equation
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{A} u = f \qquad {\rm in}\; \Omega,\label{pde1} \\
&\mathcal{B} u = g \qquad{\rm on}\; \Gamma, \label{pde2}
\end{align}
where $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and its boundary $\Gamma$ is split as $\Gamma = \Gamma_D \cup \Gamma_N $ with ${\Gamma}_D \cap {\Gamma}_N = \emptyset$.
For example, when the differential operator $\mathcal{A}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{diffreac}
\mathcal{A} := -\nabla\cdot(\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla ) + \delta(\boldsymbol{x}),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_0\geq\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\geq \alpha_0>0$, $\delta_1 \geq \delta(\boldsymbol{x}) \geq \delta_0>0$, \eqref{pde1} is a
diffusion-reaction equation. Here, $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$, $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$ are constants.
The boundary condition \eqref{pde2} can be Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin types. In this paper, we consider the following mixed boundary conditions:
\begin{align}
u = g_D& \qquad {\rm on}\; \Gamma_D,\label{bc1} \\
\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla u\cdot \boldsymbol{n} = g_N &\qquad {\rm on}\; \Gamma_N. \label{bc2}
\end{align}
\subsection{Petrov-Galerkin method}
Under proper conditions, the PDE \eqref{pde1} with boundary conditions \eqref{bc1}--\eqref{bc2} has the week formulation:
Find $u\in U_{D,g_D} = \{u\in U;\; u|_{\Gamma_D} = g_D\}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{prb1}
a(u,v) = l(v)\qquad \forall v\in V_{D,0} = \{v\in V;\; v|_{\Gamma_D} = 0\},
\end{align}
where $U$ and $V$ are two Hilbert spaces with inner products $(\cdot,\cdot)_U$ and $(\cdot,\cdot)_V$, as well as corresponding norms
$\|\cdot\|_U$ and $\|\cdot\|_V$, respectively. Here, $a(\cdot,\cdot): U\times V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous bilinear form with
\begin{equation}
a(u,v) \leq M \Vert u\Vert_{U}\Vert v\Vert_{V} \qquad \forall u\in U,\, v\in V\label{assum1}
\end{equation}
for a constant $M>0$. By Babu\v{s}ka Theorem (\cite{babuska1972,babuska1973}), the problem \eqref{prb1} has a unique solution if and only if the following conditions hold
\begin{align}
\inf\limits_{u\in U}\sup\limits_{v\in V} \frac{a(u,v)}{\Vert u\Vert_{U}\Vert v\Vert_{V}} =
\inf\limits_{v\in V}\sup\limits_{u\in U} \frac{a(u,v)}{\Vert u\Vert_{U}\Vert v\Vert_{V}} =\beta >0, \label{assum2}
\end{align}
which is known as the Babu\v{s}ka--Brezzi or inf-sup condition (\cite{boffi2013mixed}). If we choose $\mathcal{A}$ as \eqref{diffreac}, the bilinear form and linear form in \eqref{prb1} are given by
\begin{align*}
a(u,v)&=\int_\Omega \left(\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla u\cdot \nabla v + \delta(\boldsymbol{x}) u\, v\right)\,{\rm d}\boldsymbol{x},\\
l(v) &= \int_\Omega f\, v\,{\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{\Gamma_N} g_N\, v\,\mathrm{d}s,
\end{align*}
and the bilinear form $a(u,v)$ satisfies the conditions \eqref{assum1} and \eqref{assum2}.
To numerically solve the problem \eqref{prb1}, one can apply the Petrov-Galerkin (PG) method:
Find $u_h\in U_h\subset U_{D,g_D}$ such that
\begin{align}
a(u_h,v_h) = l(v_h)\qquad \forall v_h\in V_h\subset V_{D,0}.\label{prb2}
\end{align}
Here, $U_h$ and $V_h$ are finite-dimensional function spaces, and usually consist of piecewise polynomial functions. By \eqref{assum2}, we know that the problem \eqref{prb2} is well-posed if and only if the following conditions hold
\begin{align}
\inf\limits_{u_{h}\in U_{h}}\sup\limits_{v_h\in V_h} \frac{a(u_{h},v_h)}{\Vert u_{h}\Vert_{U}\Vert v_h\Vert_{V}} =
\inf\limits_{v_h\in V_h}\sup\limits_{u_{h}\in U_{h}} \frac{a(u_{h},v_h)}{\Vert u_{h}\Vert_{U}\Vert v_h\Vert_{V}} = \beta_h >0. \label{assum4}
\end{align}
Furthermore, when $U_h$ and $V_h$ are finite-dimensional, the above two conditions are reduced to one (\cite{xu2003brezzi}). Then the fundamental result for the PG method is given as follows.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{babuska1972}]
If the conditions \eqref{assum2} and \eqref{assum4} hold, and $u$ and $u_{h}$ are the solutions of the problems \eqref{prb1} and \eqref{prb2}, respectively, then
\begin{equation}
\Vert u-u_{h}\Vert_{U} \leq (1+\frac{M}{\beta_h}) \inf\limits_{w_{h}\in U_{h}} \Vert u-w_{h}\Vert_{U}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Note that the finite element pair of $U_h$ and $V_h$ needs to be elaborately designed for the PG method, and the inf-sup condition \eqref{assum4} has to be verified carefully, which are very challenging and technical tasks for general users. Can we avoid these difficulties? Let us try to do something different in this paper.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Neural networks}
\label{NNs}
There are a variety of neural network structures, let us introduce the neural networks used in this paper as follows.
Let $D,n_i\in \mathbb{N}^{+}$, and $n_i$ is the number of neurons in the $i$-th layer, $\rho$ is the activation function.
A fully connected neural network with the depth of $D$ is a function $\mathbf{\Phi}:\mathbb{R}^{n_0}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_D}$ defined by
\begin{align}
&\mathbf{\Phi}_0(\boldsymbol{x}) = \boldsymbol{x},\nonumber\\
&\mathbf{\Phi}_{l}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \rho(\mathbf{W}_l\mathbf{\Phi}_{l-1}+\mathbf{b}_l) \qquad \text{for}\ l=1,\cdots,D-1,\label{neural}\\
&\mathbf{\Phi}:= \mathbf{\Phi}_D(\boldsymbol{x}) =\mathbf{W}_D\mathbf{\Phi}_{D-1} + \mathbf{b}_D,\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{W}_l = \left(w_{ij}^{(l)} \right)\in \mathbb{R}^{n_l \times n_{l-1}}$ and $\mathbf{b}_l = \left(b_i^{(l)}\right)\in \mathbb{R}^{n_l}$, $\phi_l = \left\{\mathbf{W}_l,\mathbf{b}_l\right\}$ are called the weight parameters in $l$-th layer. In this paper, we set $n_0 = d$ for stationary problems and $n_0 = d + 1$ for time-dependent problems.
In addition, we also adopt the ResNet (\cite{he2016resnet}), in which the input layer is a fully-connected layer with the number of neurons $n_0=d$, each layer of this network is constructed by stacking several blocks, each block consists of two linear transformations, two activation functions, and a residual connection. Thus a ResNet $\mathbf{\Psi}$ with $D$ layers takes the form as:
\begin{align*}
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\;\;\;\; &\mathbf{\Psi}_0(\boldsymbol{x}) = \rho(\mathbf{W}_0\mathbf{\boldsymbol{x}}+\mathbf{b}_0) ,\\
&\mathbf{\Psi}_{l}(\boldsymbol{x}) =\rho\left (\mathbf{W}_{l,2}\,\rho(\mathbf{W}_{l,1}\mathbf{\Psi}_{l-1}+\mathbf{b}_{l,1})+\mathbf{b}_{l,2}\right) +\mathbf{\Psi}_{l-1} \qquad \text{for}\ l=1,\cdots,D-1,\\
&\mathbf{\Psi}:= \mathbf{\Psi}_D(\boldsymbol{x}) =\mathbf{W}_D\mathbf{\Psi}_{D-1} + \mathbf{b}_D,
\end{align*}
where $\{\mathbf{W}_{l,1},\mathbf{b}_{l,1}\}$ and $\{\mathbf{W}_{l,2},\mathbf{b}_{l,2}\}$ are the weight parameters of the first and second linear transformation in the $l$-th layer, respectively.
Denote the number of nonzero entries of a matrix $\mathbf{W}_k$ by
$$\Vert \mathbf{W}_k \Vert_{l^0}:= \left|\{(i,j): w_{ij}^{(k)}\neq 0\}\right|,$$
then $$N_D:= \sum\limits_{j=1}^{D}(\Vert \mathbf{W}_j \Vert_{l^0} + \Vert \mathbf{b}_j \Vert_{l^0})$$
is the total number of nonzeros weights of the neural network $\mathbf{\Phi}$. For two positive constant integers $M_D$ and $B_{D}$, we give a class of neural network functions as follows
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D}) :=\{ \mathbf{\Phi}\; \text{defined by \eqref{neural} with depth D}, N_D\leq M_D\; \text{and}\;
|w_{ij}^{(l)}|\leq B_D, |b_i^{(l)}|\leq B_D \}.
\end{align*}
The universal approximation theorem (\cite{cybenko1989appro1,hornik1991appro2}) clarifies that every continuous function on a compact domain can be uniformly approximated by shallow neural networks with continuous, non-polynomial activation functions. The relationship between ReLU-DNN and linear finite element function was studied in \cite{he2018spde6}.
More results have been established in \cite{barron1994acti1, mhaskar1996acti3,shaham2018acti4,bolcskei2019acti2,tang2019acti5} for activation functions with a certain regularity, and these approximation errors were given in the sense of $L^p$ norm. Then the error bounds for H{\"o}lder functions and functions in the Sobolev space $W^{n,\infty}$ were given under $L^{\infty}$ norm (\cite{yarotsky2017wp,ohn2019holder}). Finally, the error bounds for ReLU neural networks and ELU-neural networks are derived in Sobolev norms (\cite{guhring2020wkp1,guhring2021wkp2}), and it holds for many practically used activation functions such as the logistic function, tanh, arctan, and others, which offers us a powerful tool to study the error analysis for those DNN-based methods.
\begin{theorem}[Proposition 4.8 in \cite{guhring2021wkp2}, Theorem 4.1 in \cite{jiao2021errordrm2}] \label{3.0}
Given $p\geq 1$, $s,k,d\in \mathbb{N}^{+}$, $s\geq k+1$. Let $\rho$ be the logistic function $\frac{1}{1+e^{-x}}$ or tanh function $\frac{e^x-e^{-x}}{e^x+e^{-x}}$. For any $\epsilon >0$ and $f\in \mathcal{F}_{s,p,d}$, there exists a neural
network $f_{\rho} \in \mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D})$ with depth $D\leq C\,{\rm log}(d+s)$, $M_D\leq C\cdot\epsilon^{-d/s-k-\mu k}$, and $B_D\leq C\cdot {\epsilon}^{-\theta}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\Vert f-f_{\rho} \Vert_{W^{k,p}([0,1]^d)} \leq \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
where $C,\theta$ are constants depending on d,s,p,k; $\mu$ is an arbitrarily small positive number and $\mathcal{F}_{s,p,d}:=\{f\in W^{s,p}([0,1]^d):\Vert f\Vert_{W^{s,p}([0,1]^d)} \leq 1\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The bounds in the above theorem can be found in the proof of Proposition 4.8 in \cite{guhring2021wkp2}, and the bound on the depth was given in Theorem 4.1 in \cite{jiao2021errordrm2} explicitly. With these results, we see that the solutions of PDEs can be approximated very well by neural networks with a sufficient number of layers and nonzero weights.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Deep Petrov-Galerkin method}
\label{NNs}
Instead of approximating the exact solution $u(\boldsymbol{x})$ by a piecewise polynomial function $u_h$, in this paper,
we try to search a neural network $u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x};\theta)$ to approximate $u(\boldsymbol{x})$ with proper parameters $\theta$. Let us propose a numerical scheme: Find $u_\rho \in U_{\rho} \subset \mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D}) \subset U$ such that
\begin{align}
a(u_\rho,v_h) &= l(v_h)\qquad\; \forall v_h\in V_h\subset V_{D,0},\label{prb3} \\
u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x}_k) &= g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k) \quad\; {\rm for\ some\ points}\ \boldsymbol{x}_k\in \Gamma_D,\; k=1,2,\cdots, N_b,\label{boundary_D}
\end{align}
which is named by Deep Petrov-Galerkin Method (DPGM). Here, the trial function space $U_{\rho}$ refers to a class of neural network functions with the activation function $\rho$, and the structure is introduced in the previous subsection.
In addition, the test function space $V_{h}$ can be chosen as any proper finite-dimensional function space, which should be a good approximation of $V_{D,0}$. In this paper, we choose $V_h$ as finite element spaces, and mainly use the bilinear finite element space for 2D problems and trilinear finite element space for 3D problems. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\{v_j\}_{j=1}^G$ is a group of functions belonging to $V_{D,0}$ and $\bigcup_{j=1}^G {\rm supp}\{v_j\} =\Omega$, then we choose
$V_h:={\rm span}\{v_j\}_{j=1}^G$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{network.png}
\caption{Network structure of $u_\rho:\mathbb{R}^{3}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, the solid blue line represents the parameters of the neural network that are randomly initialized and fixed afterwards, the dotted red line refers to the parameters that need to be solved. }
\label{network}
\end{figure}
Notice that $\mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D})$ is not a function space in general, so we did not choose it as $U_\rho$, instead, we choose a function space, a subset of $\mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D})$ as $U_\rho$, which is constructed as follows and showed in Figure \ref{network}. For any $u_\rho\in U_\rho\subset \mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D})$, we choose the initial weights $\phi_l$ with values drawn from the uniform distribution $\mathcal{U}(-r, r)$ for each layer and fixed them except for the last layer, where $r\in \mathbb{R}$. Let $\Phi_{D-1}^j$ denote the output of the $j$-th neuron in the $D-1$ layer ($j=1,2,\cdots,n_{D-1}$), $\mathbf{W}_D = \left((w_{ij}^{(D)}) \right)\in \mathbb{R}^{n_D\times n_{D-1}}$ with $n_D = 1$, and $\mathbf{b}_D=\mathbf{0}$. Then the output of the neural network
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\Phi}:= \mathbf{\Phi}_D(\boldsymbol{x}) =\mathbf{W}_D\mathbf{\Phi}_{D-1} + \mathbf{b}_D = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}}
w_{1j}^{D} \Phi_{D-1}^j(\boldsymbol{x}).
\end{equation*}
For simplicity, we denote $\Phi_j^u :=\Phi_{D-1}^j$ and $u_\rho^j :=w_{1j}^{D}$ for $j = 1,\cdots,n_{D-1}$. Then
\begin{equation}
u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}} u_\rho^j \Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}). \label{nnappu}
\end{equation}
Notice that the values of the initial weights $\phi_l$ ($l = 1,\cdots,n_{D-1}$) are given randomly and fixed, so these weights do not need to be trained or solved, then $\{\Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x})\}_{j=1}^{n_{D-1}}$ can be regarded as a group of basis functions. Hence,
$$U_\rho = {\rm span}\{\Phi_1^u(\boldsymbol{x}),\cdots,\Phi_{n_{D-1}}^u(\boldsymbol{x})\}.$$
We see that the degrees of freedom for the DPGM is the number of neurons in $D-1$ layer, that is, $n_{D-1}$.
Then, the problem \eqref{prb3} becomes: Find $u_\rho^j $, $j = 1,\cdots,n_{D-1}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}}u_\rho^j a(\Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}),v_i) = l(v_i)\qquad \forall v_i\in V_h\subset V_{D,0}. \label{linear1}
\end{equation}
The above equation gives
$$\mathbf{A} \boldsymbol{U}=\mathbf{L},$$
where $\mathbf{A}_{i,j} = a(\Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}),v_i)$, $\boldsymbol{U}= (u_\rho^1,\cdots,u_\rho^{n_{D-1}})^{T}$, and $\mathbf{L}=(l_1,\cdots,l_{N_h})^{T}$ with $l_i = l(v_i)$ ($i=1,\cdots,N_h$). Note that the Neumann boundary condition \eqref{bc2} is included in the weak formulation. However, we need to enforce the Dirichlet boundary condition \eqref{boundary_D}. To do so, we take some random samples $\{\boldsymbol{x}_k\}_{k=1}^{N_b}$ according to the uniform distribution $\mathcal{U}(\Gamma_D)$ , and set $u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x}_k) =g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k)$ for all $ \boldsymbol{x}_k \in \Gamma_D$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}}u_\rho^j \Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}_k)= g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k) \qquad \text{for} \ k = 1,\cdots,N_b. \label{linear2}
\end{equation}
Similarly, the above equation implies $\mathbf{B} \boldsymbol{U}=\mathbf{G}$, where $\mathbf{B}_{k,j} = \Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}_k)$ and $\mathbf{G}=(g_1,\cdots,g_{N_b})^{T}$ with $g_k =g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k)$.
Thus, we can obtain the solution $u_\rho$ by solving a least-square problem with the linear system
\begin{equation}
\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{A} \\\mathbf{B} \end{array}\right] \boldsymbol{U}
=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{L} \\\mathbf{G} \end{array}\right].\label{linear3}
\end{equation}
The algorithm for the DPGM is summarized as follows.
\begin{tabular*}{16cm}{l}
\hline
{\bf Algorithm 1} Deep Petrov-Galerkin Method \\ \hline
\quad Step 1. Initialize network architecture $u_{\rho} :\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with depth $D$ and parameters ${\phi_l}$ for $ l=1,\cdots,D$. \\
\quad Step 2. Fix the parameters ${\phi_l}$ for $ l=1,\cdots,D-1$ of $u_{\rho}$ and rewrite $u_{\rho}$ as \eqref{nnappu}.\\
\quad Step 3. Choose $v_i \in V_h$, $i = 1,\cdots,N_h$ and assemble the linear system $\mathbf{A} \boldsymbol{U}=\mathbf{L}$ w.r.t. \eqref{linear1}.\\
\quad Step 4. Take random samples $\{\boldsymbol{x}_k\}_{k=1}^{N_b}$ according to $\mathcal{U}(\Gamma_D)$ and obatin $\mathbf{B} \boldsymbol{U}=\mathbf{G}$ w.r.t. \eqref{linear2}.\\
\quad Step 5. Obatin $\boldsymbol{U}$ by solving the least-square problem w.r.t.
\eqref{linear3}.\\
\quad Step 6. Update the network parameters $\phi_D$ of $u_{\rho}$.\\ \hline
\end{tabular*}
\begin{remark}
Most of the DNN-based numerical methods train neural networks by solving an optimization problem even the original problem may be a linear PDE, so the training process cost a large amount of computation time, and the precision of the results is less satisfied because it is very hard to find good solver for such optimization problems. If we want to avoid such a situation and also use powerful neural networks to approximate the solutions of PDEs, then the idea of ELM can be adopted so that we only need to solve a linear system. Note that the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is not square and symmetric, so we cannot solve the discrete problem by usual linear system solvers. In addition, the essential boundary condition is not easy to be built into the structure of the neural networks, and the penalty method of enforcing the boundary condition may bring unexpected errors. By using the least-square method, we can get around these problems, and solve the linear system. The numerical experiments display that the hybrid of ELM and least-square approaches in Petrov-Galerkin formulation produces a highly efficient numerical method.
\end{remark}
\section{Mixed DPGM}
Similar to the mixed finite element method (\cite{raviart1977mixed}), we can construct a Mixed DPGM (M-DPGM) by approximating more than one unknown functions by one or more neural networks, simultaneously.
Take the Poisson equation with the mixed boundary conditions as an example
\begin{numcases}{}
-\nabla \cdot(\nabla u) = f \qquad\;\;\, \rm{in} \; \Omega \label{prb6} , \\
\qquad\qquad u =g_D \qquad \rm{on} \; \Gamma_D \label{bc3},\\
\quad\;\; \nabla u\cdot \boldsymbol{n}\, = g_N\quad\;\;\; \rm{on} \; \Gamma_N. \label{bc4}
\end{numcases}
Set $\boldsymbol{p} = \nabla u$, we have the following first-order system
\begin{numcases}{}
\boldsymbol{p} - \nabla u = 0 \qquad \rm{in} \, \Omega, \label{prb7}\\
\; -\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{p} = f \quad\;\;\ \rm{in} \; \Omega, \label{prb8} \\
\quad\;\;\;\;\;\; u =g_D \;\;\; \,\,\,\rm{on} \; \Gamma_D, \label{bc5}\\
\quad\boldsymbol{p}\cdot \boldsymbol{n}\,= g_N \;\;\;\;\; \rm{on} \; \Gamma_N. \label{bc6}
\end{numcases}
On both sides of the equations \eqref{prb7}--\eqref{prb8}, multiplying proper test functions, we can obtain the following mixed formulations by integration by parts and the boundary conditions \eqref{bc5}--\eqref{bc6}.
{\bf Mixed Formulation 1}:
Find $(\boldsymbol{p},u) \in (L^2(\Omega))^d\times H^1_{D,g_D}(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega}\boldsymbol{p}\cdot \boldsymbol{q}\ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} - \int_{\Omega} \nabla u\cdot \boldsymbol{q}\ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} &= 0 \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\qquad \forall \boldsymbol{q}\in (L^2(\Omega))^d, \\
\int_{\Omega} \boldsymbol{p}\cdot \nabla v \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} &= \int_{\Omega} f\,v \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} +\int_{\Gamma_N}g_N\, v \ \mathrm{d}s \quad \forall v \in H^1_{D,0}(\Omega).
\end{align*}
{\bf Mixed Formulation 2}:
Find $(\boldsymbol{p},u) \in \boldsymbol{H}_{N,g_N}(\mathrm{div},\Omega)\times L^2(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega}\boldsymbol{p}\cdot \boldsymbol{q} \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{\Omega}u \,\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{q} \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}&= \int_{\Gamma_D}g_D\,\boldsymbol{q}\cdot \boldsymbol{n}\ \mathrm{d}s \quad \forall \boldsymbol{q}\in \boldsymbol{H}_{N,0}(\mathrm{div},\Omega), \\
-\int_{\Omega} \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{p}\, v\ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} &= \int_{\Omega} f\,v \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} \qquad\quad\;\; \forall v \in L^2(\Omega).
\end{align*}
{\bf Mixed Formulation 3}: Find $(\boldsymbol{p},u) \in \boldsymbol{H}_{N,g_N}(\mathrm{div},\Omega)\times H^1_{D,g_D}(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega}\boldsymbol{p}\cdot \boldsymbol{q}\ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} - \int_{\Omega} \nabla u\cdot \boldsymbol{q} \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}&= 0 \qquad\qquad\;\; \forall \boldsymbol{q}\in (L^2(\Omega))^d, \\
-\int_{\Omega} \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{p} \,v \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}&= \int_{\Omega} f \,v \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}\quad \forall v \in L^2(\Omega).
\end{align*}
{\bf Mixed Formulation 4}: Find $(\boldsymbol{p},u) \in (L^2(\Omega))^d\times L^2(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega}\boldsymbol{p}\cdot \boldsymbol{q} \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}+ \int_{\Omega}u \,\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{q} \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}&= \int_{\Gamma_D}g_D\, \boldsymbol{q}\cdot \boldsymbol{n}\ \mathrm{d}s \qquad\qquad\;\;\; \forall \boldsymbol{q}\in \boldsymbol{H}_{N,0}(\mathrm{div},\Omega), \\
\int_{\Omega} \boldsymbol{p}\cdot \nabla v \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} &= \int_{\Omega} f\,v \ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{\Gamma_N}g_N\,v \ \mathrm{d}s \quad \forall v \in H^1_{D,0}(\Omega).
\end{align*}
Here,
\begin{align*}
H^1_{D,0}(\Omega) &= \{v\in H^1(\Omega);\; v|_{\Gamma_D} = 0\},\\
H^1_{D,g_D} (\Omega) &= \{v\in H^1(\Omega);\; v|_{\Gamma_D} = g_D\},\\
\boldsymbol{H}_{N,0}(\mathrm{div},\Omega) &= \{\boldsymbol{q}\in \boldsymbol{H}(\mathrm{div},\Omega);\; \langle\boldsymbol{q}\cdot \boldsymbol{n} ,v\rangle = 0\; \forall v \in H^1_{D,0}(\Omega)\},\\
\boldsymbol{H}_{N,g_N}(\mathrm{div},\Omega)& = \{\boldsymbol{q}\in \boldsymbol{H}(\mathrm{div},\Omega);\; \langle\boldsymbol{q}\cdot \boldsymbol{n} ,v\rangle = g_N\; \forall v \in H^1_{D,0}(\Omega)\},
\end{align*}
and $\langle\cdot ,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the duality between $H^{-1/2}(\Gamma)$ and $H^{1/2}(\Gamma)$.
Under proper regularity assumptions, the above mixed formations are equivalent to each other, and each one can be adopted to construct Mixed DPGM. Notice that the boundary conditions are naturally built-in Mixed Formulation 4, and there is no need to calculate the derivatives for $u$ and $\boldsymbol{p}$, which is an advantage for implementing the M-DPGM. Now, let us consider Mixed Formulation 4 to implement M-DPGM, and other mixed formulations can be applied similarly.
The Mixed Formulation 4 can be rewritten as: Find $(\boldsymbol{p},u) \in (L^2(\Omega))^d\times L^2(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}\big((\boldsymbol{p},u);(\boldsymbol{q},v)\big) = \mathcal{F}(\boldsymbol{q},v)\qquad \forall (\boldsymbol{q},v)\in \boldsymbol{H}_{N,0}(\mathrm{div},\Omega)\times H^1_{D,0}(\Omega).\label{prb9}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}\big((\boldsymbol{p},u);(\boldsymbol{q},v)\big) &= \int_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{p}\cdot \boldsymbol{q} + u\,\nabla\cdot \boldsymbol{q} + \boldsymbol{p}\cdot\nabla v)\ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}, \\
\mathcal{F}(\boldsymbol{q},v) &= \int_{\Omega} f\,v\ {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{\Gamma_N} g_N\,v\ \mathrm{d}s + \int_{\Gamma_D} g_D\,\boldsymbol{q}\cdot \boldsymbol{n}\ \mathrm{d}s.
\end{align*}
Similar to the DPGM introduced in Section \ref{prem}, we need to find two neural networks to approximate the variables $u$ and $\boldsymbol{p}$, separately. Therefore,
the M-DPGM is: Find neural networks $u_\rho \in U_\rho\subset \mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D})$ and $\boldsymbol{p}_\rho \in \boldsymbol{Q}_\rho\subset \mathcal{N}_{\rho}(\tilde{D},N_{\tilde{D}},B_{\tilde{D}},)$ such that
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}\big((\boldsymbol{p}_\rho,u_\rho);(\boldsymbol{q}_i,v_k)\big) = \mathcal{F}(\boldsymbol{q}_i,v_k)\qquad \forall (\boldsymbol{q}_i,v_k)\in \boldsymbol{Q}_h\times V_h,\label{prb10}
\end{align}
where $\boldsymbol{Q}_h$ and $V_h$ can be chosen as any proper finite-dimensional function spaces.
We construct $u_\rho \in U_\rho$ same as the one in \eqref{nnappu}, i.e.,
$$u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}} u_\rho^j \Phi^u_j(\boldsymbol{x}).$$
Let us construct $\boldsymbol{p}_\rho$ slightly different from $u_\rho$. Specifically, the number of neurons in the last layer for $\boldsymbol{p}_\rho$ is $n_{\tilde{D}} = d$. Here, let us consider 2-dimensional case, i.e., $n_{\tilde{D}} = 2$, then the output of the neural network for $\boldsymbol{p}_\rho$ is
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\Phi}^p:= \mathbf{\Phi}^p_{\tilde{D}}(\mathbf{\boldsymbol{x}}) =\mathbf{W}_{\tilde{D}}\mathbf{\Phi}^p_{{\tilde{D}}-1} =
\left[\begin{array}{c}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{{\tilde{D}}-1}}p_{1\rho}^{j} \Phi_{j}^{p}(\boldsymbol{x}) \\
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{{\tilde{D}}-1}}p_{2\rho}^{j} \Phi_{j}^{p}(\boldsymbol{x})\end{array}\right].
\end{equation*}
Here, we denote $w_{1j}^{D}$ and $w_{2j}^{D}$ by $p_{1\rho}^{j}$ and $p_{2\rho}^{j}$, respectively. Therefore, the problem \eqref{prb10} becomes: Find $u_\rho^j $ with $j = 1,\cdots,n_{D-1}$, and $p_{1\rho}^{j}$, $p_{2\rho}^{j}$ with $j = 1,\cdots,n_{{\tilde{D}}-1}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{prb11}
\mathcal{L}\left(\left(\left[\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{{\tilde{D}}-1}}p_{1\rho}^{j} \Phi_{j}^{p}(\boldsymbol{x}),
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{{\tilde{D}}-1}}p_{2\rho}^{j} \Phi_{j}^{p}(\boldsymbol{x})\right]^T,\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}} u_\rho^j \Phi^u_j(\boldsymbol{x})\right);(\boldsymbol{q}_i,v_k)\right) = \mathcal{F}(\boldsymbol{q}_i,v_k)\qquad \forall (\boldsymbol{q}_i,v_k)\in \boldsymbol{Q}_h\times V_h.
\end{align}
Denote $\boldsymbol{q}_i = [q_i^1,q_i^2]^T$, and we can take $(\boldsymbol{q}_i,v_k) \in \boldsymbol{Q}_h\times V_h$ in the forms of $([q^1_i,0],0),([0,q^2_i],0),([0,0],v_k)$, separately. Of course, other forms of the test functions can be used as well. Finally, we need to solve a least-square problem with the linear system generated by \eqref{prb11}.
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Note that different neural network gives a different group of bases, if one wants to approximate several unknown functions in the same function space, one neural network can be used to approximate all the unknown functions at the same time, but the number of neurons in the last layer needs to be changed accordingly.
\item For mixed finite element methods, the finite element pair $\boldsymbol{Q}_h\times V_h$ needs to be carefully chosen so that the discrete problem is well-posed. Because the resulted linear system is solved by the least-square method, M-DPGM does not need to worry about the inf-sup condition, so it is very flexible on the choice of $\boldsymbol{Q}_h\times V_h$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\section{DPGM for time-dependent problems}
\label{sec:time}
In this section, we extend the ideas of DPGM to solve time-dependent PDEs. Instead of doing temporal and spatial discretization separately, we apply DPGM to solve time-dependent problems under the space-time approach, so the initial conditions will be treated as boundary conditions of the space-time domain.
Let us consider the following time-dependent problem
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{A} u = f \quad \;\;\;{\rm in}\; \Omega\times I, \label{pde3}\\
&\mathcal{B} u = g \qquad {\rm on}\; \Gamma\times I, \label{pde4} \\
&\mathcal{C} u = h \quad\;\; \;\;{\rm in}\; \Omega\times \{0\}, \label{pde5}
\end{align}
where $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is a bounded domain with $\Gamma = \Gamma_D \cup \Gamma_N $ and ${\Gamma}_D \cap {\Gamma}_N = \emptyset$, and $I=(0,T)$ is the time interval of interest. For example, when the differential operator $\mathcal{A}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A} :=\frac{\partial}{\partial t} -\nabla\cdot(\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla),
\end{equation}
\eqref{pde3} is a heat equation. Here, $\alpha_1\geq\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\geq \alpha_0>0$ with some constants $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$. The boundary condition \eqref{pde4} can be Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin types, and the initial condition \eqref{pde5} is given by
\begin{align}
u(\boldsymbol{x},0) = h_0(\boldsymbol{x}) \qquad {\rm in} \; \Omega.
\end{align}
Unlike the traditional approach, for example, finite difference method, discretizing the time interval as $0=t_0<t_1<\cdots<t_N=T$ and sequentially solving $u(\boldsymbol{x}; t_n)$ for $n=1, \cdots, N$, we adopt space-time approach, i.e., temporal and spatial variables are treated jointly and equally.
\subsection{DPGM for a heat equation}
First, we consider to solve a heat equation as follows
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} -\nabla\cdot(\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla u ) &= f \quad\quad\;\;\;\;\;\; {\rm in}\; \Omega\times I, \\
u(\boldsymbol{x},t) &= g_D(\boldsymbol{x},t) \; \;\; {\rm on}\; \Gamma_D\times I,\\
\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla u(\boldsymbol{x},t)\cdot \boldsymbol{n} &= g_N(\boldsymbol{x},t) \;\;\; {\rm on}\;\Gamma_N\times I,\\
u(\boldsymbol{x},0) &= h_0(\boldsymbol{x}) \;\;\;\; \; \;\;{\rm in}\; \Omega.
\end{align}
The weak formulation of the problem is to find $u\in L^2(I; H^1_{D,g_D}(\Omega))$ with $\partial_t u \in L^2(I;L^2(\Omega))$ such that
\begin{align}\label{heat_weak}
a_t(u,v) &= l_t(v) \qquad \forall v \in L^2(I;H^1_{D,0}(\Omega)),\\
u(\boldsymbol{x},0) &= h_0(\boldsymbol{x}) \;\;\;\; \; \;{\rm in}\; \Omega,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
a_t(u,v)&=\int_{0}^{T}\int_\Omega \left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}v + \alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla u\cdot \nabla v \right)\, {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}\, {\rm d} t,\\
l_t(v) &=\int_{0}^{T}\int_\Omega f\, v\,{\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}\,{\rm d} t + \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\Gamma_N} g_N\, v\,\mathrm{d}s\,{\rm d} t.
\end{align*}
Here, $L^2(I;H^1_{D,g_D}(\Omega))$ is a Banach space of all measurable functions $v: I\rightarrow H^1_{D,g_D}$ such that
$$
\left[\int_0^T \|v(t)\|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2\; dt\right]^{1/2} < \infty.
$$
The DPGM for solving the problem \eqref{heat_weak} is to find a neural network $u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x},t) \in U_\rho\subset \mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D}) \subset L^2(I;H^1(\Omega))$ such that
\begin{align}
a_t(u_\rho,v) &= l_t(v) \qquad \quad\; \forall v \in V_h \subset L^2(I;H^1_{D,0}(\Omega)),\label{DGPM_heat_1}\\
u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k) &= g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k) \;\;\, {\rm for\ some\ points}\ (\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k)\in \Gamma_D \times I,\; k=1,2,\cdots, N_b,\,\label{DGPM_heat_2}\\
u_{\rho}(\boldsymbol{x}_m,0) &= h_0(\boldsymbol{x}_m) \quad \;\;\,\,{\rm for\ some\ points}\ \boldsymbol{x}_m\in \Omega.\; m=1,2,\cdots,N_c,\, \label{DGPM_heat_3}
\end{align}
Let us construct $u_\rho \in U_\rho$ same as the one in \eqref{nnappu} except for the input dimension $n_0 = d+1$ , i.e.,
$$u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x},t) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}} u_\rho^j \Phi^u_j(\boldsymbol{x},t).$$
Similarly, the equation \eqref{DGPM_heat_1} becomes: Find $u_\rho^j $, $j = 1,\cdots,n_{D-1}$, such that
\begin{equation*}
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}}u_\rho^j a_t(\Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x},t),v_i) = l_t(v_i)\qquad \forall v_i\in V_h,
\end{equation*}
which gives
$$\mathbf{A} \boldsymbol{U}=\mathbf{L},$$
where $\mathbf{A}_{i,j} = a_t(\Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x},t),v_i)$, $\boldsymbol{U}= (u_\rho^1,\cdots,u_\rho^{n_{D-1}})^{T}$, and $\mathbf{L}=(l_1,\cdots,l_{N_h})^{T}$ with $l_i =l_t(v_i)$ ($i=1,\cdots,N_h$). Note that $\{\Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x},t)\}_{j=1}^{n_{D-1}}$ can be regarded as a group of bases in space-time domain.
To deal with the boundary condition \eqref{DGPM_heat_2} and the initial condition \eqref{DGPM_heat_3}, we still need to take some random samples $\{(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k)\}_{k=1}^{N_b}$ and $\{\boldsymbol{x}_m\}_{m=1}^{N_c}$ according to the uniform distribution $\mathcal{U}(\Gamma_D \times I)$ and $\mathcal{U}(\Omega)$, separately. Then set $u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k) =g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k)$ for all $ (\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k) \in \Gamma_D \times I$ and $u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x}_m,0) =h_0(\boldsymbol{x}_m)$ for all $ \boldsymbol{x}_m \in \Omega$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}}u_\rho^j \Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k)&= g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k) \qquad \text{for} \ k = 1,\cdots,N_b,\\
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{ n_{D-1}}u_\rho^j \Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}_m,0)&= h_0(\boldsymbol{x}_m) \qquad \;\;\;\;\text{for} \ m = 1,\cdots,N_c.
\end{align*}
Thus, the above equations imply $\mathbf{B} \boldsymbol{U}=\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{C} \boldsymbol{U}=\mathbf{H}$, where $\mathbf{B}_{k,j} = \Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k)$, $\mathbf{C}_{m,j} = \Phi_j^u(\boldsymbol{x}_m,0)$, $\mathbf{G}=(g_1,\cdots,g_{N_b})^{T}$ with $g_k =g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k)$ and $\mathbf{H}=(h_1,\cdots,h_{N_c})^{T}$ with $h_m =h_0(\boldsymbol{x}_m)$.
Finally we can obtain the solution $u_\rho$ by solving a least-square problem with the linear system
\begin{equation}
\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{A} \\\mathbf{B}\\\mathbf{C} \end{array}\right] \boldsymbol{U}
=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{L} \\\mathbf{G} \\\mathbf{H}\end{array}\right]. \label{equ}
\end{equation}
\subsection{DPGM for a wave equation}
In this subsection, we consider the following wave equation
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} -\nabla\cdot(\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla u ) &= f \quad\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\,\;\;\; {\rm in}\; \Omega\times I, \\
u(\boldsymbol{x},t) &= g_D(\boldsymbol{x},t)\quad\, {\rm on}\;\Gamma_D\times I, \\
\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla u(\boldsymbol{x},t)\cdot \boldsymbol{n} &= g_N(\boldsymbol{x},t) \;\;\;\; {\rm on}\;\Gamma_N\times I,\\
u(\boldsymbol{x},0) &= h_0(\boldsymbol{x})\qquad \,{\rm in}\; \Omega, \\
\frac{\partial u(\boldsymbol{x},0)}{\partial t} &= w_0(\boldsymbol{x})\quad\;\;\;\;{\rm in}\; \Omega. \label{ini_vel}
\end{align}
The weak form of the wave equation is: Find $u\in L^2(I; H^1_{D,g_D}(\Omega))$ with $\partial_t u \in L^2(I;L^2(\Omega))$ such that
\begin{align}
a_w(u,v) &= l_w(v) \qquad \forall v \in L^2(I;H^1_{D,0}(\Omega)),\label{weak_wave}\\
u(\boldsymbol{x},0) &= h_0(\boldsymbol{x})\qquad {\rm in}\; \Omega,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
a_w(u,v)&=\int_{0}^{T}\int_\Omega \left(-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} + \alpha(\boldsymbol{x})\nabla u\cdot \nabla v \right)
\, {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}\, {\rm d}t + \int_\Omega \frac{\partial u(\boldsymbol{x},T)}{\partial t} v(\boldsymbol{x},T) \, {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x},\\
l_w(v) &=\int_{0}^{T}\int_\Omega f\, v\,{\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}\,{\rm d} t+ \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\Gamma_N} g_N\, v\,\mathrm{d}s\,{\rm d}t + \int_\Omega w_0v(\boldsymbol{x},0) \, {\rm d}\boldsymbol{x}.
\end{align*}
Note that the initial condition \eqref{ini_vel} becomes a natural boundary condition of the domain $\Omega\times I$, and it is built into the weak formulation \eqref{weak_wave}.
The DPGM for solving the wave equation is to find a neural network $u_\rho \in U_\rho\subset \mathcal{N}_{\rho}(D,M_D,B_{D})\subset L^2(I;H^1(\Omega))$ such that
\begin{align*}
a_w(u_\rho,v) &= l_w(v) \qquad \;\;\;\forall v \in V_h \subset L^2\left(I;H^1_{D,0}(\Omega)\right),\\
u_\rho(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k) &= g_D(\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k) \;\;\, {\rm for\ some\ points}\ (\boldsymbol{x}_k,t_k)\in \Gamma_D \times I,\; k=1,2,\cdots, N_b,\,\\
u_{\rho}(\boldsymbol{x}_m,0) &= h_0(\boldsymbol{x}_m) \quad \;\;\,\,{\rm for\ some\ points}\ \boldsymbol{x}_m\in \Omega.\; m=1,2,\cdots,N_c,\,
\end{align*}
By constructing $u_{\rho}(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ and making restrictions on the boundary and initial conditions in a similar way for the heat equation, we obtain a similar linear system as \eqref{equ}, then solve the least-square problem to get solution $u_\rho$.
\begin{remark}
Usually, one prefers dividing a big problem into some small problems and solving them one by one so that memory cost is low and total computation time is saved. For example, finite difference discretization for the temporal variable is the most popular choice for the time-dependent problem because it follows this divide and conquers strategy. However, one drawback is the accumulation of errors during this step-by-step process. If we can solve the problem at just one time, this issue can be avoided, but large computation ability is needed to support this approach, for example, the space-time FEM is used to solve the time-dependent problem with the help of domain decomposition. In light of the strong approximation ability of neural networks, DPGM can solve time-dependent problems by the space-time approach efficiently and accurately.
\end{remark}
\section{Numerical examples}
In this section, we present three examples, a Poisson equation, a heat equation, and a wave equation for demonstrating the performance of the DPGM. In these examples, we consider $d=2$ and choose basis functions of finite element method as the test functions, specifically, the domain $\Omega$ and $\Omega\times I$ are decomposed into the square and cubic elements, respectively, and corresponding bilinear functions and trilinear functions are adopted as test functions.
Other types of test functions can be considered as well in the future.
For the calculation of $\nabla u_\rho$, one can adopt the automatic differentiation, which allows the calculation of derivatives for a broad range of functions. However, in order to obtain the fast computation of derivatives, we employ the difference method, for example, the central difference for a first-order derivative is
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial{u_\rho(x,y)}}{\partial x} = \frac{u_\rho(x+h_x,y)-u_\rho(x-h_x,y)}{2h_x}.
\end{equation*}
In numerical experiments, we find that it saves lots of computation time with less loss of accuracy by choosing $h_x =h_y =10^{-6}$.
Initializing the network with the right weights is crucial for us, once the wight parameters are initialized, they will be fixed in DPGM except for the last layer. We must make sure that these weights are in a reasonable range before the solving process. In practical experiments, one may choose proper initialization from $torch.nn.init$ in Pytorch. In the following examples, we use the uniform distribution for the fully connected network, and Xavier uniform distribution is chosen for ResNet based on its property of remaining variance the same during each passing layer (\cite{glorot2010xavier}). The activation function $\rho = tanh$ is used in the fully connected network and ResNet as it leads to a smooth $u_{\rho}$ for approximating the solution of PDEs.
\begin{example}\label{exam1}In this example, we solve a 2-dimensional Poisson equation with a smooth solution $u = cos(\pi x)sin(\pi y)$ under the mixed boundary conditions
\begin{numcases}{}
-\Delta u(x,y) = 2\pi^2cos(\pi x)sin(\pi y) \quad {\rm in} \; \Omega, \notag \\
u(x,y) =cos(\pi x)sin(\pi y) \qquad\qquad {\rm on} \;\Gamma_D, \notag\\
\nabla u(x,y)\cdot \boldsymbol{n} = 0 \qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\;\;\;{\rm on} \;\Gamma_N,\notag
\end{numcases}
where $\Omega = [0,1]^2$, $\Gamma_D = (0,1) \times \{0,1\}$, $\Gamma_N = \{0,1\}\times (0,1) $.
\end{example}
For DPGM, we use a two-layer fully connected neural network with uniform distribution $\mathcal{U}(-1, 1)$ as initialization, $D = 2$, $n_0 = 2$, $n_2 = 1$, and we choose $n_{1} = 50,100,200$, separately. We know that the degrees of freedom (dof) for the DPGM is the number of neurons in the first layer, that is, $n_{1}$. Test functions are chosen as bases of bilinear finite element on a family of square meshes with mesh size $h=2^{-n}\; (n=2,3,4,5)$, thus the result will be related to $h$. We calculate the numerical integration by Gauss-Legendre quadrature with 25 points inside of each square, and randomly sample 100 points on each edge of $\Gamma_D$. For solving the resulted linear system, we adopt the least-square solver $scipy.linalg.lstsq$ in Python.
To demonstrate the accuracy of the DPGM, we give the numerical solution $u_\rho$, the exact solution $u$, and their difference $|u-u_\rho|$ in \rm{Figure} \ref{figure1}. The Figure \ref{figure1} (a) shows the numerical solution $u_{\rho}$ solved by the DPGM with $h = 2^{-5}$ and dof $= 200$, and its relative $L^2$ error and $H^1$ error are $9.651\times10^{-10}$ and $5.167\times10^{-9}$, respectively. The exact solution $u$ is given in Figure \ref{figure1} (b), and the absolute value of their difference $|u-u_\rho|$ is displayed in Figure \ref{figure1} (c), which shows that the maximum error is around $10^{-8}$. We see that the DPGM gives highly accurate numerical solution.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Numerical solution $u_\rho$]{
\label{bar_domain}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{result.png}
}
\subfigure[Exact solution $u$]{
\label{vuggy_domain}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{true.png}
}
\subfigure[$|u-u_\rho|$]{
\label{vuggy_domain}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{absolute.png}
}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-15pt}
\caption{Numerical solution $u_{\rho}$ by DPGM with $h=2^{-5}$ and dof $=200$ in Example \ref{exam1}.}
\label{figure1}
\end{figure}
In addition, in Table \ref{table1a}, we report the relative $L^2$ and $H^1$ errors denoted by $e_{L^2}$ and $e_{H^1}$, respectively, with $h=2^{-n}\; (n=2,3,4,5)$ and dof $=50,100,200$. With fixed $h$, i.e., given the same data of test functions to the neural network, DPGM offers more accurate numerical solutions with a larger number of dof = $n_{1}$. If we fix the number of dof, and change the mesh size $h$ for the test functions, we observe that the errors decrease as $h$ becomes smaller, that is, more test functions are fed into the system, the neural networks supply more accurate numerical solutions.
Of course, we want to know the performance of this new DPGM compared with the finite element method, so we compute some numerical solutions by FEM through Fenics (\cite{langtangena2017fenics}). On a family of uniform triangulation with mesh size $h=2^{-n}\; (n=2,3,4,5)$, we use the standard triangle Lagrange elements $P_k$ ($k=1,2,3$) for solving the problem. Here, $k$ denotes the degree of the polynomials, and the degrees of freedom for $P_k$ FEM in this example is dof$ = (k/h)^2-1$). The numerical errors are listed in Table \ref{table1b}. In view of \rm{Table} \ref{table1a} and \rm{Table} \ref{table1b}, comparing the dof and accuracy, we observe that the DPGM outperforms over FEM, that is, DPGM can obtain more accurate numerical solution with much less degrees of freedom.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\diagbox [width=5em] {$h$}{dof}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{50}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{100}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{200}\cr\cline{1-7}
&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ &$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ \cr\hline
$2^{-2}$&6.895e-3 &2.080e-2&4.745e-3 &1.507e-2&2.931e-3 &9.062e-3 \cr\hline
$2^{-3}$&4.604e-5 &3.161e-4&1.116e-5 &7.537e-5&4.081e-6 &2.732e-5\cr\hline
$2^{-4}$&2.892e-5 &1.139e-4&2.684e-8 &1.219e-7&2.890e-9 &1.383e-8 \cr\hline
$2^{-5}$&2.730e-5&9.634e-5&1.219e-8 &5.417e-8&9.651e-10 &5.167e-9\cr\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relative $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ errors of the DPGM with different $h$ and dof in Example \ref{exam1}.}
\label{table1a}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\diagbox [width=6em] {$h$}{Scheme}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{$P_1$ Linear FEM}&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{$P_2$ quadratic FEM}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{$P_3$ cubic FEM}\cr\cline{1-10}
&dof&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ &dof&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$&dof&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ \cr\hline
$2^{-2}$&15& 1.829e-1 &3.990e-1&63 &8.878e-3 &5.615e-2&143&6.626e-4 &5.724e-3 \cr\hline
$2^{-3}$&63&4.399e-2 &1.934e-1&255&1.102e-3 & 1.456e-2&575&3.958e-5 & 7.202e-4 \cr\hline
$2^{-4}$&255&1.091e-2 &9.601e-2 &1023&1.375e-4 &3.683e-3&2303&2.417e-6 & 9.004e-5 \cr\hline
$2^{-5}$&1023&2.721e-3 &4.792e-2&4095& 1.718e-5& 9.246e-4&9215&1.495e-7&1.125e-5 \cr\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relative $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ errors of the $P_k$ FEM with different $h$ in Example \ref{exam1}.}
\label{table1b}
\end{table}
Furthermore, we study the relationship between data and networks in the DPGM. Specifically, data is determined by the test functions, changing the mesh size or choosing different numbers of the test functions will generate different data, while the network can be formed by different depth and width, which means the number of neurons in each year.
Now, let us fix the mesh size as $h=2^{-5}$, and report the relative errors $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ for different number of unfixed neurons (dof) and the numbers of the test functions (nv) in \rm{Table} \ref{table1c}. We see that the more data information is supplied, the more accurate solution the DPGM will offer. Then we adopt the ResNet with Xavier uniform distribution $\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}(-1,1)$ as initialization and change the number of layers $D$ from 2 to 5, report the relative errors $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ for different neurons (dof) in each layer in \rm{Table} \ref{table1d}, and we find that the deeper neural network would give us a better numerical solution.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\diagbox [width=5em] {$nv$}{dof}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{50}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{100}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{200}\cr\cline{1-7}
&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ &$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ \cr\hline
200&1.274e-4 &1.861e-4&3.043e-7 &8.408e-7&1.364e-7 &1.570e-7 \cr\hline
400&1.244e-4 &2.093e-4&1.449e-7 &3.028e-7&1.435e-8 &2.177e-8\cr\hline
600&1.005e-4 &2.881e-4&8.909e-8 &1.573e-7&3.745e-9 &1.387e-8 \cr\hline
800&7.368e-5 &2.020e-4&4.091e-8 &1.751e-7&3.968e-9 &1.065e-8\cr\hline
1023&3.914e-5 &1.437e-4&2.597e-8 &1.039e-7&9.651e-10 &5.167e-9\cr\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relative $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ errors of the DPGM with respect to dof and the number of test functions (nv) for a fixed mesh size $h=2^{-5}$ in Example \ref{exam1}.}
\label{table1c}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\diagbox [width=5em] {$D$}{dof}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{50}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{100}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{200}\cr\cline{1-7}
&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ &$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ \cr\hline
2&1.178e-5 &4.100e-5 &5.827e-6 &1.405e-5 &9.318e-5 &2.054e-4
\cr\hline
3&1.093e-5 &3.165e-5 &1.661e-6 &4.765e-6&1.342e-6&3.937e-6
\cr\hline
4&1.302e-5 &4.786e-5 &1.857e-7 &7.485e-7 &
1.240e-7 &4.744e-7\cr\hline
5&6.548e-5 &2.674e-4 &4.485e-8 &2.093e-7
&4.629e-8 &2.108e-7\cr\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relative $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ errors of the DPGM with respect to dof and the depth $D$ for a fixed mesh size $h=2^{-5}$ in Example \ref{exam1}.}
\label{table1d}
\end{table}
Finally, under the same condition, we consider the mixed DPGM with different formulations, which show nice performance in \rm{Table} \ref{table1k}. We can see that all four schemes get better results with higher degrees of freedom. The relative $L^2$ error of M-DPGM-4 can even reduce to $1.395\times10^{-10}$, which shows its high accuracy, and note that M-DPGM-4 do not need the calculation of the derivatives for $u$ and $\boldsymbol{p}$, and boundary conditions are naturally built in the formulation, so no boundary restriction is needed.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\diagbox [width=6em] {$h$}{Scheme}& &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{M-DPGM-1}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{M-DPGM-2}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{M-DPGM-3}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{M-DPGM-4}\cr\cline{1-10}
&dof&$e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ &$e_{L^2}$& $e_{H^1}$ & $e_{L^2}$&$e_{H^1}$& $e_{L^2}$ & $e_{H^1}$ \cr\hline
$2^{-2}$&75& 4.408e-2 &1.315e-1&7.098e-1 &1.677e-1&3.785e-3 &1.754e-2&7.333e-2 &7.569e-2 \cr\hline
$2^{-3}$&150& 4.857e-5&2.063e-4&8.316e-5 &2.287e-4&3.103e-5 &9.329e-5&5.396e-5 &1.268e-4 \cr\hline
$2^{-4}$&300& 9.944e-8 &2.984e-7&5.140e-8&4.180e-7&4.989e-8 &3.502e-7 &1.995e-8 &1.004e-7 \cr\hline
$2^{-5}$&600& 3.503e-9 &7.141e-8&2.783e-9 &3.795e-8&4.086e-9 &4.536e-8&1.395e-10 &1.678e-9 \cr\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relative $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ errors of different formulation of Mixed DPGM with different $h$ and dof in Example \ref{exam1}.}
\label{table1k}
\end{table}
\begin{example}\label{exam2} Given $\Omega = (0,1)^2$ with $\Gamma_D = \partial \Omega:= \Gamma_1\cup \Gamma_2\cup \Gamma_3\cup \Gamma_4$, we consider the the following heat equation
\begin{numcases}{}
u_t(x,y,t)-\Delta u(x,y,t) = f(x,y,t) \quad {\rm in}\; \Omega\times I, \notag \\
u(x,y,t) = g(x,y,t) \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad{\rm on}\;\Gamma_D\times I,\notag\\
u(x,y,0) = h_0(x,y)\qquad\qquad \qquad\quad\,{\rm in}\; \Omega, \notag
\end{numcases}
with $I = (0,1)$.
The exact solution $u(x,y,t) = 2e^{-t}sin(\frac{\pi}{2}x)sin(\frac{\pi}{2}y)$ and the right-hand term $f(x,y,t)$ is given accordingly.
\end{example}
As we mentioned in Section \ref{sec:time}, we do not discretize the temporal variable by finite difference method, instead, DPGM solves the above equation directly in the space-time domain, that is, we treat this 2-dimensional heat equation as a 3-dimensional problem with 2-dimensional spatial variables and 1-dimensional temporal variable. In the test, we use a two-layer fully connected neural network with uniform distribution $\mathcal{U}(-1, 1)$ as initialization, $D = 2$, $n_0 = 3$, $n_2 = 1$, and we choose $n_{1} = 200,400,800$, separately. The test functions are chosen by trilinear functions on cubic meshes and numerical integration is calculated by Gauss-Legendre quadrature with 1000 points inside of each cubic. Note that this space-time domain has 6 faces, to enforce the Dirichlet and initial condition, we randomly sample 100 points on each face, i.e., $\Gamma_1\times I$, $\Gamma_2\times I$, $\Gamma_3\times I$, $\Gamma_4\times I$, and $\Omega\times\{0\}$. The $L^2$ errors and $H^1$ errors at the ending time $T=1$ are reported in Table \ref{table2a}. We observe that the DPGM works very well for solving heat equation, and still reach high accuracy.
To compare the performance of DPGM with traditional numerical methods, we consider a numerical scheme that is constructed with the $P_2$ finite element discretization for the spatial variable and the back Euler finite difference approximation for the temporal variable.
We choose the time-steps $\Delta t = 10^{-3}, 2\times 10^{-4}, 5\times 10^{-5}$ and the mesh-size $h = 2^{-5}, 2^{-6}, 2^{-7}$, then report the $L^2$ errors and $H^1$ errors at the ending time $T=1$. Compared to FEM, DPGM can obtain more accurate numerical solutions, furthermore, the time cost of DPGM is much less than the traditional approaches.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\diagbox [width=6em] {$h$}{dof}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{200}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{400}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{800}\cr\cline{1-7}
&$L^2$ error & $H^1$ error &$L^2$ error & $H^1$ error &$L^2$ error & $H^1$ error \cr\hline
$2^{-2}$&9.577e-5&1.368e-3&5.184e-5 &7.290e-4&3.448e-5&4.952e-4 \cr\hline
$2^{-3}$&2.605e-5&2.871e-4&1.274e-7 &1.967e-6&6.490e-9 &1.673e-7\cr\hline
$2^{-4}$&2.845e-5 &2.600e-4&1.743e-7&2.004e-6&8.347e-10 &1.544e-8 \cr\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ errors of the DPGM with different $h$ and dof in Example \ref{exam2}.}
\label{table2a}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\diagbox [width=6em] {$h$}{$\Delta t$}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$10^{-3}$}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2\times 10^{-4}$}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$5\times 10^{-5}$}\cr\cline{1-7}
&$L^2$ error & $H^1$ error &$L^2$ error & $H^1$ error & $L^2$ error & $H^1$ error \cr\hline
$2^{-5}$&7.268e-6 &3.481e-5&1.450e-6 &7.209e-6&3.597e-7&2.657e-6 \cr\hline
$2^{-6}$&7.272e-6 &3.480e-5&1.454e-6 & 6.960e-6&3.632e-7 &1.756e-6 \cr\hline
$2^{-7}$&7.272e-6 &3.480e-5&1.454e-6 & 6.958e-6& 3.635e-7& 1.739e-6 \cr\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ errors of the $P_2$ FEM for spatial discretization with different $h$ and back Euler scheme for temporal discretization with different time-step $\Delta t$ in Example \ref{exam2}}
\label{table2b}
\end{table}
\begin{example}\label{exam3} Consider the following wave equation
\begin{numcases}{}
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}(x,y,t)-\Delta u(x,y,t) = f(x,y,t) \;\;\; {\rm in}\; \Omega\times (0,1), \notag \\
u(x,y,t) = g(x,y,t) \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad\;\;\,{\rm on}\;\Gamma_D\times (0,1),\notag\\
u(x,y,0) = h_0(x,y)\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad{\rm in}\; \Omega, \notag\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(x,y,0) = w_0(x,y)\qquad\qquad \qquad\;\;\;\;{\rm in}\; \Omega, \notag
\end{numcases}
with the exact solution $u(x,y,t) = sin(\frac{\pi}{2}x)sin(\frac{\pi}{2}y)sin(\frac{\pi}{2}t)$ over $\Omega = (0,1)^2 \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and $\Gamma_D = \partial \Omega$. The right-hand term $f(x,y,t)$ is given accordingly.
\end{example}
In this example, we apply the DPGM based on the space-time approach to solve the wave equation. we use a two-layer fully connected neural network with uniform distribution $\mathcal{U}(-1, 1)$ as initialization, $D = 2$, $n_0 = 3$, $n_2 = 1$, and we choose $n_{1} = 200,400,800$, separately. Same as the case of the heat equation in Example \ref{exam2}, the test functions are chosen as trilinear functions on cubic meshes. Same as Example 5.2, we randomly sample 100 points on each faces enforcing the Dirichlet boundary and the initial conditions. The $L^2$ and $H^1$ errors at the ending time $T=1$ are shown in Table \ref{table3a}, and we can see that the DPGM still obtain very accurate numerical solutions.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\diagbox [width=6em] {$h$}{$dof$}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{200}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{400}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{800}\cr\cline{1-7}
&$L^2$ error & $H^1$ error &$L^2$ error & $H^1$ error &$L^2$ error & $H^1$ error \cr\hline
$2^{-2}$&5.818e-5 &8.190e-4&5.461e-5 &7.700e-4&4.672e-5 &6.525e-4 \cr\hline
$2^{-3}$&1.015e-5 &1.085e-4&6.175e-8 &1.760e-6&4.796e-9 &1.446e-7\cr\hline
$2^{-4}$&1.839e-5& 2.412e-4&5.632e-8 &1.018e-6&7.290e-10 &2.495e-8\cr\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ errors of the DPGM with different $h$ and dof in Example \ref{exam3}.}
\label{table3a}
\end{table}
\section{Summary}
This new framework, the deep Petrov-Galerkin method, uses neural networks to approximate solutions of partial differential equations, then solve the resulting linear system by the least-square method. The DPGM is based on variational formulation, the trial function space is approximated by neural networks and test function space can be flexibly given by other numerical methods or neural networks. The resulted linear system is not symmetric and square, so the discretized problem has to be solved by the least-square method. Compared with other numerical methods, for example, finite element method, finite difference method, DPGM has the following advantages: (i) it supplies much more accurate numerical solution with respect to degrees of freedom due to the powerful approximation property of neural networks; (ii) this method is mesh-free and the choice of test functions is flexible; (iii) boundary conditions can be treated easily in this framework; (iv) mixed DPGM can be easily constructed to approximate several unknown functions simultaneously, and it has good flexibility to handle different boundary conditions; (v) DPGM can solve the time-dependent problems by space-time approach naturally and efficiently.
We believe that this new numerical framework has a strong potential for solving various partial differential equations, however, this newborn baby is immature, and needs to be taken care of carefully in many aspects. What is the performance if other neural networks and test functions are used? The resulted linear system may have a large condition number, how do we design neural networks and choose proper test functions to avoid this situation? We know that there are many finite-dimensional function spaces used in the spectral method, like Fourier basis functions for periodic problems, Chebyshev or Legendre polynomials for problems defined in bounded domains, Lagrange polynomials for problems in semi-bounded domains, Hermite polynomials for problems in an unbounded domain, could we use these basis functions in the DPGM? The numerical analysis of this method is quite open and needs to be explored further. How to design adaptive DPGM to improve its efficiency? What is the performance of this method for solving other more complex problems? Can we implement this method in parallel for solving large-scale problems? Many works related to this method are waiting for us to explore.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Following the great success of Transformers~\cite{vaswani2017attention} in natural language processing tasks, researchers have recently proposed vision Transformers~\cite{dosovitskiy2021image,touvron2020training,liu2021swin,chu2021twins,chen2021mvt,yu2022degenerate}, which have achieved outstanding performance in many computer vision tasks, including image recognition, detection, and segmentation. As early versions of vision transformers, ViT~\cite{dosovitskiy2021image} and DeiT~\cite{touvron2020training} uniformly divide an image into $16\times 16$ patches (tokens) and apply a stack of standard Transformer layers to a sequence of tokens formed using these patches. The original self-attention mechanism is global, i.e., the receptive field of a patch in ViT and DeiT covers all patches of the image, which is vital for modeling long-range interactions among patches. On the other hand, the global nature of self-attention imposes a great challenge in efficiency. Specifically, the computational complexity of self-attention is quadratic in terms of the number of patches.
As the number of patches is inversely proportional to the patch size when the size of the input image is fixed, the computational cost forces ViT and DeiT to adopt medium-size patches, which might not be as effective as smaller patches generating higher-resolution feature maps, especially for dense prediction tasks such as segmentation.
To maintain higher resolution feature maps while achieving high efficiency, some methods~\cite{liu2021swin,chu2021twins} exploit image-space local attention. They divide an image into multiple local windows, each of which includes a number of patches. Self-attention operations are only performed on patches within the same local window. This is a reasonable design since a patch is likely to be affiliated with other patches in the same local window but not highly relevant to patches in other windows. Thus, pruning attention between patches from different windows might not significantly deteriorate the performance. Meanwhile, the computational cost of window-based self-attention is much lower than that of the original self-attention over the entire image. Swin Transformer~\cite{liu2021swin} and Twins~\cite{chu2021twins} are such examples. Swin Transformer~\cite{liu2021swin} performs self-attention within local windows. To facilitate communication between patches from different windows, Swin Transformer has two complementary window partitioning schemes, and a window in one scheme overlaps with multiple windows in the second scheme. Twins~\cite{chu2021twins} performs self-attention within local windows and builds connections among different windows by performing (global) self-attention over feature vectors sparsely sampled from the entire image using a regular subsampling pattern.
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.53\textwidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/Fig1.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\caption{The image-space local attention versus the feature-space local attention.}
\label{fig:intro}\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{wrapfigure}
In this work, we rethink local attention and explore locality from a broader perspective. Specifically, we investigate feature-space local attention apart from its image-space counterpart.
Instead of computing local self-attention in the image space, feature-space local attention exploits locality in the feature space.
It is based on the fact that patch feature vectors close to each other in the feature space tend to have more influence on each other in the computed self-attention results. This is because the actual contribution of a feature vector to the self-attention result at another feature vector is controlled by the similarity between these two feature vectors. Feature-space local attention computes the self-attention result at a feature vector using its feature-space nearest neighbors only while setting the contribution from feature vectors farther away to zero. This essentially defines a piecewise similarity function, which clamps the similarity between feature vectors far apart to zero. In comparison to the aforementioned image-space local attention, feature-space local attention has been rarely exploited in vision transformers. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:intro}, feature-space local attention computes attention among relevant patches which might not be close to each other in the image plane. Thus, it is a natural compensation to image-space local attention, which might miss meaningful connections between patches residing in different local windows.
In this paper, we propose a novel vision Transformer architecture, Bilateral lOcal Attention vision Transformer (BOAT), to exploit the complementarity between feature-space and image-space local attention. The essential component in our network architecture is the bilateral local attention block, consisting of a feature-space local attention module and an image-space local attention module. The image-space local attention module divides an image into multiple local windows as Swin~\cite{liu2021swin} and CSWin~\cite{dong2022cswin}, and self-attention is computed within each local window. In contrast, feature-space local attention groups all the patches into multiple clusters and self-attention is computed within each cluster. Feature-space local attention could be implemented in a straightforward way using K-means clustering. Nevertheless, K-means clustering cannot ensure the generated clusters are evenly sized, thus impedes efficient parallel implementation. In addition, sharing self-attention parameters among unevenly sized clusters may also negatively impact the effectiveness of self-attention. To overcome this obstacle, we propose hierarchical balanced clustering, which groups patches into clusters of equal size.
We conduct experiments on multiple computer vision tasks, including image classification, semantic segmentation, and object detection. Experiments on several public benchmarks demonstrate that our BOAT clearly and consistently improves existing image-space local attention vision Transformers, including Swin~\cite{liu2021swin} and CSWin~\cite{dong2022cswin}, on these tasks.
\vspace{-0.15in}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Vision Transformers}
\vspace{-0.1in}
In the past decade, CNN has achieved tremendous successes in numerous computer vision tasks~\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet,he2016deep}.
The natural language processing (NLP) backbone, Transformer, has recently attracted the attention of researchers in the computer vision community. After dividing an image into non-overlapping patches (tokens), Vision Transformer (ViT)~\cite{dosovitskiy2021image} applies Transformer for communications among the tokens. Without delicately devised convolution kernels, ViT achieved excellent performance in image recognition in comparison to CNNs using a huge training corpus.
DeiT~\cite{touvron2020training} improves data efficiency by exploring advanced training and data augmentation strategies. Recently, many efforts have been devoted to improving the recognition accuracy and efficiency of Vision Transformers.
To boost the recognition accuracy, T2T-ViT~\cite{yuan2021tokens} proposes a Tokens-to-Token transformation, recursively aggregating neighboring tokens into one token for modeling local structures.
TNT~\cite{han2021transformer} also investigates local structure modeling. It additionally builds an inner-level Transformer to model the visual content within each local patch.
PVT~\cite{wang2021pyramid} uses small-scale patches, yielding higher resolution feature maps for dense prediction. Meanwhile, PVT progressively shrinks the feature map size for computation reduction. PiT~\cite{heo2021rethinking} also decreases spatial dimensions through pooling and increases channel dimensions in deeper layers.
More recently, computing self-attention within local windows~\cite{liu2021swin,chu2021twins,huang2021shuffle,dong2022cswin}, has achieved a good trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency. For example, Swin~\cite{liu2021swin} divides an image into multiple local windows and computes self-attention among patches from the same window. To achieve communication across local windows, Swin shifts window configurations in different layers. Twins~\cite{chu2021twins} also exploits local windows for enhancing efficiency. To achieve cross-window communication, it computes additional self-attention over features sampled from the entire image. Similarly, Shuffle Transformer~\cite{huang2021shuffle} exploits local windows and performs cross-window communication by shuffling patches.
CSWin~\cite{dong2022cswin} adopts cross-shaped windows, computing self-attention in horizontal and vertical stripes in parallel. The aforementioned local attention models~\cite{liu2021swin,chu2021twins,huang2021shuffle,dong2022cswin} only exploit image-space locality. In contrast, our BOAT exploits not only image-space locality but also feature-space locality.
\subsection{Efficient Transformers}
High computational costs limit Transformer's usefulness in practice. Thus, much research~\cite{tay2020efficient} has recently been dedicated to improving efficiency. One popularly used strategy for speeding up Transformers enforces sparse attention matrices by limiting the receptive field of each token. Image Transformer~\cite{parmar2018image} and Block-wise Transformer~\cite{qiu2020blockwise} divide a long sequence into local buckets. In this case, the attention matrix has a block-diagonal structure. Only self-attention within each bucket is retained, and cross-bucket attention is pruned.
Transformers based on image-space local attention, such as Swin Transformer~\cite{liu2021swin}, Twins~\cite{chu2021twins}, Shuffle Transformer~\cite{huang2021shuffle}, and CSWin Transformer~\cite{dong2022cswin} also adopt buckets (windows) for boosting efficiency. In parallel to bucket-based local attention, strided attention is another approach for achieving sparse attention matrices. Sparse Transformer~\cite{child2019generating} and LongFormer~\cite{beltagy2020longformer} utilize strided attention, which computes self-attention over features sampled with a sparse grid with a stride larger than one, leading to a sparse attention matrix facilitating faster computation. The global sub-sampling layer in Twins~\cite{chu2021twins} and the shuffle module in Shuffle Transformer~\cite{huang2021shuffle} can be regarded as strided attention modules. Some recent works exploit pure MLP-based architectures~\cite{yu2021rethinking,yu2022s2mlp,yu2022s2mlpv2,chen2022r2mlp} to boost efficiency.
Unlike the above mentioned image-space local attention, several methods determine the scope of local attention in the feature space. Reformer~\cite{kitaev2020reformer} distributes tokens to buckets by feature-space hashing functions. Routing Transformer~\cite{roy2021efficient} applies online K-means to cluster tokens. Sinkhorn Sorting Network~\cite{tay2020sparse} learns to sort and divide an input sequence into chunks. Our feature-space local attention module also falls into this category. As far as we know, this paper is the first attempt to apply feature-space grouping to vision Transformers.
\section{Method}
\label{sec:met}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Figures/arch.pdf}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\caption{Architecture of Bilateral lOcal Attention Vision Transformer (BOAT). }
\label{fig:arc}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure*}
As visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:arc}, the proposed BOAT architecture consists of a patch embedding module, and a stack of $L$ Bilateral Local Attention blocks. Meanwhile, we exploit a hierarchical pyramid structure. Below we only briefly introduce the patch embedding module and the hierarchical pyramid structure and leave the details of the proposed Bilateral Local Attention block in Section~\ref{sec:clab} and \ref{sec:cla}.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent \textbf{Patch embedding.} For an input image with size $H \times W$, we follow Swin~\cite{liu2021swin} and CSWin Transformer~\cite{dong2022cswin}, and leverage convolutional token embedding ($7 \times 7$ convolution layer with stride 4) to obtain $\frac{H}{4} \times \frac{W}{4}$ patch tokens, and the dimension of each token is $C$.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent \textbf{Hierarchical pyramid structure.} Similar to Swin~\cite{liu2021swin} and CSWin Transformer~\cite{dong2022cswin}, we also build a hierarchical pyramid structure. The whole architecture consists of four stages. A convolution layer ($3 \times 3$, stride $2$) is used between two adjacent stages to merge patches. It reduces the number of tokens and doubles the number of channels. Therefore, in the $i$-th stage, the feature map contains $\frac{H}{2^{(i+1)}} \times \frac{W}{2^{(i+1)}}$ tokens and $2^{i-1}C$ channels.
\subsection{Bilateral Local Attention Block}
\label{sec:clab}
\begin{figure}[h]
\vspace{-0.1in}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Figures/block.pdf}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Architecture of Bilateral Local Attention (BLA) Block.}
\label{fig:str}\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:str}, a Bilateral Local Attention (BLA) Block consists of an image-space local attention (ISLA) module, a feature-space (content-based) local attention (FSLA) module, an MLP module, and several layer normalization (LN) modules.
Let us denote the set of input tokens by $\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{in}} = \{\mathbf{t}_i\}_{i=1}^N$ where $\mathbf{t}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{C}$, $C$ is the number of channels and $N$ is the number of tokens.
The input tokens go through a normalization layer followed by an image-space local attention (ISLA) module, which has a shortcut connection:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{ISLA}} = \mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{in}} + \mathrm{ISLA}(\mathrm{LN}(\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{in}})).
\end{equation}
Image-space local attention only computes self-attention among tokens within the same local window. We adopt existing window-based local attention modules, such as those in Swin Transformer~\cite{liu2021swin} and CSWin Transformer~\cite{dong2022cswin} as our ISLA module due to their excellent performance.
Intuitively, patches within the same local window are likely to be closely related to each other. However, some distant patches in the image space might also reveal important connections, such as similar contents, that could be helpful for visual understanding. Simply throwing away such connections between distant patches in the image space might deteriorate image recognition performance.
To bring back the useful information dropped out by image-space local attention, we develop a feature-space local attention (FSLA) module.
The output of the ISLA module, ${\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{ISLA}}$, is fed into another normalization layer followed by a feature-space (content-based) local attention (FSLA) module, which also has a shortcut connection:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{FSLA}} = {\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{ISLA}} + \mathrm{FSLA}(\mathrm{LN}({\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{ISLA}})).
\end{equation}
The FSLA module computes self-attention among tokens that are close in the feature space, which is complementary to the ISLA module. Meanwhile, by only considering local attention in the feature space, FSLA is more efficient than the original (global) self-attention. We will present the details of FSLA in Section~\ref{sec:cla}. Following CSWin~\cite{dong2022cswin}, we also add locally-enhanced positional encoding to each feature-space local attention layer to model position.
At last, the output of the FSLA module, ${\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{FSLA}}$, is processed by another normalization layer and an MLP module to generate the output of a Bilateral Local Attention Block:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{out}} = {\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{FSLA}} + \mathrm{MLP}(\mathrm{LN}({\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{FSLA}})).
\end{equation}
Following existing vision Transformers~\cite{dosovitskiy2021image,touvron2020training}, the MLP module consists of two fully-connected layers. The first one increases the feature dimension from $C$ to $rC$ and the second one decreases the feature dimension from $rC$ back to $C$. By default, we set $r=4$.
\vspace{-0.05in}
\subsection{Feature-Space Local Attention}
\label{sec:cla}
Different from image-space local attention which groups tokens according to their spatial locations in the image plane, feature-space local attention seeks to group tokens according to their content, \emph{i.e.}, features.
We could simply perform K-means clustering on token features to achieve this goal. Nevertheless, K-means clustering cannot ensure that the generated clusters are equally sized, which makes it difficult to have efficient parallel implementation on GPU platforms, and may also negatively impact the overall effectiveness of self-attention.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.44\textwidth}\vspace{-0.2in}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.1in]{Figures/hier_cluster.pdf}}
\caption{Example of balanced hierarchical clustering. In this example, the number of hierarchical levels is $3$. There are $2^3 =8$ clusters in the bottom level.\vspace{-0mm}}
\label{fig:hc}\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{wrapfigure}
\noindent\textbf{Balanced hierarchical clustering.} To overcome the imbalance problem of K-means clustering, we propose a balanced hierarchical clustering, which performs $K$ levels of clustering. At each level, it conducts balanced binary clustering, which equally splits a set of tokens into two clusters. Let us denote the set of input tokens by ${\mathcal{T}} = \{\mathbf{t}_i\}_{i=1}^N$. In the first level, it splits $N$ tokens in $\mathcal{T}$ into two subsets with ${N}/{2}$ tokens each. At the $k$-th level, it splits $N/2^{k-1} $ tokens assigned to the same subset in the upper level into two smaller subsets of $N/2^k$ size. At the end, we obtain $2^K$ evenly sized subsets in the final level, $\{\mathcal{T}_i\}_{i=1}^{2^K}$, and the size of each subset $|\mathcal{T}_i|$ is equal to $N/{2^K}$. Here, we require the condition that $N$ is divisible by $2^K$, which can be easily satisfied in existing vision Transformers.
We visualize the process of balanced hierarchical clustering in Figure~\ref{fig:hc}.
The core operation in balanced hierarchical clustering is our devised balanced binary clustering, which we elaborate below.
\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{Balanced binary clustering.}
Given a set of $2m$ tokens $\{\mathbf{t}_i\}_{i=1}^{2m}$, balanced binary clustering divides them into two groups and the size of each group is $m$.
Similar to K-means clustering, our balanced binary clustering relies on cluster centroids. To determine the cluster membership of each sample, K-means clustering only considers the distance between the sample and all centroids.
In contrast, our balanced binary clustering further requires that the two resulting clusters have equal size. Let us denote the two cluster centroids as $\mathbf{c}_1$ and $\mathbf{c}_2$. For each token $\mathbf{t}_i$, we compute distance ratio, $r_i$, as a metric to determine its cluster membership:
\begin{equation}
r_i = \frac{s(\mathbf{t}_i, \mathbf{c}_1)}{ s(\mathbf{t}_i, \mathbf{c}_2)},~\forall i\in[1,2m],
\end{equation}
where $s(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ denotes the cosine similarity between $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$. The $2m$ tokens $\{\mathbf{t}_i\}_{i=1}^{2m}$ are sorted in the decreasing order of their distance ratios $\{{r}_i\}_{i=1}^{2m}$. We assign the tokens in the first half of the sorted list to the first cluster $\mathcal{C}_1$ and those in the second half of the sorted list to the second cluster $\mathcal{C}_2$, where the size of both $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$ is $m$. The mean of the tokens from each cluster is used to update the cluster centroid. Similar to K-means, our balanced binary clustering updates cluster centroids and the cluster membership of every sample in an iterative manner. Note that cluster centroids are always computed on the fly, and are not learnable parameters. The detailed steps of the proposed balanced binary clustering are given in Algorithm~\ref{alg:1}.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwInput{Tokens $\{\mathbf{t}_i\}_{i=1}^{2m}$ and the iteration number, $T$. }
\KwOutput{Two clusters, $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$.}
Initialize centroids $\mathbf{c}_1 = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^m \mathbf{t}_i}{m}$, $\mathbf{c}_2 = \frac{\sum_{i=m+1}^{2m} \mathbf{t}_i}{m}$
\While{$n\_iter \in [1,T]$}
{
\For{$i \in [1,2m]$}
{$r_i = \frac{s(\mathbf{t}_i, \mathbf{c}_1)}{ s(\mathbf{t}_i, \mathbf{c}_2)}$
}
[$i_1,\cdots,i_{2m}$] = argsort([$r_1,\cdots, r_{2m}$])
$\mathcal{C}_1 = \{\mathbf{t}_{i_j}\}_{j=1}^m$, $\mathcal{C}_2 = \{\mathbf{t}_{i_j}\}_{j=m+1}^{2m}$
$\mathbf{c}_1 = \frac{\sum_{\mathbf{c} \in \mathcal{C}_1} \mathbf{c}}{m}$, $\mathbf{c}_2 = \frac{\sum_{\mathbf{c} \in \mathcal{C}_2} \mathbf{c}}{m} $
}
\caption{Balanced Binary Clustering.}
\label{alg:1}
\end{algorithm}
In the aforementioned balanced binary clustering, two resulting clusters have no shared tokens, \emph{i.e.}, $\mathcal{C}_1 \cap \mathcal{C}_2 = \emptyset$. One main drawback of the non-overlapping setting is that, a token in the middle portion of the sorted list has some of its feature-space neighbors in one cluster while the other neighbors in the other cluster. No matter which cluster this token is finally assigned to, the connection between the token and part of its feature-space neighbors will be cut off. For example, the token at the $m$-th location of the sorted list cannot communicate with the token at the $m+1$-st location during attention calculation because they are assigned to different clusters.
Overlapping balanced binary clustering overcomes this drawback by assigning the first $m+n$ tokens in the sorted list to the first cluster, \emph{i.e.}, $\hat{\mathcal{C}}_1 = \{\mathbf{t}_{j_i}\}_{i=1}^{m+n}$, and the last $m+n$ tokens in the sorted list to the second cluster, \emph{i.e.}, $\hat{\mathcal{C}}_2 = \{\mathbf{t}_{j_i}\}_{i=m-n+1}^{2m}$. Thus, the two resulting clusters have $2n$ tokens in common, \emph{i.e.}, $\hat{\mathcal{C}}_1 \cap \hat{\mathcal{C}}_2 = \{\mathbf{t}_{j_i}\}_{i=m-n+1}^{m+n}$.
By default, we only adopt overlapping binary clustering at the last level of the proposed balanced hierarchical clustering and use the non-overlapping version at the other levels. We set $n=20$ in all experiments for overlapping binary clustering.
\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{Local attention within cluster.}
Through the above introduced balanced hierarchical clustering, the set of tokens, $\mathcal{T}$, are grouped into $2^K$ subsets $\{\mathcal{T}_{i}\}_{i=1}^{2^K}$, where $|\mathcal{T}_{i}| = \frac{N}{2^K}$.
The standard self-attention (SA) is performed within each subset:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mhsa}
\hat{\mathcal{T}}_k = \mathrm{SA}({\mathcal{T}}_k),~\forall k\in[1,2^K].
\end{equation}
The output, $\hat{\mathcal{T}}$, is the union of all attended subsets:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal{T}} = \underset{k\in[1,K]}{\bigcup} \hat{\mathcal{T}}_k.
\end{equation}
Following the multi-head configuration in Transformer, we also devise multi-head feature-space local attention. Note that, in our multi-head feature-space local attention, we implement multiple heads not only for computing self-attention in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mhsa}) as a standard Transformer, but also for performing balanced hierarchical clustering. That is, balanced hierarchical clustering is performed independently in each head. Thus, for a specific token, in different heads, it might pay feature-based local attention to different tokens. This configuration is more flexible than Swin~\cite{liu2021swin}, where multiple heads share the same local window.
\vspace{-0.05in}
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:exp}
\vspace{-0.05in}
To demonstrate the effectiveness of our BOAT as a general vision backbone, we conduct experiments on image classification, semantic segmentation and object detection.
We build BOAT on top of two recent local attention vision Transformers, Swin~\cite{liu2021swin} and CSWin~\cite{dong2022cswin}. We term the BOAT built upon Swin as BOAT-Swin.
In BOAT-Swin, the image-space local attention (ISLA) module adopts shifted window attention in Swin. In contrast, the ISLA module in BOAT-CSWin uses cross-shape window attention in CSWin. We provide the detailed specifications of BOAT-Swin and BOAT-CSWin in Section 1 of the supplementary materials. Meanwhile, we present main experimental results in the following sections. More ablation studies are presented in Section 2 of the supplementary materials.
\vspace{-0.05in}
\subsection{Image Classification}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\begin{table}[h]\small
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}%
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{0pt}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.98\linewidth}{!}
{
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc|lcccc@{}}
\toprule[1pt]
Method & size& \#para. & FLOPs & Top-1 & Method & size& \#para. & FLOPs & Top-1 \\
\midrule
ReGNetY-4G~\cite{radosavovic2020designing} & 224 & 21M & 4.0G & 80.0 &
& & & & \\
PVTv2-B2~\cite{wang2021pvtv2} & 224 & 25M & 4.0G & 82.0 &
Focal-T~\cite{yang2021focal} & 224 & 29M & 4.9G & {82.2}
\\
Swin-T~\cite{liu2021swin} & 224 & 29M & 4.5G & 81.3 &
BOAT-Swin-T (ours) & 224 & 31M & 5.2G & {82.3} \\
CSWin-T~\cite{dong2022cswin} & 224 & 23M & 4.3G & 82.7 &
BOAT-CSWin-T (ours) & 224 & 27M & 5.1G & \textbf{83.7} \\
\midrule
ReGNetY-8G~\cite{radosavovic2020designing} & 224 & 39M & 8.0 & 81.7 &
PVTv2-B4~\cite{wang2021pvtv2} & 224 & 62M & 10.1G & 83.6 \\
Twins-B & 224 & 56M & 8.3G & 83.2 &
Shuffle-S~\cite{huang2021shuffle} & 224 & 50M & 8.9G & 83.5 \\
NesT-S~\cite{zhang2022nested}, & 224 & 38M & 10.4G & 83.3 &
Focal-S~\cite{yang2021focal} & 224 & 51M & 9.1G & {83.5}
\\
Swin-S~\cite{liu2021swin} & 224 & 50M & 8.7G & 83.0 &
BOAT-Swin-S (ours) & 224 & 56M & 10.1G & {83.6} \\
CSWin-S~\cite{dong2022cswin} & 224 & 35M & 6.9G & 83.6 &
BOAT-CSWin-S (ours) & 224 & 41M & 8.0G & \textbf{84.1} \\
\midrule
ReGNetY-16G~\cite{radosavovic2020designing} & 224 & 84M & 16.0G & 82.9 &
ViT-B/16T~\cite{dosovitskiy2021image} & 384 & 86M & 55.4G & 77.9 \\
DeiT-B~\cite{touvron2020training} & 224 & 86M & 17.5G & 81.8 &
T2T-24~\cite{yuan2021tokens} & 224 & 64M & 14.1G & 82.3 \\
TNT-B~\cite{han2021transformer} & 224 & 66M & 14.1G & 82.8 &
PiT-B~\cite{heo2021rethinking} & 224 & 74M & 12.5G & 82.0 \\
PVTv2-B5~\cite{wang2021pvtv2} & 224 & 82M & 11.8G & 83.8 &
Twins-L & 224 & 99M & 14.8G & 83.7 \\
Shuffle-B~\cite{huang2021shuffle} & 224 & 88M & 15.4G & 84.0 &
NesT-B~\cite{zhang2022nested}, & 224 & 68M & 17.9G & 83.8 \\
Focal-B~\cite{yang2021focal} & 224 & 90M & 16.0G & {83.8} &
CrossFormer-L~\cite{wang2021crossformer} & 224 & 92M & 16.1G & {84.0} \\
Swin-B~\cite{liu2021swin} & 224 & 88M & 15.4G & 83.5 &
BOAT-Swin-B (ours) & 224 & 98M & 17.8G & {83.8} \\
CSWin-B~\cite{dong2022cswin} & 224 & 78M & 15.0G & 84.2 &
BOAT-CSWin-B (ours) & 224 & 90M & 17.5G & \textbf{84.7} \\
\bottomrule[1pt]
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Comparison of image classification performance on the ImageNet-1K dataset.}
\label{tab:class}
\end{table}
We follow the same training strategies as other vision Transformers. We train our models using the training split of ImageNet-1K~\cite{deng2009imagenet} with $224 \times 224$ input resolution and without external data. Specifically, both Swin and BOAT-Swin are trained for $300$ epochs, and both CSWin and BOAT-CSWin are trained for $310$ epochs.
Table~\ref{tab:class} compares the performance of the proposed BOAT models with the state-of-the-art vision backbones. As shown in the table, with a slight increase in the number of parameters and FLOPs, our BOAT-Swin model consistently improves the vanilla Swin model under the tiny, small and base settings.
Meanwhile, our BOAT-CSWin model also improves the vanilla CSWin model by a similar degree under the tiny, small and base settings. Such improvements over Swin and CSWin models demonstrate the effectiveness of feature-space local attention.
\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{Comparisons with Reformer and K-means.}
Reformer~\cite{kitaev2020reformer} also exploits feature-space local attention. It divides tokens into multiple groups using Locality Sensitivity Hashing (LSH). based on sign random projections~\cite{charikar2002similarity,li2019sign}, which is independent of specific input data, and might be sub-optimal for different input data. K-means clustering is another choice for dividing tokens into multiple groups for exploiting feature-space local attention. Nevertheless, K-means clustering cannot ensure that the generated clusters are equally sized, which makes it difficult to have efficient parallel implementation on GPU platforms.
To enforce the clusters from K-means clustering to be equally sized, we can sort the tokens according to their cluster index and then equally divide the sorted tokens into multiple groups, as visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:k-means}. However, this sort-and-divide process might divide tokens from a large cluster into multiple groups and also merge tokens from small clusters into the same group. This would negatively impact the overall effectiveness of feature-space local attention.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures/k-means-crop.pdf}
\caption{The process of enforcing the clusters from K-means to be equally sized.}
\label{fig:k-means}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
Method & Reformer & K-means & Ours\\ \hline
Top-1 Accuracy & $81.7$ & $81.8$ & $82.3$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of image classification accuracy with Reformer and K-means.}
\label{ref}\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{table}
We compare the performance of BOAT-Swin-Tiny against the performance of a model where our balanced hierarchical clustering is replaced with LSH in Reformer or K-means clustering. We keep the other layers unchanged. As shown in Table~\ref{ref}, our BOAT-Swin-Tiny clearly outperforms Reformer and K-means clustering.
\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{The effectiveness of FSLA.} To directly demonstrate the effectiveness of feature-space local attention (FSLA), we replace all FSLA blocks in BOAT-Swin-T with image-space local attention (ISLA) blocks. As shown in Table~\ref{replace}, the accuracy drops from $82.3\%$ to $81.5\%$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
Model & BOAT-Swin-T (with FSLA) & Baseline (with ISLA) \\ \hline
Accuracy & $82.3$ & $81.5$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Ablation study on FSLA by replacing FSLA with ISLA.\vspace{-3mm}}
\label{replace}\vspace{-0.05in}
\end{table}
\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent\textbf{The effectiveness of overlapping balanced hierarchical clustering.}
We compare the performance of overlapping balanced hierarchical clustering with its non-overlapping counterpart on the ImageNet-1K dataset. As shown in Table~\ref{overlap}, the overlapping setting achieves consistently higher classification accuracy in BOAT-CSwin-Tiny, Small and Base models. Higher accuracy is expected since the overlapping setting gives rise to larger receptive fields.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
Overlap & BOAT-CSWin-T & BOAT-CSWin-S & BOAT-CSWin-B \\ \hline
No & $83.3\%$ & $84.0\%$ & $84.5\%$ \\
Yes & $83.7\%$ & $84.1\%$ & $84.7\%$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of image classification accuracy between overlapping balanced hierarchical clustering and the non-overlapping version.\vspace{-3mm}}
\label{overlap}\vspace{-0.05in}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\subsection{Semantic Segmentation}
\vspace{-0.05in}
We further investigate the effectiveness of our BOAT for semantic segmentation on the ADE20K dataset~\cite{zhou2017scene}. Here, we employ UperNet~\cite{xiao2018unified} as the basic framework.
For a fair comparison, we follow previous work and train UperNet 160K iterations with batch size $16$ using $8$ GPUs. In Table~\ref{tab:seg}, we compare the semantic segmentation performance of our BOAT with other vision Transformer models including Swin~\cite{liu2021swin}, Twins~\cite{chu2021twins}, Shuffle Transformer~\cite{huang2021shuffle}, Focal Transformer~\cite{yang2021focal}, and CSWin~\cite{dong2022cswin}. As shown in the table, with a slight increase in the number of parameters and FLOPs, our BOAT-Swin model consistently improves the semantic segmentation performance of the Swin model under the tiny, small and base settings.
Meantime, our BOAT-CSWin also constantly obtains higher segmentation mIoUs than the CSWin model under the tiny, small and base settings.
\begin{table}[!t]\small
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{0pt}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.98\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccc|lccc@{}}
\toprule[1pt]
Method & \#para.(M) & FLOPs(G) & mIoU($\%$) & Method & \#para.(M) & FLOPs(G) & mIoU($\%$) \\
\midrule
TwinsP-S~\cite{chu2021twins} & 55 & 919 & 46.2 &
Twins-S~\cite{chu2021twins} & 54 & 901 & 46.2 \\
Shuffle-T~\cite{huang2021shuffle} & 60 & 949 & 46.6 &
Focal-T~\cite{yang2021focal} & 62 & 998 & 45.8 \\
Swin-T~\cite{liu2021swin} & 60 & 945 & 44.5 &
BOAT-Swin-T~(ours)& 62 & 986 & 46.0 \\
CSWin-T~\cite{dong2022cswin} & 60 & 959 & 49.3 &
BOAT-CSWin-T~(ours) & 64 & 1012 & \textbf{50.5} \\
\midrule
TwinsP-B~\cite{chu2021twins} & 74 & 977 & 47.1 &
Twins-B~\cite{chu2021twins} & 89 & 1020 & 47.7 \\
Shuffle-S~\cite{huang2021shuffle} & 81 & 1044 & 48.4 &
Focal-S~\cite{yang2021focal} & 85 & 1130 & 48.0 \\
Swin-S~\cite{liu2021swin} & 81 & 1038 & 47.6 &
BOAT-Swin-S~(ours)& 87 & 1113 & 48.4 \\
CSWin-S~\cite{dong2022cswin} & 65 & 1027 & 50.0 &
BOAT-CSWin-S~(ours) & 70 & 1101 & \textbf{50.6} \\
\midrule
TwinsP-L~\cite{chu2021twins} & 92 & 1041 & 48.6 &
Twins-L~\cite{chu2021twins} & 133 & 1164 & 48.8 \\
Shuffle-B~\cite{huang2021shuffle} & 121 & 1196 & 49.0 &
Focal-B~\cite{yang2021focal} & 126 & 1354 & 49.0 \\
Swin-B~\cite{liu2021swin} & 121 & 1188 & 48.1 &
BOAT-Swin-B~(ours)& 131 & 1299 & 48.7 \\
CSWin-B~\cite{dong2022cswin} & 109 & 1222 & 50.8 &
BOAT-CSWin-B~(ours) & 121 & 1349 & \textbf{50.9} \\
\bottomrule[1pt]
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Performance of semantic segmentation on ADE20K. FLOPs are obtained at $512\times 2048$ resolution. mIoU is for the single-scale setting. Testing image size is $512\times 512$.}
\vspace{-0mm}
\label{tab:seg}
\end{table}
\subsection{Object Detection}
We also evaluate the proposed BOAT on object detection. Experiments are conducted on the MS-COCO dataset using the Mask R-CNN~\cite{he2017mask} framework. Since CSWin has not released codes for object detection, we only implement BOAT-Swin for this task. We adopt the $3\times$ learning rate schedule, which is the same as Swin. We compare the performance of our BOAT-Swin and the original Swin in Table~\ref{tab:det}. The evaluation is on the MSCOCO val2017 split. Since Swin only reports the performance of Swin-Tiny and Swin-Small models when using the Mask R-CNN framework, we also report the performance of our BOAT-Swin-Tiny and BOAT-Swin-Small only. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:det}, with a slight increase in the number of parameters and FLOPs, our BOAT-Swin consistently outperforms the original Swin.
\begin{table}[h]\small
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{0pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccccc@{}}
\toprule[1pt]
Method & \#para.(M) & FLOPs(G) & mAP$^{\mathrm{Box}}$ & mAP$^{\mathrm{Mask}}$ \\
\midrule
Swin-T & 48 & 267 & 46.0 & 41.6 \\
BOAT-Swin-T~(ours)& 50 & 306 & \textbf{47.5} & \textbf{42.8} \\\midrule
Swin-S & 69 & 359 & 48.5 & 43.3 \\
BOAT-Swin-S~(ours)& 75 & 431 & \textbf{49.0} & \textbf{43.8} \\
\bottomrule[1pt]
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Performance of object detection on the MS-COCO dataset. FLOPs are obtained at $800 \times 1280$ resolution.}
\label{tab:det}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have presented a new Vision Transformer architecture named Bilateral lOcal Attention Transformer (BOAT), which performs multi-head local self-attention in both feature and image spaces.
To compute feature-space local attention, we propose a hierarchical balanced clustering approach to group patches into multiple evenly sized clusters, and self-attention is computed within each cluster.
We have applied BOAT to multiple computer vision tasks including image classification, semantic segmentation and object detection. Our systematic experiments on several benchmark datasets have demonstrated that BOAT can clearly and consistently improve the performance of existing image-space local attention vision Transformers, including Swin~\cite{liu2021swin} and CSWin~\cite{dong2022cswin}, on these tasks.
|
\section{Introduction}
In low rank matrix completion, a well-known problem that appears in various applications, the task is to recover a rank-$r$ matrix $X^*\in \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ given few of its entries, where $r \ll \min\{n_1,n_2\}$.
In the problem of inductive matrix completion (IMC), beyond being low rank, $X^*$ is assumed to have additional structure as follows: its columns belong to the range of a known matrix $A\in \mathbb R^{n_1\times d_1}$ and its rows belong to the range of a known matrix $B\in \mathbb R^{n_2\times d_2}$, where $r \leq d_1 \leq n_1$ and $r \leq d_2 \leq n_2$. Hence, $X^*$ may be written as $X^* = AM^*B^\top$, and the task reduces to finding the smaller matrix $M^*\in \mathbb R^{d_1\times d_2}$.
In practice, the low rank and/or the additional structure assumptions may hold only approximately, and in addition, the observed entries may be corrupted by noise.
The side information matrices $A,B$ may be viewed as feature representations. For example, in movies recommender systems, the task is to complete a matrix $X^*$ of the ratings given by $n_1$ users to $n_2$ movies.
The columns of $A, B$ may correspond to viewers' demographic details (age, gender) and movies' properties (length, genre), respectively \cite{abernethy2009new,menon2011response,chen2012svdfeature,yao2019collaborative}.
The underlying assumption in IMC is that uncovering the relations between the viewers and the movies in the feature space, as encoded in $M^*$, suffices to deduce the ratings $X^* = AM^*B^\top$.
Other examples of IMC include multi-label learning \cite{xu2013speedup,si2016goal,zhang2018fast}, disease prediction from gene/miRNA/lncRNA data \cite{natarajan2014inductive,chen2018predicting,lu2018prediction} and link prediction in networks \cite{menon2011link,chiang2018using}.
If the side information matrices allow for a significant dimensionality reduction, namely $d \ll n$ where $d = \max\{d_1,d_2\}$ and $n = \max\{n_1,n_2\}$, recovering $X^*$ is easier from both theoretical and computational perspectives.
From the information limit aspect, the minimal number of observed entries required to complete a matrix of rank $r$ with side information scales as $\mathcal O(d r)$, compared to $\mathcal O(n r)$ without side information. Similarly, the number of variables scale as $d$ rather than as $n$, enabling more efficient computation and less memory.
Finally, features also allow completion of rows and columns of $X^*$ that do not have even a single observed entry.
Unlike standard matrix completion which requires at least $r$ observed entries in each row and column of $X^*$, in IMC the feature vector is sufficient to inductively predict the full corresponding row/column; hence the name 'Inductive Matrix Completion'.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Recovery guarantees for the algorithms: \texttt{Maxide} \cite{xu2013speedup}, \texttt{AltMin} \cite{jain2013provable}, \texttt{MPPF} \cite{zhang2018fast} and {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace (this work), for an $n\times n$ matrix $X^*$ of rank $r$ and condition number $\kappa$, and $d\times d$ side information matrices of incoherence $\mu$, given a fixed target accuracy. Here $f(\kappa, \mu)$ is some function of $\kappa$ and $\mu$. For a more detailed comparison, see \cref{sec:theory_comparison}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline
Algorithm & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}Sample complexity \\ $|\Omega| \gtrsim ...$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}Requires \\ incoherent $X^*$?\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}Error \\ decay rate\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}Time complexity \\ $\sim \mathcal O(...)$ \end{tabular} \\
\hline
\texttt{Maxide} & $\mu^2 d r [1+\log(d/r)] \log n$ & yes & unspecified & unspecified \\
\hline
\texttt{AltMin} & $\kappa^2 \mu^4 d^2 r^3 \log n$ & no & unspecified & unspecified \\
\hline
\texttt{MPPF} & $(\kappa r + d) \kappa^2 \mu^2 r^2 \log d \log n$ & yes & linear & $f(\kappa, \mu)\cdot n^{3/2} d^2 r^3 \log d \log n$ \\
\hline
\texttt{GNIMC} (ours) & $\mu^2 d^2 \log n$ & no & quadratic & $ \mu^2 d^3 r \log n$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:theory_summary}
\end{table}
Several IMC methods were devised in the past years. Perhaps the most popular ones are nuclear norm minimization \cite{xu2013speedup,lu2018prediction} and alternating minimization \cite{jain2013provable,natarajan2014inductive,zhong2015efficient,chen2018predicting}. Another recent method is multi-phase Procrustes flow \cite{zhang2018fast}. While nuclear norm minimization enjoys strong recovery guarantees, it is computationally slow. Other methods are faster, but the number of observed entries for their recovery guarantees to hold depends on the condition number of $X^*$.
In this work, we make three contributions to the IMC problem.
First, by deriving an RIP (Restricted Isometry Property) guarantee for IMC, we prove that under certain conditions the optimization landscape of IMC is benign (\cref{thm:IMC_landscape}).
Compared to a similar result derived in \cite{ghassemi2018global}, our guarantee requires significantly milder conditions, and in addition, addresses the vanilla IMC problem rather than a suitably regularized one.
Second, we propose a simple scheme to estimate the rank of $X^*$ from its observed entries and the side information matrices $A,B$. We also provide a theoretical guarantee for the accuracy of the estimated rank (\cref{thm:rankEstimate}), which holds for either exactly or approximately low rank $X^*$ and with noisy measurements.
Third, we propose a simple Gauss-Newton based method to solve the IMC problem, that is both fast and enjoys strong recovery guarantees. Our algorithm, named {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace (Gauss-Newton IMC), is an adaptation of the {\texttt{GNMR}}\xspace algorithm \cite{zilber2022gnmr} to IMC.
At each iteration, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace solves a least squares problem; yet, its per-iteration complexity is of \textit{the same order as gradient descent}. As a result, empirically, our tuning-free {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace implementation is 2 to 17 times faster than competing algorithms in various settings, including ill-conditioned matrices and very few observations, close to the information limit.
On the theoretical front, we prove that given a standard incoherence assumption on $A,B$ and sufficiently many observed entries sampled uniformly at random, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace recovers $X^*$ at a \textit{quadratic} convergence rate (\cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}). As far as we know, this is the only available quadratic convergence rate guarantee for any IMC algorithm.
In addition, we prove that {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace is stable against small arbitrary additive error (\cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee_noisy}), which may originate from (i) inaccurate measurements of $X^*$, (ii) inaccurate side information, and/or (iii) $X^*$ being only approximately low rank.
Remarkably, our guarantees do not require $X^*$ to be incoherent, and the required number of observations depends only on properties of $A,B$ and not on those of $X^*$.
Other guarantees have similar dependence on $A,B$, but in addition either depend on the condition number of $X^*$ and/or require incoherence of $X^*$, see \cref{table:theory_summary}.
Relaxing the incoherence assumption on $X^*$ is important, since $X^*$ is only partially observed and such an assumption cannot be verified.
In contrast, the matrices $A,B$ are known and their incoherence can be verified.
{\bf Notation.}
The $i$-th largest singular value of a matrix $X$ is denoted by $\sigma_i = \sigma_i(X)$.
The condition number of a rank-$r$ matrix is denoted by $\kappa = \sigma_1/\sigma_r$.
The $i$-th standard basis vector is denoted by $e_i$, and the Euclidean norm of a vector $x$ by $\|x\|$.
The spectral norm of a matrix $X$ is denoted by $\|X\|_2$, its Frobenius norm by $\|X\|_F$,
its largest row norm by $\|X\|_{2,\infty} \equiv \max_i \|X^\top e_i\|$,
its largest entry magnitude by $\|X\|_\infty \equiv \max_{i,j} |X_{ij}|$,
and the set of its column vectors by $\text{col}(X)$.
A matrix $X$ is an isometry if $X^\top X = I$, where $I$ is the identity matrix.
Denote by $\mathcal P_{AB}: \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2} \to \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ the projection operator into the row and column spaces of $A,B$, respectively, such that $\mathcal P_{AB}(X) = AA^\top X BB^\top$ if $A,B$ are isometries.
Denote by $\mathcal P_\Omega: \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2} \to \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ the sampling operator that projects a matrix in $\mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ onto an observation set $\Omega \subseteq [n_1]\times [n_2]$, such that $[\mathcal P_\Omega(X)]_{ij} = X_{ij}$ if $(i,j)\in \Omega$ and $0$ otherwise. Denote by $\text{Vec}_\Omega(X) \in \mathbb R^{|\Omega|}$ the vector with the entries $X_{ij}$ for all $(i,j)\in \Omega$. Finally, denote by $p = |\Omega|/(n_1n_2)$ the sampling rate of $\Omega$.
\section{Problem Formulation} \label{sec:problem}
Let $X^* \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ be a matrix of rank $r$.
For now we assume $r$ is known; in \cref{sec:rankEstimate} we present a scheme to estimate $r$, and prove its accuracy.
Assume $\Omega \subseteq [n_1]\times [n_2]$ is uniformly sampled and known, and let $Y = \mathcal P_\Omega(X^* + \mathcal E)$ be the observed matrix where $\mathcal E$ is additive error.
In the standard matrix completion problem, the goal is to solve
\begin{align}\label{eq:MC}
\tag{MC}
\min_X \|\mathcal P_\Omega(X) - Y\|_F^2 \quad \text{s.t. } \text{rank}(X) \leq r .
\end{align}
In IMC, in addition to the observations $Y$ we are given two side information matrices $A \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times d_1}$ and $B \in \mathbb R^{n_2\times d_2}$ with $r \leq d_i \leq n_i$ for $i=1,2$, such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:sideInformation}
\text{col}(X^*) \subseteq \text{span col}(A),\;\; \text{col}(X^{*\top}) \subseteq \text{span col}(B) .
\end{align}
Note that w.l.o.g., we may assume that $A$ and $B$ are isometries, $A^\top A = I_{d_1}$ and $B^\top B = I_{d_2}$, as property \eqref{eq:sideInformation} is invariant to orthonormalization of the columns of $A$ and $B$.
Standard matrix completion corresponds to $d_i = n_i$ with the trivial side information $A = I_{n_1}$, $B = I_{n_2}$.
A common assumption in IMC is $d_i \ll n_i$, so that the side information is valuable.
Note that beyond allowing for (potentially adversarial) inaccurate measurements, $\mathcal E$ may also capture violations of the low rank and the side information assumption \eqref{eq:sideInformation}, as we can view $X^* + \mathcal E$ as the true underlying matrix whose only first component, $X^*$, has exact low rank and satisfies \eqref{eq:sideInformation}.
Assumption \eqref{eq:sideInformation} implies that $X^* = AM^*B^\top$ for some rank-$r$ matrix $M^*\in \mathbb R^{d_1\times d_2}$. The IMC problem thus reads
\begin{align}
\tag{IMC} \label{eq:IMC}
&\min_M \|\mathcal P_\Omega(AMB^\top) - Y\|_F^2 \quad \text{s.t. } \text{rank}(M) \leq r .
\end{align}
Some works on IMC \cite{xu2013speedup,zhang2018fast} assume that both $X^*$ and $A,B$ are incoherent, namely have small incoherence, defined as follows \cite{candes2009exact,keshavan2010matrix}.
\begin{definition}[$\mu$-incoherence]\label{def:incoherence}
A matrix $X \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ of rank $r$ is $\mu$-incoherent if its Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), $U \Sigma V^\top$ with $U \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times r}$ and $V \in \mathbb R^{n_2\times r}$, satisfies
\begin{align*}
\|U\|_{2,\infty} \leq \sqrt{\mu r/n_1} \,\,\mbox{ and }\,
\|V\|_{2,\infty} \leq \sqrt{\mu r/n_2}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
However, for IMC to be well-posed, $X^*$ does not have to be incoherent, and it suffices for $A,B$ to be incoherent \cite{jain2013provable}.
In case $A$ and $B$ are isometries, their incoherence assumption corresponds to bounded row norms, $\|A\|_{2,\infty} \leq \sqrt{\mu d_1/n_1}$ and $\|B\|_{2,\infty} \leq \sqrt{\mu d_2/n_2}$.
\section{No Bad Local Minima Guarantee} \label{sec:landscape}
In this section we present a novel characterization of the optimization landscape of IMC.
Following the factorization approach to matrix recovery problems, we first incorporate the rank constraint into the objective by writing the unknown matrix as $M = UV^\top$ where $U \in \mathbb R^{d_1\times r}$ and $V \in \mathbb R^{d_2\times r}$.
Then, problem \eqref{eq:IMC} is
\begin{align}\label{eq:IMC_factorized}
\min_{U,V} \|\mathcal P_\Omega(AUV^\top B^\top) -Y\|_F^2 .
\end{align}
Clearly, any pair of matrices $(U, V)$ whose product is $UV^\top = M^*$ is a global minimizer of \eqref{eq:IMC_factorized} with an objective value of zero.
However, as \eqref{eq:IMC_factorized} is non-convex, some of its first-order critical points, namely points at which the gradient vanishes, may be bad local minima.
The next result, proven in \cref{sec:proof_RIP_consequences}, states that if sufficiently many entries are observed, all critical points are either global minima or strict saddle points. At a strict saddle point the Hessian has at least one strictly negative eigenvalue, so that gradient descent will not reach it.
Hence, under the conditions of \cref{thm:IMC_landscape}, gradient descent will recover $M^*$ from a random initialization.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:IMC_landscape}
Let $X^* \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ be a rank-$r$ matrix which satisfies \eqref{eq:sideInformation} with $\mu$-incoherent matrices $A \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times d_1}$ and $B \in \mathbb R^{n_2\times d_2}$.
Assume $\Omega \subseteq [n_1]\times [n_2]$ is uniformly sampled with $|\Omega| \gtrsim \mu^2 d_1 d_2 \log n$.
Then w.p.~at least $1-2n^{-2}$, any critical point $(U,V)$ of problem \eqref{eq:IMC_factorized} is either a global minimum with $UV^\top = M^*$, or a strict saddle point.
\end{theorem}
To the best of our knowledge, \cref{thm:IMC_landscape} is the first guarantee for the geometry of vanilla IMC. A previous result by \cite{ghassemi2018global} only addressed a suitably balance-regularized version of \eqref{eq:IMC_factorized}. In addition, their guarantee requires $\mathcal O(\mu^2 r \max\{d_1,d_2\} \max\{d_1d_2, \log^2 n\})$ observed entries with cubic scaling in $d_1,d_2$,\footnote{Note the notation in \cite{ghassemi2018global} is slightly different than ours; see \cref{sec:comparisonToGhassemi2018} for more details.} which is significantly larger than the quadratic scaling in our \cref{thm:IMC_landscape}.
\Cref{thm:IMC_landscape} guarantees exact recovery for a family of algorithms beyond vanilla gradient descent. However, as illustrated in \cref{sec:experiments}, solving the IMC problem can be done much faster than by gradient descent or variants thereof, e.g.~by our proposed {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace method described in \cref{sec:GNIMC}.
\subsection{IMC as a special case of matrix sensing} \label{sec:theory_connection}
Similar to \cite{ghassemi2018global}, our proof of \cref{thm:IMC_landscape} is based on an RIP result we derive for IMC. The RIP result forms a connection between IMC and the matrix sensing (MS) problem, as follows.
Recall that in IMC, the goal is to recover $M^* \in \mathbb R^{d_1\times d_2}$ from the observations $Y = \mathcal P_\Omega(AM^*B^\top + \mathcal E)$.
In MS, we observe a set of linear measurements $b \equiv \mathcal A(M^*) + \xi$ where $\mathcal A: \mathbb R^{d_1\times d_2}\to \mathbb R^m$ is a sensing operator and $\xi\in \mathbb R^m$ is additive error. Assuming a known or estimated rank $r$ of $M^*$, the goal is to solve
\begin{align}
\tag{MS}\label{eq:MS}
\min_M \|\mathcal A(M) - b\|^2 \quad &\text{s.t. } \text{rank}(M) \leq r .
\end{align}
Problem \eqref{eq:IMC} is in the form of \eqref{eq:MS} with the operator
\begin{align}\label{eq:sensingOperator_IMC}
\mathcal A(M) = \text{Vec}_\Omega (AMB^\top) / \sqrt p
\end{align}
and the error vector $\xi = \text{Vec}_\Omega(\mathcal E)/\sqrt p$.
However, unlike IMC, in MS the operator $\mathcal A$ is assumed to satisfy a suitable RIP (Restricted Isometry Property), defined as follows \cite{candes2008restricted,recht2010guaranteed}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:RIP}
A linear map $\mathcal A: \mathbb R^{d_1\times d_2}\to \mathbb R^m$ satisfies a $k$-RIP with a constant $\delta \in [0,1)$, if for all matrices $M \in \mathbb R^{d_1\times d_2}$ of rank at most $k$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:RIP}
(1-\delta) \|M\|_F^2 \leq \|\mathcal A(M)\|^2 \leq (1+\delta) \|M\|_F^2 .
\end{align}
\end{definition}
The following theorem, proven in \cref{sec:proof_IMC_RIP}, states that if $A,B$ are incoherent and $|\Omega|$ is sufficiently large, w.h.p.~the IMC sensing operator \eqref{eq:sensingOperator_IMC} satisfies the RIP. This observation creates a bridge between IMC and MS:
for a given MS method, its RIP-based theoretical guarantees can be directly transferred to IMC.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:IMC_RIP}
Let $A \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times d_1}$, $B \in \mathbb R^{n_2\times d_2}$ be two isometry matrices such that $\|A\|_{2,\infty} \leq \sqrt{\mu d_1/n_1}$ and $\|B\|_{2,\infty} \leq \sqrt{\mu d_2/n_2}$.
Let $\delta \in [0,1)$, and assume $\Omega \subseteq [n_1]\times [n_2]$ is uniformly sampled with $|\Omega| \equiv m \geq (8/\delta^2) \mu^2 d_1 d_2 \log n$.
Then, w.p.~at least $1-2n^{-2}$, the sensing operator $\mathcal A$ defined in \eqref{eq:sensingOperator_IMC} satisfies an RIP \eqref{eq:RIP} with $k = \min\{d_1,d_2\}$ and with constant $\delta$.
\end{theorem}
A similar result was derived in \cite{ghassemi2018global}. \Cref{thm:IMC_RIP} improves upon it both in terms of the required conditions and in terms of the RIP guarantee. First, as in their landscape guarantee, \cite{ghassemi2018global} require cubic scaling with $d_1,d_2$ rather than quadratic as in our result. Moreover, their sample complexity includes an additional factor of $r\log(1/\delta)$ (see \cref{sec:comparisonToGhassemi2018}). Second, they proved only a $\min\{2r,d_1,d_2\}$-RIP, whereas \cref{thm:IMC_RIP} guarantees that $\mathcal A$ satisfies the RIP with the \textit{maximal} possible rank $\min\{d_1,d_2\}$.
In particular, this allows us to employ a recent result due to \cite{li2020global} to prove \cref{thm:IMC_landscape} for vanilla IMC.
The technical reason behind our sharper results is that instead of applying the Bernstein matrix inequality to a fixed matrix and then proving a union bound for all matrices, we apply it to a cleverly designed operator, which directly guarantees the result for all matrices (see \cref{lem:AB_RIP}).
\section{Rank Estimation Scheme} \label{sec:rankEstimate}
The factorization approach \eqref{eq:IMC_factorized} requires knowing $r$ in advance, although in practice it is often unknown. In this section we propose a simple scheme to estimate the underlying rank, and provide a theoretical guarantee for it. Importantly, our scheme does not assume $X^*$ is exactly low rank, but rather the existence of a sufficiently large spectral gap between its $r$-th and $(r+1)$-th singular values.
Let $\hat X = \mathcal P_{AB}(Y)/p = AA^\top Y BB^\top /p$ where $Y$ is the observed matrix and $p \equiv |\Omega|/(n_1n_2)$, and denote its singular values by $\hat \sigma_i$. Our estimator for the rank of $X^*$ is
\begin{align}\label{eq:rankEstimate_scheme}
\hat{r} &= \argmax_i \, g_i(\hat X), \quad
g_i(\hat X) = \frac{\hat \sigma_i}{\hat \sigma_{i+1} + D\cdot \hat \sigma_1 \sqrt{i}},
\end{align}
for some constant $D < 1$. In our simulations we set $D = (\sqrt{d_1d_2}/|\Omega|)^{1/2}$. The function $g_i$ measures the $i$-th spectral gap, with the second term in the denominator added for robustness of the estimate. For $D=0$, $g_i$ is simply the ratio between two consecutive singular values.
A similar estimator was proposed in \cite{keshavan2009low} for standard matrix completion, though they did not provide guarantees for it. The difference in our estimator is the incorporation of the side information matrices $A,B$. In addition, we present the following theoretical guarantee for our estimator, proven in \cref{sec:proof_rankEstimate}. Note that using the side information matrices $A,B$ allows us to reduce the sample complexity from $\mathcal O(n)$, as necessary in standard matrix completion, to only $\mathcal O(\log(n))$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:rankEstimate}
There exists a sufficiently small constant $c$ such that the following holds w.p.~at least $1-2n^{-2}$.
Let $X^* \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ be a matrix which satisfies \eqref{eq:sideInformation} with $\mu$-incoherent $A,B$. Assume $X^*$ is approximately rank $r$, in the sense that for all $i\neq r$, $g_r(X^*) > \min\{(11/10) g_i(X^*), 1/10\}$.
Denote $\delta = \min_i \{\sigma_{i+1}(X^*) + D\sigma_1(X^*) \sqrt{i}\}$, and assume $\Omega \subseteq [n_1]\times [n_2]$ is uniformly sampled with $|\Omega| \geq 8\mu^2 d_1 d_2 \log(n) \|X\|_F^2 / (c\delta)^2$. Further assume bounded error $\epsilon \equiv \|\mathcal P_{AB}\mathcal P_\Omega(\mathcal E)\|_F/p \leq c\delta$.
Then $\hat{r} = r$.
\end{theorem}
To the best of our knowledge, \cref{thm:rankEstimate} is the first guarantee in the literature for rank estimation in IMC.
We remark that with a suitably modified $\delta$, our guarantee holds for other choices of $g_i$ as well (including $g_i = \sigma_i/\sigma_{i+1}$, corresponding to $D=0$). An empirical demonstration of our scheme appears in \cref{sec:experiments_rankEstimate}.
\section{GNIMC Algorithm} \label{sec:GNIMC}
In this section, we describe an adaptation of the {\texttt{GNMR}}\xspace algorithm \cite{zilber2022gnmr} to IMC, and present recovery guarantees for it.
Consider the factorized objective \eqref{eq:IMC_factorized}.
Given an estimate $(U, V)$, the goal is to find an update $(\Delta U, \Delta V)$ such that $(U', V') = (U + \Delta U, V + \Delta V)$ minimizes \eqref{eq:IMC_factorized}.
In terms of $(\Delta U, \Delta V)$, problem \eqref{eq:IMC_factorized} reads
\begin{align*}
\min_{\Delta U, \Delta V} \|&\mathcal P_\Omega(AUV^\top B^\top + AU \Delta V^\top B^\top + A\Delta U V^\top B^\top + A\Delta U \Delta V^\top B^\top) - Y \|_F^2 ,
\end{align*}
which is nonconvex due to the mixed term $\Delta U \Delta V^\top$.
The Gauss-Newton approach is to neglect this term. This yields the key iterative step of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace, which is solving the following sub-problem:
\begin{align}\label{eq:GNIMC_LSQR}
\min_{\Delta U, \Delta V} \|& \mathcal P_\Omega(AUV^\top B^\top + AU \Delta V^\top B^\top + A\Delta U V^\top B^\top) - Y \|_F^2.
\end{align}
Problem \eqref{eq:GNIMC_LSQR} is a linear least squares problem.
Note, however, that it has an infinite number of solutions: for example, if $(\Delta U, \Delta V)$ is a solution, so is $(\Delta U + U R, \Delta V - VR^\top)$ for any $R \in \mathbb R^{r\times r}$.
We choose the solution with minimal norm $\|\Delta U\|_F^2 + \|\Delta V\|_F^2$, see \cref{alg:GNIMC}. In practice, this solution can be computed using the standard LSQR algorithm \cite{paige1982lsqr}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{{\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace} \label{alg:GNIMC}
\SetKwInOut{Return}{return}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{output}
\Input{
sampling operator $\mathcal P_\Omega$, observed matrix $Y$, side information matrices $(A,B)$, maximal number of iterations $T$, initialization $(U_0, V_0)$
}
\Output{rank-$r$ (approximate) solution to $\mathcal P_\Omega(\hat X) = Y$}
\For{$t=0,\ldots,T-1$}{
set $\begin{psmallmatrix} U_{t+1} \\ V_{t+1} \end{psmallmatrix} = \begin{psmallmatrix} U_{t} \\ V_{t} \end{psmallmatrix} + \begin{psmallmatrix} \Delta U_{t+1} \\ \Delta V_{t+1} \end{psmallmatrix}$, where $\begin{psmallmatrix} \Delta U_{t+1} \\ \Delta V_{t+1} \end{psmallmatrix}$ is the minimal norm solution of
$ \argmin_{\Delta U, \Delta V} \| \mathcal P_\Omega[A(U_tV_t^\top + U_t \Delta V^\top + \Delta U V_t^\top)B^\top] - Y \|_F^2 $
}
\Return{$\hat X = A U_T V_T^\top B^\top$}
\end{algorithm}
In general, the computational complexity of solving problem \eqref{eq:GNIMC_LSQR} scales with the condition number $\kappa$ of $X^*$. To decouple the runtime of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace from $\kappa$, we use the QR decompositions of $U_t$ and $V_t$ as was similarly done for alternating minimization by \cite{jain2013low}. In \cref{sec:time_complexity} we describe the full procedure, and prove it is analytically equivalent to \eqref{eq:GNIMC_LSQR}. Remarkably, despite the fact that {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace performs a non-local update at each iteration, its resulting per-iteration complexity is as low as a single gradient descent step.
{\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace requires an initial guess $(U_0,V_0)$. A suitable initialization procedure for our theoretical guarantees is discussed in \cref{proposition:initialization}. In practice, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace works well also from a random initialization.
The proposed {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace algorithm is extremely simple, as it merely solves a least squares problem in each iteration.
In contrast to several previous methods, it requires no parameter estimation such as the minimal and maximal singular values of $X^*$, or tuning of hyperparameters such as regularization coefficients. Altogether, this makes {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace easy to implement and use. Furthermore, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace enjoys strong recovery guarantees and fast runtimes, as described below.
\subsection{Recovery guarantees for GNIMC} \label{sec:GNIMC_guarantee}
We first analyze the noiseless case, $\mathcal E = 0$.
The following theorem, proven in \cref{sec:proof_RIP_consequences}, states that starting from a sufficiently accurate initialization with small imbalance $\|U^\top U-V^\top V\|_F$, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace exactly recovers the matrix at a quadratic rate.
In fact, the balance condition can be eliminated by adding a single SVD step as discussed below.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}
There exists a constant $c > 1$ such that the following holds w.p.~at least $1-2n^{-2}$.
Let $X^* \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2}$ be a rank-$r$ matrix which satisfies \eqref{eq:sideInformation} with $\mu$-incoherent side matrices $A \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times d_1}$ and $B \in \mathbb R^{n_2\times d_2}$.
Denote $\gamma = c/(2\sigma_r^*)$ where $\sigma_r^* = \sigma_r(X^*)$.
Assume $\Omega \subseteq [n_1]\times [n_2]$ is uniformly sampled with
\begin{align}\label{eq:GNIMC_guarantee_sampleComplexity}
|\Omega| \geq 32 \mu^2 d_1 d_2 \log n.
\end{align}
Then, for any initial iterate $(U_0, V_0)$ that satisfies
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\|AU_0V_0^\top B^\top - X^*\|_F &\leq \frac{\sigma_r^*}{c}, \label{eq:initialization_accuracy} \\
\|U_0^\top U_0 - V_0^\top V_0\|_F &\leq \frac{\sigma_r^*}{2c}, \label{eq:initialization_balance}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
the estimates $X_t = AU_tV_t^\top B^\top$ of \cref{alg:GNIMC} satisfy
\begin{align}\label{eq:GNIMC_guarantee}
\|X_{t+1} - X^*\|_F \leq \gamma\cdot \|X_t - X^*\|_F^2, \hspace{0.12in} \forall t=0, 1, ... .
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Note that by assumption \eqref{eq:initialization_accuracy}, $\gamma\cdot \|X_0 - X^*\|_F \leq 1/2$. Hence, \eqref{eq:GNIMC_guarantee} implies that {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace achieves exact recovery, since $X_t \to X^*$ as $t\to\infty$.
The computational complexity of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace is provided in the following proposition, proven in \cref{sec:time_complexity}.
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:time_complexity}
Under the conditions of \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}, the time complexity of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace (\cref{alg:GNIMC}) until recovery with a fixed accuracy (w.h.p.) is $\mathcal O(\mu^2 (d_1+d_2) d_1 d_2 r \log n)$.
\end{proposition}
To meet the initialization conditions of \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}, we need to find a rank-$r$ matrix $M$ which satisfies $\|AMB^\top - X^*\| \leq \sigma_r^*/c$. By taking its SVD $M = U\Sigma V^\top$, we obtain that $(U \Sigma^\frac{1}{2}, V \Sigma^\frac{1}{2})$ satisfies conditions (\ref{eq:initialization_accuracy}-\ref{eq:initialization_balance}).
Such a matrix $M$ can be computed in polynomial time
using the initialization procedure suggested in \cite{tu2016low} for matrix sensing. Starting from $M_0 = 0$, it iteratively performs a gradient descent step and projects the result into the rank-$r$ manifold. Its adaptation to IMC reads
\begin{align}
M_{\tau+1}
&= \mathcal P_r \left[ M_\tau - A^\top (\mathcal P_\Omega(AM_\tau B^\top)/p - Y) B \right] \label{eq:initialization_proceudre}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal P_r(M)$ is the rank-$r$ truncated SVD of $M$.
The following proposition, proven in \cref{sec:proof_initialization}, states that $\mathcal O \left(\log (r \kappa)\right)$ iterations suffice to meet the initialization conditions of \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee} under a slightly larger sample size requirement.
\begin{proposition}[Initialization guarantee] \label{proposition:initialization}
Let $X^*, A, B$ be as in \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}. Assume $\Omega$ is uniformly sampled with
$|\Omega| \geq 50\mu^2 d_1d_2\log n$.
Let $M_\tau$ be the result after $\tau \geq 5\log(c\sqrt r\kappa)$ iterations of \eqref{eq:initialization_proceudre}, and denote its SVD by $U \Sigma V$. Then w.p.~$1-2n^{-2}$, $\begin{psmallmatrix} U_0 \\ V_0 \end{psmallmatrix} = \begin{psmallmatrix} U \Sigma^\frac{1}{2} \\ V \Sigma^\frac{1}{2} \end{psmallmatrix}$ satisfies the initialization conditions \eqref{eq:initialization_accuracy}-\eqref{eq:initialization_balance} of \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}.
\end{proposition}
We conclude this subsection with a guarantee for {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace in the noisy setting. Suppose we observe $Y = \mathcal P_\Omega(X^* + \mathcal E)$ where $\mathcal E$ is arbitrary additive error.
To cope with the error, we slightly modify \cref{alg:GNIMC}, and add the following balancing step at the start of each iteration: calculate the SVD $\bar U \Sigma \bar V^\top$ of the current estimate $U_t V_t^\top$, and update
\begin{align}\label{eq:balancing_step}
U_t \leftarrow \bar U \Sigma^\frac{1}{2}, \quad
V_t \leftarrow \bar V \Sigma^\frac{1}{2},
\end{align}
so that $(U_t, V_t)$ are perfectly balanced with $U_t^\top U_t = V_t^\top V_t$.
The following result holds for the modified algorithm.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:GNIMC_guarantee_noisy}
Let $X^*, A,B, \Omega$ be defined as in \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}, and suppose the error is bounded as
\begin{align}
\epsilon \equiv \tfrac{1}{\sqrt p} \|\mathcal P_\Omega(\mathcal E)\|_F \leq \frac{\sigma_r^*}{9c} .
\end{align}
Then for any initial iterate $(U_0, V_0)$ that satisfies \eqref{eq:initialization_accuracy}, the estimates $X_t = AU_t V_t^\top B^\top$ of \cref{alg:GNIMC} with the balancing step \eqref{eq:balancing_step} satisfy
\begin{align}
\|X_t - X^*\|_F \leq \frac{\sigma_r^*}{4^{2^t-1} c} + 6\epsilon \stackrel{t\to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 6\epsilon.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
In the absence of errors, $\epsilon = 0$, this result reduces to the exact recovery guarantee with quadratic rate of \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}.
\subsection{Comparison to prior art}\label{sec:theory_comparison}
Here we describe recovery guarantees for three other algorithms. We compare them only to \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee}, as none of these works derived a stability to error result analogous to our \cref{thm:GNIMC_guarantee_noisy}.
A summary appears in \cref{table:theory_summary}.
In the following, let $n = \max\{n_1,n_2\}$ and $d = \max\{d_1,d_2\}$.
For works which require incoherence condition on several matrices, we use for simplicity the same incoherence coefficient $\mu$. All guarantees are w.p.~at least $1-\mathcal O(1/n)$.
\textbf{Nuclear norm minimization (Maxide)} \cite{xu2013speedup}. If (i) both $X^*$ and $A,B$ are $\mu$-incoherent, (ii) $\|LR^\top\|_\infty \leq \mu r/(n_1n_2)$ where $L\Sigma R$ is the SVD of $X^*$, (iii) $d_1d_2 + r^2 \geq 8[1+\log_2(d/r)](d_1+d_2)r$, and (iv)
\begin{align}\label{eq:Maxide_Omega}
|\Omega| \gtrsim \mu^2 r d [1 + \log (d/r)] \log n,
\end{align}
then \texttt{Maxide} exactly recovers $X^*$.
\textbf{Alternating minimization} \cite{jain2013provable}. If $A,B$ are $\mu$-incoherent an
\begin{align}\label{eq:AltMin_Omega}
|\Omega| \gtrsim \kappa^2 \mu^4 r^3 d_1 d_2 \log n \log (1/\epsilon),
\end{align}
then \texttt{AltMin} recovers $X^*$ up to error $\epsilon$ in spectral norm at a linear rate with a constant contraction factor.
\textbf{Multi-phase Procrustes flow} \cite{zhang2018fast}. If both $X^*$ and $A,B$ are $\mu$-incoherent and
\begin{align}\label{eq:MPPF_Omega}
|\Omega| \gtrsim \max\{\kappa r, d\} \kappa^2 \mu^2 r^2 \log d \log n,
\end{align}
then \texttt{MPPF} recovers $X^*$ at a linear rate with a contraction factor smaller than $1 - \mathcal O(1/(r\kappa))$.\footnote{When the estimation error decreases below $\mathcal O(1/(\mu d))$, the contraction factor is improved to $1 - \mathcal O(1/\kappa)$.}
This guarantee implies a required number of iterations which may scale linearly with $\kappa$, as is indeed empirically demonstrated in \cref{fig:convergence_recoveryVsCN}(right).
Notably, in terms of the dimensions $n, d, r$, the sample complexity for \texttt{Maxide} \eqref{eq:Maxide_Omega} is order optimal up to logarithmic factors. However, their guarantee requires few additional assumptions, including incoherent $X^*$. Also, from a practical point of view, \texttt{Maxide} is computationally slow and not easily scalable to large matrices (see \cref{fig:convergence_recoveryVsCN}(left)). In contrast, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace is computationally much faster and does not require $X^*$ to be incoherent, a relaxation which can be important in practice as discussed in the introduction.
Furthermore, our sample complexity requirement \eqref{eq:GNIMC_guarantee_sampleComplexity} is the only one independent of the condition number without requiring incoherent $X^*$.
Compared to the other factorization-based methods, our sample complexity is strictly better than that of \texttt{AltMin}, and better than \texttt{MPPF} if $\min\{d_1,d_2\} \lesssim \kappa^2 r^2 \log d$. Since $\min\{d_1,d_2\} \leq r^2$ is a practical setting (see e.g.~\cite[Section~4.4]{natarajan2014inductive} and \cite[Sections~6.1-6.2]{zhang2018fast}), our complexity is often smaller than that of \texttt{MPPF} even for well-conditioned matrices.
In fact, if $\min\{d_1,d_2\} \leq 54r$, then our guarantee is the sharpest, as condition (iii) of \texttt{Maxide} is violated.
In addition, to the best of our knowledge, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace is the only method with a quadratic convergence rate guarantee.
Finally, its contraction factor is constant, and in particular independent of the rank $r$ and the condition number $\kappa$.
We conclude this subsection with a computational complexity comparison.
Among the above works, only the computational complexity of \texttt{MPPF} was analyzed, and it is given by $\mathcal O(f(\kappa, \mu) \cdot n^{3/2} d^2 r^3 \log d \log n)$ where $f(\kappa, \mu)$ is some function of $\kappa$ and $\mu$ which was left unspecified in \cite{zhang2018fast}. The dependence on the large dimension factor $n^{3/2}$ implies that \texttt{MPPF} does not exploit the available side information in terms of computation time.
Our complexity guarantee, \cref{proposition:time_complexity}, is fundamentally better. In particular, it depends on $n$ only logarithmically, and is independent of the condition number $\kappa$. This independence is demonstrated empirically in \cref{fig:convergence_recoveryVsCN}(right).
\section{Simulation results} \label{sec:experiments}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{figures/single.png}
\label{fig:errorVsTime_n1000}
}
\subfloat{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{figures/varyingCN.png}
\label{fig:timeVsCN_n1000}
}
\caption{Left panel: \texttt{rel-RMSE} \eqref{eq:relRMSE} as a function of CPU runtime for several IMC algorithms. Here $X^*$ has a condition number $\kappa=10$. Right panel: runtime till convergence as a function of $\kappa$, where each point corresponds to the median of $50$ independent realizations. In both panels, $X^* \in \mathbb R^{1000\times 1000}$, $A,B\in \mathbb R^{20\times 20}$, $r = 10$ and oversampling ratio $\rho = 1.5$.}
\label{fig:convergence_recoveryVsCN}
\end{figure}
We compare the performance of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace to the following IMC algorithms, all implemented in MATLAB.\footnote{\label{fn:implementation}Code implementations of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace, \texttt{AltMin}, \texttt{GD} and \texttt{RGD} are available at \url{github.com/pizilber/GNIMC}.}
\texttt{AltMin} \cite{jain2013provable}: our implementation of alternating minimization including the QR decomposition for reduced runtime;
\texttt{Maxide} \cite{xu2013speedup}: nuclear norm minimization as implemented by the authors;%
\footnote{\url{www.lamda.nju.edu.cn/code_Maxide.ashx}}
\texttt{MPPF} \cite{zhang2018fast}: multi-phase Procrustes flow as implemented by the authors;%
\footnote{\url{github.com/xiaozhanguva/Inductive-MC}}
\texttt{GD}, \texttt{RGD}: our implementations of vanilla gradient descent (\texttt{GD}) and a variant regularized by an imbalance factor $\|U^\top U - V^\top V\|_F$ (\texttt{RGD});
and \texttt{ScaledGD} \cite{tong2021accelerating}: a preconditioned variant of gradient descent.%
\footnote{\url{github.com/Titan-Tong/ScaledGD}. We adapted the algorithm, originally designed for matrix completion, to the IMC problem. In addition, we implemented computations with sparse matrices to enhance its performance.}
Details on initialization, early stopping criteria and a tuning scheme for the hyperparameters of \texttt{Maxide}, \texttt{MPPF}, \texttt{RGD} and \texttt{ScaledGD} appear in \cref{sec:additional_experimental_details}. {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace and \texttt{AltMin} require no tuning.
In each simulation we construct $U \in \mathbb R^{d_1\times r}$, $V \in \mathbb R^{d_2\times r}$, $A \in \mathbb R^{n_1\times d_1}$, $B \in \mathbb R^{n_2\times d_2}$ with entries i.i.d.~from the standard normal distribution, and orthonormalize their columns. We then set $X^* = AUDV^\top B^\top$ where $D\in \mathbb R^{r\times r}$ is diagonal with entries linearly interpolated between $1$ and $\kappa$.
A similar scheme was used in \cite{zhang2018fast}, with a key difference that we explicitly control the condition number of $X^*$ to study how it affects the performance of the various methods.
Next, we sample $\Omega$ of a given size $|\Omega|$ from the uniform distribution over $[n_1]\times [n_2]$.
Since $A$ and $B$ are known, the $n_1\times n_2$ matrix $X^*$ has only $(d_1+d_2-r)r$ degrees of freedom. Denote the oversampling ratio by $\rho = \frac{|\Omega|}{(d_1+d_2-r)r}$. As $\rho$ is closer to the information limit value of $1$, the more challenging the problem becomes.
Notably, our simulations cover a broad range of settings, including much fewer observed entries and higher condition numbers than previous studies \cite{xu2013speedup,zhang2018fast}.
We measure the quality of an estimate $\hat X$ by its relative RMSE,
\begin{align}\label{eq:relRMSE}
\texttt{rel-RMSE} = \frac{\|X^* - \hat X\|_F}{\|X^*\|_F}.
\end{align}
First, we explore the convergence rate of the various algorithms, by comparing their relative RMSE as a function of runtime, in the setting $n_1 = n_2 = 1000$, $d_1 = d_2 = 20$, $r = \kappa = 10$ and $\rho = 1.5$ (sampling rate $p = 0.045\%$).
Representative results of a single instance of the simulation, illustrating the behavior of the algorithms near convergence, are depicted in \cref{fig:convergence_recoveryVsCN}(left).
As shown in the figure, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace converges much faster than the competing algorithms due to its quadratic convergence rate.
Next, we examine how the runtime of each algorithm is affected by the number of observations and by the condition number.
The runtime is defined as the CPU time required for the algorithm to (i) converge, namely satisfy one of the stopping criteria (detailed in \cref{sec:additional_experimental_details}), and (ii) achieve $\texttt{rel-RMSE} \leq 10^{-4}$. If the runtime exceeds $20$ minutes without convergence, the run is stopped.
Figures~\ref{fig:convergence_recoveryVsCN}(right) and \ref{fig:timeVsOversampling}(left) show the median recovery time on a log scale as a function of the condition number and of the oversampling ratio, respectively, in the same setting as above. \Cref{fig:timeVsOversampling}(right) corresponds to a larger matrix with $n_1 = 20000$, $n_2 = 1000$, $d_1 = 100$, $d_2 = 50$, $r = 5$ and $\kappa = 10$.
Evidently, under a broad range of conditions, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace is faster than the competing methods, in some cases by an order of magnitude.
In general, the advantage of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace with respect to the competing methods is more significant at low oversampling ratios.
Remarkably, the runtime of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace, \texttt{AltMin} and \texttt{ScaledGD} shows almost no sensitivity to the condition number, as illustrated in \cref{fig:convergence_recoveryVsCN}(right). For {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace, this empirical observation is in agreement with \cref{proposition:time_complexity}, which states that the computational complexity of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace does not depend on the condition number. In contrast, the runtime of the non-preconditioned gradient descent methods increases approximately linearly with the condition number.
Additional simulation results, including demonstration of the stability of {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace to noise, appear in \cref{sec:additional_experimental_results}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{figures/varyingOSR.png}
\label{fig:timeVsOversampling_n1000}
}
\subfloat{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{figures/varyingOSR_rect.png}
\label{fig:timeVsOversampling_n10000}
}
\caption{CPU runtime till convergence as a function of the oversampling ratio for several IMC algorithms. Left panel: $n_1 = n_2 = 1000$, $d_1 = d_2 = 20$ and $r = 10$. Right panel: $n_1 = 20000$, $n_2 = 1000$, $d_1 = 100$, $d_2 = 50$ and $r = 5$. In both panels $\kappa = 10$. Each point corresponds to the median of $50$ independent realizations.}
\label{fig:timeVsOversampling}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Demonstration of the rank estimation scheme}\label{sec:experiments_rankEstimate}
In this subsection we demonstrate the accuracy of our proposed rank estimation scheme \eqref{eq:rankEstimate_scheme}. \Cref{fig:rankEstimate} compares the estimated singular gaps $\hat g_i$ with the true ones $g_i$ for a matrix of approximate rank $r=5$ and only $p = 0.1\%$ observed entries. We tested two values of $D$: $D=0$ and $D=(\sqrt{d_1d_2}/|\Omega|)^{1/2}$. The qualitative behavior depicted in the figure did not change in 50 independent realizations of the simulation. In particular, the estimated rank $\hat r = \max_i \hat g_i$ was always $5$ for both values of $D$.
The figure also demonstrates the trade-off in the choice of the value of $D$: for larger $D$, $\hat g_i$ is a more accurate estimate of $g_i$, but it also distorts the exact singular gaps $\sigma_i^*/\sigma^*_{i+1}$, especially at their tail (large values of $i$). Hence, in general, nonzero $D$ is suitable in case the rank of $X^*$ is expected to be relatively low compared to $d_1,d_2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{figures/rankEstimate_noD.png}
\label{fig:rankEstimate_withD}
}
\subfloat{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{figures/rankEstimate_withD.png}
\label{fig:rankEstimate_noD}
}
\caption{The estimated spectral gaps $\hat g_i$ (inner magenta) compared to the true ones $g_i$ (outer blue) as defined in \eqref{eq:rankEstimate_scheme}, for $X^*\in \mathbb R^{30000\times 10000}$ of approximate rank $r=5$ with singular values $[5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.08, 0.06, 0.03]$, side information $d_1 = 30$, $d_2 = 20$, and sampling rate $p = 0.1\%$. The numbers above the bars indicate the ratio $\hat g_i / g_i$. Left panel: $D = 0$. Right panel: $D = (\sqrt{d_1d_2}/|\Omega|)^{1/2} \approx 0.009$.}
\label{fig:rankEstimate}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
In this work, we presented three contributions to the IMC problem: benign optimization landscape guarantee; provable rank estimation scheme; and a simple Gauss-Newton based method, {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace, to solve the IMC problem. We derived recovery guarantees for {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace, and showed empirically that it is faster than several competing algorithms.
A key theoretical contribution is a proof that under relatively mild conditions, IMC satisfies an RIP, similar to the matrix sensing problem.
Interestingly, in our simulations {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace recovers the matrix significantly faster than first-order methods, including a very recent one due to \cite{tong2021accelerating}.
A possible explanation is that {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace makes large non-local updates, yet with the same time complexity as a single local gradient descent step.
This raises the following intriguing questions: are there other non-convex problems for which non-local methods are faster than first-order ones?
In particular, can these ideas be extended to faster training of deep neural networks?
\iffalse
\textcolor{red}{Related to this,} our results indicate that in the presence of RIP, different forms of ill-conditioning do not make the problem more difficult.
One such ill-conditioning is high condition number of the underlying matrix. In all our theoretical and empirical results, the condition number does not affect the number of observations required for recovery. Moreover, for some algorithms, it does not affect even their runtime till recovery.
Another form of ill-conditioning is imbalance of the factor matrices $U_t, V_t$.
Several works on matrix recovery problems, including matrix completion, IMC and matrix sensing, attached theoretical and practical importance to balancing the factor matrices throughout the iterations, by regularizing either $\|U_t^\top U_t - V_t^\top V_t\|_F^2$ or $\|U_t\|_F^2 + \|V_t\|_F^2$; see \cite{zhang2018fast} in the context of IMC and Section~3.5 in \cite{zilber2022gnmr} and references therein for other problems.
Imbalance of $U_t, V_t$ can be viewed as a form of ill-conditioning, as small changes in $U_t, V_t$ may result in a significantly different estimate $U_tV_t^\top$.
However, the unnecessity of imbalance regularization is clearly demonstrated in our simulations, whereby the two variants of gradient descent we considered - vanilla and imbalance regularized - have almost the same performance in IMC.
This empirical result is in agreement with a recent theoretical finding due to \cite{li2020global}, who proved the unnecessity of imbalance regularization from the optimization landscape perspective in a family of matrix recovery problems, including problems with an RIP.
\fi
\iffalse
An appealing property of our results - both theoretical and empirical - is independence of the required number of observations from the condition number of the underlying matrix.
First, this independence is manifested in all our theoretical guarantees.
Second, we showed empirically that for several algorithms, including {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace, alternating minimization, gradient descent and nuclear norm minimization, the condition number does not affect the number of observations required for a successful recovery.
Another interesting point is the seeming unnecessity of balancing the factor matrices $U_t,V_t$. Several works on matrix recovery problems, including matrix completion and matrix sensing, attached theoretical and practical importance to balancing the factor matrices throughout the iterations, by regularizing either $\|U_t^\top U_t - V_t^\top V_t\|_F^2$ or $\|U_t\|_F^2 + \|V_t\|_F^2$, see Section~3.5 in \cite{zilber2022gnmr} and references therein. However, \cite{li2020global} recently proved that from the optimization landscape perspective, balancing is unnecessary in matrix sensing and related problems. Our mapping between IMC and matrix sensing implies the same for IMC, as formally stated in \cref{thm:IMC_landscape}.
This theoretical result is clearly demonstrated in our simulations whereby the two variants of gradient descent we considered - vanilla and imbalance regularized - have almost the same performance in IMC.
The discussed independence from the condition number and the unnecessity of balance might be tightly related.
As discussed in \cite{zilber2022gnmr}, if the factor matrices $U_t, V_t$ are imbalanced, small changes in them may lead to huge changes in the corresponding estimate $U_tV_t^\top$.
Hence, imbalance can be viewed as a form of ill-conditioning, similar to high condition number of $X^*$.
Our results suggest that an RIP alleviates both these forms of ill-conditioning.
\fi
\iffalse
While our recovery guarantees for {\texttt{GNIMC}}\xspace are independent of the condition number $\kappa$, they depend quadratically on the features dimension $d$. \cite{zhang2018fast}, conversely, derived recovery guarantees with linear dependence on $d$, but quadratic dependence on $\kappa$. In practice, our simulations imply that various algorithms succeed to recover the matrix very close to the information limit, which is independent of $\kappa$ and depends linearly on $d$. Developing tighter theoretical guarantees that close this gap is an interesting direction for future work.
\fi
Another interesting direction is extending our method to generalized frameworks of IMC. Important examples include recovering an unknown low rank $X^*$ which lies in some known linear subspace instead of property \eqref{eq:sideInformation} \cite{jawanpuria2018unified}, and non-linear IMC \cite{zhong2019provable}.
\iffalse
\textcolor{red}{\sout{Another possible future research is analyzing our method under more general settings.
One direction with great practical importance is observations corrupted by outliers, or when property \eqref{eq:sideInformation} of the side information holds only approximately.}}
\textcolor{red}{Finally, another possible future research is adapting our method to the}
generalized framework considered by Jawanpuria and Mishra \yrcite{jawanpuria2018unified}: instead of property \eqref{eq:sideInformation}, which may be interpreted as features, the structured low-rank matrix $X^*$ is assumed to lie in some known linear subspace. Although our Gauss-Newton approximation still makes the objective linear, the side information constraint may no longer be incorporated into the objective, making the optimization more challenging.
\fi
\iffalse
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\textbf{Do not} include acknowledgements in the initial version of
the paper submitted for blind review.
If a paper is accepted, the final camera-ready version can (and
probably should) include acknowledgements. In this case, please
place such acknowledgements in an unnumbered section at the
end of the paper. Typically, this will include thanks to reviewers
who gave useful comments, to colleagues who contributed to the ideas,
and to funding agencies and corporate sponsors that provided financial
support.
\fi
\nocite{langley00}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the central dispersive nonlinear partial
differential equations of relevance to a wide
range of physical systems is the nonlinear
Schr{\"o}dinger (NLS) model~\cite{ablowitz0,ablowitz01,ablowitz1,sulem,siambook}.
Among the different research themes where
the NLS plays a central role, one can mention the study of
the electric field of
light in nonlinear optical systems~\cite{hasegawa,kivshar}, as well as in plasmas~\cite{plasmas},
the realm of water waves and the evolution of their height, e.g., in deep water~\cite{ir,mjarecent}, as well
as the condensate wavefunction for
mean-field models of atomic Bose-Einstein
condensates (BECs)~\cite{stringari,pethick,siambook}.
The prototypical variants of the equation involve
the self-focusing~\cite{sulem,fibich0} and the
self-defocusing nonlinearity~\cite{siambook}, and
the respective dynamics revolve around bright~\cite{abdull}
and dark~\cite{djf} solitons.
In the case of self-focusing (self-attractive) nonlinearity,
and for sufficiently high dimension (for fixed nonlinearity)
or for sufficiently strong nonlinearity (for fixed dimension),
a key feature of the NLS model is the presence of collapse type
phenomena, that have also been explored in numerous
books~\cite{sulem,fibich0,boyd}, as well as reviews~\cite{fibich,berge,pelin}.
Indeed, the topic of finite time blow up of supercritical
NLS solutions
has been the objective of
continued study both in the mathematical and in the physical literature;
see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{pavel,pavel2,gadi} and~\cite{koch,sveta} (and also
references therein) for only some recent examples. Importantly, the study
of collapse is not only a mathematical idealization but rather has become
accessible to physical experiments. In fact, on the one hand, there is
the
well-developed field of nonlinear optics, where not only the well-known,
two-dimensional collapsing waveform of the Townes soliton has been
observed~\cite{moll1} but also more elaborate themes have been touched
upon including the collapse of optical vortices~\cite{vortex}, the loss
of phase information of collapsing filaments~\cite{phase}, and the manipulation
of the medium to avert optical collapse~\cite{psaltis}.
{On the other hand, a remarkable, very recent {experimental} development
has been the emergence of {2 distinct} works in the atomic physics realm of BECs,
observing Townes solitons in the $2d$ setting~\cite{bectownes,bectownes2}.
Here, collapsing waveforms in higher dimensions
had been experimentally identified earlier~\cite{donley,cornish}, and the
ability to manipulate the nonlinearity~\cite{haller} and the initial
conditions~\cite{boris} has continued to improve in recent times.
In one of these recent works~\cite{bectownes} the modulational
instability was manipulated
to produce (in a less controllable, yet experimentally observable) way such
Townes waveforms.
The authors of the second work~\cite{bectownes2} leveraged a reduction of a minority component
in a two-component gas into a single-component one with {\it effectively attractive}
interactions to produce a collapsing Townes waveform.}
In many of the above mathematical works that study the
dynamics of collapse, both in dispersive systems
such as the NLS~\cite{sulem,fibich0}, but also even
in dissipative systems such as reaction-diffusion ones~\cite{galaktionov_book}, the emphasis is on identifying the
solution in a frame where it becomes steady, namely a self-similar
(or ``co-exploding'')
one~\cite{ren,budd,jfw,galak2,budd_recent}.
A similar approach is leveraged in dynamical systems
and partial differential equations (PDEs) when exploring
traveling waves which are identified as steady solutions
in a so-called co-traveling frame. In such settings, a
natural next step is to explore the spectral stability of the solutions in such a frame~\cite{bjorn,promislow}. However, in the realm
of the self-similar solutions, far fewer studies appear
to be exploring the spectral properties of the wave
in the co-exploding frame~\cite{wit1,wit2,siettos}. Indeed, in the context of NLS,
the only earlier approach to spectrally explore the collapse
problem concerns the earlier work of some of the authors~\cite{siettos}. In a recent work, we revisited
this topic, attempting to examine the self-focusing problem
as a bifurcation one, identifying its effective normal
form~\cite{jon1}.
In the present study, we complement this approach by systematically
examining the spectrum of the self-similarly collapsing
solitary wave.
Upon setting up the relevant linearization problem in the
self-similar frame (in Section~\ref{mathsetup}),
our starting point will consist of observations of
the spectrum of the underlying
Hamiltonian system before the bifurcation point (in Section~\ref{numresults}). We will
examine the relevant spectral picture when approaching the
limit point where collapsing solutions emerge, and also
we will explore the same picture
for the {\it dissipative} system that results in the
co-exploding frame past the critical point. In Section~\ref{theory},
having observed
the relevant spectrum, we will then turn to a more refined
analysis of the different eigenvalues thereof, one-by-one.
Finally, we will synthesize the picture and its dynamical
implications and offer some conclusions and future challenges
in Section~\ref{conclusions}. The Appendices offer some additional insights,
including about how a symmetry of the original frame can turn
into an unstable eigendirection in a renormalized one,
as well as about the role of the normal form obtained
previously in~\cite{jon1} in connection with the eigenvalues
identified herein.
\section{Basic Mathematical Setup}\label{mathsetup}
Our model of interest will be the one-dimensional,
general-nonlinearity-exponent
variant of NLS in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{i} \pd{\psi}{z} + \spd{\psi}{x} + |\psi|^{2 \sigma} \psi = 0.
\label{nls1}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that here we have used the typical optics notation,
where $z$ is the evolution variable, representing the propagation distance~\cite{sulem}.
This model has been studied extensively in ~\cite{sulem,fibich0}
and it is well-known that in $d$-dimensions, the condition for
its collapse is $\sigma d>2$. The model is subcritical
for $\sigma d<2$, and the special case of $\sigma d=2$ separates
the two regimes. We opt to consider the $d=1$ case for a
number of practical reasons, including (a) the availability
of an analytical solution for all values of
$\sigma$, namely $\psi=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} z} (1+\sigma)^{1/(2 \sigma)}
{\rm sech}\left[ (2 \sigma)^{1/2} (x-x_0) \right]$ and (b) the
computational convenience of the relevant spectral
calculations. As we will see below, the latter will
be sensitively dependent on the domain size and
its boundary conditions, and associated considerations
will be even more delicate (and imposing a substantial
additional computational overhead) in higher dimensions.
Nevertheless, we expect the main features and techniques
proposed herein to be directly reflected in such
higher-dimensional settings,
as will be evident in what follows.
The Hamiltonian associated with Eq.~(\ref{nls1}) is given by
\begin{eqnarray} H = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left(
\left| \pd{\psi}{x}\right|^2 -\frac{1}{\sigma+1} |\psi|^{2\sigma+2}
\right) \, \d x.
\label{ham2}
\end{eqnarray}
The dynamical equations satisfy:
\[ \mathrm{i} \pd{\psi}{z} = \frac{\delta H}{\delta \psi^*}, \qquad \mathrm{i}
\pd{\psi^*}{z} = -\frac{\delta H}{\delta \psi}.\]
We require that $H$ be finite.
In order to go to the co-exploding frame,
we introduce the well-known~\cite{sulem,fibich0} stretched variables,
rescaling space by the length scale $L(z)$
\begin{eqnarray} \xi = \frac{x}{L(z)}, \quad \tau = \int_0^z
\frac{\d z'}{L^2(z')}, \quad \psi(x,z) = L^{-1/\sigma}
u(\xi,\tau),
\label{transf3}
\end{eqnarray}
to give
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{i} \pd{u}{\tau} + \spd{u}{\xi} + |u|^{2 \sigma} u
- \mathrm{i} \xi L L_z \pd{u}{\xi}- \frac{\mathrm{i} L L_z}{\sigma} u= 0,
\label{pde4}
\end{eqnarray}
and the corresponding rescaling of the Hamiltonian:
\begin{eqnarray} H = L^{-2/\sigma-2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \left(
\left| \pd{u}{\xi}\right|^2 -\frac{1}{\sigma+1} |u|^{2\sigma+2}
\right) \, \d x.
\label{ham5}
\end{eqnarray}
We factor out the frequency of our solution without loss
of generality and assign the rate of width shrinkage/amplitude
growth to be termed as $G$ by setting
\begin{eqnarray}
u(\xi,\tau) = \Phi(\xi,\tau) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \tau}, \qquad G = -L L_z,
\label{transf6}
\end{eqnarray}
which reduce Eq.~(\ref{pde4}) into
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{i} \pd{\Phi}{\tau} + \spd{\Phi}{\xi}+ |\Phi|^{2 \sigma}\Phi - \Phi
+ \frac{\mathrm{i} G}{ \sigma} \Phi
+ \mathrm{i} G \xi \pd{\Phi}{\xi}= 0.
\label{pde7}
\end{eqnarray}
It is particularly important for our considerations that will
follow to emphasize that the above system bears a rather unusual
``mixed'' character. Along the manifold of $G=0$ (solitonic)
solutions, the relevant model falls back on the original one,
retaining its Hamiltonian structure.
Nevertheless, for the genuinely self-similar solutions
of $G \neq 0$, the system is no longer conservative in nature.
Hence, we are dealing with a mixed Hamiltonian-dissipative system
and the dissipativity for $G \neq 0$ should be mirrored
in the spectrum of the self-similar solutions. This is contrary
to what is the case for the four-fold symmetric spectrum
of the $G=0$ solitons, for which if $\lambda$ is an
eigenvalue, so are $-\lambda$, $\lambda^{*}$ and
$-\lambda^{*}$.
We will find it convenient to also perform an additional transformation
by writing
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi(\xi,\tau) = V(\xi,\tau) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} G(\tau) \xi^2/4}
\label{transf8}
\end{eqnarray}
to give
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{i} \pd{V}{\tau} + \frac{G' \xi^2}{4} V+ \spd{V}{\xi}+ |V|^{2 \sigma}V - V
- \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} V
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4}V= 0,
\label{pde9}
\end{eqnarray}
where $G' = \fdd{G}{\tau}$, since then (without loss of generality) the imaginary part of $V$ is exponentially small in $G$ \cite{jon1}. Notice that above
we have suppressed the dependence of $G$ on the parameter $\sigma$.
Our principal aim as indicated above is to consider
the spectral stability of the steady-state solutions
(with $G \neq 0$) in the co-exploding frame.
These correspond to self-similar blowup solutions in the original
frame.
Such steady-state solutions denoted as $\Phi_{s}$ satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
\sdd{\Phi_{s}}{\xi}+ |\Phi_{s}|^{2 \sigma}\Phi_{s} - \Phi_{s}
+ \frac{\mathrm{i} G}{ \sigma} \Phi_{s}
+ \mathrm{i} G \xi \fdd{\Phi_{s}}{\xi}= 0,
\label{ode10}
\end{eqnarray}
or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\sdd{V_{s}}{\xi}+ |V_{s}|^{2 \sigma}V_{s} - V_{s}
- \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} V_{s}
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4}V_{s}= 0.\label{sseqn}
\end{equation}
We now linearize Eq.~(\ref{pde7}) about the relevant
steady-state solutions in the co-exploding frame, $\Phi_{s}$, by setting:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(\xi,\tau) = \Phi_{s}(\xi) + \epsilon\left( X(\xi) \mathrm{e}^{\lambda \tau} + Y^*(\xi) \mathrm{e}^{\lambda^* \tau} \right),
\label{linear13}
\end{eqnarray}
giving rise to the operator eigenvalue problem
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{i}\lambda X & = & \left(-\sdd{ }{\xi}
- ( \sigma+1)|\Phi_{s}|^{2 \sigma}
+ 1
- \frac{\mathrm{i} G}{ \sigma}
- \mathrm{i} G \xi \fdd{}{\xi}\right)X
-\sigma |\Phi_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}\Phi_{s}^{2} Y,\label{x-eqn}\\
\mathrm{i} \lambda Y & = &
\sigma |\Phi_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(\Phi_{s}^*)^{2} X +
\left( \sdd{}{\xi}
+ ( \sigma+1)|\Phi_{s}|^{2 \sigma}
- 1
- \frac{\mathrm{i} G}{\sigma}
- \mathrm{i} G \xi \fdd{}{\xi}\right)Y.\label{y-eqn}
\end{eqnarray}
In a similar vein, for the stationary solution $V_s(\xi)$,
we linearize in $\epsilon$ by writing
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\xi,\tau) = V_{s}(\xi) + \epsilon\left( f(\xi) \mathrm{e}^{\lambda \tau} + g^*(\xi) \mathrm{e}^{\lambda^* \tau} \right)
\label{linear14}
\end{eqnarray}
which leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{i}\lambda f+\sdd{ f}{\xi} +
\sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}V_{s}^{2} g
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} f
- f
- \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} f
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f &=& 0,\label{geqn}\\
-\mathrm{i} \lambda g
+ \sdd{g}{\xi}
+ \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s}^*)^{2} f
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} g
- g
+ \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} g
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} g &=& 0.\label{feqn}
\end{eqnarray}
On the finite domain $[-K,K]$ we impose the boundary conditions
\[ \pd{\phi}{\xi} = 0 \qquad \mbox{ at } \xi = \pm K,\]
which corresponds to
\[ \pd{V}{\xi} = \pm \frac{\mathrm{i} G K V}{2} \qquad \mbox{ at } \xi = \pm K.\]
For the perturbation this gives, correspondingly,
\[ \pd{X}{\xi} = \pd{Y}{\xi} = 0, \qquad \pd{f}{\xi} = \pm \frac{\mathrm{i} G K f}{2}, \qquad \pd{g}{\xi} = \mp \frac{\mathrm{i} G K g}{2} \qquad \mbox{ on } \xi = \pm K.\]
Let us now try to explore, on the basis of the above
principal setup, what we should expect to see in the
linearization around a collapsing waveform.
\section{Principal Numerical Results}\label{numresults}
The question of how the spectrum changes under the
type of nontrivial scaling transformation discussed above
requires particular attention. This topic was first addressed
systematically, to the best of our knowledge, in a different
class of systems, in the pioneering work
of~\cite{wit1,wit2} who realized that such a transformation
that rescales space and time may have profound
implications within the renormalized frame
as regards the interpretations of symmetries
of the original frame.
To explain this subtle point, we provide arguably the
simplest possible example that we have been able to identify
in Appendix A of the present manuscript. There, and in
the cleaner/simpler setting of an autonomous ordinary differential
equation, it can be seen that the symmetry of time translation
of the original system leads to an ``apparent instability''
in the renormalized frame. This is because a shift in, e.g., the
time of collapse in the original frame, due to the exponential
nature of the transformation between the renormalized and the regular
time, leads to an exponential deviation in the renormalized
frame and hence an {\it apparent} instability.
The key take-home message from this example is that {\it symmetries
of the original frame may no longer correspond to ones
such in the renormalized frame}. The even more dire consequence
is that {\it symmetries of the original frame may appear
as instabilities in the renormalized one.}
For example, differentiating Eq.~(\ref{ode10}) with respect to $\xi$ gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\d^3\Phi_{s}}{\d\xi^3}+ (\sigma+1)|\Phi_{s}|^{2\sigma}\fdd{\Phi_{s}}{\xi} + \sigma |\Phi_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}\Phi_{s}^{2}\fdd{\Phi_{s}^*}{\xi} - \fdd{\Phi_{s}}{\xi}
+ \frac{\mathrm{i} G}{ \sigma} \fdd{\Phi_{s}}{\xi}
+ \mathrm{i} G \xi \sdd{\Phi_{s}}{\xi}+ \mathrm{i} G \fdd{\Phi_{s}}{\xi}= 0,\qquad
\label{ode11}
\end{eqnarray}
from which we observe that $X=\fdd{\phi_s}{\xi}$
and $Y=\fdd{\phi_s^{*}}{\xi}$ satisfy Eqs.~(\ref{x-eqn})-(\ref{y-eqn}) if
we choose $\lambda=G$.
The eigenvector is
associated with the derivative, which is well-known to be
the generator of translations. However, instead of this vector being
associated with a neutral direction, it is now associated
with an ``apparently unstable'' eigenmode (since $G>0$). Nevertheless,
that eigenmode is {\it not} a true instability in the original
frame, even though it appears as one in the renormalized frame.
Rather, it only involves spatial translation, i.e., a symmetry,
and its
suitable reinterpretation in this renormalized frame.
Armed with this important piece of understanding,
let us now scrutinize the spectral picture in further detail.
As is natural, we start with the subcritical case
of $\sigma d<2$. In the integrable limit of $d=\sigma=1$,
it is well-known~\cite{kaup} that the spectrum of the linearization
of the NLS soliton possesses two neutral directions,
one associated with spatial translations, and one
associated with the phase or gauge (U$(1)$) invariance. We already saw that the
derivative $\fdd{\phi_s}{\xi}$ is connected to the translational
eigenvector while the solution ($\phi_s$) itself is associated
with the corresponding phase eigenvector. In each case,
the generalized eigenvectors are known as well~\cite{kaup}.
As we depart (parametrically in $\sigma$) from the integrable limit, an eigenvalue pair
bifurcates from the band edge of the continuous spectrum
which consists of the union of the intervals
$\mathrm{i} [1, \infty)$ and $-\mathrm{i} [1,\infty)$ and tends (along
the imaginary axis) towards the origin
as $\sigma \rightarrow 2$. It is this eigenvalue pair that arrives
at the origin of the spectral plane, precisely at $\sigma=2$,
instituting the conformal invariance of the model, i.e.,
the invariance with respect to rescaling that paves the
way to collapse dynamics. The dependence
of this eigenvalue on the parameter $\sigma$ is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:realpairvariation}.
The corresponding eigenvector
in this case is
\begin{eqnarray}
X(\xi)=\mathrm{i} \phi_s + G \left(\frac{\phi_s}{\sigma} + \xi \fdd{\phi_s}{\xi} \right),
\label{eigv1}
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly its conjugate yields $Y(\xi)$.
Past the critical point, the relevant eigenvalue becomes
real, giving rise to the dynamical instability of the soliton
and the emergence of the collapsing branch of solutions.
The spectra of the solitonic solution of $G=0$ for
$\sigma$ below the critical one (of $\sigma_c=2$ for $d=1$)
and above the critical point are shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:solitonspectracomparison}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{lambdasquare_variation.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Square of eigenvalue bifurcating from the band edge of the continuous spectrum, tending towards the origin as $\sigma\rightarrow2$, and finally giving rise to real eigenvalues (one positive and one negative) past the critical point, $\sigma=2$.}
\label{fig:realpairvariation}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{spectra_from_1_9_to_2_1.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Spectra of the numerically obtained soliton solution of the rescaled NLS equation with $K=20$ and $\sigma=1.9$, $\sigma=1.95$, $\sigma=2.05$ and $\sigma=2.1$.}
\label{fig:solitonspectracomparison}
\end{figure}
As the bifurcation of the self-similarly focusing branch
of solutions occurs~\cite{siettos,jon1},
the natural question is what becomes
of the spectrum and what are the corresponding dynamical
implications of this spectral linearization picture.
Recall that at the critical point, the ``parent branch'' of
solitary waves has, in addition to the above mentioned
continuous spectrum, 3 eigenvalue pairs at the origin.
Hence, as this Hamiltonian system turns dissipative for
$G >0$, we have to determine the fate of the 6 eigenvalues
stemming from the origin, and the associated continuous
spectrum band. Notice that the 6 eigenvalues will
{\it no longer} constitute pairs, except perhaps approximately,
as the dissipativity of $G \neq 0$
destroys the Hamiltonian character and hence the eigenvalue pairing.
Before we systematically answer this question, it is relevant
to remind the reader of the established bifurcation of
solutions with nontrivial $G \neq 0$ for $\sigma>2$~\cite{sulem,siettos,jon1}.
The bifurcation diagram of the relevant solutions with a finite blowup rate $G$
is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bifdiagram}, and a typical example
of the associated waveforms and the dynamics of approaching
them within the realm of the mixed Hamiltonian-dissipative system
of Eq.~(\ref{pde7}) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nls_dynamics}.
The latter suggests the attractivity of the structures
and hence predisposes us towards their (effective) spectral stability.
Having obtained these solutions with finite non-vanishing $G$
as stationary ones (see the details in~\cite{jon1}), we are
now ready to solve the corresponding spectral problem for the
eigenvalues $\lambda$ and eigenvectors $(X,Y)$. Some typical examples
of the spectral plane of the imaginary vs. the real part of the
eigenvalues
for specific choices of $\sigma$ (and hence $G$, per Fig.~\ref{fig:bifdiagram})
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{bifurcation_diagram.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Variation of blowup rate $G$ as a function of $\sigma$, for domain size $K=20$. The solitonic branch ($G=0$) remains stable up to $\sigma=2$ (black solid line) and becomes unstable for $\sigma>2$ (black dash-dotted line). The stable collapsing branch ($G>0$) is illustrated with solid grey line.
}
\label{fig:bifdiagram}
\end{figure}
The answer to this central question of our manuscript for the
spectrum at the co-exploding frame is given in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
There we can see that, in fact, {\it only one} out of the 6 eigenvalues stays at the origin. Indeed, $X \propto \phi_s$
remains an eigenvector with vanishing eigenvalue, as the
rescaled model retains the original phase invariance.
Nevertheless, as indicated above, the generalized eigenvector
is no longer there (due to dissipativity) and, thus, the
associated eigenvalue acquires a small negative value. In addition, there are two pairs of
eigenvalues that are only {\it nearly} symmetric. We
find these to be at $\lambda \approx \pm 2 G$ and
$\lambda \approx \pm G$. All of these point spectrum
eigenvalues are systematically captured in Fig.~\ref{fig2}
to which we will return shortly. Moreover, there are two
more observations in place regarding Fig.~\ref{fig1}. One
of the above 6 eigenvalues (and one of the ones shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2},
as well), the eigenvalue at $\lambda \approx -G$, is hard to detect.
This is because it almost coincides with a nearly vertical line
of continuous spectrum with real part $\lambda_r = - G$, i.e.,
the continuous spectrum is approximately $\lambda = -G + \mathrm{i} s$ for arbitrary
real $s$ (see also Appendix~\ref{sec:large}).
As we already discussed above, the pair at $\lambda \approx \pm G$
is associated with spatial translation. Indeed, the derivative
eigenvector, through the exact calculation above, yields an eigenvalue of $\lambda = G$ in the infinite
domain. It can be discerned from Fig.~\ref{fig2}, that this eigenvalue
is no longer {\it exactly} at $G$ on the finite domain but rather presents slight
undulations in its dependence. Indeed, one of our key aims
in the detailed calculations that follow will be to capture
these finite-domain-induced undulatory corrections.
On the other hand, the eigenvalue at $-G$ is no longer exact
{\it even in the infinite domain}, due to the lack of symmetry,
as induced by the dissipative terms $\propto G$ in our linearized
equation for $(X,Y)$ (or for $(f,g)$). In a very similar tenor,
the eigenvalue $\lambda=2 G$ is also exact in the infinite
domain limit, as can be verified by direct calculation, upon
substituting the eigenvector
of Eq.~(\ref{eigv1}) in the linearization equations.
However, in this case too, the finite domain correction (to be
also evaluated below) induces an undulatory dependence on top
of the $\lambda=2 G$ leading order. Furthermore, the eigenvalue $\lambda = -2 G$
is also no longer exact even for an infinite domain (due to dissipativity)
and in addition, there is an undulation (from the finite domain)
on top of this eigenvalue as well. This summary then accounts
for all the point spectrum eigenvalues.
It is relevant to add here two important observations.
The first one concerns the dynamics of the collapsing
solutions. On the one hand, we obtain that the relevant
waveforms have two unstable eigendirections in the co-exploding
frame. However, on the other hand, we have illustrated
through our explicit calculations above (see also the pertinent
Appendix~A) that such eigendirections do not pertain to true
instabilities, but rather to neutral directions of the original
frame (spatial translations and rescalings of the original solution).
Given the rescaling of space and time in the co-exploding
frame, both of these actions move solutions exponentially far from other members of the family of such equivariant solutions, and thus appear as instabilities in the co-exploding
frame, yet this is {\it not a true instability} in the original frame.
Hence, in line with our above dynamical evolution results,
we expect such collapsing solutions to be dynamically
robust (modulo symmetries).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{rescaled_nls_evolution_power_v2.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Dynamics of $|\phi(\xi,\tau)|^2-|\phi(\xi,0)|^2$ in the co-exploding frame (rescaled NLS). The initial condition, $\phi(\xi,0)$ is the soliton solution for $\sigma=2.019$. Upon perturbing $\sigma$ to $\sigma=2.02$, the co-exploding dynamics converges to a ``steady-state'' solution. The inset on the bottom right illustrates the evolution of the blowup rate, $G$, with the rescaled time, $\tau$.}
\label{fig:nls_dynamics}
\end{figure}
The second observation is related to the results for the spectrum given
in the earlier work of~\cite{siettos}. There, only one of these
positive eigenvalues was found and moreover the continuous spectrum
had a wider apparent extent around $\lambda_r \approx -G$ (extending
to values with more negative real part). The former of these
features was because the calculation of~\cite{siettos} was done
in the half-domain and hence, e.g., spatial translations were
a priori excluded from consideration. Furthermore, we believe
that the observations of the continuous spectrum had to do with
the discretization used in the latter case. Our refined numerics
here suggest that the continuous spectrum progressively tends
to the vertical line with $\lambda_r=-G$ (asymptotically
for large imaginary part). Finally, we also note that the main features of the computed spectra show only slight changes by increasing the size of the computational domain (see Appendix \ref{sec:Keffect}).
Admittedly, in what
follows we can only offer an asymptotic prediction for the part
of the spectral band
with sufficiently large imaginary part. For the part with small
imaginary part, the situation is rather complex and constitutes
a technical challenge for potential future studies. Nevertheless,
we believe that we hereby offer a far more definitive
perspective of both the point and the continuous spectrum, than was
previously available.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{comparison_spectra_vertical.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{comparison_spectra_2_001_2_05.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Spectra obtained from the numerical solution of the rescaled NLS equation with $K=20$ and $\sigma$ values close to the critical value, $\sigma=2$: $\sigma=2+10^{-9}$ (top left panel) and $\sigma=2+10^{-6}$ (top right panel), as well as $\sigma=2.001$ (bottom left panel), $\sigma=2.05$ (bottom right panel).}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{important_eigenvalues_new.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Variation of $\lambda \approx 2G$, $\lambda \approx G$, $\lambda = 0$, $\lambda \approx -G$, $\lambda \approx -2G$ and $\lambda$ close to 0 eigenvalues with $\sigma$ values as obtained from the numerical solution of the rescaled NLS equation with $K=20$.
}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
In the analytical calculations that follow (and their comparison
with the detailed numerical computations as regards the eigenvalue
corrections), we will consider each of these eigenvalues one by one.
We will split their dependence into a principal part (that we have
effectively already discussed above), and a correction that
stems either from the finiteness of the computational domain
(in the case of $\lambda=G$ or $\lambda=2G$) or from both
the inexactness of the symmetry in the dissipative system
{\it and} the finiteness of the computational domain
(in the case of the negative point spectrum eigenvalues).
We will develop a solvability based approach to calculate
the residual of each of these eigenvalues and will subsequently
compare it to our systematic eigenvalue computations. Finally,
we will corroborate our theoretical conclusion on the
effective spectral stability (modulo the symmetries) of the
collapsing solutions via direct numerical simulations in both
the original and the co-exploding frame.
For the performance of numerical computations, we adopt a fourth-order central finite difference scheme for the approximation of spatial derivatives. Space, $\xi \in [-K,K]$ is uniformly discretized with step, $d\xi=0.01$. Time integration (where needed) is performed utilizing MATLAB's ode23t ODE solver. Steady-state solutions are obtained through the iterative Newton-Raphson algorithm. Finally, the eigenvalue computations were performed by utilizing MATLAB's eig solver and corroborated further by using the contour-integral based FEAST eigenvalue solver \cite{kestyn_eric_tang} (and references therein). The spectral stability analysis results we obtained through the use of both eigenvalue solvers match precisely with each other.
\section{Theoretical Analysis Approach}
\label{theory}
For our theoretical analysis, we work in terms of $V_{s}$, $f$ and $g$.
We first outline the general methodology, before we apply it to each eigenvalue of the discrete spectrum in turn.
Suppose we have an asymptotic approximation to the eigenfunctions $f_{\mathrm{reg}}$ and $g_{\mathrm{reg}}$ and eigenvalue $\la_{\mathrm{reg}}$ which is accurate to all orders in $G$ but misses exponentially small terms. [Notice that in what follows, for mathematical convenience,
we will generally expand in powers of
$G$, rather than the parameter $\sigma$.]
Let us write $\lambda =\la_{\mathrm{reg}} + \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}$.
Then, Eqs.~(\ref{geqn})-(\ref{feqn}) give:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{i} \la_{\mathrm{reg}} f+\sdd{ f}{\xi} +
\sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}V_{s}^{2} g
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} f
- f
- \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} f
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f &=& -\mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} f,\\
- \mathrm{i} \la_{\mathrm{reg}} g
+ \sdd{g}{\xi}
+ \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s}^*)^{2} f
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} g
- g
+ \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} g
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} g &=& \mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} g.
\end{eqnarray*}
If we multiply by $f_{\mathrm{reg}}$ and $g_{\mathrm{reg}}$ respectively, add and integrate by
parts, the left-hand side is
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\int_{-K}^{K}\left(\mathrm{i} \la_{\mathrm{reg}} f+\sdd{ f}{\xi} +
\sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}V_{s}^{2} g
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} f
- f
- \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} f
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f \right) f_{\mathrm{reg}}\, \d \xi \\
&& \hspace{-0cm}+
\int_{-K}^{K}\left(- \mathrm{i} \la_{\mathrm{reg}} g
+ \sdd{g}{\xi}
+ \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s}^*)^{2} f
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} g
- g
+ \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} g
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} g\right) g_{\mathrm{reg}}\, \d \xi\\
& = & \int_{-K}^{K}\left(\mathrm{i} \la_{\mathrm{reg}} f_{\mathrm{reg}}+\sdd{ f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}
+(\sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2\sigma} f_{\mathrm{reg}}
- f_{\mathrm{reg}}
- \frac{\mathrm{i}(\sigma-2)G}{2 \sigma} f_{\mathrm{reg}}
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f_{\mathrm{reg}}\right) f\, \d \xi\\
&& \int_{-K}^{K}\left(-\mathrm{i} \la_{\mathrm{reg}} g_{\mathrm{reg}} +\sdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}
+ (\sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2\sigma} g_{\mathrm{reg}}
- g_{\mathrm{reg}} + \frac{\mathrm{i}(\sigma-2)G}{2 \sigma} g_{\mathrm{reg}}
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} g_{\mathrm{reg}}\right) g\, \d \xi
\\
&& \mbox{ }+\int_{-K}^{K}
\sigma |V_{s}|^{2 \sigma-2}V_{s}^2 g f_{\mathrm{reg}} + \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s}^*)^2 f g_{\mathrm{reg}}\, \d \xi + \left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K}\\
& = & \int_{-K}^{K}
R_{\mathrm{f}}
f +R_{\mathrm{g}}
g + \sigma|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma-2}(g_{\mathrm{reg}} f-f_{\mathrm{reg}} g)((V_{s}^*)^2-V_{s}^2)\, \d \xi \\ && \mbox{ }+ \left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K},
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{\mathrm{f}} & = & \mathrm{i} \la_{\mathrm{reg}} f_{\mathrm{reg}}+\sdd{ f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}
+(\sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2\sigma} f_{\mathrm{reg}} + \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}V_{s}^2 g_{\mathrm{reg}}
- f_{\mathrm{reg}}
- \frac{\mathrm{i}(\sigma-2)G}{2 \sigma} f_{\mathrm{reg}}
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f_{\mathrm{reg}},\\
R_{\mathrm{g}} & = &-\mathrm{i} \la_{\mathrm{reg}} g_{\mathrm{reg}} +\sdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}
+ (\sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2\sigma} g_{\mathrm{reg}} +
\sigma |V_{s}|^{2 \sigma-2}(V_{s}^*)^2 f_{\mathrm{reg}}
- g_{\mathrm{reg}} + \frac{\mathrm{i}(\sigma-2)G}{2 \sigma} g_{\mathrm{reg}}
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} g_{\mathrm{reg}},
\end{eqnarray*}
are the exponentially small residuals from the regular asymptotic expansion.
Since the imaginary part of $V_{s}$ is exponentially small, and $f_{\mathrm{reg}}$ and $g_{\mathrm{reg}}$ are exponentially close to $f$ and $g$, the term $(g_{\mathrm{reg}} f-f_{\mathrm{reg}} g)((V_{s}^*)^2-V_{s}^2)$ is doubly exponentially small and can be neglected.
Then, evaluating also the right-hand side,
\begin{multline}
\int_{-K}^{K}
(R_{\mathrm{f}} f +R_{\mathrm{g}} g)\, \d \xi+ \left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K} \sim \mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}\int_{-K}^K (g_{\mathrm{reg}} g- f_{\mathrm{reg}} f )\, \d \xi.\label{eig}
\end{multline}
Since $R_{\mathrm{f}}$, $R_{\mathrm{g}}$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}$ are already exponentially small, we can use $f_{\mathrm{reg}}$, $g_{\mathrm{reg}}$ in place of $f$ and $g$ except in the boundary terms, introducing only double-exponentially-small errors. Thus, to exponential accuracy,
\begin{multline}
\int_{-K}^{K}
(R_{\mathrm{f}} f_{\mathrm{reg}} +R_{\mathrm{g}} g_{\mathrm{reg}})\, \d \xi+ \left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K} \sim \mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}\int_{-K}^K (g_{\mathrm{reg}}^2- f_{\mathrm{reg}}^2 )\, \d \xi.\label{eig0}
\end{multline}
This is the equation which determines the exponentially small correction to the eigenvalue $\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}$. To find the boundary terms we need to examine the far field more carefully.
\subsection{Boundary condition on a finite domain}
Consider first $f$.
We write $f = f_{\mathrm{reg}} + f_b$, where $f_b$ is the correction due to the fact that $f_{\mathrm{reg}}$ does not satisfy the boundary conditions.
Then, following the earlier work of~\cite{jon1}, we have
in the far field with $\rho = G \xi$,
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathrm{reg}} = {A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} + {B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} , \qquadf_b = A \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} + B \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G},
\label{WKBAreg}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\phi_2'= \sqrt{\frac{\rho^2}{4} -1}, \qquad
\mathrm{i} \lambda_1 A + 2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2' A' + \mathrm{i} \phi_2'' A = \mathrm{i} G A'', \qquad
\mathrm{i} \lambda_1 B - 2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2' B' - \mathrm{i} \phi_2'' B = \mathrm{i} G B'',\label{Ampeqn}
\end{equation}
and $\la_{\mathrm{reg}} = \lambda_1 G$. Note that ${A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$ and ${B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$ are given, but $A$ and $B$ need to be determined.
Expanding
\begin{equation}
A = \sum_{n=0}^\infty A_n(\rho) (\mathrm{i} G)^n, \qquad
B = \sum_{n=0}^\infty B_n(\rho) (-\mathrm{i} G)^n,\label{WKBAreg2}
\end{equation}
substituting into Eq.~(\ref{Ampeqn}), and equating coefficients of powers of $G$ gives at leading order
\[
\frac{A_0'}{A_0} = - \frac{(\phi_2'' +\lambda_1)}{2 \phi_2'}, \qquad
\frac{B_0'}{B_0} = -\frac{(\phi_2''-\lambda_1)}{2 \phi_2'},
\]
so that
\[
A_0= \frac{a_{\mathrm{f}}}{(\rho^2-4)^{1/4}}\left(\frac{\rho-\sqrt{\rho^2-4}}{\rho+\sqrt{\rho^2-4}}\right)^{\lambda_1/2} ,\qquad
B_0 = \frac{b_{\mathrm{f}}}{(\rho^2-4)^{1/4}} \left(\frac{\rho+\sqrt{\rho^2-4}}{\rho-\sqrt{\rho^2-4}}\right)^{\lambda_1/2},
\]
for some constants $a_{\mathrm{f}}$ and $b_{\mathrm{f}}$.
At the next order
\[ \lambda_1 A_1 + 2 \phi_2' A_1' + \phi_2'' A_1 = A_0'', \qquad
-\lambda_1 B_1 + 2 \phi_2' B_1' + \phi_2'' B_1 = B_0''.\]
Substituting for $\phi_2$, $A_0$ and $B_0$, and solving gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_1
& = & \frac{a_{\mathrm{f}}}{(\rho^2-4)^{1/4}}\left(\frac{\rho-\sqrt{\rho^2-4}}{\rho+\sqrt{\rho^2-4}}\right)^{\lambda_1/2} \frac{(24(2\lambda_1^2-1)\rho + (1-12\lambda_1^2)\rho^3 - 48 \lambda_1 \sqrt{\rho^2-4})}{48(\rho^2-4)^{3/2}},\\
B_1
& = & \frac{b_{\mathrm{f}}}{(\rho^2-4)^{1/4}}\left(\frac{\rho+\sqrt{\rho^2-4}}{\rho-\sqrt{\rho^2-4}}\right)^{\lambda_1/2} \frac{(24(2\lambda_1^2-1)\rho + (1-12\lambda_1^2)\rho^3 + 48 \lambda_1 \sqrt{\rho^2-4})}{48(\rho^2-4)^{3/2}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where we fix the constants of integration by requiring that $A \leftrightarrow B$ as we circle the branch point $\rho=2$.
Continuing in this way, we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
A & \sim & a_{\mathrm{f}} \rho^{-1/2-\lambda_1}(1 + \mathrm{i} G \mu_1 - \mu_2G^2+\cdots), \label{Ainf}\\
B & \sim & b_{\mathrm{f}} \rho^{-1/2+\lambda_1}(1 - \mathrm{i} G \mu_1 + \mu_2G^2+\cdots),\label{Binf}
\end{eqnarray}
as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$, where
\[ \mu_1 = \frac{(1-12 \lambda_1^2)}{48}, \qquad \mu_2 = \frac{\lambda_1(1-4 \lambda_1^2)}{48}.\]
A similar asymptotic behaviour must hold for ${A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$, ${B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$, so that
\begin{eqnarray}
{A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} & \sim & {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \rho^{-1/2-\lambda_1}(1 + \mathrm{i} G \mu_1 - \mu_2G^2+\cdots), \label{Areg}\\
{B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} & \sim & {b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \rho^{-1/2+\lambda_1}(1 - \mathrm{i} G \mu_1 + \mu_2G^2+\cdots)\label{Breg}
\end{eqnarray}
as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$. As we approach the turning point $\rho = 2$,
\[ A \sim \frac{a_{\mathrm{f}}}{(4(\rho-2))^{1/4}} ,
\quad
B \sim \frac{b_{\mathrm{f}}}{(4(\rho-2))^{1/4}}.
\]
Matching with the turning point region gives
\[ a_{\mathrm{f}} \mathrm{i} = b_{\mathrm{f}},\]
which ensures that the extra contribution due to the reflection back from the boundary is exponentially small in the near field.
The boundary condition gives
\begin{multline*}
\lefteqn{\mathrm{i} \phi_2' (A+{A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} - \mathrm{i} \phi_2' (B+{B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}
+ G(A'+{A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}') \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} +G(B'+{B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}') \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}} \\
=
\frac{\mathrm{i} KG}{2} \left((A+{A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} + (B+{B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} \right).
\end{multline*}
Equations (\ref{Ainf})-(\ref{Binf}) show that $A' = O(A/K)$ for large $K$, so that the term $AK$ dominates $A'$ by a factor of $K^2$. Neglecting the third and fourth terms on the left-hand side gives
\[ \left(\phi_2' - \frac{KG}{2}\right)(A+{A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} = \left(\phi_2' + \frac{KG}{2}\right)(B+{B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G},\]
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} \frac{\sqrt{(KG)^2-4} - KG }{\sqrt{(KG)^2-4}+KG }&=&\frac{B+{B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}}{A+{A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}} .
\end{eqnarray*}
We now assume that $KG$ is large so that we can use the asymptotic behaviour of Eqs.~(\ref{Ainf})-(\ref{Breg}) to evaluate the right-hand side, giving
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\mathrm{i} a_{\mathrm{f}}+{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}}{a_{\mathrm{f}}+{a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}} &\sim&-\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G}}{(KG)^{2+2\lambda_1}} \left(\frac{1+\mathrm{i} G \mu_1-\mu_2G^2+\cdots}{1 - \mathrm{i} G \mu_1+ \mu_2G^2+\cdots}\right)= -S,
\end{eqnarray*}
say. Then
\begin{equation}
a_{\mathrm{f}} \sim -\frac{{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} S}{\mathrm{i} + S},\qquad
b_{\mathrm{f}} \sim -\mathrm{i}\frac{{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} S}{\mathrm{i} + S}.\label{aFbF}
\end{equation}
As $KG \rightarrow \infty$ the behaviour of $S$ (and therefore $a_{\mathrm{f}}$ and $b_{\mathrm{f}}$) crucially depends on whether $\lambda_1$ is greater or less than $-1$. For $\lambda_1>-1$, $S \rightarrow 0$ as $KG \rightarrow \infty$ and
\begin{equation}
a_{\mathrm{f}} \sim \mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} ,\qquad
b_{\mathrm{f}} \sim -{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}.\label{aFbF0}
\end{equation}
For $\lambda_1<-1$, $S \rightarrow \infty$ as $KG \rightarrow \infty$ and
\begin{equation}
a_{\mathrm{f}} \sim -{a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}},\qquad
b_{\mathrm{f}} \sim -\mathrm{i} {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} .
\label{aFbFinf}
\end{equation}
Now, for large $KG$, we can evaluate the boundary terms in Eq.~(\ref{eig0}) as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\left.f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right|_{\rho = KG} =
\left.f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f_b}{\xi} - f_b \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right|_{\rho = KG}}&&\\
&\sim& G \left( {A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}+{B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}\right) \left( \frac{\mathrm{i} \phi_2'}{G} \left(A\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} - B\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}\right) +A'\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} + B'\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} \right)
\\ && \mbox{ } - G \left(A\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} + B\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}\right)
\left( \frac{\mathrm{i} \phi_2'}{G} \left({A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} - {B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}\right) +{A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}'\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} + {B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}'\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} \right)\\
&\sim& -2\mathrm{i} \phi_2'( {A^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} B -{B^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} A)\\
&\sim&-\mathrm{i}({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} (1+\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G +\cdots)b_{\mathrm{f}}(1-\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G+\cdots)-{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}(1-\mathrm{i} \mu G+\cdots) a_{\mathrm{f}}(1+\mathrm{i} \mu G+\cdots))\\
&=& -\mathrm{i}({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} b_{\mathrm{f}}-{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} a_{\mathrm{f}})\left(1 -(\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
A similar calculation on $g$ shows that, when $\lambda_1$ is real,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left.g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} \right|_{\rho = KG} & \sim& - \mathrm{i} ({a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} b_{\mathrm{g}}-{b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} a_{\mathrm{g}})\left(1 - (-\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\[
a_{\mathrm{g}} = \mathrm{i}\frac{ {a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} S^*}{-\mathrm{i} + S^*}
,\qquad
b_{\mathrm{g}} = -\frac{ {a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} S^*}{-\mathrm{i} + S^*},
\]
so that
\begin{align}
a_{\mathrm{g}} &\sim - {a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}},& b_{\mathrm{g}} &\sim - \mathrm{i} {a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}}, & \lambda_1&>-1 ,\\
a_{\mathrm{g}} &\sim \mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}},& b_{\mathrm{g}} &\sim - {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}}, & \lambda_1&<-1.
\end{align}
A similar calculation of the boundary layer at $-K$ gives, finally,
\begin{multline}
\left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K} \sim \\
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
&2\mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + \mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}})\left(1 -(\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right)\\
&\mbox{ }- 2\mathrm{i}{a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} (- \mathrm{i} {a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}}+{b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} )\left(1 - (-\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right)
\end{split} & \mbox{ if } \lambda_1>-1,\\[5mm]
\begin{split}& -2\mathrm{i}{a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}(- \mathrm{i} {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}+{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} )\left(1 -(\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right)\\
&\mbox{ } + 2 \mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} ({a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + \mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}})\left(1 - (-\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right)
\end{split} & \mbox{ if } \lambda_1<-1.
\end{cases}
\end{multline}
We will see that ${a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} = \left({b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\right)^*$ and ${b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} = \left({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\right)^*$ so that the right-hand side is real.
\subsection{Eigenvalues}
We now apply the general methodology to each of the eigenvalues in turn.
Since the approximate eigenfunctions $f_{\mathrm{reg}}$ and $g_{\mathrm{reg}}$ are given in terms of the steady state solution $V_{s}$, to identify the coefficients ${a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$, ${a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$, ${b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$ and ${b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$ that appear in the boundary terms it is useful to recall the behaviour of $V_{s}$ in the far field, which was determined in \cite{jon1}. There we found that
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{s} & \sim &\alpha \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} \sum_{n=0}^\infty A_n(\rho) (\mathrm{i} G)^n+
\beta\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G} \sum_{n=0}^\infty A_n(\rho) (-\mathrm{i} G)^n,\qquad
A_0(\rho) = \frac{2^{1/2}a_0}{(\rho^2-4)^{1/2}}, \label{Vss}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
a_0 & = & 12^{1/4},\\
\alpha &=& \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \pi/4} \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/2G}}{1 - \mathrm{i} \nu \mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G}} = \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \pi/4} \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/2G}+\frac{\mathrm{i} \nu\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G}
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \pi/4} \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/2G}}{1 - \mathrm{i} \nu \mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G}},\\ \beta &=& -\nu \alpha \mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G} = -\frac{\nu \mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G}
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \pi/4} \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/2G}}{1 - \mathrm{i} \nu \mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G}}, \\
\nu &\sim& \frac{KG-\sqrt{(KG)^2-4} }{KG+\sqrt{(KG)^2-4} } \sim \frac{1}{(KG)^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsubsection{The eigenvalue $\la_{\mathrm{reg}} = 2G$}
\label{la2}
In terms of $f$ and $g$ the approximate eigenfunctions are
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathrm{reg}} = \mathrm{i} V_{s} + G \left(\frac{V_{s}}{\sigma} + \xi \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} - \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi^2 V_{s}}{2}\right),\quad
g_{\mathrm{reg}} = -\mathrm{i} V_{s}^*+ G \left(\frac{V_{s}^*}{\sigma} + \xi \fdd{V_{s}^*}{\xi} + \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi^2 V_{s}^*}{2}\right).\label{FG2G}
\end{equation}
These satisfy the equations exactly so that
$R_{\mathrm{f}}=R_{\mathrm{g}}=0$. The perturbation to the eigenvalue arises solely because of the finiteness of the domain, since $f_{\mathrm{reg}}$ and $g_{\mathrm{reg}}$ do not satisfy the boundary conditions.
From the known expansion, Eq.~(\ref{Vss}) of the steady state solution, we need to identify the amplitude coefficients ${a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$, ${b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$ in the WKB expansion [cf. Eqs.~(\ref{WKBAreg})-(\ref{WKBAreg2})]. The easiest way to do this is to compare the two representations of $f_{\mathrm{reg}}$ and $g_{\mathrm{reg}}$ as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$.
Comparing Eqs.~(\ref{Vss})-(\ref{FG2G}) with Eqs.~(\ref{Areg})-(\ref{Breg}) as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$ gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
{a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\left(1-\mathrm{i} \frac{47 G}{48}\right)
&\sim& - \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \alpha \left( 1 - \mathrm{i} \frac{95 G}{48} + \cdots\right) ,
\\
{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\left(1+\mathrm{i} \frac{47 G}{48}\right) &\sim& - \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \beta \left( 1 -\mathrm{i} \frac{G}{48} + \cdots\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}
since
\[ \mu_1 = \frac{(1-12 \lambda_1^2)}{48} = -\frac{47}{48}.\]
Thus,
\[ {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim -\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}a_0 \alpha\left( 1- \mathrm{i} G\right)
, \qquad
{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim -\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \beta \left(1- \mathrm{i} G \right), \qquad
{a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim \left({b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \right)^*, \qquad
{b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim \left({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \right)^* .\]
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K}
&\sim& 2\mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + \mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}})- 2\mathrm{i}{a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} (- \mathrm{i} {a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}}+{b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} ) \\
& \sim & -8 a_0^2 \nu \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}
\mathrm{Re}\left(( 1- \mathrm{i} G)^2\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G} \right),
\end{eqnarray*}
as $\nu \rightarrow 0$.
Evaluating the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eig0}) gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty
(g_{\mathrm{reg}}^2- f_{\mathrm{reg}}^2 )\, \d \xi
& = & \mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty (g_{\mathrm{reg}}-f_{\mathrm{reg}})(g_{\mathrm{reg}}+f_{\mathrm{reg}})
\, \d \xi\\
& = & -2 G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left(- 2 V_{s}+ G^2 \xi^2 V_{s}\right) \left(\frac{V_{s}}{\sigma} + \xi \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} \right)
\, \d \xi\\
& = &- 2 G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty - 2V_{s}^2 \left(\frac{1}{\sigma}- \frac{1}{2} \right) + G^2 \xi^2 V_{s}^2\left(\frac{1}{\sigma} - \frac{3}{2}\right)
\, \d \xi,
\end{eqnarray*}
since
\[
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \xi \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} V_{s}\, \d \xi =
- \frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty V_{s}^2\, \d \xi,\qquad
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \xi^3 \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} V_{s}\, \d \xi =
- \frac{3}{2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \xi^2 V_{s}^2\, \d \xi.
\]
The dominant contribution to these integrals is from the near field \cite{jon1}. Using the asymptotic expansion of $V_{s}$ in powers of $G$ \cite{jon1} gives
\begin{equation} \int_{-\infty}^\infty V_{s}^2\, \d \xi =\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi}{2}+ \frac{\sqrt{3}\, \pi^3G^2}{128} + O(G^4), \qquad
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \xi^2V_{s}^2\, \d \xi =\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi^3}{32}+O(G^2),\label{intV2}
\end{equation}
so that Eq.~(\ref{eig0}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
- 8 a_0^2 \nu \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}
\mathrm{Re}\left(( 1- \mathrm{i} G)^2\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G} \right)
& = & - 2 \sqrt{3}G \pi \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}\left( - \left(\frac{1}{\sigma}- \frac{1}{2} \right) + G^2 \frac{\pi^2}{32}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma} - \frac{3}{2}\right)\right)\\
& \sim & \frac{\sqrt{3}G^3 \pi^3 \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}{16},
\end{eqnarray*}
since $\sigma$ is exponentially close to 2.
Thus, the correction to the eigenvalue is
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}
& \sim & -\frac{256 \nu \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}}{ G^3 \pi^3 }
\mathrm{Re}\left(( 1- \mathrm{i} G)^2\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G} \right).\label{asy2G}
\end{eqnarray}
A comparison between Eq.~(\ref{asy2G}) and the numerically calculated eigenvalue for $K=20$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{figla2G}. This shows that our oscillatory
correction excellently captures the correction due to the finiteness
of the domain around the dominant $\la_{\mathrm{reg}} = 2 G$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{comparison_lambda2G_asymptotics.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between numerical and the asymptotic predictions, for $K=20$. The solid blue curve corresponds to Eq.~(\ref{asy2G}), while
the purple dots to the numerical solution. }
\label{figla2G}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The eigenvalue $\la_{\mathrm{reg}} = G$}
In terms of $f$ and $g$, the approximate eigenfunctions are
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathrm{reg}} = \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} - \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi V_{s}}{2},\qquad
g_{\mathrm{reg}} = \fdd{V_{s}^*}{\xi} + \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi V_{s}^*}{2}.\label{FGG}
\end{equation}
Again these satisfy the equations exactly, so that
$R_{\mathrm{f}}=R_{\mathrm{g}}=0$, and the perturbation to the eigenvalue arises solely because of the finiteness of the domain.
Comparing Eqs.~(\ref{FGG}) with Eqs.~(\ref{Areg})-(\ref{Breg}) as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$ gives
\[ {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\left(1-\mathrm{i} \frac{11 G}{48}\right)
\sim - \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \alpha \left( 1 - \mathrm{i} \frac{23 G}{48} + \cdots\right) ,
\quad
{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\left(1+\mathrm{i} \frac{11 G}{48}\right) \sim - \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \beta \left( 1 -\mathrm{i} \frac{G}{48} + \cdots\right) ,
\]
since
\[ \mu_1 = \frac{(1-12 \lambda_1^2)}{48} = -\frac{11}{48}.\]
Thus
\[ {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim -\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \alpha\left( 1-\frac{ \mathrm{i} G}{4}\right)
, \quad
{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim -\mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \beta \left(1- \frac{ \mathrm{i} G}{4} \right), \quad
{a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim {b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}^*, \quad
{b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}^*.\]
Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K}
& \sim & -8 a_0^2 \nu \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}
\mathrm{Re}\left(( 1- \mathrm{i} G/4)^2\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G} \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Evaluating the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eig0}) gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty
(g_{\mathrm{reg}}^2- f_{\mathrm{reg}}^2 )\, \d \xi
& = & -2 G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \xi V_{s} \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi}
\, \d \xi
= G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty V_{s}^2
\, \d \xi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using Eq.~(\ref{intV2}) gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
- 8 a_0^2 \nu \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}
\mathrm{Re}\left(( 1- \mathrm{i} G/4)^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G} \right)& = & G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi}{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}
&\sim& -\frac{32 \nu \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}}{G\pi}
\mathrm{Re}\left(( 1- \mathrm{i} G/4)^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_2(KG)/G} \right)\label{asyG}
\end{eqnarray}
In this case, a comparison between Eq.~(\ref{asyG}) and the numerically calculated eigenvalue for $K=20$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{figlaG}. Once again,
very good agreement is observed with the numerical finite-domain-induced
oscillations, even for values of $G$ that are quite high (i.e., near
$0.5$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{comparison_lambdaG_asymptotics.eps}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between numerical and the asymptotic predictions, for $K=20$. The solid blue curve corresponds to Eq.~(\ref{asyG}), while
the purple dots pertain to
numerical solution.}
\label{figlaG}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The eigenvalue $\la_{\mathrm{reg}} = -2G$}
\label{sec:laM2G}
In terms of $f$ and $g$ the approximate eigenfunctions are
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathrm{reg}} = \mathrm{i} V_{s} - G \left(\frac{V_{s}}{\sigma} + \xi \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} + \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi^2 V_{s}}{2}\right),\quad
g_{\mathrm{reg}} = -\mathrm{i} V_{s}^*- G \left(\frac{V_{s}^*}{\sigma} + \xi \fdd{V_{s}^*}{\xi} - \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi^2 V_{s}^*}{2}\right).\label{FGm2G}
\end{equation}
This time, the approximate eigenfunctions do not satisfy the equation exactly, but with an exponentially small residual.
We find
\[
R_{\mathrm{f}} = - 4 \mathrm{i} G^2 V_{s}\left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sigma}\right),\qquad
R_{\mathrm{g}} = 4 \mathrm{i} G^2 V_{s}^*\left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sigma}\right),
\]
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty R_{\mathrm{f}} f_{\mathrm{reg}} + R_{\mathrm{g}} g_{\mathrm{reg}}\, \d \xi & = & 4 G^2 \left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sigma}\right)\int_{-\infty}^\infty\left(2V_{s}^2 - G^2 \xi^2 V_{s}^2\right) \, \d \xi\\
& = & 4 G^2 \left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sigma}\right)\left( \sqrt{3} \pi +\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi^3 G^2}{64}
- \frac{\sqrt{3}\pi^3 G^2}{32} + \cdots\right) \\
& = & 4 G^2 \left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sigma}\right)\left( \sqrt{3} \pi
- \frac{\sqrt{3}\pi^3 G^2}{64} + \cdots\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Unfortunately, for $\la_{\mathrm{reg}} = -2 G$ we will find that we will need to know more than the leading-order behaviour of ${a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$ and ${b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}$ in order to find the leading-order approximation to $\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}$.
Comparing Eqs.~(\ref{FGm2G}) with Eqs.~(\ref{Areg})-(\ref{Breg}) at infinity, including higher-order terms in both expansions (see \cite{jon1}), gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
{a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\left(1+\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2- \mathrm{i} \mu_3G^3\right)
&\sim& - \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \kappa \alpha \left( 1 + \frac{\mathrm{i} G}{48} + \frac{2021 \mathrm{i} G^3}{1658880}+ \cdots\right) ,\\
{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\left(1-\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G+\mu_2 G^2+\mathrm{i} \mu_3G^3\right) &\sim& - \mathrm{i} \beta \sqrt{2}a_0 \kappa\left( 1 +\mathrm{i} \frac{95G}{48} - \frac{17 G^2}{24} +
\frac{23899\mathrm{i} G^3}{1658880} +\cdots\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\[ \kappa \sim 1 - \left(\frac{1+12\pi^2}{4608}\right)G^2 + 0.0152 G^4 + \cdots.
\]
Since
\[ \mu_1 = \frac{(1-12 \lambda_1^2)}{48} = -\frac{47}{48},
\quad \mu_2 = \frac{\lambda_1(1-4 \lambda_1^2)}{48}=\frac{5}{8},
\quad \mu_3 =-\frac{450581}{1658880},
\]
we find
\begin{eqnarray*}
{a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} &\sim& -\mathrm{i} \alpha\sqrt{2}a_0 \kappa \left( 1+ \mathrm{i} G - \frac{17 G^2}{48} + \frac{\mathrm{i} G^3}{128}+\cdots\right)
, \\
{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} &\sim& -\mathrm{i} \beta \sqrt{2}a_0 \kappa \left( 1+ \mathrm{i} G - \frac{17 G^2}{48} + \frac{\mathrm{i} G^3}{128}+\cdots\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
as well as
\[
{a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} = \left({b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \right)^*,\qquad {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} = \left({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \right)^*.\]
Then, as $KG \rightarrow \infty$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{ \left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K}} \hspace{1cm}&& \\
&\sim& -2\mathrm{i}{a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}(- \mathrm{i} {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} )\left(1 -(\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right)+ 2 \mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} ( \mathrm{i} {b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}})\left(1 - (-\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right)\\
&\sim& 8 \sqrt{3}\mathrm{i} \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G} \kappa^2\left( 1+ \mathrm{i} G - \frac{17 G^2}{48} + \frac{\mathrm{i} G^3}{128}+\cdots\right)^2 \left(1 -(\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right)\\
&& \mbox{ }- 8 \sqrt{3}\mathrm{i} \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G} \kappa^2\left( 1- \mathrm{i} G - \frac{17 G^2}{48} - \frac{\mathrm{i} G^3}{128}+\cdots\right)^2 \left(1 -(-\mathrm{i} \mu_1 G - \mu_2 G^2+\cdots)^2\right)\\
& \sim & - 32\sqrt{3}\, \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G} \kappa^2 \left(G
+ \frac{G^3}{2304} + \cdots\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Evaluating the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eig0}) gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty
(g_{\mathrm{reg}}^2- f_{\mathrm{reg}}^2 )\, \d \xi
& = & 2 G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left(- 2 V_{s}+ G^2 \xi^2 V_{s}\right) \left(\frac{V_{s}}{\sigma} + \xi \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} \right)
\, \d \xi\\
& = & 2 G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty - 2V_{s}^2 \left(\frac{1}{\sigma}- \frac{1}{2} \right) + G^2 \xi^2 V_{s}^2\left(\frac{1}{\sigma} - \frac{3}{2}\right)
\, \d \xi,
\end{eqnarray*}
after integrating by parts.
Using (\ref{intV2}) we find that (\ref{eig0}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{- 32\sqrt{3}\, \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G} \kappa^2 G \left(1+\frac{G^2}{2304} + \cdots\right)
\mbox{}+4 G^2 \left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sigma}\right)\left( \sqrt{3} \pi - \frac{\sqrt{3}\pi^3 G^2}{64}\right)}\hspace{5cm}&&\nonumber \\
&=& 2\sqrt{3}G \pi \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}\left( - \left(\frac{1}{\sigma}- \frac{1}{2} \right) + G^2 \frac{\pi^2}{32}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma} - \frac{3}{2}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& \sim & -\frac{ 2\sqrt{3}G^3 \pi^3 \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}{32} \label{laexpm2Geqn}
\end{eqnarray}
Now,
since (for $\nu \sim 0$) the relation between $\sigma$ and $G$ is (see \cite{jon1})
\[G\left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sigma}\right) \left(\frac{\sqrt{3} \pi}{4} + \frac{\sqrt{3} \pi^3G^2}{256} + \cdots \right) = 2 \sqrt{3} \kappa^2 \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G},\]
we find the leading terms on the left-hand side of (\ref{laexpm2Geqn}) vanish. This is the reason we needed to include the higher-order corrections; these give the correction to the eigenvalue as
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}\sim G\, \left(1- \frac{2}{\sigma}\right)
\left( 1 + \frac{1}{72 \pi^2}\right)+\cdots.\label{asyM2G}
\end{equation}
A comparison between (\ref{asyM2G}) and the numerically calculated eigenvalue for $K=20$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{figM2Gasy}.
Note that although we derived (\ref{asyM2G}) in the limit $K \rightarrow \infty$, $\nu \rightarrow 0$, when we plot it in Fig.~\ref{figM2Gasy} we use the finite-domain approximation to $\sigma$ as a function of $G$.
We can see
that for this eigenvalue we do not purely observe the oscillatory effect induced
by the finite nature of the domain as in the two previous cases.
Rather, the relevant correction incorporates
also the deviation from the exact scaling symmetry (and hence
from the symmetry of the eigenvalue pair at $\pm 2 G$) which provides
the monotonic portion of the relevant correction.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.95\textwidth]{comparison_lambdamin2G_asymptotics.eps}
\end{overpic}\vspace{6mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Asymptotic prediction (\ref{asyM2G}) (blue) compared to numerical solution (purple) for the case of the eigenvalue with $\la_{\mathrm{reg}} = -2 G$. }
\label{figM2Gasy}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The eigenvalue $\la_{\mathrm{reg}} = -G$}
In terms of $f$ and $g$, the approximate eigenfunctions are
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathrm{reg}} = \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} + \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi V_{s}}{2},\qquad
g_{\mathrm{reg}} = \fdd{V_{s}^*}{\xi} - \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi V_{s}^*}{2}.
\label{evG}
\end{equation}
These satisfy the equations exactly, so that $R_{\mathrm{f}}=R_{\mathrm{g}}=0$.
However, they do not satisfy the correct radiation condition at infinity. In the finite domain context, the perturbation of the eigenvalue arises from the boundary terms in Eq.~(\ref{eig0}).
Comparing Eq.~(\ref{evG}) with
Eqs.~(\ref{Areg})-(\ref{Breg}) as $\rho \rightarrow \infty$ gives
\[ {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\left(1-\mathrm{i} \frac{11 G}{48}\right)
\sim \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \alpha \left( 1 + \mathrm{i} \frac{ G}{48} + \cdots\right) ,
\quad
{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}}\left(1+\mathrm{i} \frac{11 G}{48}\right) \sim \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \beta \left( 1+\mathrm{i} \frac{23 G}{48} + \cdots\right),
\]
since
\[ \mu_1 = \frac{(1-12 \lambda_1^2)}{48} = -\frac{11}{48}.\]
Thus,
\[ {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \alpha\left( 1+\frac{ \mathrm{i} G}{4}\right)
, \quad
{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim \mathrm{i} \sqrt{2}a_0 \beta \left(1+ \frac{ \mathrm{i} G}{4} \right), \quad
{a^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim \left({b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \right)^*, \quad
{b^{\mathrm g}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \sim \left({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} \right)^*.\]
When $\lambda_1 = -1$, $S\rightarrow \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}$ as $\nu \rightarrow 0$, so we need to use the full expressions
\begin{equation}
a_{\mathrm{f}} \sim -\frac{{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} S}{\mathrm{i} + S},\qquad
b_{\mathrm{f}} \sim -\mathrm{i}\frac{{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} + {a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} S}{\mathrm{i} + S},
\end{equation}
for $a_{\mathrm{f}}$ and $b_{\mathrm{f}}$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left[ f_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{f}{\xi} - f \fdd{f_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi} + g_{\mathrm{reg}} \fdd{g}{\xi} - g \fdd{g_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K} &\sim
& \mathrm{Re}\left(-4\mathrm{i}({a^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} b_{\mathrm{f}}-{b^{\mathrm f}_{\mathrm{reg}}} a_{\mathrm{f}})\left(1 + \mu_1^2 G^2+\cdots\right)\right)\\
& \sim & \mathrm{Re}\left(-\frac{8\mathrm{i} a_0^2(1+\mathrm{i} G/4)^2 }{\mathrm{i} + S}
(\mathrm{i} \alpha - \beta)(S \alpha +\beta ) \left(1 + \mu_1^2 G^2+\cdots\right)\right)\\
& \sim & \mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{8\mathrm{i} a_0^2(1+\mathrm{i} G/4)^2 }{\mathrm{i} + S}
S \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G} \left(1 + \mu_1^2 G^2+\cdots\right)\right)\\
& \sim & \mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{16\mathrm{i} \sqrt{3}(1+\mathrm{i} G/4)^2 }{1+\mathrm{i} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G}}
\mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G} \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the integrals in Eq.~(\ref{eig}) are dominated by the near field, where $V_{s}$ is real, using the near-field solution in Eq.~(\ref{eig}) gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty
(g_{\mathrm{reg}}^2- f_{\mathrm{reg}}^2 )\, \d \xi
& = & \mathrm{i} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty (g_{\mathrm{reg}}-f_{\mathrm{reg}})(g_{\mathrm{reg}}+f_{\mathrm{reg}})
\, \d \xi\\
& = & 2 G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \xi V_{s} \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi}
\, \d \xi\\
& = & -G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty V_{s}^2
\, \d \xi \sim -G \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi}{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus the correction to the eigenvalue is
\begin{equation} \lambda_{\mathrm{exp}} \sim -\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{32\mathrm{i} (1+\mathrm{i} G/4)^2 }{\pi G(1+\mathrm{i} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_2/G})}
\mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G} \right).\label{asyMG}
\end{equation}
A comparison between Eq.~(\ref{asyMG}) and the numerically calculated eigenvalue for $K=20$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{figMGasy}. A key feature to observe here is
the presence of vertical asymptotes in this exponentially small (in $1/G$)
correction. These represent the reason for the jumps observed in
Fig.~\ref{figMGasy}. Indeed, it is relevant to note that a
particularly careful observation of the orange line in
Fig.~\ref{fig2} will reveal the outcome of these jumps to the
particularly astute reader, as can be discerned, e.g., near
the outermost disconnect of the relevant numerical line.
Despite the fact that our theoretical approximation can no longer
be considered accurate when $\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}$ becomes large, we can still see
that it very accurately captures our numerical results of
Fig.~\ref{figMGasy}.
We see from the numerical results that there is a very thin transition region in the vicinity of each asymptote in which the eigenvalue perturbation switches from large and positive to large and negative. We do not attempt to capture this transition region, which requires a detailed calculation in the vicinity of $S = -\mathrm{i}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.8\textwidth]{lambda_mG_asy.eps}
\put(-5,30){\rotatebox{90}{$\lambda+G$}}
\put(90,-7){$G$}
\end{overpic}\vspace{6mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Asymptotic prediction [cf. Eq.~(\ref{asyMG})] (blue) compared to numerical solution (purple), for the eigenvalues with $\la_{\mathrm{reg}}=-G$ and for $K=20$. }
\label{figMGasy}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The eigenvalues near $\lambda=0$}
\label{sec:zeroev}
In terms of $f$ and $g$ the approximate eigenfunctions are
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathrm{reg}} = \mathrm{i} V_{s}, \qquad
g_{\mathrm{reg}} = -\mathrm{i} V_{s}^*.
\end{equation}
In fact, these satisfy the equations and boundary conditions exactly,
so that $\lambda=0$ is an exact eigenvalue even for a finite
domain. However, as we have seen numerically, there is a second
eigenvalue which is exponentially close to zero, which we now
approximate. This analysis does not fit into the general framework of
Section \ref{theory}, but follows a similar methodology, which we now
outline.
We write
\begin{eqnarray}
f & = & \mathrm{i} V_{s} + {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1 f_1 + f_{\mathrm{exp}} ,\label{j3}\\
g & = & -\mathrm{i} V_{s}^* + {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1 g_1 + g_{\mathrm{exp}} ,\\
\lambda & = & {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1 + {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_2,\label{j5}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_2 \ll {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sdd{ f_1}{\xi} +
\sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s}^*)^{2} g_1
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} f_1
- f_1- \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} f_1
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f_1 &=& V_{s}^*,\label{j1}\\
\sdd{g_1}{\xi}
+ \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s})^{2} f _1
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} g_1
- g_1+ \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} g_1
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} g_1 &=& V_{s},\label{j2}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\[\fdd{f_1}{\xi} = \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi f_1}{2}, \qquad \fdd{g_1}{\xi} = - \frac{ \mathrm{i} G \xi g_1}{2} \qquad \mbox{ at } \xi = K.
\]
Note that the linear operator here is slightly different from (but exponentially close to) that of Eqs.~(\ref{geqn})-(\ref{feqn}), and is chosen so that the
solvability condition is exactly satisfied, so that we can be sure that
$f_1$, $g_1$ exist: multiplying Eq.~(\ref{j1}) by $V_{s}$ and Eq.~(\ref{j2}) by $-V_{s}^*$ adding and integrating gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\hspace{-2cm}\int_{-K}^{K}\left(\sdd{ f_1}{\xi} +
\sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s}^*)^{2} g_1
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} f_1
- f_1
- \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} f_1
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f_1 \right) V_{s}\, \d \xi \\
&& \hspace{-2cm}-
\int_{-K}^{K}\left(
\sdd{g_1}{\xi}
+ \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}V_{s}^{2} f_1
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} g_1
- g_1
+ \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} g_1
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} g_1\right) V_{s}^*\, \d \xi\\
& = & \int_{-K}^{K}\left(\sdd{ V_{s}}{\xi}
+|V_{s}|^{2\sigma} V_{s}
- V_{s}
- \frac{\mathrm{i}(\sigma-2)G}{2 \sigma} V_{s}
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} V_{s}\right) f_1\, \d \xi\\
&&- \int_{-K}^{K}\left(\sdd{V_{s}^*}{\xi}
+ |V_{s}|^{2\sigma}V_{s}^*
- V_{s}^* + \frac{\mathrm{i}(\sigma-2)G}{2 \sigma} V_{s}^*
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4}V_{s}^*\right) g_1\, \d \xi
\\
&& + \left[ V_{s} \fdd{f_1}{\xi} - f_1 \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} - V_{s}^* \fdd{g_1}{\xi} + g_1 \fdd{V_{s}^*}{\xi}\right]^K_{-K}\\
& = & \left[ V_{s} \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi f_1}{2} - f_1 \frac{\mathrm{i} G \xi V_{s}}{2} - V_{s}^* \frac{(-\mathrm{i} G \xi g_1)}{2} + g_1 \frac{(-\mathrm{i} G \xi V_{s}^*)}{2}\right]^K_{-K}
= 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, substituting Eqs.~(\ref{j3})-(\ref{j5}) into Eqs.~(\ref{geqn})-(\ref{feqn}) gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\sdd{ f_{\mathrm{exp}}}{\xi} +
\sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}V_{s}^{2} g_{\mathrm{exp}}
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} f_{\mathrm{exp}}
- f_{\mathrm{exp}}- \frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} f_{\mathrm{exp}}
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f_{\mathrm{exp}} }\hspace{2cm} && \\
&=& {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1\sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}((V_{s}^*)^{2} - V_{s}^{2})g_1+ {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1(V_{s}-V_{s}^*)
- \mathrm{i} {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1^2 f_1 + {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_2 V_s,\\
\lefteqn{ \sdd{g_{\mathrm{exp}}}{\xi}
+ \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s}^*)^{2} f_{\mathrm{exp}}
+ ( \sigma+1)|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma} g_{\mathrm{exp}}
- g_{\mathrm{exp}}+\frac{\mathrm{i} (\sigma-2) G}{2 \sigma} g_{\mathrm{exp}}
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} g_{\mathrm{exp}}}\hspace{2cm} &&\\
&=& {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1 \sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}(V_{s}^2-(V_{s}^*)^2)f_1
+{\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1 (V_{s}^* - V_{s})
+ \mathrm{i} {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1^2 g_1 + {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_2 V_s^*,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have neglected triply-exponentially-small terms involving ${\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_2 {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1$.
Multiplying by $\mathrm{i} V_{s}$, $-\mathrm{i}V_{s}^*$, adding and integrating the LHS is triply exponentially small. After simplifying, and neglecting the triply-exponentially-small term $(V_{s}^2-(V_{s}^*)^2){\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_2$, the RHS gives
\begin{multline}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty
\mathrm{i} {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1\sigma |V_{s}|^{2\sigma-2}((V_{s}^*)^{2} - V_{s}^{2})(V_{s} g_1+V_{s}^* f_1)\\+
\mathrm{i} {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1(V_{s}^2 -(V_{s}^*)^2 )
+ {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1^2 ( V_{s} f_1 + V_{s}^* g_1 )
\, \d \xi \sim 0. \label{solvla0}
\end{multline}
This is the equation which will determine the eigenvalue ${\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1$; note that it is quadratic, and ${\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1=0$ is a solution as expected.
In the outer region $f_1$ and $g_1$ are exponentially small. Thus the integrals involving $f_1$ and $g_1$ are dominated by the inner region.
In the inner region
$f_1 = g_1 + $ exponentially small terms, and
\[ \sdd{ f_1}{\xi}
+5V_{s}^{4} f_1
- f_1
+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f_1 = V_{s}.\]
We find
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_1 & = & \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{V_{s}}{2} + \xi \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi}\right) + G^2 f_{12},
\end{eqnarray*}
where, up to exponentially small terms,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sdd{ f_{12}}{\xi} +
5V_{s}^{4} f_{12}
- f_{12}+ \frac{G^2 \xi^2 }{4} f_{12} &=& \frac{1}{2} \xi^2 V_{s}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Unfortunately we need to find this correction term $f_{12}$ because the leading-order term will integrate to zero.
Expanding in powers of $G$, we find $f_{12} \sim- 2 V_1$ where $V_{s} \sim V_0 + G^2 V_1 + \cdots$ (see \cite{jon1}),
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty (V_{s} f_1 + V_{s}^* g_1) \, \d \xi &\sim&
\int_{-\infty}^\infty V_{s} \left( \frac{V_{s}}{2} + \xi \fdd{V_{s}}{\xi} -4G^2 V_1\right) \, \d \xi \sim -4G^2\int_{-\infty}^\infty V_0 V_1 \, \d \xi = -\frac{G^2\sqrt{3} \pi^3}{64}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The dominant contribution to the integral of $(V_{s}^2 - (V_{s}^*)^2)$ comes from the outer region before the turning point,
in which, with $\xi = \rho/G$,
\[
V_{s} \sim \frac{2^{1/2}a_0}{(4-\rho^2)^{1/4}}( \mathrm{e}^{\phi(\rho)/G} + \gamma \mathrm{e}^{-\phi(\rho)/G} ), \qquad \phi = - \int_0^\rho \left(1- \frac{\bar{\rho}^2}{4}\right)^{1/2}\, \d \bar{\rho},\qquad \gamma = \frac{\mathrm{i} \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}}{2},
\]
(see \cite{jon1}), so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{i} \int_\infty^{\infty} (V_{s}^2 - (V_{s}^*)^2)\, \d \xi & \sim &
\frac{2\mathrm{i}}{G} \int_0^{2} (V_{s} +V_{s}^*)(V_{s} -V_{s}^*) \, \d \rho
\sim \frac{2\mathrm{i}}{G} \int_{0}^{2} 2\frac{2^{1/2} a_0\mathrm{e}^{\phi(\rho)/G}}{(4 - \rho^2)^{1/4}}2 \frac{2^{1/2} a_0\gamma\mathrm{e}^{-\phi(\rho)/G}}{(4 - \rho^2)^{1/4}} \, \d \rho\\
& \sim &-\frac{16 \sqrt{3} \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}}{G} \int_{0}^{2} \frac{ \d \rho}{(4 - \rho^2)^{1/2}}
= -\frac{8 \sqrt{3} \pi\, \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}}{G}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The final term in Eq.~(\ref{solvla0}) is subdominant, so that, to leading order,
Eq.~(\ref{solvla0}) gives
\begin{eqnarray}
{\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1 & = &- \frac{8 \sqrt{3}\, \pi \mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}}{G} \frac{64}{G^2\sqrt{3} \pi^3} = -\frac{512\,\mathrm{e}^{-\pi/G}}{G^3\pi^2}.\label{asy0}
\end{eqnarray}
In appendix \ref{reducedappendix} we show that the asymptotic behaviour (\ref{asy0}) can be determined much more simply from the reduced system derived in \cite{jon1}, which describes the slow evolution of $G$ in the vicinity of the bifurcation.
Figure \ref{fig0asy} shows the asymptotic prediction Eq.~(\ref{asy0}) against a direct numerical simulation. For this eigenvalue the convergence is slower as $G\ra0$ so that the leading-order approximation is not as close to the numerical solution. This is because the higher-order corrections are significant when estimating the integrals in Eq.~(\ref{solvla0}). To demonstrate this we also show in Fig.~\ref{fig0asy} the approximation
\begin{equation} {\lambda_{\mathrm{exp}}}_1 \sim -\mathrm{i}\frac{ \int_{-\infty}^\infty (V_{s}-(V_{s}^*)^2)\, \d \xi}{ \int_{-\infty}^\infty (V_{s} f_1-V_{s}^*g_1)\, \d \xi}\label{la0num}
\end{equation}
with a numerical solution for $V_{s}$, $f_1$ and $g_1$, which converges more quickly to the numerical value. It is clear that the latter expression
of Eq.~(\ref{la0num}) captures the dependence on $G$ more accurately
than the leading-order correction of the former.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.8\textwidth]{lambda_zero_asy.eps}
\put(-5,30){\rotatebox{90}{$\lambda$}}
\put(90,-7){$G$}
\end{overpic}\vspace{6mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Asymptotic prediction [cf. Eq.~(\ref{asy0})] (blue) compared to numerical solution (purple), for the eigenvalue in the vicinity of $\la_{\mathrm{reg}}=0$, for $K=20$. Also shown (green) is the approximation (\ref{la0num}).}
\label{fig0asy}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Continuous spectrum}
In the far field with $\rho = G \xi$, neglecting the exponentially small terms $|V_{s}|^{2 \sigma}$ and $(\sigma-2)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{i} \lambda f+ G^2\sdd{ f}{\rho}
- f
+ \frac{\rho^2 }{4} f = 0,\qquad
- \mathrm{i} \lambda g
+ G^2\sdd{g}{\rho}
- g
+ \frac{\rho^2 }{4} g = 0,\label{fgouter}
\end{equation}
along with the boundary conditions
\[
G\fdd{f}{\rho} = \frac{\mathrm{i} \rho f}{2}, \qquad
G\fdd{g}{\rho} = -\frac{\mathrm{i} \rho g}{2} \qquad \mbox{ at }\rho = \pm KG.
\]
Let us start by imagining that these equations hold throughout the region $[-KG,KG]$, before returning to investigate the impact of the inner region near $\rho=0$.
Since the equations for $f$ and $g$ decouple (because we have ignored
the inner region), we can treat them separately, and each will give a
set of eigenvalues. In fact, we see that for any
eigenfunction-eigenvalue pair $(f,\lambda)$ the conjugates $(f^*,\lambda^*)$
satisfy the equations and boundary conditions for $g$.
We therefore start by focusing on the equation for $f$.
Using the WKB expansion
\begin{equation} f = A_f \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_f/G} + B_f \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_f/G}, \label{contWKB}
\end{equation}
where
\[ A_f = \sum_{n=0}^\infty A_{fn}(\rho) (\mathrm{i} G)^n, \qquad
B_f = \sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{fn}(\rho) (-\mathrm{i} G)^n,\]
\[ \mathrm{i} \lambda -(\phi_f')^2 - 1 + \frac{\rho^2}{4} = 0,\]
\[2 \mathrm{i} \phi_f' A_{f0}' + \mathrm{i} \phi_f'' A_{f0} = 0, \qquad
- 2 \mathrm{i} \phi_f' B_{f0}' - \mathrm{i} \phi_f'' B_{f0}= 0,\]
we find
\[
\phi_f = \int_0^{\rho} \left(\frac{\bar{\rho}^2}{4} - 1 + \mathrm{i} \lambda \right)^{1/2} \, \d \bar{\rho}
= \frac{\rho }{4}\sqrt{\rho^2 - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda} + (-1 + \mathrm{i} \lambda) \log\left(
\frac{
\rho + \sqrt{\rho^2 - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda}}{\sqrt{ - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda}}\right)
,\]
with
\[ A_{f0} = a_f\left(\frac{{\rho}^2}{4} - 1 + \mathrm{i} \lambda \right)^{-1/4},\qquad
B_{f0} = b_f\left(\frac{{\rho}^2}{4} - 1 + \mathrm{i} \lambda \right)^{-1/4}.
\]
Note that this expansion differs from that performed previously in that we have included $\lambda$ at leading order rather than assuming that $\lambda = O(G)$.
There are two turning points, at
\[ \rho = \rho_{f\pm} = \pm 2(1-\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}.\]
In order to define uniquely $\phi_f$ let us put branch cuts from these turning points to $\pm \mathrm{i} \infty$ away from the real axis, as indicated in Fig. \ref{figbranches} for an arbitrary but representative value of $\lambda$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.4\textwidth]{Branches1.eps}
\put(-10,50){\rotatebox{90}{$\mathrm{Im}(\rho)$}}
\put(50,-7){$\mathrm{Re}(\rho)$}
\put(54,57){$\rho_{f+}$}
\put(45,45){$\rho_{f-}$}
\end{overpic}\vspace{6mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Branch points and branch cuts in $\phi_f$ when $\lambda=-0.1-1.1 \mathrm{i}$. The contour shading corresponds to $\mathrm{Im}(\phi_f)$.}
\label{figbranches}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subcaptionbox{$\lambda=-0.3 - 0.5 \mathrm{i}$}{\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{Stokes1.eps}
\put(58,48){{\small $\rho_{f+}$}}
\put(30,38){{\small $\rho_{f-}$}}
\end{overpic}
\vspace{6mm}}
\subcaptionbox{$\lambda=-0.3 - 2 \mathrm{i}$}{\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{Stokes3.eps}
\put(48,55){{\small $\rho_{f+}$}}
\put(40,32){{\small $\rho_{f-}$}}
\end{overpic}
\vspace{6mm}}
\end{center}
\caption{Stokes lines (green) and anti-Stokes lines (red). The contour shading corresponds to $\mathrm{Im}(\phi_f)$. The path along the real axis is indicated, as well as the two points at which Stokes lines are crossed.}
\label{figStokes}
\end{figure}
To impose the boundary conditions on Eq.~(\ref{contWKB}) we need to take account of the change in the coefficients $a_f$ and $b_f$ due to Stokes phenomenon
(see e.g.~\cite{MullerKirsten, chapman}). In Fig.~\ref{figStokes} we illustrate the Stokes lines associated with each of the turning points for various values of $\lambda$.
Let us calculate the change in the coefficients $a_f$ and $b_f$ as we cross Stokes lines when moving from $\rho=-KG$ to $\rho = KG$.
We suppose that $\mathrm{Re}(\lambda)<0$ so that $\rho_+$ is in the first quadrant.
Although the topology of the anti-Stokes lines changes as $\mathrm{Im}(\lambda)$ varies, as we move along the real axis from minus infinity to infinity we always cross one Stokes line from each turning point. Across these Stokes lines the dominant WKB approximation will turn on a multiple of the subdominant WKB approximation.
The first Stokes line we cross, indicated by a ``1'' in Fig.~\ref{figStokes}, is that which moves up from $\rho_{f-}$, on which
$\mathrm{Im}(\phi_f(\rho))>\mathrm{Im}(\phi_f(\rho_{f-}))$. Thus
$\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \phi_f/G}$ is the exponentially dominant term, and the coefficient $a_f$ changes by $-\mathrm{i} b_f \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f-})/G} $.
The second Stokes line we cross, indicated by a ``2'' in Fig.~\ref{figStokes}, is that which moves down from $\rho_{f+}$, on which $\mathrm{Im}(\phi_f(\rho))<\mathrm{Im}(\phi_f(\rho_{f+}))$. This on this Stokes line $\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_f/G}$ is the exponentially dominant term, and the coefficient $b_f$ changes by $\mathrm{i} a_f \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f+})/G}$.
Thus, together, the change in the coefficient is
\begin{eqnarray*}
(a_f^{-\infty},b_f^{-\infty}) &\rightarrow& (a_f^{-\infty}-\mathrm{i} b_f^{-\infty} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f-})/G} ,b_f^{-\infty})\\
&\rightarrow& (a_f^{-\infty}-\mathrm{i} b_f^{-\infty} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f-})/G} ,b_f^{-\infty} + \mathrm{i} (a_f^{-\infty}-\mathrm{i} b_f^{-\infty} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f-})/G})\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f+})/G}),
\end{eqnarray*}
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
a_f^{\infty} & = & a_f^{-\infty}-\mathrm{i} b_f^{-\infty} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f-})/G},\\
b_f^{\infty} & = & b_f^{-\infty} + \mathrm{i} a_f^{-\infty}\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f+})/G}+ b_f^{-\infty} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f-})/G}\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f+})/G}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The boundary condition at $\rho = KG$ gives, at leading order,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_f(KG)/G} \frac{\sqrt{(KG)^2 - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda} - KG
}{\sqrt{(KG)^2 - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda}+ KG}&=&
\frac{B_{f0}(KG)}{A_{f0}(KG)} = \frac{b_f^{\infty}}{a_f^{\infty}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The boundary condition at $\rho = -KG$ gives, at leading order,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_f(-KG)/G} \frac{\sqrt{(KG)^2 - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda} + KG
}{\sqrt{(KG)^2 - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda}- KG}&=&
\frac{B_{f0}(-KG)}{A_{f0}(-KG)} =
\frac{b_f^{-\infty}}{a_f^{-\infty}} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Noting that $\phi_f$ is odd, if we let
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_f = \mathrm{e}^{2 \mathrm{i} \phi_f(KG)/G} \frac{\sqrt{(KG)^2 - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda} - KG
}{\sqrt{(KG)^2 - 4 + 4 \mathrm{i} \lambda}+ KG},
\label{extra1}
\end{eqnarray}
then we have the following homogeneous system of four equations in the four
unknowns $a_f^{\infty}$, $b_f^{\infty}$, $a_f^{-\infty}$, $b_f^{-\infty}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_f^{\infty} &=& Q_f a_f^{\infty},\\
a_f^{-\infty} &=& Q_f b_f^{-\infty},\\
a_f^{\infty} & = & a_f^{-\infty}-\mathrm{i} b_f^{-\infty} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f-})/G},\\
b_f^{\infty} & = & b_f^{-\infty} + \mathrm{i} a_f^{-\infty}\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f+})/G}+ b_f^{-\infty} \mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f-})/G}\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \phi_f(\rho_{f+})/G}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Noting that $\phi_f(\rho_{f+}) = - \phi_f(\rho_{f-}) = -(\lambda+\mathrm{i})\pi/2$, the condition for a non-trivial solution is
\begin{equation} (Q_f - \mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}^{(1-\mathrm{i}\lambda)\pi/G})^2 = 1.\label{evcontout}
\end{equation}
For finite $K$, Eq.~(\ref{evcontout}) gives a discrete set of eigenvalues with the separation between neighbouring eigenvalues becoming smaller as $K\rightarrow \infty$, approximating the continuous spectrum.
For large $K$,
\[ Q_f \sim \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} K^2G/2} \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}(1+ \mathrm{i} \lambda)/G} (-1+\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1+(\mathrm{i} + \lambda)/G} (KG)^{-2-2(\mathrm{i} + \lambda)/G}.\]
For $\mathrm{Im}(\lambda)<0$ we need $|Q_f| \sim 1$ as $G \rightarrow 0$ to get a
balance in Eq.~(\ref{evcontout}), which requires $\mathrm{Re}(\lambda) \sim -G$.
For $\mathrm{Im}(\lambda)>0$ we need $Q_f \sim \mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}^{(1-\mathrm{i}\lambda)\pi/G}$ as $G \rightarrow 0$ to get a
balance in Eq.~(\ref{evcontout}), which also requires
$\mathrm{Re}(\lambda) \sim -G$. Thus the continuous spectrum of the problem [cf. Eq.~(\ref{fgouter})] lies close to (but not exactly on) the line $\mathrm{Re}(\lambda) = -G$.
The calculation for $g$ is similar
and gives the same equation as Eq.~(\ref{evcontout}) with $\lambda \rightarrow \lambda^*$
as expected. In Fig.~\ref{figeigsouter} we compare the predictions of Eq.~(\ref{evcontout}) (recalling the definition of Eq.~(\ref{extra1}))
with the numerical evaluation of the eigenvalues of Eq.~(\ref{fgouter}). A very good agreement is found between the latter
(identified as black dots) and the former (identified via the
intersection of the contours of the blue and red curves associated
with the real and the imaginary parts of Eq.~(\ref{evcontout}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.4\textwidth]{numoutG20.eps}
\put(-10,50){\rotatebox{90}{$\mathrm{Im}(\lambda)$}}
\put(50,-7){$\mathrm{Re}(\lambda)$}
\end{overpic}\vspace{6mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Eigenvalues for the problem of Eq.~(\ref{fgouter}) for $f$ (black
points), for $G=0.2$. The contours show the asymptotic prediction of Eq.~(\ref{evcontout}). The
red curves correspond to $\mathrm{Im}(Q_f - \mathrm{i} \mathrm{e}^{(1-\mathrm{i}\lambda)\pi/G}) =
0$, while the blue curves correspond to $\mathrm{Re}(Q_f - \mathrm{i}
\mathrm{e}^{(1-\mathrm{i}\lambda)\pi/G}) \in \{-1,1\}$. The eigenvalues should lie at
the intersections of these contours. The approximation is very
good, apart from near $\lambda=-\mathrm{i}$, at which point the two turning
points $\rho_{f\pm} = \pm 2(1-\mathrm{i}\lambda)^{1/2}$ coalesce.}
\label{figeigsouter}
\end{figure}
We now consider how the picture above changes when we include the
inner region. Then, in addition to the Stokes lines already
considered, there is a change in the coefficients $a$ and $b$ as we
pass from $\rho=0-$ to $\rho=0+$. The connection formula comes from matching the solution in
the inner region with the far field expansions on each side.
Note that $f$ and $g$ are coupled in the inner region, so that we
no longer have two separate eigenvalue problems. Specifically, at
leading order in the inner region $V_{s}$ is real and
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{i}\lambda f+\sdd{ f}{\xi} +
2 V_{s}^{4} g
+ 3V_{s}^{4} f
- f
&=& 0,\label{in1}\\
-\mathrm{i} \lambda g
+ \sdd{g}{\xi}
+ 2V_{s}^{4} f
+ 3V_{s}^{4} g
- g
&=& 0,\label{in2}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
f & \sim & a_f^{0+}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_f(0)/G}}{(-1+\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/4}}\mathrm{e}^{(1- \mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}\xi}+ b_f^{0+}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_f(0)/G}}{(-1+\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/4}}\mathrm{e}^{-(1- \mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}\xi} \mbox{ as } \xi \rightarrow \infty,\\
g & \sim &a_g^{0+}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_g(0)/G}}{(-1-\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/4}}
\mathrm{e}^{-(1+\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}\xi}+ b_g^{0+}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_g(0)/G}}{(-1-\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/4}}
\mathrm{e}^{(1+ \mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}\xi} \mbox{ as } \xi \rightarrow \infty,\\
f & \sim & a_f^{0-}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_f(0)/G}}{(-1+\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/4}}
\mathrm{e}^{(1- \mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}\xi}+ b_f^{0-}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_f(0)/G}}{(-1+\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/4}}\mathrm{e}^{-(1- \mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}\xi} \mbox{ as } \xi \rightarrow -\infty,\\
g & \sim & a_g^{0-}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_g(0)/G}}{(-1-\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/4}}
\mathrm{e}^{-(1+ \mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}\xi}+
b_g^{0-}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_g(0)/G}}{(-1-\mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/4}}
\mathrm{e}^{(1+ \mathrm{i} \lambda)^{1/2}\xi} \mbox{ as } \xi \rightarrow -\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
The solution gives connection formulae between the incoming coefficients
$a_f^{0-}$, $b_f^{0-}$, $a_g^{0-}$ and $b_g^{0-}$ and the outgoing
coefficients $a_f^{0+}$,
$b_f^{0+}$, $a_g^{0+}$ and $b_g^{0+}$. Unfortunately it is not
possible to determine these formulae analytically.
However, when $\lambda$ is large the first two terms in Eqs.~(\ref{in1}) and (\ref{in2}) dominate, and the solution is of WKB form even in the inner
region. The phase factor is trivial, with no turning points, so that there is no
change in coefficient. Thus for large $\lambda$ the eigenvalues should be well approximated by Eq.~(\ref{evcontout}).
On the other hand when $\lambda=0$ we find by solving Eqs.~(\ref{in1})-(\ref{in2}) as a power series in $G$ that
\[
a_f^{0+} \sim a_g^{0-}, \quad
b_f^{0+} \sim -b_g^{0-}, \quad
b_g^{0+} \sim b_f^{0-}, \quad
a_g^{0+} \sim - a_f^{0-},
\]
so that there must be some mixing of the coefficients in $f$ and $g$
for small $\lambda$. Identifying the details of the relevant spectrum
at small $\lambda$ remains a challenging question for future study.
\section{Conclusions \& Future Challenges}\label{conclusions}
In the present work, we have revisited the topic of stability
of solutions that are self-similarly blowing up. We followed up on the
earlier work of~\cite{siettos} with substantially improved
numerical means and techniques, and also added a systematic
theoretical understanding, building also on important works
in the intermediate time interval (such as the key
contributions of~\cite{wit1,wit2}).
This has allowed us to obtain a systematic understanding of the
3 eigenvalue pairs of the Hamiltonian system at the critical
point of $\sigma d=2$ and its continuous spectrum. We advocated
the relevance of exploring the self-similar solutions in the
co-exploding frame, by analogy with the study of traveling solutions
in a co-traveling frame, as per the standard dynamical systems
perspective~\cite{bjorn,promislow}. We have also explained
systematically why, despite the presence of positive real
eigenvalues, the relevant self-similar solution is not genuinely
unstable but only subject to effectively neutral eigendirections.
To corroborate the relevant results, we performed
direct numerical simulations in the renormalized frame,
verifying (in line with earlier computations) the attractivity
of the relevant waveforms.
Naturally, this analysis raises a number of interesting questions
for further research. Understanding the dynamics (and the potential
role of self-similarity) slightly below the critical point
$\sigma d=2$ is an example of this type. Moreover, we
have argued that the supercritical solutions considered
herein are effectively stable, upon explaining the origin
of their real eigendirections. Yet, it is well-known that there
are other problems for which multiple, higher-order collapsing
solutions branches exist, some among which are dynamically
unstable: a notable example of this sort is, e.g., the complex
Ginzburg-Landau equation~\cite{vivi}. It is then of particular
interest to explore such waveforms via the type of spectral
analysis proposed herein, and corroborate in a systematic
fashion their stability or instability, as well as leverage
such spectral information in an attempt to understand the corresponding
direct numerical simulations of the relevant system in the renormalized
frame. In a different vein, there are other important dispersive
PDE models that feature similar bifurcations towards the emergence
of collapsing solutions, such as the generalized KdV
problem; for a recent exposition of the collapsing solutions
and asymptotics thereof, see, e.g.,~\cite{budd_recent}. It is
then of particular interest to adapt the methodology proposed
herein to the latter problem to explore the potential generality
of the eigenvalue phenomenology identified in the present work.
Such topics are presently under active investigation and relevant
results will be
reported in future publications.
\vspace{5mm}
{\it Acknowledgments.} This material is based upon work supported by the US
National Science Foundation under Grants No. DMS-1809074 and
PHY-2110030 (P.G.K.). PGK and EGC are also grateful to Dionyssis
Mantzavinos for numerous useful discussions during the early stages
of the present work.
|
\section*{Introduction}
Identifying influential nodes is crucial for accelerating or mitigating propagation processes in complex networks. To this end, numerous classical centrality measures relying on various topological properties have been proposed. One can distinguish two main categories: local and global measures \cite{lu2016vital}. Local metrics use information in the node neighborhood while global ones gather information from the whole network. Note that some works combine local and global information \cite{ibnoulouafi2018m}.
Another set of centrality measures uses information on the community structure to quantify the influence of the nodes. In this paper, we refer to them as ``community-aware'' centrality measures. Unlike classical centrality measures, community-aware centrality measures distinguish intra-community links from inter-community links. Intra-community links join nodes from the same community. They are related to the node's local influence inside its community. Inter-community links join nodes belonging to different communities. Therefore, they quantify the node's impact at the global level.
Community-aware centrality measures differ based on how they integrate the intra-community and inter-community links. Community Hub-Bridge proposed by \cite{ghalmane2019immunization} selects hubs within large communities and bridges simultaneously. Comm centrality \cite{gupta2016centrality} combines the intra-community and inter-community links of a node by prioritizing the latter. Community-based Centrality \cite{zhao2015community} weights an intra-community link by its community size and an inter-community link by the size of the communities it is joining. K-shell with Community \cite{luo2016identifying} is based on the linear combination of the k-shell of a node by considering the intra-community links and inter-community links networks separately. Participation Coefficient \cite{guimera2005functional} and Community-based Mediator \cite{tulu2018identifying} tends to select important nodes based on the heterogeneity of their intra-community and inter-community links. The Participation Coefficient of a node decreases if it doesn't participate in any other community than its own. Community-based Mediator reduces to the normalized degree centrality if the proportion of intra-community and inter-community links of a node are equal. Modularity Vitality \cite{modvitality} is a signed community-aware centrality measure. It is based on the modularity variation when removing a node in the network. Since bridges connect different communities, their presence decreases modularity. Therefore, nodes with negative Modularity Vitality values are bridges. In contrast, since hubs tend to increase a network's modularity, nodes with positive Modularity Vitality values are local hubs.
Many studies are devoted to the interactions between classical centrality measures \cite{li2015correlation, ronqui2015analyzing, schoch2017correlations, rajeh2020interplay, oldham2019consistency}. However, the relationship between classical and community-aware centrality measures is almost unexplored \cite{rajeh2020investigating}. Our goal in this paper is to gain a better understanding of this issue. In other words, we intend to answer the following questions: \newline
1) What is the relationship between classical and community-aware centrality measures? \newline
2) What is the influence of the macroscopic and mesoscopic topological properties on their relationship?
The paper is organized as follows. First, the classical and community-aware centrality measures are introduced. In the subsequent two sections, the analyses of the correlation and the network topology are presented. Finally, the conclusion is given.
\section*{Classical and Community-aware Centrality measures}
This study investigates ten classical centrality measures, of which five are local (Degree, Leverage, Laplacian, Diffusion Degree, and Maximum Neighborhood Component) and five are global (Betweenness, Closeness, Katz, PageRank, and Subgraph). Table \ref{tab_classical_centrality}
reports their definition. They are compared with seven community-aware measures introduced earlier and described in table \ref{tab_communityaware_centrality}. Table \ref{tab_data} quotes the fifty real-world networks used in the experiments. They are from various domains (animal, biological, collaboration, online/offline social networks, infrastructural, and miscellaneous). Since the community structure is sensitive to the community detection algorithm, Louvain and Infomap \cite{orman2011qualitative} are used to extract intra-community and inter-community links. Due to space constraints, the networks' topological characteristics and results based on Louvain are provided in the supplementary materials\footnote{https://github.com/StephanyRajeh/MixedCommunityAwareCentralityAnalysis}. Furthermore, as there are no fundamental differences, we restrict our attention in analyzing the results based on the community structure revealed using Infomap.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{6cm}|p{6cm}}
\hline\hline
Centrality measure description & Definition \\
\hline
\textbf{Degree}: based on the total sum of the \newline neighbors of a node &$
\alpha_{d}(i)=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{ij}
$ \\
\textbf{Leverage}: a signed centrality based on the quantity of connections compared to its neighbors & $
\alpha_{lev}(i)=\frac{1}{k_i}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{k_i - k_j}{k_i + k_j}
$ \\
\textbf{Laplacian}: based on how much damage a node causes in the network after its removal
& $
\alpha_{lap}(i)= k_i^2 + k_i + 2\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_1(i)}k_j
$ \\
\textbf{Diffusion}: based on the diffusive power of a node and that of its neighbors weighted by their propagation probabilities & $
\alpha_{dif}(i)= \varpi_i \times \alpha_{d}(i) + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_1(i)} \varpi_j \times \alpha_{d}(j)
$ \\
\textbf{Maximum Neighbor. Component}: based on the node's largest connected component (LCC) size established by its neighborhood & $
\alpha_m(i)= |LCC \in \mathcal{N}_1(i)|
$ \\
\textbf{Betweenness}: based on the number of \newline shortest path a node falls in between\newline two other nodes & $
\alpha_b(i)=\sum_{s,t\neq i }{\frac{\sigma_{i}(s,t)}{\sigma(s,t)} }
$ \\
\textbf{Closeness}: based on how close, on average, a node is to all other nodes in the network & $
\alpha_c(i)=\frac{N-1}{\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}d(i,j)}
$
\\
\textbf{Katz}: based on the quantity, quality, and the subsequent distances of other nodes connected to a specific node & $
\alpha_k(i)= \sum_{p=1} \sum_{j=1} s^p a^p_{ij}
$
\\
\textbf{PageRank}: based on the quantity and quality of nodes connected to a specific node under a Markov chain process & $
\alpha_p(i)=\frac{1-d}{N} + d \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_1(i)} \frac{\alpha_p(j)}{k_j}
$ \\
\textbf{Subgraph}: based on a node's participation in closed walks, with paths starting and ending with the same node & $
\alpha_s(i) = \sum_{j=1}^{N}(v_j^{i})^2 e^{\lambda_{j}}
$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Definitions of classical centrality measures ($\alpha(i)$). $a_{i,j}$ denotes the connectivity of a node $i$ to node $j$ from the adjacency matrix $A$. $N$ is the total number of nodes. $k_i$ and $k_j$ are the degrees of nodes $i$ and $j$, respectively. $\mathcal{N}_1(i)$ is the set of direct neighbors of node $i$. $\varpi_i$ and $\varpi_j$ are the propagation probabilities of nodes $i$ and nodes $j$, respectively ($\varpi$ is set to 1 for all nodes in this study). $\sigma(s,t)$ is the number of shortest paths between nodes $s$ and $t$
and $\sigma_{i}(s,t)$ is the number of shortest paths between nodes $s$ and $t$ that pass through node $i$. $d(i,j)$ is the shortest-path distance between node $i$ and $j$. $a^p_{ij}$ is the connectivity of node $i$ with respect to all the other nodes at a given order of the adjacency matrix $A^p$. $s^p$ is the attenuation factor where $s \in$ [0,1]. $\alpha_p(i)$ and $\alpha_p(j)$ are the PageRank centralities of node $i$ and node $j$, respectively. $d$ is the damping parameter (set to 0.85 in this study). $v_j$ refers to an eigenvector of the adjacency matrix $A$, associated with its eigenvalue $\lambda_j$.}
\label{tab_classical_centrality}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{6cm}|p{6cm}}
\hline\hline
Centrality measure description & Definition \\
\hline
\textbf{Community Hub-Bridge} \cite{ghalmane2019immunization}: based on weighting the intra-community links by the node's community size and the inter-community links by the node's number of neighboring communities & $
\beta_{CHB}(i) = |c_k| \times k_i^{intra} + |NNC_i| \times k_i^{inter}
$ \\
\textbf{Participation Coefficient} \cite{guimera2005functional}: based on the heterogeneity of a node's links, where the more external links a node has, the higher its centrality & $
\beta_{PC}(i) = 1 - \sum_{c=1}^{N_c}
\left(
\frac{k_{i,c}}{k_i}
\right)^2
$ \\
\textbf{Community‑based Mediator} \cite{tulu2018identifying}: based on the entropy of a node's intra-community and inter-community links & $
\beta_{CBM}(i) = H_i \times \frac{k_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{N} k_i}
$
\\
\textbf{Comm Centrality} \cite{gupta2016centrality}: based on weighting the intra-community and inter-community links by the proportion of external links and prioritizes bridges &
$
\beta_{Comm}(i) =
(1 + \mu_{c_k}) \times \chi + (1 - \mu_{c_k}) \times \varphi^2
$ \\
\textbf{Modularity Vitality} \cite{modvitality}: a signed community-aware centrality based on the modularity change a node causes after its removal from the network &
$\beta_{MV}(i) = M(G_i) - M(G) $\\
\textbf{Community-based Centrality} \cite{zhao2015community}: based on weighting the intra-community and inter-community links by the size of their belonging communities &
$
\beta_{CBC}(i) = \sum_{c=1}^{N_c} k_{i,c}
\left(
\frac{n_c}{N}
\right)
$ \\
\textbf{K-shell with Community} \cite{luo2016identifying}: based on the k-shell hierarchical decomposition of the local network (formed by intra-community links) and the global network (formed by inter-community links) &
$
\beta_{ks}(i) = \delta \times \beta^{intra}(i) + (1- \delta) \times \beta^{inter}(i)
$
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Definitions of community-aware centrality measures ($\beta(i)$). $c_k$ is the $k$-th community. $k_i^{intra}$ and $k_i^{inter}$ represent the intra-community and inter-community links of a node. $N_c$ is the total number of communities. $k_{i,c}$ is the number of links node $i$ has in a given community $c$. $k_i$ is the total degree of node $i$. $N$ is the total number of nodes. $H_i = [-\sum \rho_i^{intra} log(\rho_i^{intra})] + [- \sum \rho_i^{inter} log(\rho_i^{inter})]$ is the entropy of node $i$ based on its $\rho^{intra}$ and $\rho^{inter}$ which represent the density of the communities a node links to. $\chi = \frac{k_i^{intra}}{max_{(j \in c)}k_j^{intra}} \times R$ and $\varphi = \frac{k_i^{inter}}{max_{(j \in c)}k_j^{inter}} \times R$. $\mu_{c_k}$ is the proportion of inter-community links over the total community links in community $c_k$. $R$ is a constant to scale intra-community and inter-community values to the same range. $M$ is the modularity of a network and $M(G_i)$ is the modularity of the network after the removal of node $i$. $n_c$ is the number of nodes in community $c$. $\beta^{intra}(i)$ and $\beta^{inter}(i)$ represent the k-shell value of node $i$ by only considering intra-community links and inter-community links, respectively. $\delta$ is set to 0.5 in this study.
}
\label{tab_communityaware_centrality}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{4cm}|p{8cm}}
\hline\hline
Domain & Network's name and number\\
\hline
\textbf{Animal networks} & Dolphins (1), Reptiles (2) \\
\textbf{Biological networks} & Budapest Connectome (3), Blumenau Drug (4), E. coli Transcription (5), Human Protein (6), Interactome Vidal (7), Kegg Metabolic (8), Malaria Genes (9), Mouse Visual Cortex (10), Yeast Collins (11), Yeast Protein (12) \\
\textbf{Collaboration networks} & DBLP (13), AstroPh (14), C.S. PhD (15), GrQc (16), NetSci (17), New Zealand Collaboration (18) \\
\textbf{Offline social networks} & Adolescent health (19), Jazz (20), Zachary Karate Club (21), Madrid Train Bombings (22) \\
\textbf{Infrastructural networks}& EU Airlines (23), EuroRoad (24), Internet Autonomous Systems (25), Internet Topology Cogentco (26), London Transport (27), U.S. Power Grid (28), U.S. Airports (29), U.S. States (30) \\
\textbf{Actor networks} & Game of Thrones (31), Les Misérables (32), Marvel Partnerships (33), Movie Galaxies (34) \\
\textbf{Miscellaneous networks}& 911AllWords (35), Bible Nouns (36), Board of Directors (37), DNC Emails (38), Football (39), Polbooks (40) \\
\textbf{Online social networks} & DeezerEU (41), Ego Facebook (42), Facebook Friends (43), Facebook Organizations (44), Caltech (45), Facebook Politician Pages (46), Hamsterster (47), PGP (48), Princeton (49), Retweets Copenhagen (50)
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The fifty real-world networks used in this study divided into eight different domains. All network data can be obtained from the cited resources \cite{nr, icon, latora2017complex, netz, kunegis2014handbook}.
}
\label{tab_data}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section*{Correlation Analysis}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm, height=8cm]{ViolinPlots.png}
\caption{Distribution of the Kendall's Tau correlation between classical and community-aware centrality measures for each network. Colors represent the network's domain. Animal networks are green. Biological networks are Pink. Collaboration networks are blue. Offline social networks are violet. Infrastructural networks are grey. Actor networks are yellow. Miscellaneous networks are brown. Online social networks are orange.}
\label{FigureViolinPlotCentralityCorrDistribution}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The first investigation concerns how classical and community-aware centrality measures correlate for a given network. So, for each of the fifty networks, the Kendall’s Tau correlation is computed for all possible combinations between the ten classical ($\alpha_i$) and seven community-aware centrality measures ($\beta_j$). Figure \ref{FigureViolinPlotCentralityCorrDistribution} shows the distributions of the correlation values for each network. There is no consistency of the distribution for networks from the same domain. Indeed, their distributions can be quite different. For example, although EU Airlines (23) and EuroRoad (24) belong to the infrastructural networks domain (grey color), EU Airlines (23) has a wide distribution while EuroRoad (24) is much narrow. One can notice that most networks exhibit a unimodal distribution. Yet, bimodal distributions are also seen, such as in the networks Movie Galaxies (34), 911AllWords (35), and Football (39). Whatever the network considered, the most frequent value of the distribution lies around 0.5. The average median of all the distributions is 0.43$\pm$0.1. The average interquartile range is 0.37$\pm$0.1. Finally, the average mean of the distribution for all networks is 0.37$\pm$0.07. In other words, most of the classical and community-aware centrality measures tend to exhibit medium to low correlation values. Yet, few high correlation values are also observed.
To check the consistency of Kendall's Tau correlation values for the various pairs of community-aware and classical centralities across networks, we proceed as follows. Each network is represented by a sample made of thirty-five correlation pair values. The Pearson correlation values between the samples two-by-two are then computed to quantify the two networks' statistical proximity. Figure \ref{FigureViolinPlot50x50} illustrates its distribution. Globally, results across networks are well-correlated. Indeed, the Pearson correlation values range from 0.6 and 1. More precisely, their mean value is equal to 0.80, and their median is 0.82. Note that 911AllWords, Football, and to a lesser extent, Ego Facebook deviate from the general trend. That is the reason why the distribution has a fat left tail. Hence, one can conclude that the correlation of classical and community-aware centrality measures across networks is rather consistent.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=3cm, keepaspectratio]{ViolinPlotOf50x50Matrix.png}
\caption{Distribution of Pearson's correlation for the heatmaps of the Kendall's Tau correlation between classical and community-aware centrality of all networks.}
\label{FigureViolinPlot50x50}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=3.7cm, keepaspectratio]{MeanAndStdvOfCorrelations.png}
\caption{Mean and standard deviation of the Kendall's Tau correlation for each classical and community-aware centrality measures pair ($\alpha_i$, $\beta_j$) across the fifty networks.}
\label{FigureMeanStdvOfCombinationsAcrossNetworks}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally, having checked that Kendall's Tau correlation values are consistent across networks, we calculate the mean and standard deviation for each combination ($\alpha_i$, $\beta_j$) across the fifty networks. It allows studying if community-aware centrality measures behave differently. Results reported in figure \ref{FigureMeanStdvOfCombinationsAcrossNetworks} show that the various community-aware centrality measures' correlation patterns are very different. Modularity Vitality ($\beta_{MV}$) is the only community-aware centrality measure exhibiting a negative correlation with classical centrality measures. Furthermore, its mean standard deviation value is high. As it is a signed community-aware centrality measure, this result is not unexpected.
The remaining community-aware centrality measures can be ranked according to their correlation values. Community Hub-bridge ($\beta_{CHB}$) and Participation Coefficient ($\beta_{PC}$) tend to show low positive mean correlation with all classical centrality measures ($\leq$ 0.4) except for ($\alpha_b$, $\beta_{PC}$) amounting to 0.46. Their subsequent mean standard deviation is generally close to 0.15. Comm Centrality ($\beta_{Comm}$) has a minimum mean correlation of 0.27 and a maximum mean correlation of 0.54. The standard deviation of $\beta_{Comm}$ ranges from 0.11 to 0.21. Next comes Community-based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$), where the mean correlation is between 0.43 and 0.6. Its mean standard deviation is near 0.15 for all combinations except for ($\alpha_m$, $\beta_{CBM}$) amounting to 0.21. Finally, Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$) and K-shell with Community ($\beta_{ks}$) exhibit a higher correlation with classical centrality measures than the other community-aware centrality measures. Indeed, the mean correlation may even reach 0.83 as a maximum ($\alpha_d$, $\beta_{ks}$). Their standard deviation is in the range of 0.14 and 0.21. These results corroborate the observation of high values of the correlation in each network's distribution reported in figure \ref{FigureViolinPlotCentralityCorrDistribution}. Indeed, these values correspond to $\beta_{CBC}$ and $\beta_{ks}$.
\section*{Network topology analysis}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=14cm, keepaspectratio]{LinearRegressionRepresentative.png}
\caption{Relationship of the mean of the correlation between the community-aware centralities ``Community-based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$)" and ``Modularity Vitality ($\beta_{MV}$)" combined with all classical centrality measures as a function of the topological properties of real-world networks. The line is fitted by linear regression using ordinary least squares. ``P" indicates $p\leq0.05$. ``P" and * indicate $p\leq0.01$. The colors of the data points represent the network's domain.}
\label{LinearRegression}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Correlation values between classical and community-aware centrality measures of each network are further processed. For a given network, each community-aware centrality measure is reduced to the mean value of the Kendall's Tau correlation values computed for the ten classical centrality measures. Simple linear regression is performed to investigate the relationship with various topological properties of the networks. The average correlation values are the dependent variables, while the topological properties are the independent variables. The macroscopic features used are Density, Transitivity, Assortativity, Average distance, Diameter, Efficiency, and the Degree distribution exponent. The mesoscopic features used are Modularity, Mixing parameter, Internal distance, Internal density, Max-ODF, Average-ODF, Flake-ODF, Embeddedness, and Hub dominance. If the $p$-value is below 0.05, the dependent and independent variables' relationship is considered statistically significant. Figure \ref{LinearRegression} presents the two extreme cases of statistical dependency between the mean and topological features. The premier case concerns Community-based Mediator (The mean value shows significant linear relationships with nine topological features). The last case is for Modularity Vitality (the mean value shows no meaningful linear relationship with any topological property). The remaining figures and linear regression parameters estimate for each community-aware centrality measure are provided in the supplementary materials.
Regarding macroscopic topological properties, we observe three situations. Network characteristics exhibit a significant linear relationship with the mean of either three, two, or none community-aware centrality. In that sense, transitivity and efficiency are the most influential macroscopic topological features \cite{orman2013empirical}. They show significant relationships with the mean of three different community-aware centrality measures. Then come density, assortativity, diameter, and average distance that affect two community-aware centrality measures. Finally, the degree distribution exponent is the only topological feature among the macroscopic features that do not show any significant relationship. Transitivity has a significant negative association with the mean of Community-Based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$) and Participation Coefficient ($\beta_{PC}$). Indeed, increasing transitivity leads to more triangles in the network. As Community-Based Mediator is based on the entropy of the intra-community and inter-community links of a node, transitivity may increase the difference between the two, resulting in a lower correlation. As the Participation Coefficient also exploits the margin of the proportion of the inter-community and intra-community links, it behaves similarly. One observes a positive association with transitivity for Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$). If the whole network forms a single community, $\beta_{CBC}$ reduces to degree centrality \cite{zhao2015community}. Consequently, the correlation between $\beta_{CBC}$ and classical measures tend to increase as transitivity increases. Efficiency has a significant positive association on Comm Centrality ($\beta_{Comm}$), Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$), and K-shell with Community ($\beta_{ks}$). An increase in efficiency means that the average shortest path distance in a network is getting smaller. In other words, the network is more efficient when nodes are closely connected. Therefore, community-aware centrality measures tend to be more correlated with classical ones.
Density has a significant positive association with Comm Centrality ($\beta_{Comm}$) and Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$). An increase in density means more links between nodes. Accordingly, $\beta_{Comm}$ and $\beta_{CBC}$ get more analogous to classical centrality measures. Assortativity has a significant negative association with the mean of Community-Based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$) and Participation Coefficient ($\beta_{PC}$). An increase in assortativity means that there are more interactions between peers in the networks. It may also increase the margin of difference between intra-community and inter-community links. Assortative networks tend to form communities with ``similar" degree nodes. Consequently, intra-community and inter-community link densities may further differ from one community to another. Hence, a lower correlation between $\beta_{CBM}$/$\beta_{PC}$ and classical centrality measures is observed. Diameter and average distance have both a significant negative association with the mean of Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$) and K-shell with Community ($\beta_{ks}$). An increase in both measures means that nodes are more distant from each other. These two community-aware centrality measures are the most sensitive to distance-related measures.
Regarding the mesoscopic topological features, one can distinguish two cases. The mixing parameter, modularity, and Max-ODF are statistically linearly related with the mean of three community-aware centrality measures. Linear dependence exists with the mean of two community-aware centrality measures for the remaining features.
The mixing parameter has a significant positive association with the mean on Community Hub-Bridge ($\beta_{CHB}$), Participation Coefficient ($\beta_{PC}$), and Community-based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$). An increase in the mixing parameter translates into a weaker community structure. As a result, these community-aware centrality measures tend to extract similar information compared to classical centrality measures. Modularity has a significant negative association with the mean on Community-based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$), Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$), and K-shell with Community ($\beta_{ks}$). An increase in modularity means that communities are tightly connected. As a result, these measures extract different information than classical centrality measures when the network is highly modular. Max-ODF has a significant positive association with the mean of Community-based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$), Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$), and K-shell with Community ($\beta_{ks}$). Based on the nodes with the highest inter-community links in their community, its increase leads to more connections between highly connected nodes in different communities, weakening the community structure. Therefore, correlation of $\beta_{CBM}$, $\beta_{CBC}$, and $\beta_{ks}$ with classical centrality measures increases. Internal distance shows a significant positive linear relationship with the mean of Participation Coefficient ($\beta_{PC}$) and a negative one with the mean of Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$). As $\beta_{PC}$ exploits the heterogeneity between intra-community and inter-community links of a node, an increase in internal decreases the margin between intra-community and inter-community links. Consequently, the correlation between $\beta_{PC}$ and classical centrality measures increases. The opposite effect occurs with $\beta_{CBC}$.
Internal density has a negative influence on the mean of Community-based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$) and Participation Coefficient ($\beta_{PC}$). An increase in internal density means that communities are condensed with inner connections. As $\beta_{CBM}$ and $\beta_{PC}$ exploit the margin of difference of a node's intra-community links to its inter-community links, both will favor an increase in internal density. Average-ODF has a significant positive relationship with the mean of Community-based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$) and K-shell with Community ($\beta_{ks}$). Since it is based on the proportion of inter-community links, the weaker the community structure, the higher the correlation with classical centrality measures. Similarly, Flake-ODF has a similar positive linear relationship with the mean of $\beta_{CBM}$ and $\beta_{ks}$. Indeed, it is another way of quantifying the strength of the community structure. Embeddedness has a negative relationship with the mean of Community-based Mediator ($\beta_{CBM}$) and K-shell with Community ($\beta_{ks}$). Indeed, based on the proportion of intra-community links, it is the opposite of Average-ODF. Finally, hub dominance has a significant positive relationship with the mean of Community-based Centrality ($\beta_{CBC}$) and K-shell with Community ($\beta_{ks}$). A higher hub dominance means fewer tightly connected communities. As a result, $\beta_{CBC}$ behaves closer to degree centrality, and the correlation of $\beta_{CBC}$ with classical centrality measures increases. Concerning $\beta_{ks}$, higher hub dominance induces more similar intra-community and inter-community links and higher correlation with classical centrality measures.
\section*{Conclusion}
This study investigates the relationship between classical and community-aware centrality measures. Results show that the Kendall's Tau correlation between classical and community-aware centrality measures is generally medium to low. Second, the correlation patterns are pretty consistent across networks. Moreover, the community-aware centrality measures can be classified into four groups according to the correlation pattern with classical centrality measures. More specifically, Modularity Vitality shows a low negative correlation. Low positive correlation characterizes Community Hub-Bridge and Participation Coefficient. A positive medium correlation is observed for Comm Centrality and Community-based Mediator. Finally, Community-based Centrality and K-shell with Community show a high positive correlation. Transitivity and efficiency are the most influential macroscopic features while the mixing parameter, modularity, and Max-ODF are the predominant mesoscopic features. The results of this study pave the way for the development of effective community-aware centrality measures. Indeed, it demonstrates that integrating knowledge about the network community structure brings a new perspective of node influence.
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
|
\section{Introduction}
With the growth of graph-structured data, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) has recently emerged as a research hotspot in the machine learning field.
In the computer vision field, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) made success on many tasks such as image classification \cite{lenet, alexnet, googlenet, vgg, resnet}.
However, the spatial convolution defined on Euclidean data is difficult to be generalized to graphs.
In order to generalize CNNs onto graph-structured data, \cite{defferrard2016convolutional} proposed ChebNet, which approximates the graph spectral convolution with Chebyshev polynomials.
\cite{kipf2017semi} simplifies ChebNet with the first-order Chebyshev approximation and obtain the well-known Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN), which achieved state-of-the-art on semi-supervised node classification tasks.
These GNN models can be roughly classified into four categories based on their design domain (spectral or spatial) and whether they support homophilous or heterophilous graphs (see Table \ref{tab:design}).
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{A rough classification of some Graph Neural Networks.}
\label{tab:design}
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\toprule
& \textbf{Spectral} & \textbf{Spatial} \\
\midrule
\textbf{Homophilous} & \makecell[c]{GCN \cite{kipf2017semi}, SGC \cite{wu2019simplifying}} & \makecell[c]{GraphSAGE \cite{hamilton2017inductive}, GAT \cite{velickovic2018graph}, (A)PPNP \cite{klicpera2019predict}, \\GCNII \cite{chen2020simple}, ElasticGNN \cite{liu2021elastic}} \\ \midrule
\textbf{Heterophilous} & \makecell[c]{ChebNet \cite{defferrard2016convolutional}, GPR-GNN \cite{chien2021adaptive}, \\ FAGCN\cite{bo2021beyond}, BernNet \cite{he2021bernnet}} & \makecell[c]{Geom-GCN \cite{pei2020geom}, H$_2$GCN \cite{zhu2020beyond}, TWIRLS \cite{yang2021graph}, \\TDGNN \cite{wang2021tree}, DMP \cite{yang2021diverse}, GSN (ours)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\paragraph{GNNs designed for homophilous graphs.}
Inspired by the message-passing nature of GCN, many GNNs are designed in the spatial domain via different message-passing schemes.
For example, GraphSAGE \cite{hamilton2017inductive} focuses on inductive learning and uses neighborhood sampling and the aggregator estimation methods.
GAT \cite{velickovic2018graph} introduces attention mechanics in its neighborhood aggregation function.
Motivated by the random walk on graphs, PPNP and its approximation version APPNP \cite{klicpera2019predict} use the PageRank proximity designing the message-passing scheme.
SGC \cite{wu2019simplifying} simplifies GCN by removing the learnable matrices and non-linear activation functions in convolution layers.
Some researchers notice that GCN loses its performance rapidly when piling up too many layers due to the over-smoothing phenomenon \cite{li2018deeper, oono2020graph}.
GCNII \cite{chen2020simple} introduces the initial residue and identity mapping to relieve over-smoothing.
Moreover, ElasticGNN \cite{liu2021elastic} aims to enhance the local smoothness of GNN via $\ell_1$ based graph smoothing.
\paragraph{GNNs designed for heterophilous graphs.}
An explanation for the over-smoothing phenomenon is that many GNNs have the homophily assumption (which means that nodes with same labels tend to have connections) when aggregating neighboring nodes \cite{zhu2020beyond}.
Therefore, it is practical to design GNNs for heterophilous graphs.
To capture long-range dependencies and to improve the performances on heterophilous graphs, Geom-GCN \cite{pei2020geom} maps nodes to a latent space and aggregates neighboring nodes in that space.
H$_2$GCN \cite{zhu2020beyond} separates ego-embedding with neighbor-embedding and considers higher-order neighborhoods in its message-passing scheme.
Inspired by two iterative algorithms, TWIRLS \cite{yang2021graph} designs GNN layers to overcome the over-smoothing problem and also generalize GNNs to heterophilous graphs.
TDGNN \cite{wang2021tree} uses tree decomposition method to disentangle the neighborhoods with different orders.
DMP \cite{yang2021diverse} tries to learn weights on each edge during the message-passing process.
Another explanation is that the graph convolution operation behaves like a low-pass filter and smoothens the node features \cite{nt2020revisiting, li2018deeper}.
Therefore, designing or learning a complex graph filter will alleviate this problem.
Motivated by this, GNN-LF/HF \cite{zhu2021interpreting} designs a low-pass filter and a high-pass filter from an optimization framework.
GPR-GNN \cite{chien2021adaptive} introduces the Generalized PageRank (GPR) and allows the model to learn GPR coefficients.
Meanwhile, FAGCN \cite{bo2021beyond} separates the low- and high- frequency information in its aggregation operation.
Moreover, BernNet \cite{he2021bernnet} uses the Bernstein basis to approximate any arbitrary graph filter.
In Section \ref{sec:universality}, we will analyze some of these models in a more detailed manner.
Although many heterophilous GNNs have been proposed, a common drawback of them, particularly those created in the spatial domain (e.g., H$_2$GCN and DMP), is that they lack a strong physical motivation.
In this paper, we will show that the spring network is a natural physical motivation for modeling homophilous and heterophilous GNNs.
To be more specific, the contributions of this paper are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Motivated by the lack of theoretical foundation of spatial heterophilous GNNs, and inspired by the nature of spring, we examine the invariant property of the energy function of the spring networks and propose the Graph Spring Network (GSN).
\item We analyze the universality of the GSN framework,
and prove that some GNNs can be simulated by GSN directly or with little modification.
\item We have done experiments on different kinds of graph datasets, and
empirical results reveal the effectiveness of the GSN framework.
\end{itemize}
\section{Preliminaries}
\paragraph{Mathematical Notations.}
We use boldface uppercase letters such as $\mathbf{X}$ for matrices; and we use boldface lowercase characters such as $\mathbf{x}$ for (column) vectors.
For matrices, $\mathbf{X}_{i:}$ denotes the $i$-th row of $\mathbf{X}$, $\mathbf{X}_{:j}$ denotes the $j$-th column of $\mathbf{X}$, $\mathbf{X}_{ij}$ denotes the $ij$-th element of $\mathbf{X}$, and $\mathbf{X}^\top$ denotes the transposition of $\mathbf{X}$.
Meanwhile, $\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{X})$ denotes the column vector consists of all diagonal elements of $\mathbf{X}$, i.e., $\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{X})_i=\mathbf{X}_{ii}$ ($i=1, 2, \cdots, n$).
The trace of $\mathbf{X}$ is the sum of all its diagonal elements, i.e., $\tr(\mathbf{X})\coloneqq \sum_{i}\mathbf{X}_{ii}$.
The Frobenius norm of $\mathbf{X}$, indicated by $\Vert\mathbf{X}\Vert_F$, is defined as $\Vert\mathbf{X}\Vert_F\coloneqq\sqrt{\sum_{i,j}\vert \mathbf{X}_{ij}\vert^2}$.
For vectors, $\mathbf{x}_i$ denotes the $i$-th element of $\mathbf{x}$, whereas $\mathbf{x}^\top$ denotes the transposition of $\mathbf{x}$.
And $\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{x})$ denotes the square matrix whose diagonal elements are $\mathbf{x}$, i.e., $\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{x})_{ij}=\begin{cases}\mathbf{x}_i, & i=j \\ 0, & i\neq j\end{cases}$.
The $p$-norm $\Vert \cdot\Vert_p$ of vector $\mathbf{x}$ is defined as $\Vert \mathbf{x}\Vert_p \coloneqq \left(\sum_{i}\vert \mathbf{x}_i\vert^p\right)^{1/p}$.
The Hadamard product is the element-wise product of two matrices or vectors.
To be precise, $(\mathbf{X}\odot \mathbf{Y})_{ij}=\mathbf{X}_{ij}\mathbf{Y}_{ij}$, and $(\mathbf{x}\odot\mathbf{y})_i=\mathbf{x}_i\mathbf{y}_i$.
\paragraph{Concepts from Graph Theory.}
A graph $G$ is a pair $(V, E)$, where $V$ is the node set and $E\subseteq V^2$ is the edge set.
Given an order for the nodes, we may denote $V$ as $\{1, 2, \cdots, \vert V\vert\}$, and use the adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}\in \{0, 1\}^{\vert V\vert\times \vert V\vert}$ to represent the edges $E$, i.e., $\mathbf{A}_{ij}=1$ if edge $(i, j)\in E$, otherwise $\mathbf{A}_{ij}=0$.
Note that for an undirected graph, $(i, j)\in E\Leftrightarrow (j, i)\in E$, resulting in a symmetric $\mathbf{A}$.
Unless otherwise noted, the graphs below are undirected.
The neighborhood of node $i$ is the set of nodes that share an edge with it, i.e., $\mathcal{N}(i)\coloneqq\{j : (i, j)\in E\}$, whereas the closed neighborhood of $i$ is $\overline{\mathcal{N}(i)}\coloneqq\mathcal{N}(i)\cup \{i\}$.
The degree of node $i$ is the number of nodes in its neighborhood, i.e., $d_i\coloneqq\vert\mathcal{N}(i)\vert=\vert \{j : (i, j)\in E\}\vert$.
And the degree matrix of graph is $\mathbf{D}\coloneqq \mathrm{diag}((d_1, d_2, \cdots, d_{\vert V\vert}))$.
The edge homophily \cite{zhu2020beyond} of graph $G$ with node labels $Y$ is the fraction of edges which connect nodes in the same class, i.e., $\mathcal{H}(G, Y)\coloneqq\vert\{(u, v)\in E: Y_u=Y_v\}\vert / \vert E\vert$.
The Laplacian of graph $\mathbf{L}\coloneqq\mathbf{D}-\mathbf{A}$ has two essential and critical properties: it is positive semidefinite; $\lambda_1=0$ is the smallest eigenvalue of $\mathbf{L}$ and all-one vector $\mathbf{1}$ is the corresponding eigenvector.
We sometimes refer to the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{L}$ as frequencies.
We usually use the symmetric normalized Laplacian $\mathbf{L}^{\text{sym}}\coloneqq \mathbf{D}^{-1/2}\mathbf{LD}^{-1/2}=\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{D}^{1/2}\mathbf{AD}^{-1/2}$, and the symmetric normalized propagation matrix $\mathbf{P}^{\text{sym}}\coloneqq\mathbf{D}^{-1/2}\mathbf{AD}^{-1/2}$ (or $\mathbf{P}$ for short).
\section{Design Motivation}
\label{sec:motivation}
\paragraph{What Constitutes a ``Good'' Node Embedding?}
We investigate the node classification task by asking: what constitutes a ``good'' node representation?
We can answer the question according to our intuition: a ``good'' node embedding will draw connected nodes in the same class closer and push connected nodes in different classes further.
In other words, it should decrease the intra-class distances while increasing the inter-class distances.
Note that the all-one vector $\mathbf{1}$ is the eigenvector of the smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_1 = 0$ of $\mathbf{L}$, so the perfectly smooth vector has the lowest frequency or energy.
On the contrary, if a vector is not smooth, it will contain high-frequency components in the spectral domain (w.r.t. $\mathbf{L}$).
The convolution operation in GCN behaves like a low-pass filter, and the nodes' features are smoothed each time they pass through a convolution layer \cite{nt2020revisiting, li2018deeper}, consistent with the fact that the weighted mean aggregation operation can draw nodes' embeddings closer.
On the other hand, a high-pass filter will push nodes further.
Therefore, we cannot just apply low- or high-pass filters to create a suitable GNN design for graphs with coexisting homophilous and heterophilous edges.
In the spectral domain, a well-designed GNN should learn a complex filter; whereas in the spatial domain, it should learn a good push-and-pull relation between nodes.
\paragraph{Node Embeddings and Spring Networks.}
Recall that a ``good'' node embedding will draw connected homophilous nodes closer and push connected heterophilous nodes further.
A natural idea is to use springs to model the edge between homophilous or heterophilous nodes, which also push close objects further and pull distant objects closer.
The spring network models have been used in the graph drawing field as a special case of the force-directed methods which can be dated back to 1960s \cite{tutte1963how, eades1984a, kamada1989an, fruchterman1991graph, tunkelang1994a, bourne2020the}; and they have also been used in the biophysics and biochemistry fields to analyze protein's properties \cite{haliloglu1997gaussian, lin2009generalized, amyot2019analyzing}.
According to our previous discussion, the push and pull relationship that we need to learn should act like ``similar objects appeal, dissimilar objects repel", thus the spring network is an ideal tool to model homophily and heterophily of graphs.
To be concrete, suppose we have a spring network in Figure \ref{fig:spring-network}, where edges between nodes are springs.
Initially, homophilous edges are extended springs, while heterophilous edges are compressed.
Letting the spring network evolve freely, the total potential energy of the system is minimized.
Nodes with the same attributes are pulled closer, while nodes with different attributes are pushed further, making the nodes with different labels easier to be separated, regardless of the homophily of the graph.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.4mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0, 0) -- (1, 1.5);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.4mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0, 0) -- (0, 2);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.4mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0, 2) -- (1, 1.5);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.4mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (1, 0) -- (2, .5);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.4mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (1, 0) -- (0.25, 1.25);
\draw [thick, blue, decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.4mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0.25, 1.25) -- (2., 0.5);
\draw [thick, red, decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=.8mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0, 0) -- (1., 0);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=.8mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0.25, 1.25) -- (1, 1.5);
\draw [thick, fill = red!60] (0, 0) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = red!60] (0, 2) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = red!60] (1, 1.5) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = blue!60] (1, 0) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = blue!60] (0.25, 1.25) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = blue!60] (2, 0.5) circle (.15);
\draw [->] (0.5, 0) -- (1.6, 2.4);
\node [align = center, right] at (1.5, 2.5) {\color{red}\begin{scriptsize} Heterophilous:
$\mathbf{M}_{ij}=\Vert \mathbf{Z}_{i:}^{(0)}-\mathbf{Z}_{j:}^{(0)}\Vert_2+\sqrt{2\mathbf{E}_{ij}/k_{ij}}$
\end{scriptsize}};
\draw [->] (1.3, 0.85) -- (1.6, 1.9);
\node [align = center, right] at (1.5, 2.0) {\color{blue}\begin{scriptsize} Homophilous:
$\mathbf{M}_{ij}=\Vert \mathbf{Z}_{i:}^{(0)}-\mathbf{Z}_{j:}^{(0)}\Vert_2-\sqrt{2\mathbf{E}_{ij}/k_{ij}}$
\end{scriptsize}};
\node [align = center, right] at (7.55, 2.25) {\Large $\}$\begin{scriptsize} Unified:
$\mathbf{M}_{ij}=\Vert \mathbf{Z}_{i:}^{(0)}-\mathbf{Z}_{j:}^{(0)}\Vert_2-\alpha_{ij}\sqrt{\mathbf{E}_{ij}}$
\end{scriptsize}};
\node[align = center, below=.2cm] at (1, 0) {Initial Embedding $\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}$};
\end{scope}
\draw[->, very thick] (2.5, .75) -- node[align = center, above = .2cm]{\begin{scriptsize} ($\mathbf{M}_{ij}$: Initial Length; $\mathbf{E}_{ij}$: Energy; $\alpha_{ij}$: Edge Attention.\end{scriptsize} \\ \begin{scriptsize}See Section \ref{sec:energy} for details.)\end{scriptsize}} node[align = center, below = .cm]{\small Potential Energy Minimization \\ (GSN Convolution. See Section \ref{sec:model}.)} (9.5, .75);
\begin{scope}[xshift = 10.0cm]
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.1mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0.3, 0.5) -- (0, 1);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.1mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0.3, 0.5) -- (0.6, 1.0);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.1mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0, 1) -- (0.6, 1.0);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.1mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (2, 0) -- (1.4, .0);
\draw [thick, blue, decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.1mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (2, 0) -- (1.7, 0.5);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.1mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (1.4, 0.0) -- (1.7, 0.5);
\draw [thick, red, decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.1mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0.3, 0.5) -- (1.4, 0);
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.1mm, amplitude=.5mm, coil}, decorate] (0.6, 1.) -- (1.7, .5);
\draw [thick, fill = red!60] (0.3, 0.5) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = red!60] (0, 1) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = red!60] (0.6, 1.0) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = blue!60] (2, 0) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = blue!60] (1.4, 0) circle (.15);
\draw [thick, fill = blue!60] (1.7, 0.5) circle (.15);
\draw [->] (1.0, 0.2) -- (1.0, 1.2);
\node at (1.0, 1.5) {\begin{scriptsize}{$ \Vert\mathbf{Z}^{(K)}_{i:}-\mathbf{Z}^{(K)}_{j:}\Vert_2 \approx \mathbf{M}_{ij}$}\end{scriptsize}};
\node[align = center, below=.2cm] at (1, 0) {Final Embedding $\mathbf{Z}^{(K)}$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Modeling graphs with homophilous and heterophilous edges using a spring network.}
\label{fig:spring-network}
\end{figure}
Let us examine the physics behind spring networks.
In Figure \ref{fig:spring}, suppose we have two nodes whose coordinates are $\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2\in \mathbb{R}^d$.
According to Hooke's Law, the force node 1 exerts on node 2 is
$\mathbf{F}_{12}=k(\Vert\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2\Vert_2 - l_0)\frac{\mathbf{r}_1 - \mathbf{r}_2}{\Vert\mathbf{r}_1 -\mathbf{r}_2\Vert_2}$, and the potential energy of this two-node system is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spring-energy}
E_p=\frac12k(\Vert\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2\Vert_2-l_0)^2.
\end{equation}
Note that there are two different position with the same energy, thus, the spring network is an excellent model for both homophilous and heterophilous graphs.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [decoration={aspect=0.5, segment length=1.mm, amplitude=.8mm, coil}, decorate] (0, 0) -- (2, 0);
\draw [thick, fill = red!60] (0, 0) node[below = .2cm] {$\mathbf{r}_1$} circle (.2);
\draw [thick, fill = blue!60] (2, 0) node[below = .2cm] {$\mathbf{r}_2$} circle (.2);
\draw[thick, |->] (0, 0) -- (-.5, 0) node[left] {$\mathbf{F}_{21}$};
\draw[thick, |->] (2, 0) -- (2.5, 0) node[right] {$\mathbf{F}_{12}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Two nodes positioned in $\mathbf{r}_1$ and $\mathbf{r}_2$ with a compressed ($\Vert\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2\Vert_2 < l_0$) spring connecting them. Each node feels a force pushing them further.}
\label{fig:spring}
\end{figure}
\section{Potential Energy of Spring Network}
\label{sec:energy}
Before presenting our GSN model, we first propose a potential energy function that models both homophilous and heterophilous graphs.
We will also discuss the invariant property of it.
\paragraph{Metric Matrix $\mathbf{M}$.}
For a graph $G=(V, E)$ with an initial node embedding matrix $\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}=f_\theta(\mathbf{X})$, we can treat each edge $(i, j)$ as a spring whose initial length is $\Vert\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{i:}-\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{j:}\Vert_2$.
We denote the relaxed length\footnote{``Relaxed length'' is different from ``initial length''.} of each spring $(i, j)$ as $\mathbf{M}_{ij}$, resulting in a relaxed length matrix, or a metric matrix $\mathbf{M}\in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{n\times n}$.
We also assume that each spring $(i, j)$ stores the initial potential energy $\mathbf{E}_{ij}$, resulting in a energy matrix $\mathbf{E}\in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{n\times n}$ to be determined later.
According to Equation \ref{eq:spring-energy}, for any edge $(i, j)$, we have the relation $\mathbf{E}_{ij}=\frac12k_{ij}(\Vert\mathbf{Z}_{i:}^{(0)}-\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{j:}\Vert_2-\mathbf{M}_{ij})^2$, then we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{M}_{ij} = \mathbf{A}_{ij}\left(\Vert\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{i:}-\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{j:}\Vert_2{\color{red}\pm}\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbf{E}_{ij}}{k_{ij}}}\right)
=
\begin{cases}
0, & (i, j)\notin E, \\
\Vert\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{i:}-\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{j:}\Vert_2+\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbf{E}_{ij}}{k_{ij}}}, & (i, j)\text{ compressed}, \\
\Vert\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{i:}-\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{j:}\Vert_2-\sqrt{\frac{2\mathbf{E}_{ij}}{k_{ij}}}, & (i, j)\text{ stretched}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Then, we introduce soft variables called $\alpha_{ij} \in [-1, 1]$ to indicate whether the spring $(i,j)$ is initially stretched or compressed, and eliminate unnecessary variables $k_{ij}$ by reparameterizing $\mathbf{E}_{ij} \equiv 2\mathbf{E}_{ij}/ k_{ij}$ for all $(i,j)\in E$. We obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:metric}
\mathbf{M}_{ij}=\mathbf{A}_{ij}(\Vert\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{i:}-\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}_{j:}\Vert_2-\alpha_{ij}\sqrt{\mathbf{E}_{ij}}).
\end{equation}
Note that $\alpha_{ij}$ approaches $1$ when the spring $(i,j)$ is initially stretched and corresponds to an homophilous edge, whereas $\alpha_{ij}$ approaches $-1$ when the spring $(i,j)$ is initially compressed and corresponds to an heterophilous edge.
According to the discussions in Section \ref{sec:motivation}, we need to decrease the intra-class distances and increase the inter-class distances.
Therefore, by designing the elements in the energy matrix to be $\mathbf{E}_{ij}=\frac{4 \Vert\mathbf{Z}_{i:}^{(0)}-\mathbf{Z}_{j:}^{(0)}\Vert^2_2}{(\alpha_{ij}+1)^2}$\footnote{The rationality and the physical meaning of this design are included in the supplementary materials.}($(i, j)\in E$), we have $\mathbf{M}_{ij}=\frac{1-\alpha_{ij}}{1+{\alpha}_{ij}}\Vert\mathbf{Z}_{i:}^{(0)}-\mathbf{Z}_{j:}^{(0)}\Vert_2$.
\paragraph{Designing Stretch / Compress Attention $\alpha_{ij}$.}
Directly learning $\alpha_{ij}$ is unfeasible, since it introduces $\vert E\vert$ parameters, leading to over-fitting.
In GSN, we adopt attention mechanisms to obtain $\alpha_{ij}$.
For $(i, j)\in E$, suppose their initial embeddings are $\mathbf{Z}_{i:}^{(0)}$ and $\mathbf{Z}_{j:}^{(0)}$, we first get their representation in a hidden space (for example, by MLP), then can calculate $\alpha_{ij}$ by following methods,
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{``dot''}: $\alpha_{ij}=g(\mathbf{h}_i^\top\mathbf{h}_j)$;
\item \textbf{``concat''}: $\alpha_{ij} = g( \mathbf{a}^\top\left[\mathbf{h}_i\Vert\mathbf{h}_j\right])$, where $\mathbf{a}\in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ and $\Vert$ denotes concatenation;
\item \textbf{``bilinear''}: $\alpha_{ij}=g(\mathbf{h}_{i}^\top\mathbf{Wh}_j)$, where $\mathbf{W}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$;
\end{itemize}
where $g:\mathbb{R}\to[-1, 1]$ is a function such as $\tanh(x)$.
Different from GAT \cite{velickovic2018graph} and TWIRLS \cite{yang2021graph}, the edge attention $\alpha_{ij}$ can be negative, corresponding to a compressed spring and heterophilous edge.
\paragraph{Embedding Potential Energy w.r.t a Metric $E_p(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})$.}
Having the metric matrix $\mathbf{M}$, we can use Equation \ref{eq:spring-energy} to calculate the potential energy when the node embedding is $\mathbf{Z}$,
\begin{align*}
E_p(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})
& =
\sum_{(i, j)\in E}\frac12k_{ij}(\Vert\mathbf{Z}_{i:}-\mathbf{Z}_{j:}\Vert_2 - \mathbf{M}_{ij})^2 \\
& =
\tr(\mathbf{Z}^\top\mathbf{LZ})-2\sum_{i, j}\mathbf{M}_{ij}\Vert\mathbf{Z}_{i:}-\mathbf{Z}_{j:}\Vert_2 + \Vert\mathbf{M}\Vert_F^2 \notag\\
& =
\tr(\mathbf{Z}^\top\mathbf{LZ})-2\mathbf{1}^\top\left(\mathbf{M}\odot\mathfrak{D}^2(\mathbf{Z})^{\odot \frac12}\right)\mathbf{1} + \Vert\mathbf{M}\Vert_F^2,
\end{align*}
where $\mathfrak{D}^2:\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\to\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, $\mathbf{Y}\mapsto\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{YY}^\top)\mathbf{1}^\top + \mathbf{1}\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{YY}^\top)^\top-2\mathbf{YY}^\top$ is the square of node embedding distance operation, i.e., $(\mathfrak{D}^2(\mathbf{Y}))_{ij}=\Vert\mathbf{Y}_{i:}-\mathbf{Y}_{j:}\Vert_2^2$, and $\mathbf{Y}^{\odot k}$ is the Hadamard (element-wise) power, that is, $(\mathbf{Y}^{\odot k})_{ij}=(\mathbf{Y}_{ij})^k$.
Obviously $E_p(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})\ge 0$ always holds, and $E_p = 0$ if and only if $\forall (i, j)\in E, \Vert \mathbf{Z}_{i:} - \mathbf{Z}_{j:}\Vert_2 = \mathbf{M}_{ij}$, i.e., the nodes are arranged in a way that the distances between them are consistent with the metric matrix $\mathbf{M}$.
\paragraph{$\mathbf{E}(d)$ Invariance of $E_p(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})$.}
\label{sec:invariance}
We will show that the energy function $E_p(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})$ is invariant under $d$-dimensional orthogonal transformations (including rotation and reflection) $\mathbf{O}(d)$ and translation transformations $\mathbf{T}(d)$, or $\mathbf{E}(d)$ transformations for the two types of transformations.
The critical observation is that $E_p$ is invariant under $\ell_2$-isometric, or distance-preserving transformations.
For the convenience of discussion, we define the isometric transformations first.
\begin{definition}
A reversible transformation $\mathcal{T}: \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\to \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}, \mathbf{X}\mapsto \mathcal{T}(\mathbf{X})$ is called $(C, d)$-isometric w.r.t a constraint set of pairs $C\subseteq \{1, 2, \cdots, n\}^2$ and a metric $d: \mathbb{R}^d\times \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$, if for any $(i, j)\in C$, $d(\mathcal{T}(\mathbf{Z})_{i:}, \mathcal{T}(\mathbf{Z})_{j:}) = d(\mathbf{Z}_{i:}, \mathbf{Z}_{j:})$ always holds.
\end{definition}
Then, we have the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:invariance}
For any node embedding matrix $\mathbf{Z}$, the energy function of GSN is invariant under any $(E, l_2)$-isometric transformation $\mathcal{T}$, i.e., $E_p(\mathcal{T}(\mathbf{Z}); G,\mathbf{M}) = E_p(\mathbf{Z};G, \mathbf{M})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We can express the embedding potential energy as
\begin{align*}
E_p(\mathbf{Z})
= \sum_{(i, j)\in E}(\Vert \mathbf{Z}_{i:} - \mathbf{Z}_{j:}\Vert_2 - \mathbf{M}_{ij})^2
= \sum_{(i, j)\in E}(\Vert \mathcal{T}(\mathbf{Z})_{i:} - \mathcal{T}(\mathbf{Z})_{j:}\Vert_2 - \mathbf{M}_{ij})^2
= E_p(\mathcal{T}(\mathbf{Z})),
\end{align*}
and the Theorem follows.
\end{proof}
Note that for any $d$-dimensional orthogonal matrix $\mathbf{Q}\in \mathbf{O}(d)$ and any translation matrix $\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{1}\mathbf{s}^\top \in \mathbf{T}(d)$ (where $\mathbf{s}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ stands for a translation vector), the Euclidean transformation $\mathcal{T}(\mathbf{Z})=\mathbf{ZQ}+\mathbf{S}$ is $(V^2,\ell_2)$-isometric (and is also $(E, \ell_2)$-isometric). \footnote{Discussions of the relation of $(C, \ell_2)$-isometry and graph rigidity are included in supplementary materials.}
Therefore, $E_p$ has $\mathbf{E}(d)$ invariant property.
\section{The GSN Model}
\label{sec:model}
Below is the update rule of GSN.
$\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{sym}}\coloneqq \mathbf{D}^{-1/2}\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{H}}\mathbf{D}^{-1/2}$, where $\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{H}}=\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{H1})-\mathbf{H}$ and $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{M}\odot\mathfrak{D}^2(\mathbf{D}^{-1/2}\mathbf{Z})^{\odot-1/2}$.
In this section, we will derive this rule from the energy function of GSN.
\begin{mdframed}[backgroundcolor = gray!30,frametitle=Update Rule of GSN]
\vskip -0.2in
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{Z}^{(k+1)}=\sigma\left(\left(((1-\alpha)\tilde{\mathbf{P}}^{\text{sym}} + 2\beta\mathbf{L}_\mathbf{H}^{\text{sym}})\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}+\alpha f_\theta(
\mathbf{X})\right)\mathbf{W}^{(k)}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{mdframed}
\paragraph{Optimization Objection.}
Imagine that we put a spring network into a medium with resistance and let the system evolve freely.
When the system is at the equilibrium state, the final embedding $\mathbf{Z}^*$ should optimize the energy function $E_p$.
Recall that the energy function reaches its minimum zero when the nodes are arranged with the guidance of the metric matrix.
Therefore, GSN aims to find a good metric between nodes and \textbf{arrange them according to the metric} in order to classify the nodes easily.
Meanwhile, many GNN models can be viewed as minimizing different energy functions on graphs \cite{zhu2021interpreting, yang2021graph}.
Specifically, in Section \ref{sec:universality}, we will show that many existing GNN models are designed with $\mathbf{M}=\mathbf{O}$.
Therefore, we can make reasonable speculation that the performance of GSN comes from this carefully designed energy function.
In order to be consistent with the symmetric normalized Laplacian, which is widely used in various GNN models such as GCN \cite{kipf2017semi}, APPNP \cite{klicpera2019predict}, etc., we need to reparameterize $\mathbf{Z}$ as $\mathbf{Z}\equiv\mathbf{D}^{-1/2}\mathbf{Z}$.
Then we define the ``normalized'' energy as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:energy-norm}
\tilde{E_p}(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})
= \tr(\mathbf{Z}^\top\mathbf{L}^{\text{sym}}\mathbf{Z})-2\sum_{i, j}\mathbf{M}_{ij}\left\Vert\frac{\mathbf{Z}_{i:}}{\sqrt{d_i}}-\frac{\mathbf{Z}_{j:}}{\sqrt{d_j}}\right\Vert_2 + \Vert\mathbf{M}\Vert_F^2.
\end{align}
From Theorem \ref{th:invariance} above, we know that if $\mathbf{Z}^*$ minimizes $E_p(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})$, then $\mathbf{Z}'=\mathbf{Z}^*\mathbf{Q}+\mathbf{S}$ also minimize the energy function.
According to the locality concept in physics, we think the ``best'' solution should be close to the initial embedding $\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}=f_\theta(\mathbf{X})$, resulting in a trade-off regularization term $\alpha\Vert\mathbf{Z}-\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}\Vert_F^2$.
Now we have the objection $\mathcal{E}=(1-\alpha)\tilde{E_p}(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})+\alpha\Vert\mathbf{Z}-f_\theta(\mathbf{X})\Vert_F^2$.
\paragraph{Formula of a GSN Layer.}
First, we compute the gradient of $\mathcal{E}$ w.r.t the node embedding $\mathbf{Z}$, and we get (denoting $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{M}\odot \mathfrak{D}^2(\mathbf{D}^{-1/2}\mathbf{Z})^{\odot -1/2}$ for short)
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}}{\partial \mathbf{Z}} = 2(1-\alpha)\left(\mathbf{L}^{\text{sym}} - 2\mathbf{L}^{\text{sym}}_\mathbf{H}\right)\mathbf{Z}+2\alpha(\mathbf{Z}-f_\theta(\mathbf{X})),
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{L}_\mathbf{H}$ stands for $\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{1})-\mathbf{H}$, since if we treat $\mathbf{H}$ as an adjacency matrix of some graph, then $\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{1})-\mathbf{H}$ can be thought of the Laplacian of that graph.
By setting the gradient to be zero, it leads to $\mathbf{Z} = (1-\alpha)\mathbf{P}^{\text{sym}}\mathbf{Z}+2(1-\alpha)\mathbf{L}^{\text{sym}}_{\mathbf{H}}\mathbf{Z}+\alpha f_\theta(\mathbf{X})$.
We can define $\mathbf{P}^{\text{sym}}\mathbf{Z}$ part as ``topological message'', and $\mathbf{L}_\mathbf{H}^{\text{sym}}\mathbf{Z}$ part as ``positional message''.
Finally, by decoupling coefficients of the two types of messages, using the renormalization trick \cite{kipf2017semi} to the topological message part and introducing non-linearity, we obtain the update rule of a GSN layer\footnote{We use the iterative method to get the propagation rule of GSN and to avoid the high cost of computation. We also include the derivation of the node-level message-passing scheme in the supplementary materials.}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:propagation}
\mathbf{Z}^{(k+1)}=\sigma\left(\left(((1-\alpha)\tilde{\mathbf{P}}^{\text{sym}} + 2\beta\mathbf{L}_\mathbf{H}^{\text{sym}})\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}+\alpha f_\theta(\mathbf{X})\right)\mathbf{W}^{(k)}\right).
\end{align}
\paragraph{Structure of the Framework.}
The structure and formula of GSN is summarized below.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
\item \textbf{(Embedding)} $\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}=f^{(1)}_{\theta}(\mathbf{X})$.
$f^{(1)}_\theta$ can be a dense layer or an MLP to reduce dimension.
\item \textbf{(Attention)} $\mathbf{H}_{i:}=f_\theta^{(2)}(\mathbf{Z}_{i:})$, and $\alpha_{ij}=\begin{cases}g(\mathbf{H}_{i:}^\top\mathbf{H}_{j:})\\ g(\mathbf{a}^\top [\mathbf{H}_{i:}\Vert\mathbf{H}_{j:}])\\ g(\mathbf{H}_{i:}^\top\mathbf{W}\mathbf{H}_{j:})\end{cases}$ ($(i, j)\in E$).
$f_\theta^{(2)}$ can be a dense layer, or an MLP to map initial embeddings to a hidden space to extract the edge attention.
\item \textbf{(Convolution)} $\mathbf{Z}^{(k+1)}=\sigma\left(\left(((1-\alpha)\tilde{\mathbf{P}}^{\text{sym}} + 2\beta\mathbf{L}_\mathbf{H}^{\text{sym}})\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}+\alpha f_\theta^{(3)}(\mathbf{X})\right)\mathbf{W}^{(k)}\right)$, for $k=0,1,\cdots, K-1$.
Here we may decouple $f_\theta^{(1)}$ and $f_\theta^{(3)}$ to allow more flexibility.
Usually, we can still keep $f_\theta^{(3)}=f_\theta^{(1)}$ to reduce the computation cost.
\item \textbf{(Output)} $\mathbf{Z}^{\text{(out)}}=\mathrm{softmax}(\mathbf{Z}^{(K)}\mathbf{W}^{(K)})$.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Reinterpret Related Works Using GSN}
\label{sec:universality}
In this section, we review some specific GNNs and show that they can be simulated by GSN directly or under minor modification without knowing the output embedding of a model in advance, which provides physical motivation for these models.
\paragraph{Simulate and Interpret GCN and SGC.}
If we set the metric matrix $\mathbf{M}=\mathbf{O}$ (or $\beta = 0$) and $\alpha=0$ in Equation \ref{eq:propagation}, it will lead to $\mathbf{Z}^{(k+1)}=\sigma\left(\tilde{\mathbf{P}}\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}\mathbf{W}^{(k)}\right)$, which is the same as the propagation rule of GCN \cite{kipf2017semi}.
SGC \cite{wu2019simplifying} removes the linear transformation and non-linear activation function in GCN; thus, it can be thought of as a special case of GCN, and our GSN framework can also simulate SGC by doing the same.
If we treat GCN and SGC as the special cases of GSN, their metric $\mathbf{M}$ is $\mathbf{O}$.
Therefore, if we stack too many layers of them, the distance between node $i$ and $j$ will be close in the final embedding, causing the over-smoothing problem.
\paragraph{Simulate and Interpret PPNP and APPNP.}
If we only set the metric matrix $\mathbf{M}=\mathbf{O}$ (or $\beta = 0$), which means that we both care about the topological message and the initial embedding, and we do not care about the positional message.
Moreover, if we remove the non-linear activation function and the linear transformation, it will lead to APPNP's \cite{klicpera2019predict} propagation rule $\mathbf{Z}^{(k+1)}=(1-\alpha)\tilde{\mathbf{P}}\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}+\alpha \mathbf{Z}^{(0)}$.
Since the APPNP model is the approximate version of PPNP, one can stack infinity APPNP layers to reach PPNP, and the GSN framework can also achieve this by doing the same.
Compared to GCN and SGC above, PPNP and APPNP introduce the regularization term $\Vert\mathbf{Z}-\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}\Vert_F^2$ which may alleviate the over-smoothing problem.
However, it does not change the metric $\mathbf{M}=\mathbf{O}$; thus, it can not deal with heterophilous graphs.
\paragraph{Modify GSN to Simulate GCNII.}
Furthermore, we can modify our GSN to simulate GCNII \cite{chen2020simple}.
We can introduce the identity mapping by substituting $\mathbf{W}^{(k)}$ in Equation \ref{eq:propagation} with $((1-\gamma)\mathbf{I}+\mathbf{\gamma}\mathbf{W}^{(k)})$, leading to the augmented propagation rule of GSN with identity mapping (which we name it GSN$^*$. Note that when $\gamma = 1$, it degenerates to GSN).
If we set $\beta = 0$ in GSN$^*$'s propagation equation, we will get $\mathbf{Z}^{(k+1)}=\sigma\left(\left((1-\alpha)\tilde{\mathbf{P}}\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}+\alpha\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}\right)\left((1-\gamma)\mathbf{I}+\gamma\mathbf{W}^{(k)}\right)\right)$, which is the same as GCNII's propagation rule.
Therefore, the modified version GSN$^*$ can simulate GCNII.
GCNII can be regarded as APPNP with linear transformation and identity mapping, but it also does not change the metric , so it is not good at heterophilous graphs.
\paragraph{Interpret ElasticGNN (with $\ell_{21}$ Regularization Term).}
Interestingly, suppose we set $\mathbf{M} = \mathbf{A}\odot\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^\top$ and add self-loops to the graph.
In that case, the second term of our normalized energy $\tilde{E_p}(\mathbf{Z}; G, \mathbf{M})$ will be $\sum_{(i, j)\in E}\left\Vert\frac{\mathbf{Z}_{i:}}{\sqrt{d_i + 1}}-\frac{\mathbf{Z}_{j:}}{\sqrt{d_j + 1}}\right\Vert_2$ (see Equation \ref{eq:energy-norm}), which is the same as the $l_{21}$ regularization term $\Vert\tilde{\Delta}\mathbf{F}\Vert_{21}$ defined in ElasticGNN \cite{liu2021elastic}.
Therefore, by changing the coefficients of regularization terms and setting $\mathbf{M} = \mathbf{A}\odot\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^\top$, our GSN framework can also simulate the ElasticGNN with $\ell_{21}$ norm.
However, the limitation of fixed $\mathbf{M}$ also leads to its failure on the heterophilous datasets.
\paragraph{Generalize GSN to Simulate Any Spectral GNN.}
Spectral GNNs aim to learn a complex graph filter $h(\tilde{\mathbf{L}})$ (or $h'(\tilde{\mathbf{P}})=h'(\mathbf{I}-\tilde{\mathbf{L}})$ equivalently), and produce the final embedding by $\mathbf{Z}=h(\tilde{\mathbf{L}})\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}$.
Many models approximate the filter $h$ using polynomial basis.
For example, GPR-GNN \cite{chien2021adaptive} uses $\mathbf{Z}^{(K)}=\sum_{k=0}^{K}\gamma_k\tilde{\mathbf{P}}^{(k)}\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}$.
We can also generalize GSN to approximate any polynomial filter.
We remove linear transformations and non-linear activation functions, set $\beta=0$ in GSN, then allow each layer to learn different coefficients of $\tilde{\mathbf{P}}\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}$ and $\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}$.
As a result, we get the propagation rule $\mathbf{Z}^{(k)}=a_{k-1}\tilde{\mathbf{P}}\mathbf{Z}^{(k - 1)} + b_{k-1}\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}$.
Inductively using the propagation rule for $K$ times, we get $\mathbf{Z}^{(K)}=\sum_{k=0}^K\left(\prod_{i=K-k}^{K-1}a_{i}\right)b_{K-1-k}\tilde{\mathbf{P}}^{k}\mathbf{Z}^{(0)}$ (define $b_{-1}=1$).
Compare it with a $K$ layer GPR-GNN's propagation rule, if for any series of $\gamma_k$ always exists corresponding $a_k$ and $b_k$, such that $\forall k\in \{0, 1, \cdots, K\}$, $\left(\prod_{i=K-k}^{K-1}a_i\right) b_{K-1-k}=\gamma_k$ always holds, then GSN can simulate GPR-GNN.
Obviously, if we set $a_k=\begin{cases}\frac{\vert\gamma_{K-k}\vert}{\vert\gamma_{K-1-k}\vert}, & 0\le k< K - 1\\\vert\gamma_1\vert, & k = K - 1\end{cases}$, and $b_k=\begin{cases}\mathrm{sign}(\gamma_{K-1-k}), & 0\le k < K-1\\ \gamma_0, & k=K-1\end{cases}$, the equation above holds; thus the generalized GSN can also approximate GPR-GNN and any polynomial graph filter.
\section{Experiments}
All the experiments are done on a server with 40 Intel Xeon Silver 4114 CPUs (2.20GHz) (only one are used), an Nvidia Quadro RTX 8000 GPU (48GB memory) and 1TB RAM (<64GB are used).
\paragraph{Datasets.}
For homophilous graphs, we use three public citation networks: Cora, CiteSeer, and PubMed from \cite{yang2016revisiting}, and CoraFull dataset from \cite{bojchevski2018deep}.
For heterophilous graphs, we choose the WebKB networks: Cornell, Texas, and Wisconsin from \cite{pei2020geom}, the Wikipedia networks: Chameleon, and Squirrel from \cite{rozembercaki2021multi}, and the Actor dataset from \cite{pei2020geom}.
The statistics of the datasets are listed in Table \ref{tab:datasets}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Basic statistics of the datasets.}
\label{tab:datasets}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{\# Nodes} & \textbf{\# Edges} & \textbf{\# Features} & \textbf{\# Classes} & $\mathcal{H}(G, Y)$ \\
\midrule
Cora & 2,708 & 10,556 & 1,433 & 7 & 0.81 \\
CiteSeer & 3,327 & 9,104 & 3,703 & 6 & 0.74 \\
PubMed & 19,717 & 66,648 & 500 & 3 & 0.80 \\
CoraFull & 19,793 & 126,842 & 8,710 & 70 & 0.57 \\ \midrule
Cornell & 183 & 298 & 1,703 & 5 & 0.31 \\
Texas & 183 & 325 & 1,703 & 5 & 0.11 \\
Wisconsin & 251 & 515 & 1,703 & 5 & 0.20 \\
Chameleon & 2,277 & 36,101 & 2,325 & 5 & 0.24 \\
Squirrel & 5,201 & 217,073 & 2,089 & 5 & 0.22 \\
Actor & 7,600 & 30,019 & 932 & 5 & 0.22 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\paragraph{Supervised Node Classification.}
To compare our GSN framework with previous works, we choose representative models from four categories, including GCN \cite{kipf2017semi}, GraphSAGE \cite{hamilton2017inductive}, GAT \cite{velickovic2018graph}, GCNII \cite{chen2020simple}, GPR-GNN \cite{chien2021adaptive}, FAGCN \cite{bo2021beyond}, H$_2$GCN \cite{zhu2020beyond}, and DMP-1/2-Sum \cite{yang2021diverse} as baseline models.
We implement the GSN model with the PyTorch \cite{paszke2019pytorch} and PyTorch Geometric \cite{fey2019fast} libraries.
Following the experiment setting in \cite{zhu2020beyond} and \cite{yang2021diverse}, we randomly generate ten train/validation/test splits with the 48\%/32\%/20\% ratio for all datasets.
We train our model for 500 epochs on each of the ten splits for a specific hyper-parameter group.
For GSN, we fix the \textit{hidden\_dim} to be 64, and use grid search method to select other hyper-parameters.
The selection ranges of hyper-parameters are listed below\footnote{The best hyper-parameters are included in the supplementary materials.}:
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item \textit{lr}: \{5e-4, 1e-3, 5e-3, 1e-2, 5e-2\};
\item \textit{weight\_decay}: \{1e-6, 1e-5, $\cdots$, 1e-2\};
\item \textit{dropout}: \{0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55\};
\item \textit{num\_layers}: \{2, 4\};
\item \textit{alpha} and \textit{beta}: \{0.1, 0.2, $\cdots$, 0.9\};
\item \textit{attention\_method}: \{`concat', `bilinear'\}.
\end{itemize}
\end{multicols}
Table \ref{tab:accuracy} lists the classification accuracy on homophilous and heterophilous datasets.
The results of GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT and H$_2$GCN are taken from \cite{zhu2020beyond}, and the results of GPR-GNN and DMP are taken from \cite{yang2021diverse}.
The results show that our GSN framework performs well on both homophilous and heterophilous datasets.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Mean accuracy ($\pm$ standard derivation) of the supervised node classification experiments. Numbers with \textbf{boldface} denotes the best result, and numbers with \underline{underline} stands for the second. }
\label{tab:accuracy}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|ccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\textbf{Homophilous}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Heterophilous}} \\ \cmidrule{2-10}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Spectral}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Spatial}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Spectral}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Spatial}} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{GCN} & SAGE & GAT & GCNII & GPR. & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{FAGCN} & H$_2$GCN & DMP & \textbf{GSN} \\ \midrule
Cora & $87.28$ & $86.90$ & $82.68$ & $87.90$ & $\underline{88.14}$ & $87.58$ & $87.81$ & $85.31$ & $\mathbf{88.41}\pm 0.94$ \\
CiteSeer & $76.68$ & $76.04$ & $75.46$ & $75.14$ & $74.07$ & $76.24$ & $\mathbf{77.07}$ & $76.27$ & $\underline{76.78}\pm 1.38$ \\
PubMed & $87.38$ & $88.45$ & $84.68$ & $88.47$ & $88.27$ & $88.82$ & $\underline{89.59}$ & $88.15$ & $\mathbf{89.88}\pm 0.41$ \\
CoraFull & $68.39$ & $65.14$ & $59.81$ & $\underline{69.75}$ & $69.25$ & N/A & $69.05$ & N/A & $\mathbf{69.79}\pm 0.78$ \\ \midrule
Cornell & $57.03$ & $75.95$ & $58.92$ & $72.97$ & $\mathbf{91.14}$ & $76.49$ & $82.16$ & $83.78$ & $\underline{85.95}\pm 4.65$ \\
Texas & $59.46$ & $82.43$ & $58.38$ & $73.78$ & $\mathbf{90.49}$ & $81.62$ & $84.86$ & $86.48$ & $\underline{87.03}\pm 4.80$ \\
Wisconsin & $59.80$ & $81.18$ & $55.29$ & $81.00$ & $85.33$ & $\underline{86.86}$ & $86.67$ & $86.27$ & $\mathbf{88.60}\pm 3.69$\\
Chameleon & $\underline{67.96}$\tnote{1}& $58.73$ & $54.69$ & $61.32$ & $66.31$\tnote{1} & $60.00$ & $59.39$ & $55.92$ & $\mathbf{69.91}\pm 1.61$ \\
Squirrel & $\underline{54.47}$\tnote{1} & $41.61$ & $30.62$ & $40.42$ & $50.56$\tnote{1} & $38.69$ & $37.90$ & $43.42$ & $\mathbf{58.89}\pm 1.13$ \\
Actor & $30.26$ & $34.23$ & $26.28$ & $34.78$ & $34.17$ & $\underline{36.04}$ & $35.86$ & $34.93$ & $\mathbf{36.94}\pm 1.12$ \\ \midrule
\textbf{Avg. Rank} & $5.9$ & $5.9$ & $8.5$ & $5.3$ & $4.0$ & $4.4$ & $\underline{3.9}$ & $5.0$ & $\mathbf{1.3}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[1] Results are taken from \cite{ma2022is}. It is reported that these models can perform well on Chameleon and Squirrel by hyper-parameter tuning.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Alleviating the Over-Smoothing Problem.}
To show that our GSN model also alleviate the over-smoothing issue, we also perform experiments on GCN and GSN of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128 layers with 64 hidden channels on relatively large datasets: {CoraFull}, PubMed, Chameleon and Squirrel.
Generally, we set \textit{lr} = 1e-2, \textit{weight\_decay} = 1e-4 and \textit{dropout} = 0.25 across different datasets.
And for GSN, we add \textit{alpha} = 0.2, \textit{beta} = 0.1 and \textit{attention\_method} = `bilinear' (and we set \textit{lr} = 1e-3 to avoid divergence on Squirrel).
Table \ref{tab:deep-accuracy} lists the performance of GCN and GSN with various layers, showing that GSN does not suffer from the over-smoothing problem on both homophilous and heterophilous datasets.
This is because a GSN model with an infinite number of layers effectively minimizes the designed energy function~\eqref{eq:spring-energy} whose solution contains information about both node features and graph structure.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\caption{Mean accuracy (\%) with various layers. $\downarrow$ (\%) stands for the accuracy of the best model minus that of the deepest (128-layer) model.}
\label{tab:deep-accuracy}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccccccc|c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\textbf{Layers}} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\downarrow$} \\
& & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16 & 32 & 64 & 128 & \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{PubMed} & GCN & $\mathbf{88.49}$ & $86.39$ & $84.40$ & $49.45$ & $48.64$ & $48.16$ & $49.61$ & $38.88$\\
& GSN & $88.90$ & $\mathbf{89.24}$ & $88.90$ & $89.05$ & $88.97$ & $89.02$ & $88.79$ & $\mathbf{0.45}$\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Chameleon} & GCN & $\mathbf{68.07}$ & $64.97$ & $58.55$ & $47.52$ & $46.59$ & $47.08$ & $46.02$ & $22.05$\\
& GSN & $66.31$ & $68.88$ & $\mathbf{69.49}$ & $67.47$ & $68.15$ & $68.42$ & $68.77$ & $\mathbf{0.72}$\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Squirrel} & GCN & $\mathbf{52.13}$ & $46.46$ & $38.92$ & $35.91$ & $35.22$ & $35.47$ & $34.97$ & $17.16$\\
& GSN & $58.01$ & $58.28$ & $57.46$ & $57.83$ & $58.31$ & $\mathbf{58.56}$ & $57.32$ & $\mathbf{1.24}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Ablation Study}
The main difference between GCNII and GSN is that GSN introduces the positional message term $\beta\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{sym}}\mathbf{Z}$.
In order to show the effectiveness of our design, we conduct experiments with GSN on four relatively small heterophilous datasets.
We use a 2-layer GSN with 64 hidden units, setting \textit{lr} = 1e-2, \textit{weight\_decay} = 1e-2, \textit{dropout} = 0.25, \textit{alpha} = 0.1, \textit{attention\_method} = `concat' and vary $\beta$ from $0$ to $1.0$ to adapt the ratio of the positional message.
Table \ref{tab:ablation} lists the result of our experiments.
The accuracies on three datasets increase when we increase $\beta$, thus, we can conclude that the design of the GSN is effective.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\caption{Mean accuracy (\%) of GSN on four heterophilous datasets with $\alpha=0.1$ and various $\beta$. $\uparrow$ (\%) stands for the accuracy of the best model minus that of the $\beta=0$ model.}
\label{tab:ablation}
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccccccc|c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \multicolumn{11}{c|}{$\beta$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\uparrow$}\\
& 0 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.6 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 1.0 & \\
\midrule
Cornell & $66.22$ & $75.95$ & $81.35$ & $78.38$ & $78.38$ & $80.54$ & $\mathbf{81.62}$ & $77.84$ & $78.92$ & $75.95$ & $74.86$ & $15.40$ \\
Texas & $62.43$ & $76.49$ & $82.70$ & $80.27$ & $80.54$ & $80.00$ & $81.62$ & $82.16$ & $\mathbf{84.59}$ & $81.35$ & $82.70$ & $22.16$ \\
Wisconsin & $68.40$ & $81.20$ & $84.40$ & $\mathbf{84.80}$ & $84.40$ & $83.00$ & $81.80$ & $84.40$ & $81.40$ & $82.00$ & $83.00$ & $16.40$ \\
Actor & $26.09$ & $26.38$ & $26.61$ & $27.74$ & $31.02$ & $33.08$ & $33.76$ & $34.05$ & $34.17$ & $34.23$ & $\mathbf{34.38}$ & $8.29$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, inspired by the spring network model, we propose the Graph Spring Network which fills the gap that most GNNs designed in the spatial domain do not have theoretical supports or physical motivations.
We discover invariant properties of the energy function and the universality of GSN through mathematical derivations.
We have also done experiments with our GSN and the results confirm the good performance of it.
\section*{Limitations and Broader Impacts}
We consider our work to be a theoretical contribution and has no immediate societal impacts.
However, there are lots of aspects, such as more universality of GSN, more relations between GSN and graph rigidity, and the industrial applications of GSN, still waiting for explorations.
We leave explorations of those aspects to future work.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Interactions of individual molecules with superfluid helium-4 has been extensively studied during the last decades both experimentally and theoretically~\cite{ToenniesAngChem04, AncilottoIRPC17, VermaAdvPhys19}. According to infrared spectroscopy, the rotational motion of most molecules is affected by superfluid helium only quantitatively: while no drastic qualitative changes in rotational spectra is observed, the spectroscopic constants of molecules become ``renormalized'' due to the molecule--solvent interactions. In particular, the rotational constant, $B$, and the centrifugal distortion constant, $D$, assume different values as compared to gas phase molecules, $B^\ast < B$ and $D^\ast > D$. However, for the lowest $J$-levels, the rotational energy, $E_J$, can still be accurately described by the gas-phase expression~\cite{GrebenevOCS,Nauta2001,nauta_vibrational_2001}:
\begin{equation}
E_J= B^* J(J+1) - D^*J^2(J+1)^2.
\label{eq:B*D*}
\end{equation}
Although there is little doubt that \autoref{eq:B*D*} describes the low-energy rotational structure for most molecules in superfluid $^4$He, little is known about the higher excited rotational states. In particular, we are talking about the states that are not not initially thermally populated due to the helium environment ($T\approx 0.37$~K in helium nanodroplets). Due to the spectroscopic selection rules, $\Delta J = \pm 1$, conventional infrared and microwave spectroscopies are able to reach as far as only one rotational state above the initial Boltzmann distribution.
Theoretically, most quantum approaches focus on properties of molecules in superfluid-helium in the ground and the lowest excited rotational states~\cite{Hartmann1995, Lee1999, Kwon1999, CallegariPRL99, GrebenevOCS, LehmannJCP01, LehmannJCP02, Zillich2004, Zillich:2004cta}. The extension of \textit{ab initio} treatments to highly excited states, however, seems quite challenging \cite{Zillich2005}.
Recently it became possible to experimentally probe highly excited rotational states of molecules in helium nanodroplets using non-adiabatic alignment protocols~\cite{PentlehnerPRL13, Shepperson:2017gb, chatterley_rotational_2020, CherepanovPRA21}. Namely, analysing the Fourier transforms of alignment traces allowed to reveal the energies and lifetimes of rotational levels in superfluid $^4$He, up to $J \sim 16$. Moreover, the technique is applicable to molecules, that are non-responsive to infrared spectroscopy, such as I$_2$ and CS$_2$.
The goal of this paper is to present a simple quantum mechanical model that can be used to describe and to understand rotational properties of molecules in a superfluid, including highly excited rotational states. Since such a many-body problem is extremely challenging to solve from first principles, we resort to a phenomenological treatment, based on the previously discussed angulon model~\cite{SchmidtLem15, LemeshkoDroplets16, Lemeshko_2016_book}, which we simplify further in order to make it more transparent.
The present study builds upon our recent experimental and theoretical work~\cite{CherepanovPRA21}. However, apart from describing the theoretical machinery of our model in more detail, this paper provides several novel insights, such as comparisons of spectroscopic constants for a broad range of molecular species and explaining the origin of the crossover between the light and heavy molecules well known in helium droplet spectroscopy~\cite{ToenniesAngChem04}. The main theoretical message of Ref.~\cite{CherepanovPRA21} was, on the other hand, the possibility to describe the rotational spectrum in terms of the angular momentum transfer between the molecule and the superfluid. Therefore, here we are going to omit a detailed discussion of the angular momentum coupling and refer the interested reader to our earlier work.
We start by describing the model in \Autoref{secH} and show that a linear molecule in superfluid helium can be seen as an effective symmetric top. This description is similar to that of open-shell molecules like OH or NO~\cite{LevebvreBrionField2, BrownRot}, but with the angular momentum of the superfluid playing the role of the angular momentum of the electronic shell. In \Autoref{sec:excited} we analyze the energy level structure of such an effective symmetric top and gather insights relevant to experiments on molecules in He droplets. In \Autoref{sec:2level} we show how the model can be simplified even further and that important insights can be gathered from solutions of a $2\times 2$ matrix. Finally, in \Autoref{sec:BandD} we present the results for effective spectroscopic constants, $B^*$ and $D^*$, and compare them with experiment. \Autoref{sec:conclusions} provides the conclusions of this study.
\section{A Solvated linear Molecule \\[3pt] becomes a symmetric top}
\label{secH}
\subsection{The angulon Hamiltonian}
\label{sec:ham}
We consider a linear molecule with a rotational constant $B$ revolving in the bath of bosons (collective excitations in $^4$He). To obtain the simplest possible model, we take into into account only a single mode of the bath with energy $\omega$ and angular momentum $\lambda$. In the case of superfluid
helium it might be tempting to label these excitations as rotons, however we intentionally keep the treatment as general as possible. In addition, we take into account only the linear molecule--He coupling term. This corresponds to a further simplification of the previously developed angulon model~\cite{SchmidtLem15, LemeshkoDroplets16}. In the molecular (body-fixed) frame, the system is described by the following Hamiltonian \cite{SchmidtLem16}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
\hat{H}=B(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{L}}}-\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{\Lambda}}})^2 + \omega \sum_{n} \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\lambda n}\hat{b}_{\lambda n}+ u \big(\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\lambda 0} +\hat{b}_{\lambda 0}\big) \;
\end{equation}
where $\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\lambda n}$ ($\hat{b}_{\lambda n}$) create (annihilate) a bosonic excitation with angular momentum $\lambda$ and projection onto the molecular (i.e.\ interatomic) $z$-axis $n$, $u$ reflects the strength of the anisotropic molecule-bath interaction. $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{L}}}$ is the total angular momentum of the system and $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{\Lambda}}} = \sum_{n \nu} \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\lambda n} \boldsymbol{\mathrm{\sigma}}^{\lambda}_{n \nu} \hat{b}_{\lambda \nu}$ defines the angular momentum acquired by the bath. Here, $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\sigma}}^{\lambda}_{n \nu}$ denotes the angular momentum matrices fulfilling the $SO(3)$ algebra in the representation of angular momentum $\lambda$.
In this paper we focus on the weak-coupling theory, that is, we start from a non-interacting case, corresponding to no helium excitations and add excitations one by one. The weak coupling angulon theory accounting for a single excitation of helium was shown to predict renormalization of rotational constants of light molecules trapped inside helium nanodroplets in good agreement with experimental data \cite{LemeshkoDroplets16}. To accurately describe heavy rotors, one has to deal with more sophisticated solutions of the Hamiltonian, \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}. They involve perturbations on the top of a microscopic deformation of the helium bath, \ie an infinite number of bosonic excitations \cite{SchmidtLem16, Bighin17, Bighin18}. In the course of the paper, however, we aim to demonstrate that the solutions including up to triple excitations are able to catch changes in molecular spectra for broad range of species measured in helium.
The first term of~\autoref{eq:Hamiltonian} represents an effective symmetric-top Hamiltonian, similar to that used to describe the electronic states of radicals, such as NO or OH~\cite{LevebvreBrionField2, BrownRot}. In our case, the boson angular momentum $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{\Lambda}}}$ plays the role of the electronic angular momentum in open-shell molecules. The corresponding rotational states can be expressed through the symmetric-top states $\ket{L N M}$, where $N$ and $M$ label the projections of the \textit{total} angular momentum, $\mathbf{L}$, on the molecular and space-fixed axes, respectively. For a linear molecule, the projection of the molecular rotational angular momentum, $\mathbf{J}$, on the molecular $z$-axis is zero, therefore $N$ entirely corresponds to the projection of $\mathbf{\Lambda}$. In other words, the interaction with the superfluid, $u$ of~\autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}, creates some non-zero angular momentum $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ that can be seen as analogous to the electronic angular momentum of open-shell molecules. Or, semiclassically speaking, a ``nonsuperfluid shell" of He atoms attached to the linear molecule, provides it with an additional ``thickness'', hence the symmetric-top description. The classification of different $\mathbf{L} - \mathbf{\Lambda}$ coupling schemes in terms of Hund's cases (in analogy with gas-phase species) is another interesting problem that is not going to be discussed here. Furthermore, we omit the detailed discussion of molecule-bath angular momentum transfer, that has already been presented elsewhere~\cite{CherepanovPRA21}.
\subsection{Basis states and diagonalization}
It is worth noting that in the case of a particle linearly moving in a bosonic environment (the so-called ``polaron problem''), writing the Hamiltonian in the frame co-moving with the particle (by analogy with \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}) allows to completely decouple the particle and environment degrees of freedom~\cite{Devreese15}. This is impossible to do for the case of a rotating molecular impurity, since different components of the angular momentum $\mathbf{\hat{L}}$ do not commute with each other and it is therefore impossible to replace $\mathbf{\hat{L}}$ in~\autoref{eq:Hamiltonian} by a classical number $L$, as one could do for the total linear momentum operator, $\mathbf{\hat{P}} \to P$. Although the magnitude of the total angular momentum, $L$, is conserved, a general solution is going to be a superposition of states corresponding to different projections $N$, which, in turn, can contain different numbers of bosonic excitations (the $M$-quantum number plays no role in the absence of external fields).
We diagonolize the Hamiltonian, \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}, in the following basis:
\begin{equation}
\psi_{L [n_1 n_2...n_m], M}^{(m)} = \ket{LNM}_\text{mol} \left( b^{\dagger}_{\lambda n_1} b^{\dagger}_{\lambda n_2} ... b^{\dagger}_{\lambda n_m}\ket{0}_\text{bos} \right)
\label{eq:psi}
\end{equation}
$N=\sum_{i=1}^{m} n_i$ and $M$ refer to the total projection of $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{L}}}$ on the molecular and laboratory $z$-axis, respectively. $N$ and $M$ take values in the range $[-L,L]$. An additional condition on the total projection $N$ is imposed by the following limitation on $n_i$: $\vert n_i \vert \leq \lambda$. As stated above, we restrict our basis set to $m \leq 3$. Note that although \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian} is a substantial simplification of the original angulon Hamiltonian, the ansatz of \autoref{eq:psi} represents a substantially expanded basis set compared to the previous treatments, where only single excitations ($m=1$) were taken into account~\cite{SchmidtLem15}. Including multiple bath excitations allows to describe a broader range of molecules using the weak-coupling theory.
The $m=0$ case describes a bare (``gas phase'') molecular state $\psi^{(m=0)}_{LM} = \vert L, N=0, M \rangle_{\text{mol}}\ket{0}_\text{bos}$. Diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in this basis obviously leads to the $(2L+1)$-fold degenerate energy spectrum of an isolated rigid rotor, $BL(L+1)$. The projection $N$ equals to zero in the absence of the excitation since we assume that the molecule is linear. The $m>0$ cases introduce multiple excitations of the bath $b^{\dagger}_{\lambda n_1} b^{\dagger}_{\lambda n_2} ... b^{\dagger}_{\lambda n_m}\ket{0}_\text{bos}$.
In our model, the molecule can directly induce only deformations of the boson density that preserve $N=0$. Thus, they are strongly aligned along the molecular $z$-axis. This can be seen from the third term in \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian} and from the corresponding density plot for $L=0$ in \autoref{fig:band}(a). Nevertheless, the presence of the spin-orbit--like (or Coriolis-like) interaction, the $- 2 \boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{L}}} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{\Lambda}}}$ term in \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}, causes precession of $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{\Lambda}}}$ about the molecular $z$-axis, somewhat similar to a spin in a magnetic field. Minimization of the angle between $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{L}}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{\Lambda}}}$ (which, in turn, minimises the energy of the system) leads to increase in $N$ and hence to the wider distribution of the bosons density with respect to the molecular $z$-axis as shown in \autoref{fig:band}(a). As a result, the linear molecule dressed by a cloud of excitations resembles a symmetric top whose non-zero projection $N$ is exclusively provided by the angular momentum of the He atoms in the solvation shell. In the following sections we discuss how the spectrum of such an effective symmetric top differs from the quadratic spectrum of a rigid linear rotor.
\section{Excited rotational states \\[3pt] in the superfluid}
\label{sec:excited}
We start from exploring the stationary states of the system, previously briefly described in Ref.~\cite{CherepanovPRA21} In what follows, we show that through analysing the states of an effective symmetric top (cf.\ \Autoref{sec:ham}), one can understand the distribution of angular momentum due to the molecule--helium interaction and how it changes in an external laser field.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{exc_states.jpg}
\caption{(a) Boson density distributions in the molecular (body-fixed) frame for selected excited states (marked by the corresponding symbols in (b)). (b)--(d) Energy diagram of the band of excited states involving single ($m=1$), double ($m=2$), and triple ($m=3$) excitations of the bosonic bath (red dots), respectively. The gas-phase rotational spectrum ($m=0$) is shown by the blue dots. The green line indicates configurations with projection $n \approx 0$ onto molecular $z$-axis, the black lines denote the excited states with minimum energy and largest possible total projection, $N=\sum n_i$, for a given $L$. }
\label{fig:band}
\end{figure}
\Autoref{fig:band} shows the possible states of the system for the case of one, two and three bath excitations. Each dot in \autoref{fig:band}(b--d) represents a unique configuration, their energies are obtained by diagonalization of the Hamiltonian, \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}, assuming $u=0$. To facilitate the visualisation of each contribution, we perform diagonalization in each of three bases, \autoref{eq:psi} with $m = 1-3$, separately and plot the calculated energies in \autoref{fig:band}(b--d), respectively. The blue dots correspond to $m=0$, \ie to the energies of an isolated gas phase molecule, $BL(L+1)$. In this case, the molecular angular momentum equals to the total angular momentum $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{J}}$~$=$ $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{L}}$, no excitations of the bath are present.
The red dots in \autoref{fig:band}(b--d) form the band of excited states. For illustrative purposes, \autoref{fig:band}(a) shows the molecular-frame densities of He corresponding to three of these excited states at $L=0, 14$ and $35$, also marked in \autoref{fig:band}(b). In these configurations, the total angular momentum $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{L}}$~is shared between the molecule and the helium excitations. For simplicity we begin with the states involving single excitations, $m=1$, carrying energy $\omega$ and angular momentum $\lambda$ with projection $n$ onto the molecular $z$-axis, as shown in \autoref{fig:band}(b). Neglecting the off-diagonal $\mathbf{\hat{L}}_\pm \mathbf{\hat{\Lambda}}_\mp$ terms in \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}, the energies in the $\ket{L n M}$-basis are given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:oblate}
E^{\lambda}_{L,n}= BL(L+1) -2Bn^2 +B\lambda(\lambda+1) + \omega,
\end{equation}
where we introduced an additional shift by the excitation energy $\omega$. \autoref{eq:oblate} corresponds to the energies of an oblate (disk-shaped) symmetric top, shifted by $B\lambda(\lambda+1) + \omega$ from zero. Since the off-diagonal components of the $- 2 \boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{L}}} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{\Lambda}}}$ term in \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian} mix $n$, the resulting state in the most general case corresponds to a superposition of different $n$ projections. From the shape of the band of excited states in \autoref{fig:band}(b) one can see that the energetics remains similar to that of an oblate symmetric top even when the off-diagonal terms are fully taken into account. In particular, the system tends to occupy the states with non-zero $n$.
To provide an intuitive understanding of the perturbations caused by molecular rotation, we plot the distribution of helium density in the molecular frame for selected excited states in \autoref{fig:band}(a). Note that these densities are obtained at $u=0$ and do not correspond to the density deformations induced by the molecule (as discussed in Ref.~\cite{CherepanovPRA21}). Instead, these plots are supposed to illustrate how the excited bath states look like in real space in the absence of molecule--helium interactions.
Let us consider a particular excited state at $L=0$ with a well-defined projection, $n=0$, marked by the green square in \autoref{fig:band}(a--b). The energy cost to create such an excitation is $\omega+B\lambda(\lambda+1)$. The angular density distribution plotted in \autoref{fig:band}(a) shows that the bosons primarily reside at the poles of the molecule (linear configuration). As $L$ increases, the states with the dominating zero projection contribution form the upper edge of the band in \autoref{fig:band}(b) coloured in green. Classically, they might be thought of as rigid rotation of the molecule with its solvation shell.
However, the states with $n \approx 0$ are not the ground state of an effective oblate top described by \autoref{eq:oblate}. For $L>0$, as soon as the excitation is created, the Coriolis coupling $-2\boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{L}}}\cdot \boldsymbol{\mathrm{\hat{\Lambda}}}$ makes the $n \neq 0$ configurations energetically more favorable. The bosons density shifts to the waist of the molecule ($T$-shape configuration) as $L$ increases. The states with the maximum $\vert n \vert $ build the lower edge of the band in \autoref{fig:band}(b) coloured in black. Its parabolic shape is defined by the above mentioned restrictions set on $n$: (i) $\vert n \vert \leq L$ and (ii) $\vert n \vert \leq \lambda$. The minimum energy equals to $\omega$ and it is reached at $L=\lambda$. Furthermore, the lowest excited state at $L=\lambda$ shows a perfectly uniform distribution over $n$. This state is marked by the black square in \autoref{fig:band}(a--b). Its angular density distribution is delocalized as plotted in \autoref{fig:band}(a). In the classical picture, we interpret these observations as manifestation of non-rigidity of the molecule--bosons coupled rotation.
Further growth of $L$ beyond $\lambda$, nevertheless, leads to the bending up of the lower edge of the band since $\vert n \vert$ can no longer increase. In \autoref{fig:band}(a--b) we mark one of the states satisfying $L \ll \lambda$ by the black triangle. The boson density moves back towards the poles of the molecule. We would like to stress that these findings are analogous to the resonance behaviour of the helium anisotropy found within the semiclassical toy model \cite{LehmannJCP01}. In that model, the solvation shell is modelled as a ring of $N_{\text{He}}$ helium atoms. Identically to $\lambda$ in our model, $N_{\text{He}}$ determines the symmetry of the helium solvation shell. The maximum anisotropy observed at $L=N_{\text{He}}$ draws parallels to the results discussed above.
Qualitatively, similar considerations are valid for double ($m=2$) and triple ($m=3$) excitations. The corresponding energy diagrams are shown in \autoref{fig:band}(c--d). The only noticeable difference arises from the possibility to sum up individual projections $n_i$ to the total projection $N$. The constraint $\vert n \vert \leq L$ is thereby lifted which substantially expands the Hilbert space of the bath excitations. As a consequence, the lower edge of the band in the range of $L<\lambda$ becomes flat. It happens due to the fact that the combinations of several excitations having the largest possible projections $\vert n \vert = \lambda$ of the opposite sign are allowed even for small $L$. The minimum energy therefore reduces to $m \omega$, the lower edge of the band starts bending upwards at $L = m \lambda$.
\section{Even simpler: a two-level model}
\label{sec:2level}
In the previous section we discussed the possible states of the ``many-body symmetric top'' without explicitly taking into account the coupling between these states induced by the molecule--helium interactions. A non-zero value of $u$ results in coupling of the bare molecular state ($m=0$) to the excited states with $m>0$ discussed above. The deviations of the final energies with respect to the gas-phase spectrum describe the net effect of the surrounding environment on molecular rotation. These perturbations can be detected in experiments as a change of the effective spectroscopic constants and are therefore of particular interest. While it is possible to evaluate them numerically, we would like to focus on the aspects of the model available for analytical treatment at first.
In our model, bare rotational states couple in first order only to the single excitations with $n=0$ (cf. the third term in \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}). For small $L$, the gas-phase energies and the band of excited states are separated by the relatively large energy gap, $\Delta_0$, as compared to the rotational kinetic energy:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_0 = \Delta_{L=0} = \omega+B\lambda(\lambda+1).
\label{eq:delta0}
\end{equation}
Note that the gap depends on $B$ and never closes for small $L$. In particular, this means that a few well-distinguished rotational levels must be present even for very light rotors with $B$ exceeding $\omega$, as confirmed by experiment~\cite{ToenniesAngChem04}. Since it is hard to obtain an accurate analytical expression for the gap, $\Delta_L$, for an arbitrary $L$, we use its numerically calculated values shown in \autoref{fig:band}(b). Nevertheless, one can say that in the linear approximation its slope is approximately given by $B\lambda$. The ratio $u/\Delta_L$ and its dependence on $L$ define how strong the bath perturbs the molecular energies. If the interaction strength is comparable to or exceeds the kinetic energy of the excitation, $u \gtrsim \Delta_L$, the rotational spectrum is subject to strong renormalization. In the opposite case of $u \ll \Delta_L$, the molecule does not experience a strong influence from the bath.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Splittings.jpg}
\caption{Raman-like ($\Delta L = \pm 2$) rotational spectra for a typical light rotor molecule ($B = 4~\ce{cm^{-1}}$) in helium ($u = 10~\ce{cm^{-1}}$, red solid line) and in the gas phase (blue dashed line). The molecule initially resides in the ground $L=0$ state.}
\label{fig:splitting}
\end{figure}
In \autoref{fig:splitting} we calculate the Raman--like ($\Delta L = \pm 2$) rotational spectrum for a typical light molecule with $B = 4~\ce{cm^{-1}}$ and $u/\Delta_L \approx 0.05$. Although the energy of the first excited state, $L=1$, exceeds $\omega$, we see three well-defined spectral lines attributed to the total angular momentum states up to $L=6$. Because of the small $u/\Delta_L$ ratio, they exhibit a slight red shift and minor changes in intensity distribution in comparison to the gas phase. This coincides with a few percent change in the rotational constants observed for light molecules~\cite{ToenniesAngChem04}. A secondary substructure originating from the perturbed band of the excited states is separated from the main peak by the energy gap of order $\Delta_L$. We do not label these spectral features in the figure because of their negligible spectral weight.
The situation changes radically when $L$ is further increased. As may be seen in \autoref{fig:band}(b), the $L$-dependent energy gap $\Delta_L$ shrinks and finally closes at
\begin{equation}
L_0 \approx \left( \frac{\omega+B\lambda(\lambda+1)}{2B} \right)^{1/2}.
\label{eq:L0}
\end{equation}
Referring back to \autoref{fig:splitting}, we observe that the lines involving the states $L \gtrsim L_0$ ($L_0 = 8$ in this particular case) develop a rich substructure consisting of multiple secondary peaks. In principle, all of them might be ascribed to the transitions between excited states that preserve $N$ but change $L$ according to the selection rules $\Delta L = \pm 2$. We expect that these lines will be substantially broadened if one goes beyond the single mode approximation and includes a full continuous dispersion of bulk helium $\omega (k)$ into the model. This effect has been demonstrated in Ref. \cite{Cherepanov17} for symmetric top molecules. It quantitatively explains the anomalous broadening of spectral lines, initially observed in experiments with \ce{CH3} \cite{Morrison_2013} and \ce{NH3} \cite{Slipchenko2005} in helium droplets.
Next, we derive simple analytical formulas for the renormalized spectroscopic constants. In first order, the gas-phase rotational states are coupled only to the states with $n = N = 0$ and $m=1$, which are, in turn, coupled to states with nonzero $N$ and $m \geq 1$ in higher orders. To simplify the problem, we can assume that all higher-order interactions can be incorporated into an effective energy shift, $\delta_L$, of the single excitations with $N=0$ with respect to the energy given by \autoref{eq:oblate}, $E^{\lambda}_{L,0} = \Delta_0+BL(L+1)$.
In such a way, we can qualitatively describe the $L$-dependent deformations of the gas phase spectrum as coupling of the bare molecular states to a single ``dressed'' $N=0$, $m=1$ state for a given $L$, which corresponds to an effective two-level system:
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}'_L = \begin{bmatrix} BL(L+1)&u\\u&BL(L+1)+\Delta_0-\delta_L \end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:tls}
\end{equation}
After dropping $L$-independent contributions, the ground state energy of the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:tls} reads:
\begin{equation}
E_L = BL(L+1) -\frac{\delta_L}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{(\Delta_0-\delta_L)^2 + 4u^2}}{2}.
\label{eq:tls_gs}
\end{equation}
Based on \autoref{eq:oblate}, we set $\delta_L= 2B \gamma L(L+1)$ with the parameter $\gamma \in [0,1]$ defining how strong is the effect of high order interactions on the $N=0$, $m=1$ states, i.e. how much their energy effectively shifts from $E^{\lambda}_{L,0}$ (located close to the green line in \autoref{fig:band}(b)) towards the lower edge of the band (black line in the same figure). In both limits of light ($B \to \infty$) and heavy ($B \to 0$) rotors, $E_L$ can be expanded in a series:
\begin{equation}
E_L = B^*L(L+1) - D^*L^2(L+1)^2 + O\bigg(L^3(L+1)^3\bigg),
\label{eq:expanision}
\end{equation}
cf.~\autoref{eq:B*D*}. For light rotors (LR), we make use of the condition $u \ll \Delta_0$ to show that the zero-order term in $u$ cancels out leading to weak renormalization of spectroscopic constants:
\begin{equation}
\frac{B^*_{\text{LR}}}{B} \approx 1- \frac{2 \gamma u^2}{\Delta_0^2};~D^*_{\text{LR}} \approx \frac{4B^2 \gamma^2 u^2}{\Delta_0^3}
\label{eq:weak_constants}
\end{equation}
These expressions coincide with the exact analytical results obtained for small $L$ in Ref. \cite{CherepanovPRA21}. Both renormalized spectroscopic constants contain the small parameter $u/\Delta_0$ which guarantees that $B^* \to B$ and $D^* \to 0$ in the free-rotor limit.
In the opposite limit of heavy rotors (HR), the expansion of energy in powers of a small parameter $(\frac{\Delta_0-\delta_L}{2u})^2$ gives
\begin{equation}
\frac{B^*_{\text{HR}}}{B} \approx 1-\gamma;~D^*_{\text{HR}} \approx \frac{B^2 \gamma^2}{2u}
\label{eq:strong_constants}
\end{equation}
Since the average value of the parameter is $\gamma \sim 1/2$, the rotational constant shows non-negligible renormalization in this case. The expression for $D^*_{\text{HR}}$ closely resembles the empirical formula $D^* = 0.031 \times B^{* 1.818}$ found in Ref.~\cite{Choi2006} by fitting to the experimental data (setting $\gamma = 1/2$ and $u=10$ gives the prefactor of $\approx 0.01$). Furthermore, \autoref{eq:strong_constants} predicts the same dependence on $B$ as the approximate solutions of the strong coupling model reported in Ref. \cite{LemeshkoDroplets16}.
\section{Effective spectroscopic\\[2pt] constants}
\label{sec:BandD}
Over the past two decades a lot of experimental and theoretical data were collected for effective spectroscopic constants of a broad range of molecular species in superfluid helium (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{ToenniesAngChem04}). Although the main focus of this paper is on highly excited rotational states, benchmarking the qualitative results of the theory against the available experimental data is a good test of the model. In this Section, we work with the numerical solutions of the full model developed in \Autoref{secH}, as opposed to the simplified solutions discussed in the previous section. The values of $B^*$ and $D^*$ discussed below were obtained by fitting the energies of the $L=0-3$ states to \autoref{eq:B*D*}.
In \autoref{fig:renorm}(a) we compare the effective rotational constants ($B/B^*$ as a function of $B$) obtained within our model (lines) with the results of experiments (black circles) \cite{Hartmann1995, Harms:1997iv, Lee1999, Callegari_2000, Conjusteau_2000, Nauta_2000, GrebenevOCS, Callegari2001, Nauta2001, Nauta_2001, Madeja_2002, Poertner_2002, Zillich2004, ToenniesAngChem04, Lindsay_2005, Paesani:2005jr, Slipchenko2005, vHaeften05, Scheele_2005, Choi2006, Kuyanov2006, Skvortsov_2007, Hoshina2010, Raston_2011, Raston_2012, Morrison_2013, Raston_2013, Raston_2014, Faulkner_2018, chatterley_rotational_2020, Raston_2021}. The energy of the bosonic mode $\omega$ was fixed to $\SI{6}{cm^{-1}}$, the roton energy of bulk helium \cite{Donnelly1981}; $\lambda$ was set to 14, this choice is motivated by the results of Ref. \cite{CherepanovPRA21}. The molecule--helium coupling constant, $u$, depends on the details of the molecule--He potential energy surface (PES) and is going to be different for each molecule. Moreover, $u$ does not show any significant correlation with $B$. According to Ref. \cite{LemeshkoDroplets16}, the interaction parameter extracted from the molecule--He PES and expressed in absolute units varies within one order of magnitude for the species whose rotational constant cover more than three orders of magnitude. Our goal is to focus on the general trend, therefore, we present the theoretical curves for three different values of $u$ and the experimental data on $B/B^*$, without discussing concrete molecular species.
The overall trend seen in \autoref{fig:renorm}(a) can be explained semiclassically by the ``adiabatic following" model \cite{Lee1999, PatelJCP03, Markovskiy_2009}, revealing the crossover between the heavy and light species. In a simple picture, heavy rotors ($B \lesssim \SI{1}{cm^{-1}}$) rotate slow enough for the helium solvation shell to follow. Such strong coupling leads to a significant reduction of $B$, up to a factor of 6. Light rotors ($B \gtrsim \SI{1}{cm^{-1}}$), in contrast, rotate so fast that they decouple from helium and their rotational constant is almost not renormalized.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig_renorm.jpg}
\caption{(a) The reduction factor of rotational constants, $B/B^*$, for molecules in helium as a function of the gas phase rotational constant, $B$. The solid lines show the theoretical predictions obtained in the present work for selected values of the interaction strength, $u$. The dotted part of the lines indicates the range of $B$ where the weak coupling theory fails. Experimental data points are shown by the black circles. (b),(c) The relative contributions of the states involving single ($m=1$), double ($m=2$), triple ($m=3$) excitations of helium as well as bare molecular states ($m=0$) to the total wave function for a heavy rotor ($B = 0.04~\ce{cm^{-1}}$) and a light rotor ($B = 4~\ce{cm^{-1}}$), respectively. The interaction parameter $u = 10$~cm$^{-1}$ in both cases. }
\label{fig:renorm}
\end{figure}
Note that the ansatz of \autoref{eq:psi} corresponds to the weak-coupling approximation, which breaks down in the limit of $B \to 0$, i.e. for very heavy molecules. The results furnished by the model in this regime (dotted lines \autoref{fig:renorm}(a)) are unphysical. This behaviour might also be rationalized within the effective two-level model of \Autoref{sec:2level}. If $B \to 0$, the shift $\delta_L$ in \autoref{eq:tls_gs} vanishes, thereby eliminating the $L$-dependence from the model (or alternatively, the lower edge of the band in \autoref{fig:band}(b) becomes flat). Although the admixture of bosonic excitations into the total wave function might be dominant, it does not bring any $L$-dependent contribution to the energy. The decreasing renormalization in this region is, thus, of a completely different nature than in the case of light rotors. Including the excitations with $m >3$ into the basis may substantially improve solutions of the model Hamiltonian, \autoref{eq:Hamiltonian}), in this regime.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig_D.jpg}
\caption{The effective centrifugal distortion constant, $D^*$, as a function of the effective rotational constant $B^*$ (solid lines) for selected values of the interaction parameter $u$. The dotted parts of the lines indicate the range of $B^*$ where the weak-coupling theory fails. Experimental data points are shown by the black circles. The dashed black line corresponds to the empirical formula from Ref. \cite{Choi2006}}.
\label{fig:D}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig:renorm}(b) and (c) break down the contributions of different numbers of helium excitations into the total wavefunction for heavy and light molecules, respectively. The coupling parameter is set to the same value of $u = 10~\ce{cm^{-1}}$ in both cases. For heavy molecules, $B = 0.04~\ce{cm^{-1}}$, \autoref{fig:renorm}(b), the contribution of the bare molecular state, $m=0$, is approximately 50\% for $L=0$ and monotonously decreases with $L$, while higher excitations $m=2$ and $3$ get more populated. For light molecules, on the other hand, there is a sharp transition point $L_0$, such that for $L < L_0$ only $m=0$ states are populated, while for $L>L_0$ also the states with nonzero $m$ are, see the example for $B = 4~\ce{cm^{-1}}$ in \autoref{fig:renorm}(c).
This shows an important difference between heavy and light molecules, previously broadly discussed in the literature from other points of view~\cite{ToenniesAngChem04}. For heavy molecules, even in the absence of rotation, the molecule--helium interaction distorts the surrounding superfluid and creates He excitations co-rotating with the molecule (a ``non-superfluid solvation shell''). For light molecules at small $L$ the bath excitations are only virtual (in agreement with the results of Ref.~\cite{LemeshkoDroplets16}), resulting in a very small $B$-renormalization. After some critical value of $L \sim L_0$, the bare molecular states cross the excitation threshold and start coupling to the bath strongly, which results in substantial population of $m\neq0$ states.
\Autoref{fig:D} shows the effective centrifugal constant $D^\ast$ as a function of $B^\ast$ in comparison with the experimental data listed in Ref. \cite{Callegari_2000, GrebenevOCS, Nauta_2001, Nauta2001, Lindsay_2005, Choi2006, Raston_2011, Raston_2012, Morrison_2013, Raston_2014, Faulkner_2018, chatterley_rotational_2020}. In agreement with the established experimental and theoretical result, $D^\ast$ measured in helium droplets is found to be $10^2-10^4$ times larger than the corresponding gas-phase value. The light rotors with $B \gtrsim \SI{3}{cm^{-1}}$, whose $B/B^*$ ratio is barely distinguishable from 1, show large $D^\ast$ of the order of $\SI{0.01}{cm^{-1}}$ only if the interaction parameter, $u$, is large (orange and blue lines). Otherwise, $D^\ast$ does not scale with $B^\ast$ (green line) and might be comparable to the gas-phase centrifugal constant for some of the molecules. In the case of heavy rotors this tendency is not apparent, $D^*$ shows persistent dependence on $B^*$ in a wide range of $u$. In particular, one can see that, similarly to \autoref{eq:strong_constants}, the scaling of $D^\ast$ closely resembles the already mentioned empirical formula, $D^* = 0.031 \times B^{* 1.818}$, found in Ref. \cite{Choi2006}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
Thus we presented a simple quantum mechanical model describing the rotational level structure of molecules in superfluid helium nanodroplets and, in particular, capturing highly excited states (recent work\cite{CherepanovPRA21} compared the model calculations with experiment up to $J \gtrsim 15$ for I$_2$ and CS$_2$ molecules). Here we provided details on the theoretical machinery of the model, benchmarked its results against the data on the effective spectroscopic constants $B^*$ and $D^*$ for a broad range of molecules. Although the model is already based on a simplified version of the previously reported angulon Hamiltonian~\cite{SchmidtLem15}, we have substantially simplified it further and have shown that several properties of molecules in superfluids can be understood by analyzing a simple $2 \times 2$ matrix, \autoref{eq:tls}.
Among other results, we gathered the following insights:
(i) A linear molecule in superfluid He can be described as an effective symmetric top, with an additional quantum number describing the projection of superfluid angular momentum on the molecular $z$-axis. Coupling between the superfluid and molecular rotational angular momenta is reminiscent of that between the electronic and rotational angular momenta in the gas-phase radicals, such as OH or NO. Analyzing different possible angular momentum coupling schemes in terms of ``many-body Hund's cases'' would be very interesting to do in the future.
(ii) Analyzing the structure of such a symmetric top, whose states can be mixed by molecule--helium interactions, furnishes a few qualitative insights. For example, the crossover between the rotational behavior of light and heavy molecules in a superfluid (approximately at $B\sim2-3$~cm$^{-1}$) can be explained in terms of the many-particle wavefunction structure shown in \autoref{fig:renorm}(c), which, in turn, follows from the $L$-dependent energy gap $\Delta_L$ shown in \autoref{fig:band}(a).
The results presented here and in Ref.~\cite{CherepanovPRA21} reveal that the structure of the highly excited rotational states can substantially deviate from the gas-phase-like \autoref{eq:B*D*}, in particular for heavier molecules, such as I$_2$ and CS$_2$. This deviation needs to be taken into account while creating molecular superrotors using the optical centrifuge technique~\cite{Centrifuge99, KorobenkoPRL14}. In particular, one might need to redefine the adiabaticity criterion of molecule-laser interactions and to use non-linear ramp pulses in order to account for the threshold of the states as shown in \autoref{fig:band}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
I.C.~acknowledges the support by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sk\l{}odowska-Curie Grant Agreement No.~665385. G.B.~acknowledges support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), under project No.~M2461-N27 and from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy EXC2181/1-390900948 (the Heidelberg STRUCTURES Excellence Cluster). M.L.~acknowledges support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), under project No.~P29902-N27, and by the European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant No.~801770 (ANGULON). H.S. acknowledges support from the Independent Research Fund Denmark (Project No. 8021-00232B) and from the Villum Fonden through a Villum Investigator Grant No. 25886.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
In \cite{MM}, we suggested to consider in detail
a remarkable property of the Gaussian matrix averages:
averages of Schur functions are again
expressed through the same Schur functions (see many examples in \cite{DiF}--\cite{MMMZh}, and also some preliminary results in \cite{Kaz}--\cite{MKR}).
The two basic examples were
\be
\Big<\S_R[ZZ^\dagger] \Big>:=\int \S_R[ZZ^\dagger] \,e^{-\tr ZZ^\dagger} d^2Z =
\frac{\S_R\{N_1\}\cdot \S_R\{N_2\}}{ \S_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\label{siComp}
\ee
for the integral over complex $N_1\times N_2$ matrices $Z$ (rectangular complex model, RCM)
and
\be
\Big<\S_R[X] \Big>:=
\int \S_R[X] \,e^{-\frac{1}{2}\tr X^2} dX =\frac{\S_R\{N\}\cdot \S_R\{\delta_{k,2}\}}{ \S_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\label{siHerm}
\ee
for the integral over Hermitian $N\times N$ matrices $X$ (Hermitian model, HM).
Here $\S_R[A]$ denotes the value of the Schur function $\S_R\{p_k\}$ as a graded polynomial of the power sums $p_k$
at the Miwa locus $p_k=\tr A^k$,
while $\S_R\{N\} = \S_R[I_N]$ corresponds to $p_k=\tr I_N^k = N$
with a unit square matrix $I$ of the size $N$. {\bf Throughout this paper, all the integrals are normalized in such a way that
the average $<1>=1$.}
The quantity in the denominators ${ \S_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}$ is often denoted $d_R$.
We denote all the averages by $\Big<\S_R \Big>$
to emphasize that the {\it meaning} of the procedure is always the same,
as is the statement, {\bf the average of a proper symmetric function is proportional to the same symmetric function at a peculiar locus},
but a concrete definition of the averaging procedure varies from case to case.
The Schur functions {\it per se} are explicitly defined
for any Young diagram $R = \{r_1\geq r_2 \geq\ldots \geq r_{l(R)}>0\}$
either by the determinant Jacobi-Trudy formula, or by the Frobenius formula \cite{Mac,Fulton},
but more important is conceptual definition as a character,
of a linear group,
and as a common set of eigenfunctions for all generalized cut-and-join operators $W_\Delta$ \cite{MMN},
\be
\hat W_\Delta \,\S_R = \phi_R(\Delta) \cdot \S_R
\ee
where $\phi_R(\Delta)$ is an adequate analytic continuation of a peculiarly normalized symmetric group
characters $\psi_R(\Delta)$ to arbitrary pairs of Young diagrams $R$ and $\Delta$,
perhaps, of distinct sizes.
In \cite{IMM}, we suggested to call the properties (\ref{siComp}) and (\ref{siHerm})
{\it superintegrability} because of the following analogy.
Partition functions of matrix models, i.e. averages
$\Big<\exp \sum_k p_k\tr X^k/k\Big> = \Big<\sum_R \S_R\{p_k\} \cdot \S_R[X]\Big>$,
are long known to be the $\tau$-functions of integrable hierarchies \cite{UFN3}.
However these are not generic $\tau$-functions, but satisfying a peculiar constraint:
{\it the string equation}, and, as a corollary, the entire set of Virasoro-like constraints.
Thus they are {\it more} than just integrable, they are explicitly comprehensible.
The situation looks like a far-going generalization of the well-know fact
that the motion in every potential $r^n$ is integrable, but the orbits are closed,
and the answers are expressible through elementary functions only for $n=2$ and $n=-1$
(harmonic oscillator and Coulomb potentials).
The fact that the orbits are closed can be explained as due to an additional conservation law,
it converts integrability to {\it super}integrability and makes the problem
exactly solvable.
We assume that (\ref{siComp}) and (\ref{siHerm}) give us the same kind of signals,
this time about the existence of a peculiar basis, in which the averages can be
explicitly evaluated.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss generalizations of (\ref{siComp}) and (\ref{siHerm}),
which are already known in different directions to come a little closer to an understanding of this remarkable phenomenon.
Given the fact that the matrix models provide the best known elementary approximation
to generic string theory, one can hope that, in this way, we can learn something important
about strings, which could explain in which sense the string theory is distinguished
and comprehensible.
A simple picture illustrates what is currently known.
The original superintegrability relations (\ref{siComp}) and (\ref{siHerm})
can be lifted (refined) to (\ref{siCompAB1}) and (\ref{siHermA1}),
where the dependence on size of the matrix, $N=\tr I$ is promoted to that on an arbitrary matrix.
These refined formulas admit generalizations to tensor and fermion models,
but the latter case is different for the RCM and the HM, where the fermionic representation
is substituted by the Q-Schur functions. Note also that formulas for the tensor models are known so far only for extensions of the RCM, since they are much simpler in this case. One can also change the Vandermonde measure in the eigenvalue realizations and the Gaussian potential, but most results are currently known only in the non-refined case.
\be
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
&&&&\text{fermionic} \ \ \ \ Q-\text{Schur} \\
&&&&\!\!\!(\ref{fermAB}) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (\ref{QRA}) \\
\\
&&&&\uparrow \ \ \ \ \uparrow \\
\\
&&&& (\ref{siCompAB1})+(\ref{siHermA1}) \\
{\rm tensor} \ (\ref{tensor}) &&\leftarrow && \uparrow \\
&&&& (\ref{siComp})+(\ref{siHerm}) \\
\\
&&&& \ \ \ \downarrow &\!\!\! \searrow \\
\\
&&&& \text{deformed potential} && \!\!\!\text{deformed measure}\\
&&&& \swarrow \ \ \ \searrow && \swarrow \ \ \ \ \searrow \\
&&&& \text{monomial} \ \ \ \ \ \text{logarithmic} && \ \ \ \ \ q,t \ \ \ \
\text{trigonometric} \\
&&&& \!\!\!\!\! \text{sec.}\ref{monom} \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{sec.}\ref{log} &&
\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\! \text{sec.}\ref{qt} \ \ \ \ \phantom{AAA}
\\
\end{array}
\ee
\section{Refinement
\label{refinment}}
\subsection{The basic case}
A feature of (\ref{siComp}) and (\ref{siHerm}) that catches the eye is that, while the characters
at the l.h.s. depend on the non-trivial matrix, those at the r.h.s., on $N=\tr I$, the unit matrix rather than arbitrary.
It comes with no surprise that this restriction can be easily lifted.
The relevant generalizations are
\be
\int \S_R[ZZ^\dagger] \,e^{-\tr AZBZ^\dagger } d^2Z =
\frac{\S_R[A^{-1}]\cdot \S_R[B^{-1}]}{d_R}
\label{siCompAB1}
\ee
for the RCM \cite{Mac,Ivan1,Ivan2,Orlov,NO,MMkon},
and
\be
\int \S_R[X] \,e^{-\frac{1}{2}\tr AXAX} dX =
\frac{\S_R[A^{-1}]\cdot \S_R\{\delta_{k,2}\}}{ \S_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\label{siHermA1}
\ee
for the HM \cite{MMl}.
One can keep the Gaussian weights intact but change instead the arguments
of the Schur functions:
\be
\boxed{
\Big<\S_R[AZBZ^\dagger] \Big> =
\int \S_R[AZBZ^\dagger] \,e^{-\tr ZZ^\dagger } d^2Z =
\frac{\S_R[A ]\cdot \S_R[B ]}{ d_R}
}
\label{siCompAB2}
\ee
and
\be
\boxed{
\Big<\S_R[AX] \Big> =
\int \S_R[AX] \,e^{-\frac{1}{2}\tr X^2} dX =
\frac{ \S_R\{\delta_{k,2}\}\cdot \cdot \S_R[A ]}{ \S_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
}
\label{siHermA2}
\ee
\subsection{Tensor models}
One of the natural generalizations of the RCM is the theory of rank-$r$ tensors \cite{IMM,MMten},
which contains the complex $N_1\times\ldots\times N_r$ fields $Z_{a_1\ldots a_r}$
with the refined Gaussian action \cite{MMkon}
\be
S := \sum_{a_1,b_1=1}^{N_1} \ldots \sum_{a_r,b_r=1}^{N_r}
Z_{a_1\ldots a_r} \Big(Z^\dag\Big)^{b_1\ldots b_r} \prod_{i=1}^r \Big(A_{(i)}\Big)^{a_i}_{b_i}
\ee
The substitutes of the Schur functions (generalized tensor characters)
are $A$-independent combinations depending on $r$ different representations
of the same size $n=|R_1|=\ldots=|R_r|$,
\be
\chi_{R_1,\ldots,R_r}(Z, Z^\dag) :=
\frac{1}{n!}\sum_{\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_r \in S_n}
\psi_{R_1}(\sigma_1)\ldots \psi_{R_r}(\sigma_r)\cdot
{\cal O}_{\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_r}
\label{tensor}
\ee
where analogues of multi-trace operators
depend on $r$ permutations from the double coset $S_n\backslash S_n^{\otimes r}/S_n$:
\be
{\cal O}_{\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_r} = \sum_{\vec a^1=1}^{N_1}\ldots \sum_{\vec a^r=1}^{N_r}
\left(\prod_{p=1}^n Z_{a_p^1\ldots a_p^r}\Big(Z^\dag\Big)^{ a_{\sigma_1(p)}^1 \ldots a_{\sigma_{r(p)}}^r }\right)
\ee
The Gaussian averages of these operators (which form a basis in the space of all operators with non-zero Gaussian averages) manifest the superintegrability property in the form
\be
\Big< \chi_{R_1,\ldots,R_r}\Big>
:=\int \chi_{R_1,\ldots,R_r}(Z,Z^\dag) e^Sd^2Z=
\ C_{R_1,\ldots,R_r} \cdot
{\S_{R_1}\left\{\Tr A_{(1)}^{-k}\right\}\over\S_{R_1}\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\cdot \ldots\cdot {\S_{R_r}\left\{\Tr A_{(r)}^{-k}\right\}\over\S_{R_r}\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\ee
where
\be
C_{R_1,\ldots,R_r}:=\sum_{\Delta\vdash n}{\prod_{i=1}^r \psi_{R_i}(\Delta)\over z_\Delta}
\ee
$\psi_R(\Delta$ is the character of the symmetric group $S_n$, and $z_\Delta$ is the standard symmetric factor of the Young diagram $\Delta$ (order of the automorphism) \cite{Fulton}.
In the case of $r=3$, $C_{R_1,R_2,R_3}$ are the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of the three irreducible representations $R_1$, $R_2$, $R_3$ of the symmetric group.
\subsection{Fermionic (RCM) and $Q$-Schur (HM) averages}
One can substitute the bosonic matrices $Z$ in (\ref{siCompAB1}), (\ref{siCompAB2}) by the complex rectangular matrices
with Grassmann entries $\Psi$.
Then \cite{MMMZh} (see also the earlier result \cite{WWWZ})
\be
\int \S_R[A\Psi B\Psi^\dagger] \,e^{-\tr \Psi\Psi^\dagger } d^2\Psi =
(-)^{|R|}\frac{\S_R[-A ]\cdot \S_R[B ]}{ d_R}
\label{fermAB}
\ee
Surprisingly or not, a counterpart of this formula in the Hermitian case
is not yet available.
Instead, there is a counterpart of (\ref{siHermA1}) for the $Q$-Schur functions instead of the
ordinary Schur functions, which are not available in the RCM case.
There are reasons to expect that the $Q$-Schur functions are related to
fermionic averages \cite{MMZh2}, still at present the situation is that they arise
in the RCM case only, while the $Q$-Schur formulas are available only
in the Hermitian case.
According to \cite{MMkon}
\be
\left<Q_R[X]\right>:=\int Q_R[X] \,e^{-\tr X^2\Lambda} dX
= \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\displaystyle{{Q_{R/2}\{\Tr\Lambda^{-k}\}Q_{R/2}\{\delta_{k,1}\}\over Q_{R}\{\delta_{k,1}\}}}&\ \ \ \ \ \hbox{if }R_i
\hbox{ are all even}\cr
&\cr
0&\ \ \ \ \ \hbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{QRA}
\ee
where $R/2$ denotes the Young diagram with all line lengths being half of those of $R$. This formula
implies a very nice expansion for the partition function of the cubic (original) Kontsevich model:
\be
{\int dX \exp\left(-\Tr {X^3\over 3}-\Tr X^2\Lambda \right)\over \int dX \exp\left(-\Tr X^2\Lambda\right)} = \sum_{R\in SP} Q_R[\Lambda^{-1}]
\frac{Q_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}\cdot Q_{2R}\{\delta_{k,3}\}}{4^{|R|}\cdot Q_{2R}\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\ee
where the sum goes over the strict partitions, i.e. partitions with all parts distinct.
\section{Quantum deformations of the measure \label{qt}}
\subsection{$\beta$-deformation}
The previous consideration was formulated in terms of matrix integrals. Further generalizations often require the eigenvalue representation. That is, since the integral (\ref{siHerm}) involves only invariant combinations, traces of matrix powers, one can integrate over the angular variables (or, similarly, in (\ref{siComp})) and obtain (with a properly normalized measure) \cite{Mehta}
\be\label{evH}
\int \S_R[X] \,e^{-\frac{1}{2}\tr X^2} dX \sim\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \S_R(x)\Delta(x)^2 \,e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_ix_i^2} \prod_i dx_i
\ee
where $\Delta (x):=\prod_{i<j}(x_i-x_j)$ is the Vandermonde determinant, $x_i$ are eigenvalues of the matrix $X$, and the Schur function in the integrand is a symmetric function of $x_i$, or a graded polynomial of $p_k:=\sum_ix_i$: $\S_R[X]=S_R(x)=S_R\{p_k\}$.
Similarly,one can integrate over the angular variables in the RCM, which gives rise to the linear exponential instead of the Gaussian measure, and to the integration contour $\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ \cite{Mehta,AMP,AMM}. For the sake of definiteness, we assume that $N_1\ge N_2$. Then,
\be\label{evC}
\int \S_R[ZZ^\dag] \,e^{-\tr ZZ^\dag} d^2Z \sim\int_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{N_2}} \S_R(x)x^{N_1-N_2}\Delta(x)^2 \,e^{-\sum_ix_i} \prod_i dx_i
\ee
Now the natural deformation of (\ref{evH}) and (\ref{evC}) is to let the Vandermonde determinant enter with an arbitrary degree $2\beta$ (note that $\beta=1/2$ describes the real matrix integral, and $\beta=2$, the quaternion one). Then, the natural system of symmetric functions is, instead of the Schur functions, the Jack polynomials \cite{Mac} $J_R$, and the superintegrability relation looks like \cite{MPS}:
\be\label{beta}
\Big<\J_R \Big>:=
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \J_R(x)\Delta(x)^{2\beta} \,e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_ix_i^2} \prod_i dx_i=
\frac{ \J_R\{\delta_{k,2}\}\cdot \J_R\{N\}}{ \J_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\ee
Moreover, one can considered a little bit more general potential \cite{Zabz},
\be
\Big<\J_R \Big>:=
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \J_R(x)\Delta(x)^{2\beta} \,e^{-\mu\beta\sum_ix_i-\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_ix_i^2} \prod_i dx_i=
\frac{ \J_R\{\mu\delta_{k,1}+\delta_{k,2}\}\cdot \J_R\{N\}}{ \J_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\label{Max2}
\ee
One can definitely consider the case $\beta=2$ in order to return to the Hermitian matrix model (\ref{siHerm}) with this more general potential.
Similarly, the superintegrability property in the complex model (\ref{evC}) is controlled by the formula \cite{Zabz}
\be
\Big<\J_R \Big>:=
\int_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{N}} \J_R(x)\Delta(x)^{2\beta} \,e^{-\mu\beta\sum_ix_i} \prod_i x_i^ndx_i=
{\J_R\{\beta^{-1}(n+1)+N-1\} \cdot \J_R\{N\}\over \J_R\{\mu\cdot\delta_{k,1}\}}
\label{Max1}
\ee
The r.h.s. of this formula, indeed, reduces at $\beta=1$, $n=N_1-N_2$ and $\mu=1$ to the r.h.s. of (\ref{siComp}).
\subsection{$q,t$-deformations}
Further, two-parametric generalization naturally leads to the Macdonald polynomials substituting the Schur functions. This generalization introduces two parameters $q$ and $t=q^\beta$ and replaces both the Vandermonde determinant,
\be
\Delta(x)^{2\beta}\to \prod_{i\ne j}{\Big({x_i\over x_j};q\Big)_\infty\over \Big(t{x_i\over x_j};q\Big)_\infty}
\ee
and the Gaussian exponential
\be
e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}x^2}\to (q^2x^2;q^2)_\infty
\ee
or, even more generally,
\be
e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}x^2}\to (q\xi_1x;q)_\infty(q\xi_2x;q)_\infty
\ee
which reduces to $(q^2x^2;q^2)_\infty$ at $\xi_1=-\xi_2=1$.
Here $(z;q)_\infty:=\prod_{i=0}^\infty (1-zq^i)$ is the Pochhammer symbol.
With these definitions, the superintegrability relations survive \cite{MPS,Zabz}
\be
\left<\M_R\right> :=
\prod_{i=1}^N \int_{-1}^1d_qx_ix_i^{\beta(N-1)}(q\xi_1x_i;q)_\infty(q\xi_2x_i;q)_\infty\cdot \M_R(x)\cdot \prod_{j\neq i}
\frac{\left(\frac{x_i}{x_j},q\right)_\infty}{\left(\frac{tx_i}{x_j},q\right)_\infty}
= \frac{\M_R\left\{{\xi_1^k+\xi_2^k\over 1-t^k}\right)\}\cdot \M_R\left\{\frac{1-t^{kN}}{1-t^k}\right\}}{\M_R\left\{{(-\xi_1\xi_2)^k\over 1-t^k}\right\}}
\ee
where the integral is defined to be the Jackson integral \cite{GR}.
Note that one can also consider further deformation of the RCM $\beta$-ensemble, (\ref{Max1}) with $\xi_2=0$. Then, the superintegrability property is \cite{Zabz}
\be
\left<\M_R\right> :=
\prod_{i=1}^N \int_{-1}^1d_qx_ix_i^{\beta(N-1)}(q\xi x_i;q)_\infty \cdot \M_R(x)\cdot \prod_{j\neq i}
\frac{\left(\frac{x_i}{x_j},q\right)_\infty}{\left(\frac{tx_i}{x_j},q\right)_\infty}
={\M_R\left\{{1-q^kt^{k(N-1)}\over 1-t^k}\right\} \cdot \M_R\left\{\frac{1-t^{kN}}{1-t^k}\right\}\over \M_R\left\{{\xi^k\over 1-t^k}\right\}}
\ee
\subsection{Tridiagonal model\label{trid}}
There is another interesting manifestation of the superintegrability property (\ref{beta}), that is,
\be
\prod_{i=1}^N\int_{-\infty}^\infty \!\!\!\! e^{-a_i^2/2} da_i
\prod_{i=1}^{N-1} \int_0^\infty \!\!\!\! e^{-b_i} b_i^{\beta i-1}db_i \ \ J_R\{p_k=\tr \Phi^k\}
= \beta^{|R|\over 2}\cdot\frac{J_R\{N\}J_R\{\delta_{k,2}\}}{J_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\ee
where the matrix $\Phi$ is tridiagonal:
\be
\Phi = \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_1 & b_1 & 0 & 0 & \dots \\
1 & a_2 & b_2 & 0 & \\
0 & 1 & a_3 & b_3 & \\
0 & 0 & 1 & a_4 & \\
\dots
\end{array} \right)
\ee
The origin of this formula is the connection of this tridiagonal model with the $\beta$-ensemble of the HM \cite{DE,K,MMPtri}.
\section{Non-Gaussian potential}
One of the ways to deform matrix model is to vary the potential. In this section, we consider two examples of non-Gaussian potentials: the monomial of higher degree, and the square of logarithm, while the potential that is a sum of two logarithms is left for sec.\ref{log}.
\subsection{Monomial non-abelian potential \label{monom}}
One can wonder what is the meaning, or, better, the generalization
of the strange factor $\S_R\{\delta_{k,2}\}$ at the r.h.s. of (\ref{siHerm}).
In order to see this, one can consider the potential which is a monomial of higher degree $s$.
According to \cite{PSh}, the superintegrability relation in this case is
\be\label{mono}
\Big< S_R \Big>_a :=
\int_{C_{s,a}^{\otimes N}} \S_R[X] \cdot e^{-\frac{1}{s}\tr X^s} dX =
\S_R\{\delta_{k,s}\}
\cdot\prod_{(\alpha,\beta)\in R}
[[N+\alpha-\beta]]_{s,0}\cdot [[N+\alpha-\beta]]_{s,a}\nn\\
\hbox{for }N = 0 \hbox{ or } a \hbox{ mod } s
\ee
Here we use the notation
\be
[[n]]_{s,a} = n\ {\rm if}\ n=a \,{\rm mod}(s) \ \ {\rm and} \ 1 \ {\rm otherwise}
\label{sa}
\ee
Here $C_{s,a}$ is a special star-like (closed) integration contour
\be
\int_{C_{s,a}} F(x)\ e^{-x^s/s} \,dx \ :=\ \sum_{b=1}^s e^{-2\pi i(a-1)b/s}\cdot \int_0^\infty
F\big(e^{2\pi ib/s}x\big)\ e^{-x^s/s}\, dx
\ee
which picks up only the powers of $x$, which are equal to $a-1\, {\rm mod}\, s$, in particular,
\be
\int_{C_{s,a}} x^ke^{-x^s/s} dx=\delta_{k+1-a}^{(s)}\cdot\Gamma\left({k+1\over s}\right)
\ee
$\delta_k^{(s)}$ is defined to be 1 if $k=0$ mod $s$ and to vanish otherwise.
This makes the answer depending on an additional parameter $a=0,\ldots s-1$. The r.h.s. of (\ref{mono}) contains some factors $N+j$ from $\S_R\{N\}$, (\ref{siHerm}), that is,
those with $N+i = 0,a\, {\rm mod}(s)$, and, hence, its vanishing depends also on the value of $N$.
Note that if the condition
$N=0\ \hbox{or}\ a\ \hbox{mod}\ s$ is not satisfied, one can not define the correlator by the condition $<1>=1$ because of zeroes in the denominator.
\subsection{Square of logarithm potenital
\label{trig}}
Our next example is the potential which is a square of logarithm.
The simplest way to deal with this model is to consider exponential change of variables: $X\to e^X$. Then, one arrives at the Gaussian model again, however, with a different measure and the symmetric functions of $e^X$ instead of $X$. Let us make this substitution at the level of the eigenvalue model. Then, what happens is the trigonometric Vandermonde factor, and the superintegrability relations is
\be
\Big<\S_R \Big>:=\!
\int \S_R(e^{x_i}) \cdot \prod_{i<j}^N \sinh^2\left(\frac{x_i-x_j}{2}\right)
\prod_{i=1}^N \exp\left(-\frac{x_i^2}{2g^2}\right) dx_i =
A^{|R|} q^{ 2\varkappa_R}\cdot \S_R\left\{\frac{A^k-A^{-k}}{q^k-q^{-k}}\right\}
\ee
In fact, one can further deform the Vandermonde determinant, \cite{BEM}, and to arrive at
\be
\Big<\S_R \Big>:=
\int \S_R(e^{x_i/a}) \cdot \prod_{i<j}^N \sinh\left(\frac{x_i-x_j}{2a}\right)\sinh\left(\frac{x_i-x_j}{2b}\right)
\prod_{i=1}^N \exp\left(-\frac{x_i^2}{2g^2}\right) dx_i =
\nn \\
= \left(A^{|R|} q^{ 2\varkappa_R}\right)^{b/a} \S_R\left\{\frac{A^k-A^{-k}}{q^k-q^{-k}}\right\}
\ee
In these formulas, $\varkappa_R = \sum_{(\mu,\nu)\in R} (\mu-\nu)
= \frac{1}{2}\sum_\mu \lambda_\nu(\lambda_\nu-2\nu+1)$, $q:=\!\exp{\left(\frac{g^2}{2ab}\right)}$ and $A:=q^N$.
These formulas are not yet a trigonometric deformation of superintegrability, since the latter would involve symmetric functions of $x_i$, not of $e^{x_i}$.
\section{Non-Gaussian potential: Logarithmic (Selberg) case
\label{log}}
The case of logarithmic potential is distinguished in matrix models,
because it can be interpreted either as a contribution of an additional
zero-time \cite{versus,UFN3} or as a quantum deformation.
In this case, the ordinary integrability is only slightly modified,
and the same can be (justly) expected about superintegrability.
Therefore we consider this ``simple" case separately.
\subsection{Student's distribution}
The first example is an example of the simplest model with the logarithm potential. According to \cite{MMPstud}, in this case, the superintegrability formula looks like
\be
\Big<\S_R \Big>:=\int \S_R[X]\cdot \frac{dX}{{\rm det}(1+X^2)^\alpha } =
{1\over P_R(\alpha,N)}\cdot\frac{\S_R\{N\}\cdot \S_R\{\delta_{k,2}\}}{ \S_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\label{siHermStud}
\ee
with
\be
P_R(\alpha,N) = \prod_{m=1}^{l_R} \prod_{i=1}^{\left[\frac{R_m+\delta_{m|2}}{2}\right]}
\Big(1+2\left(\alpha-N+i+[m/2]\right)\Big)
\ee
The integral (\ref{siHermStud}) is the HM. However, one can equally well consider the RCM average
\be
\int \S_R[ZZ^\dag]\cdot \frac{d^2Z}{{\rm det}(1+ZZ^\dag)^\alpha }
\ee
which gives the same answer. In fact, until the refinement of the averages, the two models always coincide upon a proper change of the potential (and integration contours). Hence, we do not differ between them further.
\subsection{Hermitian two-logarithm model}
Instead of the Gaussian measure (\ref{siHerm}), one can consider the exponential of two logarithmic terms, which reduces, after integration over the angular variables to Selberg-type integrals \cite{Selb}, and the superintegrability in this case is given by the Kadell formulas \cite{Kad}:
\be\label{KadS}
\Big<\S_R \Big>:=
\prod_i \int_0^1dx_ix_i^u(1-x_i)^v \S_R(x)\Delta(x)^{2}=
{\S_R\{N\}\cdot\S_R\{u+N\}\over\S_R\{u+v+2N\}}
\ee
Moreover, a similar form can be found for the Schur functions depending on inverse powers of $x_i$: making a change of variables in the multiple integral, one obtains
\be\label{rel}
\Big<\S_R\{p_{-k}\} \Big>_{u,v,N}=\Big<\S_R\{p_{k}\} \Big>_{-u-v-2N,v,N}
\ee
where $p_{-k}:=\sum_i x_i^{-k}$.
\subsection{Two-logarithm $\beta$-ensemble}
These formulas are again immediately deformed to the $\beta$-ensemble superintegrability with Jack polynomials being a proper system of symmetric functions. The average of the Jack polynomial \cite{Kad,MMSh} is
\be\label{KadJ}
\Big<\J_R \Big>:=
\prod_i \int_0^1 dx_ix_i^u(1-x_i)^v \J_R(x)\Delta(x)^{2\beta} =
{\J_R\{N\}\cdot\J_R\{\beta^{-1}u+N+\beta^{-1}-1\}\over\J_R\{\beta^{-1}(u+v+2)+2N-2\}}
\ee
while relation (\ref{rel}) becomes
\be\label{rel}
\Big<\J_R\{p_{-k}\} \Big>_{u,v,N}=\Big<\J_R\{p_{k}\} \Big>_{-u-v+2(\beta-1)-2\beta N,v,N}
\ee
\subsection{BGW model}
By a proper limit from these formulas, one can get a specific unitary matrix model, which is related to the Brezin-Gross-Witten (BGW) model \cite{BGW,AMM,PGL}. Again, in order to present the $\beta$-deformed case, one needs first to integrate over the angular variables and then to deform the degree of the Vandermonde determinant \cite{PGL}. The superintegrability relation in this case looks like \cite{MMSh}
\be\label{BGW}
\Big<\J_R \Big>:=\prod_i^N\oint_{|z_i|=1}{dz_i\over z_i}\Big|\Delta(z)\Big|^{2\beta}\mu_{N+1-\beta^{-1}}\Big\{\sum_iz_i^k\Big\}
\J_R(z)={\J_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}^2\over\J_R\{N-1+\beta^{-1}\}}
\ee
where the function $\mu_n\{p_k\}$ is defined by another $\beta$-deformed unitary integral,
\be
\mu_n\{p_k\}\Big|_{p_k=\sum_i\psi_i^k}:=\prod_i^n\oint_{|w_i|=1}{dw_i\over w_i}\Big|\Delta(w)\Big|^{2\beta}
e^{\beta \sum_i(w^+_i+\psi_iw_i)}
\ee
All other superintegrability formulas, which we discuss below are also extended to this case. However, since this model is obtained by a proper limit from model (\ref{KadJ}) \cite{PGL}, we do not write them down.
\subsection{$q,t$-deformed two-logarithm model}
As in the Gaussian case, the $\beta$-deformation of the superintegrability is immediately lifted to the $q,t$-deformation. The proper set of symmetric functions is the Macdonald polynomials, and the Selberg average of the Macdonald polynomial is \cite{Mac,MMShS,Zen}
\be\label{Kadqt}
\left<\M_R\right> :=
\prod_{i=1}^N\int_{0}^1 d_qx_i x_i^{u+\beta (N-1)}\frac{\left({x_i},q\right)_\infty}{\left({q^vx_i},q\right)_\infty}
\cdot\M_R(x)\cdot \prod_{j\neq i}
\frac{\left(\frac{x_i}{x_j},q\right)_\infty}{\left(\frac{tx_i}{x_j},q\right)_\infty}
=
q^{|R|}t^{\nu_R}{\M_R^*\{t^N\}\cdot\M_R^*\{t^{N-1}q^{u+1}\}\over\M_R^*\{t^{2(N-1)}q^{u+v+2}\}}
\ee
where $|R|=\sum_iR_i$ is the size of the Young diagram $R$, $\nu_R:=\sum_i (i-1)R_i$, and we denoted
\be
\M_R^*\{x\}:=\M_R\left\{{1-x^k\over1-t^k}\right\}
\ee
\section{Double correlators}
\subsection{Chiral correlator in RCM}
It turns out that averages of the product of two symmetric functions of specifically correlated arguments are usually also equal to ratios of symmetric functions at special locus, i.e. superintegrability persists in these cases two. The only difference is that the average of one symmetric function is typically a ratio of two symmetric functions in the numerator and one, in the denominator, while the average of a product of two symmetric functions is typically ration of two symmetric functions both in the numerator and in the denominator, with a factor. In this section we consider examples of these averages of products of two symmetric functions.
The very first example is given by a natural complement \cite{Mac,Orlov} of eq.(\ref{siCompAB1}),
\be
\Big< \S_R[{\cal A}Z]\cdot \S_{R'}[{\cal B}Z^\dagger]\Big> =
\delta_{R,R'}\cdot \frac{\S_R[{\cal AB}]}{\S_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}}
\ee
which in no way reduces to (\ref{siCompAB1}).
In certain sense, it looks like a dual of (\ref{siCompAB1}),
with left and right hand sides exchanged.
Analogy is not full, because
the matrices ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ are now rectangular,
while $A$ and $B$ are square in (\ref{siCompAB1}).
\subsection{Hermitian two-logarithm model}
In the case of model (\ref{KadS}), there are also superintegrability formulas for the products of two Schur functions \cite{Kad1}:
\be
\Big<\S_R\{p_k+v\}\S_P\{p_k\} \Big>=C_{RP}\cdot{\S_R\{v+N\}\S_P\{u+N\}
\over\S_R\{N\}\S_P\{u+v+N\}}
\ee
where
\be
C_{RP}={\prod_{i<j}^N(R_i-i+R_j-j)(P_i-i+P_j-j)\over\prod_{i,j}^N(u+v+2N+1+R_i-i+P_j-j)}
\ee
Another type of double correlators with the superintegrability property is \cite{AFLT}
\be
\Big<\S_R\{p_{k}+v\}\S_P\{p_{-k}\} \Big>=G_{RP}(u+v+N)\cdot\S_R\{\delta_{k,1}\}\S_P\{\delta_{k,1}\}
\cdot{\S_R\{v+N\}\S_P\{N\}\over\S_R\{u+v+2N\}\S_P\{-u\}}
\ee
where we introduced the standard building block of Nekrasov functions
\be
G_{RP}(x):=\prod_{i,j\in R}(x+R_i-j+P_j^\vee-i+1)\prod_{i,j\in P}(x-P_i+j-1-R_j^\vee+i)
\ee
and $R^\vee$ denotes the conjugate Young diagram.
\subsection{$\beta$-deformed two-logarithm model}
The averages of product of the two Jack polynomials also can be found in the model (\ref{KadJ}), and are \cite{Kad1}
\be
\Big<\J_R\{p_k+\beta^{-1}(v+1)-1\}\J_P\{p_k\} \Big>=
{C_{RP}^J\over C_{\emptyset\emptyset}^J}\cdot{\J_R\{\beta^{-1}(v+1)+N-1\}\J_P\{\beta^{-1}(u+1)+N-1\}
\over\J_R\{N\}\J_P\{\beta^{-1}(u+v+2)+N-2\}}
\ee
with
\be
C_{RP}^J={\prod_{i<j}^N(R_i-\beta i+R_j-\beta j)_\beta(P_i-\beta i+P_j-\beta j)_\beta
\over\prod_{i,j}^N(u+v+2\beta N+2+R_i-\beta i+P_j-\beta j-\beta)_\beta},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
(x)_\beta:={\Gamma (x+\beta)\over\Gamma(x)}
\ee
and \cite{AFLT}
\be
\Big<\J_R\{p_{k}+\beta^{-1}(v+1)-1\}\J_P\{p_{-k}\} \Big>=G_{RP}^J(u+v+1+\beta (N-1))\cdot\J_R\{\beta^{-1}\delta_{k,1}\}
\J_P\{\beta^{-1}\delta_{k,1}\}\times\nn\\
\times{\J_R\{\beta^{-1}(v+1)+N-1\}\J_P\{\beta^{-1}N\}\over\J_R\{\beta^{-1}(u+v+2)+2(N-1)\}
\J_P\{-\beta^{-1}u\}}
\ee
with
\be
G_{RP}^J(x):=\prod_{i,j\in R}(x+R_i-j+\beta(P_j^\vee-i+1))\prod_{i,j\in P}(x-P_i+j-1-\beta(R_j^\vee-i))
\ee
\subsection{$q,t$-deformed two-logarithm model}
At last, there are similar formulas for the double correlators in the model (\ref{Kadqt}) \cite{MMShS}:
\be
\Big<\M_R\left\{p_k-{q^{vk}-t^kq^{-k}\over 1-t^k}\right\}\cdot\M_P\{p_k\} \Big>=q^{|R|+|P|}t^{\nu_R+\nu_P}
{C_{RP}^M\over C_{\emptyset\emptyset}^M}\cdot{\M_R^*\{t^{N-1}q^{v+1}\}\M_P^*\{t^{N-1}q^{u+1}\}
\over\M_R^*\{t^N\}\M_P^*\{t^{N-2}q^{u+v+2}\}}
\ee
with
\be
C_{RP}^J={\prod_{i<j}^N(R_i-\beta i+R_j-\beta j)_{q,t}(P_i-\beta i+P_j-\beta j)_{q,t}
\over\prod_{i,j}^N(u+v+2\beta N+2+R_i-\beta i+P_j-\beta j-\beta)_{q,t}},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
(x)_{q,t}:={(q^x;q)_\infty\over (q^xt;q)_\infty}
\ee
\section{Conclusion}
To conclude, we reviewed the progress achieved in extending the
superintegrability property in various directions.
Despite unexpectedly slow, this progress is quite impressive:
it is clear that the phenomenon is not accidental, and is reasonably general.
The main advantage of our approach is a conceptual reference
to some additional symmetry manifested by superintegrability,
which, however, remains to be better explained and interpreted.
Also important is relation to multi-diagonal formulas\footnote{
To avoid possible confusion, here this term, say, {\it tri-diagonal},
is used in an absolutely different sense than in sec.\ref{trid}.
} for
Hurwitz $\tau$-functions \cite{AMMN},
which are getting more and more applications in different branches
of mathematical physics.
This direction originates from the Natanzon-Orlov
generalization of (\ref{siComp}) \cite{NO,MMMZh},
it is rather new and deserves explaining more details
than other subjects.
We consider it in a separate paper \cite{MMMZh2}.
We hope that this summary will attract more researchers into
the field, which is relatively simple and does not require
much of special knowledge.
This would lead to new and faster progress,
both conceptual and technical.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Grant No.21-12-00400).
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec-intro}
Magnetars are highly magnetized ($10^{13} - 10^{15}$ G) neutron stars having long spin periods (1.3 $-$ 12 s). They are powered by the decay of their internal magnetic field rather than the rotational kinetic energy \citep{DT92} and some of them show radio emission after a high-energy burst or flare \citep[e.g.][]{Camilo06}. Currently, five magnetars are known to exhibit transient periodic radio emission, and another one produces isolated radio bursts \citep[see McGill magnetar catalog\footnote{\url{http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~pulsar/magnetar/main.html}};][]{ok14}. They typically display time variability in many characteristics like radio flux density, spectra and integrated profile shapes. The radio emission typically has a flat spectrum. This has enabled the study of the radio emission at radio frequencies as high as 353\,GHz for some of the radio-loud magnetars \citep{Torne22}. The very high frequency observations indicate that the radio spectrum has a high frequency turn-up. However, the low frequency end of the radio spectrum has not been explored through regular monitoring observations in the past.
XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace was discovered during an outburst in 2004 \citep{Ibrahim04} and was the first radio-loud magnetar \citep{Camilo06}. Following the onset, the radio pulsations lasted for nearly three years before becoming undetectable around 2008 \citep{Camilo16}. During the radio-loud episode, the magnetar showed time variable flux density, pulse profile and spectral index \citep{Camilo07a,Camilo07b,Lazaridis08}. The radio flux density declined initially. Then it seemed to vary around a steady value before the radio pulsations stopped abruptly \citep{Camilo16}.
The current activity began in late 2018 with an intense episode in radio and X-ray \citep{Lyne18,Gotthelf18}. Radio pulsations were soon detected at a very broad range of radio frequencies and follow-up observations have been continuing since then \citep{Joshi18,Trushkin19,Dai19,Torne20}. Similar to the last outburst, the magnetar has shown variations in profile shape, flux density as well as single-pulse properties \citep{Dai19,Levin19,Maan19b,Caleb21}. In our previous paper \citep{Maan19b}, we primarily reported on the single-pulse properties, along with the low-frequency radio flux density and spectrum of the magnetar close to the outburst. As mentioned earlier, a broad-band radio spectrum is crucial in order to understand the emission mechanism. Given most of the current monitoring campaigns observe the magnetar at frequencies higher than 1 GHz, our campaign has made use of the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope \citep[GMRT;][]{Gupta17} to cover a frequency range of 300$-$1450 MHz.
In this paper, we report on the temporal evolution of the pulsed flux density, spectral index as well as the average profile width from our monitoring campaign. We describe the observations in Section \ref{sec-obs}, results and analysis in Sections \ref{sec-flux} and \ref{sec-turnover}, and discuss the implications in Section \ref{sec-disc}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{allBands_summaryObs_58470-59307.pdf}
\caption{A summary of the observations presented in this paper. The individual
vertical bars indicate the frequency range covered by an observation at a
particular epoch. The red, green and blue colored bars represent bands 3
(300$-$500\,MHz), 4 (550$-$750\,MHz) and 5 (typically 1260$-$1460\,MHz) of GMRT, and
the same color convention has been followed in the rest of the paper.
The band~5 observations at the first two epochs utilized bandwidths of
100 and 400\,MHz, respectively, and 200\,MHz at all the other epochs.}
\label{fig-obs}
\end{figure*}
\section{Observations and data reduction} \label{sec-obs}
After successful detection and follow-up of the magnetar XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace at a
number of epochs in late 2018 and early 2019 \citep{Joshi18,Maan19b}
using the Director's Discretionary Time allocations, we started a
low-frequency monitoring campaign on this source with the GMRT.
The monitoring observations utilized bands~3, 4 and 5 of the GMRT with
typical center frequencies of 400, 650 and 1360\,MHz, respectively, and
200\,MHz bandwidths at each of the bands.
Depending on the spectral and
temporal evolution of the
magnetar's flux density, the observations were conducted in a number of
configurations: simultaneous observations in two or three bands at a few
epochs by combining GMRT antennae in two or three sub-arrays,
near-simultaneous observations in two of the
bands by observing in one band after the other, or just single band
observations. The near-simultaneous observations always included band~4
as one of the two bands. After September 2020, the monitoring observations
were limited to bands~3 and 4.
Figure~\ref{fig-obs} shows the cadence and a summary of all the observations
presented in this paper.
\par
The observation on MJD~58495 was conducted simultaneously in bands~3,
4 and 5, and the bandwidth in each of the band was limited to 100\,MHz in
this configuration. However, only band~5 data could be used from this
observation due to severe contamination by radio frequency interference (RFI)
in the other two bands. As apparent in Figure~\ref{fig-obs}, the band~5
observation on MJD~58519 employed 400\,MHz bandwidth. A bandwidth of 200\,MHz
was utilized in all the subsequent band~5 observations, many of which were
conducted in an observing mode that facilitated simultaneous dual-band observations
and limited the bandwidth to 200\,MHz.
Initially, the observing setup constituted
8192 channels and 0.328 or 0.655\,ms time resolution in band~3, and 4096 channels
and 0.164\,ms sampling time in bands~4 and 5. Since November 2020, we used
an observing mode wherein the data are coherently dedispersed at a dispersion
measure (DM) of 178.85\,\ppcc in real time and then recorded to the disk with
1024 frequency sub-bands, and sampling times of 0.164 and 0.081\,ms in bands~3
and 4, respectively.
\par
The recorded data for all the bands are processed through a series of data
reduction steps. For the observations prior to November 2020, we use
SIGPROC's \texttt{dedisperse} to sub-band the data to 1024 channels wherein
the data within each sub-band is dedispersed using a DM of 178.85\,\ppcc.
As mentioned above, observations after November 2020 were already recorded
with 1024 coherently dedispersed sub-bands. The data from the individual
epochs are then subjected
to size reduction by down-sampling from 16\,bits to 8\,bits per sample using
\texttt{digifil}, and RFI excision using
\texttt{RFIClean}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/ymaan4/RFIClean}}
\citep{MvLV21} and
\texttt{rfifind} from the pulsar search and analysis toolkit \textsl{PRESTO}
\citep{Ransom02}. The resultant data are folded using \texttt{prepfold}
from \textsl{PRESTO} and the timing parameters from \citet{Levin19}, with
1024 bins, 128 sub-bands and typically 64 sub-intervals. This \textsl{PRESTO}
utility outputs partially folded data
along with the several pieces of information, including the period and DM
values which maximize the average profile signal-to-noise ratio (S/N),
in files with extensions \texttt{pfd}, which we refer to as pfd-files here onwards.
\section{Analysis and Results: Flux density, spectral index, profile width and their temporal evolution} \label{sec-flux}
\subsection{Calibration procedure}
In a number of our observing sessions, we had carried out scans on flux
calibrators (3C286 and 3C48) as well as a few degrees away from them. Using
these on-source and off-source calibrator observations, we estimated the system
equivalent flux density (hereafter SEFD, defined as the ratio of the system
temperature and the gain, \tsys/G) per GMRT dish as a function of frequency and
fitted a polynomial to these measurements. For band~4\xspace,
the estimated SEFD compares well with the polynomial
fits for the sensitivity used in the GMRT exposure time calculator
(ETC\footnote{\url{http://www.ncra.tifr.res.in:8081/~secr-ops/etc/etc.html}}).
For band~5\xspace, only a few calibrator scans were available and some of
these were heavily contaminated by RFI. Nevertheless, we could estimate the
SEFD for band~5\xspace using one set of calibrator scans, and it was found to be
slightly offset from the polynomial fit used in ETC.
For band~3\xspace, the SEFD
could be estimated using calibrator scans at several epochs, however, the
SEFD measurements show a large spread around the mean value.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{allBands_fd_58470-59307.pdf}
\caption{Period averaged flux densities as a function of epoch,
measured in the individual bands 3 (300$-$500\,MHz), 4 (550$-$750\,MHz)
and 5 (1260$-$1460\,MHz).}
\label{fig-flux}
\end{figure*}
\par
We read the partially folded data from the pfd-files in python using
the class \texttt{pfd} provided in \textsl{PRESTO}, and re-fold
these using the best period and DM values suggested by \texttt{prepfold}.
Despite the RFI excision using RFIClean as well as \texttt{rfifind}, some faint
RFI becomes visible only in the partially folded data, which primarily
appears in the form of baseline variations. It is important to get rid
of or correct for these baseline variations to correctly estimate the
flux density using the radiometer equation \citep{Handbook04}.
However, the long period
of the magnetar also does not help in averaging out these variations.
To remedy the situation, the off-pulse
regions of the profiles from the sub-intervals and sub-bands are used
to estimate robust statistics and then subjected to a threshold-based
identification of outliers. Additionally, 12.5\% of the sub-bands on
either side of the band, as well as the sub-bands in the frequency
range 355$-$385\,MHz (which is often contaminated by the signals from the MUOS satellites),
are also considered as outliers. For severely RFI contaminated data,
the sub-interval profiles are also inspected by eye to identify the ones
with visibly contaminated baselines. The outlier sub-intervals and
sub-bands thus identified are excluded from any further processing.
These data are then averaged fully over time and to a pre-specified
number of final sub-bands, which is typically 4 for band~4\xspace,
4 or 2 for band~3\xspace and just 1 (i.e., averaged over the full bandwidth) for
band~5\xspace.
The off-pulse regions of the sub-banded profiles were also fitted
by a 3$^{rd}$ order (9$^{th}$ order for profiles with S/N$>$500)
polynomial to get rid of any remaining baseline
variations. These sub-banded and baseline-corrected average profiles
are then flux calibrated
by estimating the mean and standard deviation in the off-pulse
region and using the radiometer equation with the SEFD estimates
described above. The observing time and bandwidth is appropriately
accounted for the sub-intervals and sub-bands/channels that are
identified as outliers by \texttt{rfifind} as well as in the above
post-processing. The frequency-dependent sky temperature towards the
source is estimated using the
\texttt{skytempy}\footnote{\url{https://libraries.io/pypi/skytempy}}
package, which is based on the reprocessing of the \citet{Haslam82}
408\,MHz map by \citet{Remazeilles15}. Assuming receiver temperatures
of 85, 87 and 62\,K at the centers of the bands 3, 4 and 5, respectively,
a constant gain throughout the bands and the sky temperature estimates
from above, the SEFD is re-estimated towards the source before using
in the radiometer equation. Furthermore, we assume that the signals
from different antennae in a sub-array are added fully coherently,
i.e., the gain of a sub-array is linearly proportional to the number
of antennae.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{allBands_alpha_58470-59292.pdf}
\caption{Power-law spectral indices estimated using the period averaged
flux densities measured in band~4, bands 3 \& 4, and bands 4 \& 5.
The light-green colored thick, continuous curve shows a
$3^{rd}$-order polynomial fit to the band~4 estimates, only to demonstrate
the temporal evolution of the spectral indices and guide the eye.}
\label{fig-alpha}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Flux density}
By integrating the area under these flux-calibrated, sub-banded profiles,
we estimate the period-averaged flux densities for each of the sub-bands.
The corresponding uncertainties are estimated by assuming 5\% and 10\%
uncertainties in SEFD and the system temperature, respectively.
The period-averaged flux density over the entire band is then estimated
by averaging the corresponding sub-band estimates. The flux density of the magnetar
measured in the three bands is shown as a function of epoch in
Figure~\ref{fig-flux}.
\par
We note here that there are primarily three factors which could have affected
our flux density measurements. First, as mentioned earlier, we have assumed
that the signals from different antennae in a sub-array are added fully
coherently. In practice, ionospheric or weather conditions might introduce
disturbances in an otherwise coherently phased array. Specifically at low
radio frequencies, a full coherence might also not be always achievable. Any such
deviation from a fully coherent addition would have resulted in an additional
systematic uncertainty.
\par
Second, as XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace is a long period pulsar, any low-level baseline variations
in the off-pulse region might result in slightly over-estimated standard
deviation measurements, and hence, under-estimated flux densities. From
all the scrutiny and care taken in excising RFI and baseline correction
mentioned in the previous sub-section as well as visual inspection of
profiles, we expect this issue to have affected our measurements only at
a few epochs.
\par
Third, the large spread in the SEFD measurement at band~3\xspace implies a
large uncertainty in our band~3\xspace flux density measurements. The band~5\xspace
SEFD was estimated using calibrator scans at only one epoch and it was
found to be offset from that used in ETC by about 20\%. For these reasons,
we have assumed the uncertainties of our band~3\xspace and band~5\xspace flux density
measurements to be 50\%. We note that our band~5\xspace flux density measurements
are largely consistent with those measured using the Jodrell bank telescope
at similar epochs \citep{Caleb21}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{b4-20181218_magn_rficlean_PSR_1809-1943_wdProfs.pdf}
\label{fig-prof1}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{b4-20190217_magn_rficlean_PSR_1809-1943_wdProfs.pdf}
\label{fig-prof2}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{b4-20190820_magn_rficlean_PSR_1809-1943_wdProfs.pdf}
\label{fig-prof3}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{b4-20191209_magn_rficlean_PSR_1809-1943_wdProfs.pdf}
\label{fig-prof4}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{b4-20200917_magn_rficlean_PSR_1809-1943_wdProfs.pdf}
\label{fig-prof5}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{b4-20201201_magn_rficlean_PSR_1809-1943_wdProfs.pdf}
\label{fig-prof6}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{oneBand_w10_58470-59292.pdf}
\label{fig-wd}}
\caption{The panels (a) to (f) show 550$-$750\,MHz (band~4\xspace) average profiles at six different epochs with their peak intensities normalized to 1. The dashed, red-colored lines in these panels mark the 10\% crossings in the average profiles at the leading as well as the trailing edges, which are used to estimate \ensuremath{W_{10}}\xspace. The lower panel (g) displays the \ensuremath{W_{10}}\xspace measured as a percentage of the pulse period for the 550$-$750\,MHz average profiles, as a function of epoch.}
\label{fig-width}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Spectral index}
The large fractional bandwidths in band~3\xspace and band~4\xspace
enable us to estimate the in-band spectral indices. At a given frequency
$\nu$, assuming the flux density, $S_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\alpha}$, we measure
the spectral index $\alpha$ by fitting a straight line in the
$\log S_{\nu} - \log \nu$ plane. The temporal evolution of the in-band
spectral indices measured using band~4\xspace observations is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig-alpha} (light green points). A general decrease in the
spectral index with time is apparent. Due to poor detection significance
at several epochs and contamination by RFI or baseline variations at several
other epochs, the in-band spectral indices could not be measured reliably
using the band-3 data.
\par
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec-obs}, a few of our observations were
simultaneous in multiple bands, and several others were
near-simultaneous either in bands 3 and 4 or in bands 4 and 5. The
near-simultaneous observations in two bands were typically separated
by nearly 2\,hours. We can use these simultaneous as well as the
near-simultaneous observations to estimate the spectral indices over
wider frequency ranges, assuming the timescale of the intrinsic flux density
variations of the magnetar is much longer than 2\,hours. The spectral indices
measured using bands 3 and 4, and 4 and 5, covering frequency ranges of
300$-$750\,MHz and 550$-$1450\,MHz, are shown in Figure~\ref{fig-alpha} by red and
blue colored points, respectively. As with the in-band spectral indices
obtained from band$-$4, these inter-band spectral indices also exhibit
a general decreasing trend with time.
\subsection{Profile width}
The average radio profile of XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace changes rapidly with varying number of
components and total shape changes from one epoch to the other.
An example
of this behavior can be seen from the average profiles obtained from
our band~4\xspace observations at six different epochs that are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig-prof1} to \ref{fig-prof6} \citep[also see Figure 1 in][]{Caleb21}.
To obtain a reasonable estimate of the pulse-width that can be related
to the underlying emission beam, we estimate the positions on the leading
as well as the trailing edge where the intensity crosses the 10\% of the
observed maximum in the profile. In Figure~\ref{fig-prof1} to \ref{fig-prof6},
these crossings are shown using vertical dashed lines in red color.
Using these, we estimate the average profile width at the 10\% level, \ensuremath{W_{10}}\xspace.
The profile width thus estimated for all the band~4\xspace profiles which exhibited
a peak S/N of more than 25 is shown as a function of epoch in Figure~\ref{fig-wd}.
While there are significant epoch-to-epoch variations in the profile width,
it is apparent that \ensuremath{W_{10}}\xspace remains about 25\% of the magnetar's spin period
up to MJD~58800 or so, and then shows a gradual decrease as a function of
time.
\par
We note that the above approach might not take into account very faint leading
or trailing components in the profile. Figure~\ref{fig-prof5} represents one
such example where the peak of a faint pre-cursor component reaches only a few
percent of the maximum in the profile. From manual inspection of the average
profiles, we could identify only four other epochs where the average profile
exhibits very faint (even fainter than the example in Figure~\ref{fig-prof5})
pre-cursor or post-cursor components which are not accounted in \ensuremath{W_{10}}\xspace estimates.
We believe that such occasional unaccounted components do not alter the long-term
behavior of the profile width apparent in Figure~\ref{fig-width}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.345\textwidth]{combined_58467-58467_fSpec.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{combined_58470-58470_fSpec.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{combined_58528-58531_fSpec.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.345\textwidth]{combined_58607-58622_fSpec.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{combined_58638-58653_fSpec.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{combined_58715-58732_fSpec.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.345\textwidth]{combined_58866-58866_fSpec.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{combined_59015-59030_fSpec.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{combined_59062-59078_fSpec.pdf}}
\caption{Broadband spectra constructed using multi-band, multi-epoch and
multi-telescope measurement are shown at nine different epochs
(GMRT measurements are from this work, and the Parkes, Hitachi and Jodrell Bank measurements
are from \citet{Dai19}, \citet{Eie21} and \citet{Caleb21}, respectively). Several of
these spectra show clear evidence for a turnover. Also shown are the fits
to these spectra, assuming a log-parabola shape of the spectrum.}
\label{fig-spectra}
\end{figure*}
\section{A temporally evolving, turnover in the spectrum?} \label{sec-turnover}
From the spectral indices shown in Figure~\ref{fig-alpha}, it is evident that
the magnetar's radio spectrum has gradually evolved from inverted spectrum
closer to
the onset of the outburst to as steep as the normal pulsar population at
later epochs. However, Figure~\ref{fig-alpha} also indicates that the
overall spectrum in the lower frequency range (300$-$750~MHz) is flatter
compared to the 550$-$750~MHz range, while that in the higher frequency
range (550$-$1450~MHz) is steeper. This trend of spectral indices measured
from the lower and higher frequency ranges encompassing those measured from
only band~4 continues till about MJD~59000$-$59050, beyond which the spectral
indices measured from all the three frequency ranges seem to follow closely.
\par
The above behavior could potentially be explained by a turnover in the
spectrum with a peak-frequency that evolves downward with time. To test
this hypothesis, we tried to construct broadband spectra at different epochs
using our own observations as well as those available from the literature,
and fit a spectral shape with a turnover. From our own observations, we
consider combining our near-simultaneous observations in bands 3 and 4,
and those in bands 4 and 5, to construct a broadband spectrum covering the
frequency range 300$-$1450~MHz. These two sets of observations were
separated by typically 15~days. As the magnetar exhibits rapid
flux density variations, combining observations from different epochs
might provide an incorrect representation of the overall spectrum.
As band~4\xspace was common in both the sets of observations, we use the
measured band-4 flux density to gauge if the flux density has evolved or not,
and combine only those sets where the band-4 flux density is relatively
unchanged. This approach resulted in broadband spectra at seven epochs.
\par
From the literature, we looked for the flux density measurements available
during or at nearby epochs for which we could construct the above described
broadband spectra or independent wide-band measurements. We have used published
results from Parkes wide-band
observations at two epochs \citep[December 15 and 18, 2018;][]{Dai19},
7.6\,GHz measurement from the Hitachi radio telescope at one epoch \citep{Eie21},
and Jodrell Bank L-band observations at 6 epochs \citep{Caleb21}. Wherever
the uncertainties were less than 5\% or not available at all, we
assumed a uniform 5\% uncertainty on the published flux densities.
The Parkes wide-band measurements resulted in
two additional broadband spectra. The nine broadband spectra that
are constructed this way, including the published measurements, are shown
in Figure~\ref{fig-spectra}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{peakFreq_58467-59078.pdf}
\caption{The red-colored points show the measured turnover frequency
as a function of epoch. Temporal evolution of the turnover frequency
is clearly evident. The orange colored points indicate rough lower
or upper limits where the turnover frequency could not be constrained.}
\label{fig-tfreq}
\end{figure}
\par
We fit the broadband spectra with a spectral shape of the form of
a log-parabola as following.
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\log_{10}} S_\nu = \beta \times (\mathop{\log_{10}}\nu - \mathop{\log_{10}}\ensuremath{\nu_p}\xspace)^2 + \ensuremath{C_0}\xspace,
\end{equation}
where \ensuremath{\nu_p}\xspace is the peak frequency corresponding to the turnover, and
$\beta$ and \ensuremath{C_0}\xspace are constants. The fitted spectra are also shown
in Figure~\ref{fig-spectra}, overlaid on the data points. The peak
frequencies could not be constrained for the broadband spectrum corresponding
to MJD~58467 (the first subplot in Figure~\ref{fig-spectra}), where it seems
to be inverted in the frequency range that the data points span. Subsequently,
the next four spectra are reasonably well fit by the above log-parabola
model, and the fitted peak-frequency seems to evolve rapidly with time.
The next three spectra are also reasonably well fitted with the above model,
however, given the spread in our band-3 and band-4 measurements, these
spectra might also be consistent with a flattening at low frequencies rather
than a turnover in the spectrum. In any case, the fitted peak-frequencies
for these three spectra are roughly consistent with each other. For the
last broadband spectrum covering the MJD span 59061.78$-$59077.85 (the last
subplot in Figure~\ref{fig-spectra}), the peak-frequency could not be
constrained and the spectrum appears to be steep throughout the frequency
range covered by the data points.
\par
From the log-parabola fits of the broadband spectra, it is evident that
in about 250\,days following the onset of the outburst, the fitted peak-frequency
evolves quite rapidly. Thereafter, either the peak-frequency appears to settle
down around 500$-$600\,MHz or the spectrum becomes flatter at these low frequencies.
This trend is evident in Figure~\ref{fig-tfreq}. The last broadband spectrum
in Figure~\ref{fig-spectra}, our spectral indices measured using bands 3 and 4
in Figure~\ref{fig-alpha} as well as the flux density measurements shown in
Figure~\ref{fig-flux} suggest that the magnetar exhibits a steep spectrum at
later epochs.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec-disc}
Following the first high-energy outburst, the magnetar XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace was detected
as a pulsed radio emitter \citep{Camilo06}, and
subsequently observed successfully at radio frequencies as high as
144\,GHz, infrared as well as X-rays \citep[e.g.,][]{Camilo07c}. Except
for a few observations, the regular monitoring of the magnetar as well as
the measurements of its radio spectrum involved frequencies around and
higher than 1.4\,GHz.
\citet{Camilo07c} monitored the spectrum of the magnetar between
May 2006 and November 2006, at frequencies mostly spanning the range 1.4$-$9\,GHz.
During this time span, the spectrum changed from nearly flat ($\alpha=0$) to
steep ($\alpha=-1$). \citet{Lazaridis08} reported measurements of spectral
indices using simultaneous multi-frequency (1.4$-$14.60\,GHz) observations
between May and July 2006. They showed that overall their measurements were
consistent with those from \citet{Camilo07c}. \citet{Lazaridis08} also
reported spectral index measurements obtained using quasi-simultaneous
multi-frequency (2.64$-$32\,GHz) observations between December 2006 and
July 2007. During this time, they reported the spectral indices which
appear to gradually increase from around $-0.5$ to $+1.0$.
They concluded that overall the spectrum is generally flat,
and there is a slight trend of the spectral index becoming positive with
time. We note that their observations covered different parts of
the above mentioned frequency range at different epochs. \citet{Camilo16}
reported flux densities from their monitoring observations at 1.4\,GHz
and 2\,GHz starting from May 2006 to late 2008 when the radio emission
from the magnetar became undetectable. Although their observations were
not simultaneous, using the 1.4 and 2\,GHz flux density measurements
covering similar time-spans, they asserted that the magnetar's spectrum
was steep between early 2007 and late 2008. Note that \citet{Lazaridis08}
reported the spectrum to become flatter or even inverted till about
mid-2007, however, their measurements covered a different frequency
range.
\par
The above studies provided evidences of significant changes in the
magnetar's radio spectrum during its radio-active phase following the
first outburst. However, due to observations covering different frequency
ranges, and often at different times, it was not possible to study any
underlying gradual evolution of the spectrum with time. Similarly, in
this second, ongoing radio-active phase of this magnetar, \citet{Eie21}
have reported their sparse measurements between December 2018 and
June 2019 at frequencies of 2.3, 6.9, 8.4 and 22\,GHz. Using these
measurements and those available from the literature, they have
indicated that the magnetar's radio spectrum has evolved to become
steep at Gigahertz frequencies.
\par
Following the second outburst,
we have presented our regular monitoring observations
of XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace in the frequency range 300$-$1450\,MHz, along with the
spectral indices measured therefrom. Using these measurements,
it is evident (see Figure~\ref{fig-alpha}) that the magnetar's spectrum
in this frequency range has gradually evolved, from inverted ($\alpha\sim+2$)
closer to the onset of the outburst in December 2018 to steep around
mid-2019, and quite steep ($\alpha\sim-2$) by early 2021. During this time
span, the flux density also shows intriguing trends. After a steep decline
following the outburst, the radio flux density shows at least two episodes
of re-brightening, one around MJD~58800$-$58850 and another around
MJD~59050$-$59150 (Figure~\ref{fig-flux}). There is no hint of enhancement
in the X-ray flux during these radio re-brightening episodes
\citep[see Figure 17 in][]{Caleb21}. Absence of any prominent high-energy
outbursts suggests that although the radio emission appears
following a X-ray outburst, the underlying radio emission processes remain
highly dynamic long after the outburst.
\par
As apparent from Figure~\ref{fig-alpha}, the temporal evolution of spectral
indices measured from different parts of the radio spectrum is slightly
different --- the higher frequency part of the spectrum seems to become
steep earlier than the lower frequency part. A corroborative evidence of
this can also be seen in Figure~\ref{fig-flux} --- peak of a short-lived
enhancement of flux density during roughly MJD~58500$-$58840 shows up
first at band~4\xspace (550$-$750\,MHz), and then about 20\,days later at band~3\xspace.
This effect can be explained
if the radio spectrum exhibits a spectral turnover with a peak frequency
that shifts to lower frequencies with time, an inference that was also
discussed by \citet{Eie21}. Using a number of broadband spectra, we have
shown that the magnetar exhibits a fast-evolving turnover in its
radio spectrum. The peak frequency shifted by nearly a factor of 5 (from
$\sim$2.4\,GHz to $\sim$500\,MHz) in less than 250\,days.
\subsection{Is a varying spectral turnover an ubiquitous property of magnetars?}
A number of radio pulsars exhibit a spectral turnover typically around one
or a few GHz \citep{Kijak11a}. Such spectra have
been named as gigahertz-peaked spectra (GPS). Out of the five magnetars that
are known to exhibit radio emission,
the average spectra of
three magnetars, PSR~J1550$-$5418, PSR~J1622$-$4950 and SGR~J1745$-$2900
\citep{Kijak13,Lewandowski15b},
have also shown the characteristic features of GPS. As we have shown,
the magnetar XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace also exhibited a turnover at gigahertz frequencies
close to the onset of its second outburst. Thus, it joins the group
of these GPS pulsars/magnetars. There have been limited broadband radio
monitoring observations of magnetars following their outbursts which
could probe a spectral turnover evolving as systematically as revealed
by our observations. Nevertheless, using archival data at two different
epochs, \citet{Lewandowski15b} have claimed to observe a turnover frequency
that shifts downwards with time
in the spectrum of the Galactic center magnetar SGR~J1745$-$2900. Broadband
radio monitoring of other magnetars following their future outbursts could
reveal if a varying spectral turnover is an ubiquitous property of magnetars.
\subsection{Possible physical reasons for the varying spectral turnover}
The spectral index evolution presented in Figure~\ref{fig-alpha} exhibits
two kinds of variations. First, epoch-to-epoch variations appear to be
stochastic in nature, and might be intrinsic to the emission mechanism.
The other, long-term observed variations in the spectral index
are more gradual. We note that these long-term variations in the spectral
index as well as
peak-frequency are unlikely to be caused by interstellar scintillation.
The diffractive scintillation bandwidth at 650\,MHz is estimated to be
less than or about 1\,kHz, i.e., much smaller than the bandwidths involving
our measurements, in the direction of this source \citep{Maan19b}. The
transition frequency between the strong and weak scattering in the interstellar
medium is estimated to be 50\,GHz, i.e., much higher than the frequencies
involved in this work. We discuss below two physical explanations of the
temporally evolving turnover in the spectrum, and their plausibility.
\subsubsection{Thermal absorption; a potential magnetar wind nebulae?}
The leading explanation for the GPS feature in pulsar/magnetar spectra
is that it originates due to thermal free-free absorption of an otherwise
steep spectral emission by dense, ionized gas regions, either in the
surrounding environment or along the line of sight. The explanation is
motivated by the fact that majority of the GPS sources are located within
ionized environments such as pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe), supernovae remnants (SNRs)
or HII regions that have high electron densities and emission measures.
\par
Magnetars PSR~J1550$-$5418 and PSR~J1622$-$4950 are potentially associated with
SNRs \citep{GG07,Anderson12},
making the thermal absorption as a plausible explanation for their GPS features.
However, for magnetar SGR~J1745$-$2900, there is no known associated SNR
or PWN. For this source, \citet{Lewandowski15b} proposed that the absorption
is caused by the electron material ejected during the outburst, and the ejecta's
expansion with time could explain the observed change in the peak-frequency.
\par
In case of magnetar XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace, we have measured the spectral turnover
at several epochs and the evolution of the turnover frequency with
time is clearly evident. Let us assume a model similar to that proposed
by \citet{Lewandowski15b}, wherein XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace ejected electron material during
its second outburst and the turnover is caused by the thermal absorption
in this material. Assuming local thermal equilibrium conditions, with
quasi-neutral plasma and the electrons that obey the thermal distribution,
the spectral turnover frequency, i.e., the frequency corresponding to an
optical depth of unity, is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\ensuremath{\nu_p}\xspace}{GHz} = 0.1736\times\frac{T_e}{K}^{-3/4}\sqrt{\frac{EM}{pc\,cm^{-6}} <g_{ff}>},
\end{equation}
where $T_e$ is the electron temperature, $EM$ is the emission measure,
and $g_{ff}$ is a correction factor
\citep[the Gaunt factor, see ][for details]{RW04}. Assuming the correction
factor to be unity, and a uniform density profile, i.e., $EM=N_e^2 \ensuremath{\delta d}\xspace$,
where $N_e$ is the electron density and \ensuremath{\delta d}\xspace is the thickness of the
absorber, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\ensuremath{\nu_p}\xspace}{GHz} = 0.1736\times\frac{T_e}{K}^{-3/4}\times\frac{N_e}{cm^{-3}}\sqrt{\frac{\ensuremath{\delta d}\xspace}{pc}},
\end{equation}
Note that a decrease in the turnover frequency, as has been observed,
implies either one or a combination of the following: (a) an increase in
the electron temperature of the absorbing medium, (b) a decrease in $N_e$,
(c) a decrease in \ensuremath{\delta d}\xspace. It is hard to imagine a way to increase
the absorber's temperature with time, especially as XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace is not known
to be associated with a SNR or PWN. Moreover, the temporal evolution of the
turnover frequency also seem to be linked with that of the outburst. Similar
to the model proposed for J1745$-$2900, we can consider the electron material
ejected during the XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace's outburst and its expansion in a spherical shell to
be the cause of the observed shift in the turnover frequency. We do not try
to constrain the parameters using this model as more observational information
on $T_e$, $N_e$ and \ensuremath{\delta d}\xspace is needed. Nevertheless, we note that the observed
turnover frequencies are possible using the parameter values similar to those
considered for J1745$-$2900 by \citet{Lewandowski15b}.
\par
We further note that the absorption considered in the above discussed model
of the ejecta expanding in a spherical shell is thermal absorption by
non-relativistic electrons. However, the electrons in the ejecta from a
magnetar's magnetosphere are expected to be relativistic, which would
significantly decrease the absorption efficiency. Hence, the
relativistic effects need to be incorporated in optical thickness
and absorption efficiency to accurately gauge the likelihood of the
the above model explaining the observed varying turnover in the
magnetar's spectrum.
\subsubsection{Band-limited emission by varying characteristic energy particles?}
The theoretical advances to explain the radio emission characteristics
specifically from magnetars have remained limited. There are models that
propose radio emission from closed field lines \citep[e.g.,][]{Beloborodov09},
or, much like radio pulsars, from the open field lines \citep[][]{SMG15}.
However, in these models, there are no specific theoretical predictions for
the radio spectrum in general, and an evolving spectral turnover in particular.
\par
There are some key similarities between normal radio pulsars and magnetars,
such as the polarization position angle sweeps that can be modelled by the
rotating vector model \citep{RC69} and highly linearly polarized single
pulses with position angles locally following the mean position angle
traverse \citep[e.g.,][]{Levin12}, which indicate that the underlying
radio emission mechanisms
are similar. The leading radio emission mechanism in pulsars is the
coherent curvature radiation by particle or soliton bunches
\citep[see, e.g.,][]{RS75,MGP00,MGM09}. Following \citet{RS75}, the
characteristic frequency of single-particle curvature radiation is
given by
\begin{equation}
f_c = \frac{3c}{2\pi\rho} \gamma^3,
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of light, $\rho$ is the radius of curvature at
the emission-site and $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the particle.
The exact shape of the \emph{observed} spectrum is decided by several
factors, such as the energy distribution of the particles producing the
observed coherent radiation via bunches, the viewing geometry and
the range of emission heights, among others.
\par
Here we propose a hypothesis that observed radio emission from the magnetar
XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace is caused by underlying particles with a narrow energy distribution,
and the observed peak in the radio spectrum of the magnetar XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace
corresponds to the characteristic frequency $f_c$. In this highly simplified
picture, the observed downward shift in the peak-frequency can be interpreted
as a corresponding decrease in the energy of the particle population that gives
rise to the observed radiation. As $f_c\propto\gamma^3$, the observed shift of
the peak-frequency by a factor of 5$-$6 needs the population energy to decrease
by a factor less than 2.
\subsection{Profile width evolution}
As apparent from Figure~\ref{fig-width}, the magnetar's average profile width
shows interesting evolution. Apart of significant short term variations, a trend
in the long term is visible. After the outburst, the profile width seems to remain
around 20$-$25\% of the magnetar's spin period, albeit with large fluctuations,
during the first 350\,days or so, until around MJD~58820. Afterwards, the profile
width decreases gradually, becoming around 10\% of the period in March 2021.
\par
There are expected profile width variations in some magnetar emission models.
\citet{Beloborodov09} proposed a model wherein, following an outburst, the magnetosphere gradually untwists and gives rise to non-thermal radiations preferentially generated on a bundle of extended closed magnetic field lines near the dipole axis. In this model, the radio luminosity as well as the pulse-width is expected to decrease as the bundle shrinks in such a way that most of the radio emission is absorbed within the magnetospheric plasma.
While the observed decrease in the pulse-width, particularly at later epochs, seems to be consistent with this picture, we do not see a monotonic decrease in the radio luminosity.
\citet{SMG15} suggest the radio emission from magnetars to originate, much like from normal radio pulsars, from the open field line regions, and explain the emission with the partially screened gap model. However, for the radio emission to be visible, they rely on alteration of the open field line region at the time of outburst to widen the radio beam which causes the radio detection of magnetars in their model. At the time of the outburst, the curvature of open field lines changes significantly, resulting in a much larger opening angle of radio emission. While returning to the quiescent state, the radius of curvature increases back to its original value causing a gradual narrowing of the radio beam, and hence, narrowing of the observed profile width and eventual disappearance of the magnetar. As the predicted behavior is similar in both the models, the observed trend in the profile width does not discriminate between these models.
\par
Overall, the intriguing spectro-temporal evolution uncovered by our
low-frequency monitoring
of the magnetar XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace will hopefully motivate more detailed or even new
theoretical modelling of magnetar radio emission. An evolving spectral turnover
might be an ubiquitous property of radio magnetars, and our findings strongly
advocate systematic radio monitoring of magnetars following their outbursts,
preferably using instruments which offer ultra-wide frequency coverages
\citep[e.g.,][]{Maan13,Hobbs20}.
\section{Conclusions}
We have presented results from a multi-frequency monitoring campaign of the
magnetar XTE~J1810$-$197\xspace (PSR~J1809$-$1943\xspace) with the GMRT covering a frequency range of
300$-$1450 MHz. Based on the flux density measurements at multiple frequencies,
we see that the flux density of the magnetar has significantly varied over
time at all the frequencies, with multiple episodes of enhanced radio activity.
The width of the 550$-$750\,MHz average profile shows curious behavior: it remains
roughly same for the first 350\,days or so, and gradually decreases afterwards.
A simple power-law modeling suggests that the magnetar's radio spectrum has
evolved from a flatter or even inverted (magnetar-like) to a steeper (pulsar-like)
spectrum with time. A more detailed analysis using broadband spectra reveals
an evolving turnover in the spectrum, with the turnover frequency decreasing
as a function of time. We propose that the thermal absorption by a piece of the
intervening medium, such as the expanding ejecta from the outburst, or
a change in the intrinsic emission, such as a hypothetically decreasing
energy of the leptons generating the curvature radiation in the magnetosphere,
remain plausible physical explanations for the observed spectral behavior.
\acknowledgments
YM thanks Dipanjan Mitra for scientific discussions related to the
work presented in this paper.
We thank the staff of the GMRT who have made these observations possible. The
GMRT is run by the National Centre for Radio Astrophysics of the Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research.
\software{RFIClean \citep{MvLV21}, PRESTO \citep{RansomThesis}, SIGPROC, DSPSR \citep{vSB11}}
\facility{GMRT(GWB)}
|
\section{Introduction}
The goal of uncertainty quantification (UQ) is to predict how uncertain or random parameters influence a quantity of interest (QoI). Here, we consider UQ for physical systems that are modeled using partial differential equations (PDEs), where the QoI could, for example, be the steady-state solution at a specific point in space. Uncertainty in this system can result from either natural variability or from a lack of knowledge on the precise input parameter values. We are interested in scenarios where the physical system is complex and the number of uncertain parameters is large. Due to the curse of dimensionality, the number of samples needed at a specific resolution grows rapidly with the dimension (i.e., with the number of uncertain parameters). The complexity of the system, and hence the PDE, makes it computationally infeasible to perform the required number of simulations at this large number of input vector realizations. In this paper, we develop a novel method for performing UQ for this class of systems.
For approximating stochastic PDE solutions, a common UQ approach is a spectral method based on polynomial chaos (PC) expansions \cite{Wiener1938,Ghanem1991,Xiu2002,Xiu2003a}. Suppose that $\bm{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ represents a vector of $d$ random parameters with probability density function $\rho(\bm{Y})$ and assume that the scalar-valued QoI, given as $u(\bm{Y})$, has finite variance. The PC expansion of the QoI is written as the sum of coefficients $\{c_j\}$ multiplied by orthogonal polynomials $\{\psi_j\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:intro-sum}
u(\bm{Y}) = \sum_{j=1}^\infty c_j \psi_j(\bm{Y}) \approx \sum_{j=1}^P c_j \psi_j(\bm{Y}).
\end{equation}
Since $u(\bm{Y})$ has finite variance, the infinite sum given by (\ref{eq:intro-sum}) converges, and a finite truncation of the series, say of the first $P$ terms with a suitable ordering of $\{\psi_j\}$, provides an approximate solution. Note that the probability density function $\rho(\bm{Y})$ defines how to sample the uncertain parameters as well as the specific form of the orthogonal polynomials. For example, the uniform density distribution implies uniform sampling and the use of Legendre polynomials \cite{Xiu2002}.
Our goal is to estimate the coefficients $\{c_j\}$ using the available QoI evaluations. Then, using (\ref{eq:intro-sum}), we can estimate the QoI at arbitrary values of the random input vector. Specifically, given $N$ realizations of $\bm{Y}$, i.e., $\bm{y}^{(i)} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ for $i=1,\dots, N$, and the corresponding, possibly noisy, QoI evaluation vector, $\bm{u} = [u(\bm{y}^{(1)}),u(\bm{y}^{(2)}),\dots,u(\bm{y}^{(N)})]^T$, we find the coefficient vector $\bm{\hat{c}}=[\hat{c}_1,\hat{c}_2,\dots,\hat{c}_P]^T$ that minimizes the distance between the approximate solution, $\hat{\bm{u}} = \Psi \bm{\hat{c}}$, and the observed solution $\bm{u}$. Here, $\Psi \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ is the measurement matrix that contains the orthogonal polynomial evaluations at the realizations of the random input, i.e., $\Psi_{i,j} = \psi_j(\bm{y}^{(i)})$.
For high dimensional PDEs with limited measurements, the linear system $\bm{u} = \Psi \bm{\hat{c}}$ may be underdetermined, i.e. $N<P$, and, therefore, additional assumptions are needed to approximate the coefficient vector. For specific classes of PDEs, the magnitude of the coefficients show exponential decay as the degree of the contributing polynomial increases \cite{Cohen2010,Beck2012,Tran2017}. This implies that the coefficient vector is compressible \cite{Candes2006}, and hence, can be approximated using a sparsity assumption \cite{Doostan2011,Rauhut2012,Chkifa2017} and compressed sensing \cite{Cohen2008}. However, this assumption does not take advantage of the known structure behind the exponential decay. Not only do higher order polynomials likely contribute less, but the rate of exponential decay can vary based on the specific direction considered in the random input space (e.g., see Proposition 3.1 from \cite{Beck2012}). Methods exist for enforcing a structured sparsity by limiting the possible support sets of the signal \cite{Baraniuk2010}, using alternative basis selection methods \cite{Chkifa2017}, or via a weighted $\ell_1$ minimization \cite{Peng2014,Chkifa2017}. However, these methods do not directly enforce structured exponential decay of the coefficients when it exists, and, instead, continue to rely on the assumption of sparsity in the coefficient vector.
We propose estimating the PC coefficients using a generative model that takes into account the decaying structure of the coefficient vector. For our purposes, we refer to a generative model as a model or function that maps from a lower to a higher dimensional space, i.e. $G:\mathbb{R}^k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ where $k<P$. Often, the term ``generative model" refers to a statistical model that is trained to create an output (e.g., image of a face) given a random input drawn from a probability distribution. For instance, in machine learning two well known types of generative models that use neural networks include variational auto-encoders (VAEs) \cite{Kingma2014} and generative adversarial networks (GANs) \cite{Goodfellow2020}. In contrast to these trainable generative models, here we define and evaluate a generative model that does not require initial training but is rather based on the predicted structure of the coefficient vector. Notably, the true coefficient vector may not precisely follow the structure defined by the generative model. However, given the limited number of solution evaluations, our approach provides a feasible method for regularizing the regression problem. Additionally, to account for scenarios where the generative model does not adequately capture the coefficient structure, we allow for sparse deviations from the range of the generative model.
The idea of using a generative model to approximate the signal vector in compressed sensing was recently introduced \cite{Bora2017}. To the authors' knowledge, this idea has only been applied to systems with a random Gaussian measurement matrix, $A\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$. In this context, the goal is to find the signal $\bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^P$ such that $A\bm{x} = \bm{b}$ where the observation vector $\bm{b}\in\mathbb{R}^N$ is known and the signal $\bm{x}$ is in the range of a generative model $G:\mathbb{R}^k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ (i.e., $\exists \bm{z} \in \mathbb{R}^k$ such that $G(\bm{z})=\bm{x}$). In a later work, the assumption that $\bm{x}$ is in the range of $G$ is relaxed by allowing for sparse deviations \cite{Dhar2018}. For the class of systems considered by \cite{Bora2017,Dhar2018}, recovery is guaranteed with high probability given the sample size exceeds a threshold value. The proof of this result relies on showing that the random Gaussian matrix $A$ satisfies the Set-Restricted Eigenvalue Condition (S-REC), which is a generalization of the Restricted Eigenvalue Condition (REC) \cite{Bickel2009}.
Note that in \cite{Bora2017,Dhar2018}, the generative models explored numerically were GANs and VAEs.
\subsection{Our contribution}
We extend the concept of compressed sensing with generative models to systems where the measurement matrix contains orthogonal polynomial evaluations, allowing for the recovery of structured signals. This allows for the generative modeling approach to be applied to perform UQ. We specifically focus on the Legendre measurement matrix and provide recovery results for a general $L$-Lipschitz function $G$. Along the way we derive Johnson-Lindenstrauss like distributional bounds for the Legendre measurement matrix. We note that our theoretical recovery results are strongly based on the previous work done by \cite{Bora2017,Dhar2018}. Specifically, we show that the Legendre measurement matrix satisfies the S-REC.
We derive an explicit generative model that is based on known bounds for the PC coefficients. The basic model predicts that, as the degree of the contributing polynomial increases, the magnitude of the corresponding coefficient decays exponentially. We use a separate method, based on Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP) \cite{Pati1993}, to predict the coefficient signs, as these are not given by the generative model. Note that other methods, such as those based on $\ell_1$ minimization, could also be used to help determine the coefficient signs. Although we are biasing the system towards having a specific decay structure, our approach allows for deviations from this structure in multiple ways. First, the generative model includes features other then exponential decay, and, second, we allow for sparse deviations from the range of the sign-adjusted generative model, i.e., the generative model output multiplied by the predicted coefficient signs. Including sparse deviations also allows for coefficients with incorrect signs to flip.
The goal behind the generative model approach is to increase approximation accuracy at low sample sizes. Because the dimension of the latent space (i.e., the space that the generative model acts on) does not increase with the sample size, we expect that at some threshold sample size our approach will no longer outperform sparsity promoting methods such as those based on $\ell_1$ minimization or OMP \cite{Doostan2011,Yang2013,Peng2014}. Our numerical results show that, given the sample size is small enough, the generative model approach does outperform these other methods.
The structure of this paper is outlined as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:methods} we present an overview of the types of PDE systems under consideration (Section~\ref{sec:methods-pde}) and how the solution to these PDEs can be approximated using PC expansions (Section~\ref{sec:methods-pce}). We provide an explicit equation for a generative model that is based on the decay of the PC coefficients (Section~\ref{sec:methods-genmod}) and describe the optimization algorithm that is used to find the PC coefficient vector (Section~\ref{sec:methods-alg}). In Section~\ref{sec:previous-theory}, we provide an overview of previous theoretical results that will be directly referred to in our proofs. In Section~\ref{sec:theory-results}, we present the main theoretical results of the paper, and, in Section~\ref{sec:proofs}, we provide the proofs. Note that in some instances proofs are moved to \ref{sec:appB}. In Section~\ref{sec:numerical-results}, we present the numerical results for three example problems. We demonstrate that the generative model outperforms iteratively-reweighted Lasso \cite{Tibshirani1996,Candes2008} and OMP for each of these problems at small sample sizes. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:discussion}, we conclude with a discussion of possible future improvements.
\section{Methods}\label{sec:methods}
\subsection{PDE}\label{sec:methods-pde}
Let $\bm{Y}=(Y_1,Y_2,\dots,Y_d)$ represent a $d$-dimensional random vector defined on the complete probability space $(\Gamma, \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{P})$ where $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \times\dots\times\Gamma_d$. We assume that the random variables $Y_i$ are independent and uniformly distributed on $\Gamma_i = [-1,1]$ for $i=1,\dots,d$. We consider scenarios where the random vector $\bm{Y}$ represents uncertain parameters (e.g., boundary conditions, the diffusion coefficient, physical constants) that influence the solution $u(\bm{x},\bm{Y})$ of a PDE. We will use $\bm{\alpha} \in (\mathbb{N} \cup \{0\})^d$ to represent a multi-index vector that corresponds to the $d$-dimensional random input space. Let $\bm{r} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and define $\bm{r}^{\bm{\alpha}}=\sum_{i=1}^N r_i^{\alpha_i}$, $|\bm{\alpha}|=\sum_{i=1}^d \alpha_i$, and $\bm{\alpha}! = \sum_{i=1}^d \alpha_i!$.
For a class of elliptic PDEs, there exist known, exponentially decreasing, bounds on the PC coefficients used to describe the solution of the PDE \cite{Beck2012}. Specifically, consider the following stochastic system defined on a convex bounded polygonal domain $\mathcal{D} \in \mathbb{R}^D$ with boundary $\partial \mathcal{D}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PDE-intro}
\begin{aligned}
-\nabla \cdot (a(\bm{x},\bm{Y})\nabla u(\bm{x},\bm{Y})) &= f(\bm{x}), & \bm{x} &\in \mathcal{D} \\
u(\bm{x},\bm{Y}) &= 0, & \bm{x} &\in \partial \mathcal{D},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we make the following assumptions about the diffusion coefficient $a(\bm{x},\bm{Y})$:
\begin{assumption}[see Assumption 2.1 from \mbox{\cite{Beck2012}}]
There exists $a_{min}>0$ and $a_{max}<\infty$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(a_{min} \le a(\bm{x},\bm{Y})\le a_{max}, \forall\bm{x}\in \bar{\mathcal{D}})=1,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{P}(\cdot)$ represents the probability of an event.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}[see Assumption 2.3 from \mbox{\cite{Beck2012}}]\label{assump:2}
The diffusion coefficient $a(\bm{x},\bm{Y})$ is infinitely many times differentiable with respect to $\bm{Y}$ and $\exists \bm{r} \in \mathbb{R}_+^d$ s.t. for all $\bm{Y} \in \Gamma$
\begin{equation}
\left\|\frac{\partial_{\bm{\alpha}} a}{a}(\cdot,\bm{Y})\right\|_{L^\infty(D)} \le \bm{r}^{\bm{\alpha}} \quad \text{ with } \quad \partial_{\bm{\alpha}} a = \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1 + \dots + \alpha_d} a}{\partial y_1^{\alpha_1}\dots\partial y_d^{\alpha_d}},
\end{equation}
where $\bm{\alpha} \in (\mathbb{N} \cup \{0\})^d$ is a multi-index and $\bm{r}$ is independent of $\bm{y}$.
\end{assumption}
\noindent
In Section~{\ref{sec:methods-genmod}}, we present results showing that given $\bm{r}$ satisfies additional conditions, there exist known bounds on the PC coefficients. Note that, for systems where the diffusion coefficient is given by an expansion of the form $a(\bm{x},\bm{Y}) = a_0 + \sum b_i(\bm{x}) Y_i$, Assumption {\ref{assump:2}} is satisfied with $\bm{r} = [r_1,r_2,\dots,r_d]$, where $r_i = \|b_i\|_{L^\infty(D)}/a_{min}$ \mbox{\cite{Beck2012}}.
For the example applications, we consider a 1D version of (\ref{eq:PDE-intro}) in Section~\ref{sec:Ex1}, whereas in Section~\ref{sec:Ex23} we consider a more complex PDE of a heat driven cavity flow problem.
\subsection{Polynomial chaos expansion}\label{sec:methods-pce}
To approximate the solution of a PDE with uniformly distributed inputs, we use the Legendre PC basis functions. Let $\{\psi_j\}$ represent the set of univariate orthonormal Legendre polynomials of degree $j$, which are normalized such that,
\begin{equation}
\int_{[-1,1]} \psi_j^2(y)\rho(y)dy=1,
\end{equation}
where the probability measure is $\rho = 1/2$.
Define the set $\Lambda_{p,d} := \{\bm{\alpha} \in (\mathbb{N} \cup \{0\})^d \mid |\bm{\alpha}|\le p \}$ to contain the multi-indices that correspond to the $d$-dimensional Legendre polynomials with degree of at most $p$. Note that the cardinality of $\Lambda_{d,p}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:P}
P := |\Lambda_{d,p}| = \frac{(p+d)!}{p!d!}.
\end{equation}
Using the multi-indices given in $\Lambda_{p,d}$, the solution to a PDE is approximated as
\begin{equation}
u(\bm{x},\bm{Y}) = \sum_{\alpha \in (\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\})^d} c_{\bm{\alpha}}(\bm{x}) \psi_{\bm{\alpha}}(\bm{Y}) \approx \sum_{\bm{\alpha} \in \Lambda_{p,d}} c_{\bm{\alpha}}(\bm{x}) \psi_{\bm{\alpha}}(\bm{Y}).
\end{equation}
Here, each $d$-dimensional Legendre polynomial $\psi_{\bm{\alpha}}(\bm{Y})$ is equal to the product of univariate Legendre polynomials with degrees that are defined by the multi-index $\bm{\alpha}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\bm{\alpha}}(\bm{Y}) = \prod_{i=1}^d \psi_{\alpha_i} (Y_i).
\end{equation}
We will order the multi-indices $\Lambda_{p,d} = \{\bm{\alpha}^{(1)},\bm{\alpha}^{(2)},\dots,\bm{\alpha}^{(P)}\}$ according to the following rules. Multi-indices with smaller $\ell_1$ norms appear first, i.e., if $\|\bm{\alpha}^{(i)}\|_1 < \|\bm{\alpha}^{(j)}\|_1$ then $i<j$. If the $\ell_1$ norm is equal, multi-index vectors are sorted such that those with larger values at lower indices appear first. That is, if $\alpha_k^{(i)} > \alpha_k^{(j)}$ for $k=\min\{\ell \mid \alpha_{\ell}^{(i)} \ne \alpha_{\ell}^{(j)}\}$, then $i<j$. Using this ordering and suppressing the dependency of $u$ on $\bm{x}$, we write the approximate solution as follows,
\begin{equation}
u(\bm{Y}) = \sum_{i=1}^P c_i \psi_{\bm{\alpha}^{(i)}}(\bm{Y}).
\end{equation}
Suppose we have $N<P$ realizations of the random vector $\bm{Y}$, denoted as $\bm{y}^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\dots,N$ and the corresponding, possibly noisy, solution evaluation vector, $\bm{u} = [u(\bm{y}^{(1)}),u(\bm{y}^{(2)}),\dots,u(\bm{y}^{(N)})]^T$. We define the Legendre measurement matrix $\Psi \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times P}$, elementwise, as
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{ij} = \psi_{\bm{\alpha}^{(j)}} (\bm{y}^{(i)}).
\end{equation}
Each row of $\Psi$ corresponds to a sample realization and each column corresponds to one of the $P$ multi-indices. Our goal is to find the approximate coefficient vector $\bm{\hat{c}} = [\hat{c}_1,\hat{c}_2,\dots,\hat{c}_P]$ such that $\Psi \bm{\hat{c}} \approx \bm{u}$.
\subsection{Generative model based on coefficient decay}\label{sec:methods-genmod}
Our goal is to approximate the coefficient vector as the output of a generative model plus a sparse vector \cite{Bora2017,Dhar2018}. To define the generative model, we use known structural characteristics of the coefficient vector for PC expansions of PDE solutions. For specific classes of PDEs, it is known that the coefficient vector is compressible, i.e., the vector features a rapid decay of coefficient amplitude such that $|c_{\mathcal{I}(i)}| \le C i^{-1/r}$, where $C$ and $r$ are positive constants and $\mathcal{I}(i)$ indexes the sorted coefficients, i.e., $|c_{\mathcal{I}(1)}|>|c_{\mathcal{I}(2)}|>\dots>|c_{\mathcal{I}(P)}|$~\cite{Candes2006,Cohen2010,Beck2012,Tran2017}.
The compressibility of the signal implies that a sparsity assumption will lead to accurate signal recovery via compressed sensing \cite{Doostan2011,Rauhut2012,Chkifa2017}. Here, we will leverage the compressible structure of the coefficient vector to generate a nonlinear decay model that maps from a lower to a higher dimensional coefficient space.
Theoretical work has shown that, under certain conditions, the Legendre PC coefficients of (\ref{eq:PDE-intro}) decay exponentially, where the decay rate varies depending on the direction considered in the random input space. Specifically, from Proposition 3.1 in \cite{Beck2012} we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c-bound}
\|c_{\bm{\alpha}}\|_{H_0^1(D)}
\le C_0 \frac{|\bm{\alpha}|!}{\bm{\alpha}!}e^{-\sum_i g_i \alpha_i},
\quad g_i = -\log(r_i/(\sqrt{3}\log2)),
\end{equation}
where $C_0 > 0$ is a constant, $\bm{r} \in\mathbb{R}_+^d$ is as given in Assumption~\ref{assump:2}, and $\|\cdot\|_{H_0^1(D)}$ is the gradient norm, i.e., $\|c\|_{H_0^1(D)} = \|\nabla c\|_{L^2(D)}$. Clearly, if $r_i < \sqrt{3}\log 2$ for $i=1,\dots,d$, then the coefficients exhibit exponential decay. Although (\ref{eq:c-bound}) provides a useful starting point for predicting coefficient values, the coefficient magnitudes could show different trends within the bounding envelope. Additionally, (\ref{eq:c-bound}) does not provide information on the coefficient signs.
To predict the magnitude of the coefficients, we construct a generative model using a generalized form of (\ref{eq:c-bound}). This model allows for other characteristics besides exponential decay to exist but guarantees, as the polynomial degree increases, exponential decay will be the dominate effect. Specifically, the generative model is defined as follows: let $G:\mathbb{R}^{2d+1} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ with the $i$th element of $G$ given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G}
G_i(C,\bm{g},\bm{h}) := C \frac{|\bm{\alpha}^{(i)}|!}{\bm{\alpha}^{(i)}!}\prod_{j=1}^d (1+\alpha_j^{(i)})^{h_j} e^{-g_j \alpha_j^{(i)}},
\end{equation}
where $C\in\mathbb{R}_+$, $\bm{g}\in\mathbb{R}_+^d$, and $\bm{h}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ represent the $2d+1$ parameters. Recall that $d$ represents the number of uncertain variables, and, thus, the dimension of the latent space $2d+1$, increases linearly, rather than exponentially, with the number of input parameters. We consider scenarios where $d$ is large, but due to the exponential dependency of $P$ on $d$ (see (\ref{eq:P})) we have that $2d+1 \ll P$. This implies that $G$ maps from a lower to a higher dimensional space as desired.
In contrast to (\ref{eq:c-bound}), the generative model given by (\ref{eq:G}) contains an algebraic growth/decay term which allows for the coefficients of low order polynomials to show different characteristics besides exponential decay.
\begin{remark}
Alternative functions for $G$ could be explored that are still motivated by the concept of exponential decay (e.g., the summation of decaying terms). However, the purpose of this work was not to find the ideal function $G$, but rather to demonstrate the utility of using a generative model with exponential and algebraic decay qualities.
\end{remark}
Because the generative model only represents the magnitude of the coefficients, we define the vector $\bm{\zeta} \in \{-1,1\}^P$ to contain the signs of the $P$ coefficients. The final coefficient vector is then given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c}
\bm{c} = D_{\bm{\zeta}} G(\bm{z}) + \bm{\nu},
\end{equation}
where the $2d+1$ parameters are now contained in the vector $\bm{z}$, i.e. $\bm{z}=(C,\bm{g},\bm{h})$, $D_{\bm{\zeta}} = \text{diag}(\bm{\zeta}) \in \mathbb{R}^{P \times P}$, and the vector $\bm{\nu} \in \mathbb{R}^P$ is assumed to be sparse. The values of $\bm{z}$, $\bm{\zeta}$, and $\bm{\nu}$ are determined using the GenMod algorithm, i.e., Algorithm~\ref{alg}, which is presented in the next section.
\begin{remark}
In previous work, using generative models for compressed sensing, the sparse vector $\bm{\nu}$ was included to allow the signal to deviate from the range of the generative model \cite{Dhar2018}. In the present work, adding the vector $\bm{\nu}$ has the additional benefit of fixing coefficient signs that are initially labeled incorrectly during the optimization procedure.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Optimization problem and algorithm}\label{sec:methods-alg}
Given $N$ realizations of the random vector $Y$, $\bm{y}^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\dots,N$, and the resulting noisy QoI evaluation vector $\bm{u}=[u(\bm{y}^{(1)}),u(\bm{y}^{(2)}),\dots,u(\bm{y}^{(N)})]^T$, our goal is to find the true coefficient vector $\bm{c}^*$ such that
\begin{equation}
\bm{u} = \Psi \bm{c}^* + \bm{\eta},
\end{equation}
where $\Psi\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ is the Legendre measurement matrix calculated using the $N$ realizations of $\bm{Y}$ and $\bm{\eta}\in\mathbb{R}^N$ represents possible measurement noise. As mentioned, we assume that $\bm{c}^*$ can be approximated using ({\ref{eq:c}}).
This results in a challenging optimization problem because, to find the coefficient vector, we must find the input vector $\bm{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{2d+1}$, the sparse vector $\bm{\nu}\in\mathbb{R}^P$, and the coefficient signs $\bm{\xi}\in\{-1,1\}^P$. We propose using a sequential approach, where we first predict $\bm{\xi}$ using OMP and then we find $\bm{z}$ and $\bm{\nu}$ by iteratively searching for a solution to the following optimization problem:
\begin{mini}
{\substack{\bm{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{2d+1}, \bm{\nu}\in\mathbb{R}^P}}
{L(\bm{z},\bm{\nu};\bm{\zeta},\Psi,\bm{u}) + \lambda \| W(\bm{z}) \bm{\nu}\|_1,}
{\label{opt:1}}
{}
\end{mini}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L}
L(\bm{z},\bm{\nu};\bm{\zeta},\Psi,\bm{u}) :=
\|\Psi (D_{\bm{\zeta}}G(\bm{z})+\bm{\nu}) - \bm{u}\|_2^2
\end{equation}
and $W(\bm{z})$ is a diagonal weight matrix such that
\begin{equation}
W_{ii}(\bm{z}) := \frac{1}{G_i(\bm{z}) + \epsilon}.
\end{equation}
We are weighting the vector $\bm{\nu}$ based on the generative model's prediction of the coefficient magnitude. This implies that the penalty of adjusting a coefficient's value is scaled by the generative model's prediction. Thus, if $\bm{\nu}$ causes a sign to flip, the penalty is equal amongst all coefficients. This helps in scenarios where the sign of a coefficient is incorrectly determined in $\bm{\zeta}$ and the coefficient magnitude predicted by the generative model is large.
Algorithm~\ref{alg} provides the details of the GenMod optimization procedure. In the description of the algorithm we use the following definition,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DeltaL}
\Delta L(\bm{z}^{(1)},\bm{z}^{(2)},\bm{\nu};\bm{\zeta},\Psi,\bm{u}) :=
\frac{L(\bm{z}^{(1)},\bm{\nu};\bm{\zeta},\Psi,\bm{u})-L(\bm{z}^{(2)},\bm{\nu};\bm{\zeta},\Psi,\bm{u})}{L(\bm{z}^{(2)},\bm{\nu};\bm{\zeta},\Psi,\bm{u})}.
\end{equation}
Prior to calling the algorithm, the $N$ training data points are divided into $N_{op}$ points used for optimization and $N_{va}$ points used for validation. The algorithm takes as input measurement matrices that correspond to these two datasets (i.e., $\Psi_{op} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{op} \times P}$ and $\Psi_{va} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{va} \times P}$) as well as the corresponding observations (i.e., $\bm{u}_{op} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{op}}$ and $\bm{u}_{va} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{va}}$). For some steps of the algorithm these two datasets are combined, as described below.
As mentioned the algorithm has two main stages. In the first stage, we set the predicted signs of the coefficients, i.e. $\bm{\zeta} \in \mathbb{R}^P$, using OMP (see lines 5-10 of Algorithm~\ref{alg}). In the second stage, we approximate a solution to (\ref{opt:1}) (see lines 11-25 or Algorithm~\ref{alg}). One study considered a similar optimization problem and solved it using gradient descent \cite{Dhar2018}, noting that the cost function is non-differentiable at only a finite number of points. For our system we found that this approach led to instabilities and, therefore, in Algorithm~\ref{alg} we use a different method. Specifically, we propose an alternating approach where, at each iteration, we first use Adam gradient descent \cite{Kingma2015} to find
\begin{equation}
\bm{z}^{(i)} = \argmin_{\bm{z}} L(\bm{z},\bm{\nu}^{(i-1)};\bm{\zeta},\Psi,\bm{u}).
\end{equation}
We then use weighted Lasso \cite{Tibshirani1996} to find
\begin{equation}
\bm{\nu}^{(i)} = \argmin_{\bm{\nu}} \left(L(\bm{z}^{(i)},\bm{\nu};\bm{\zeta},\Psi,\bm{u}) + \lambda\|W^{(i)} \bm{\nu}\|_1\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
W_{jj}^{(i)} = \frac{1}{G_j(\bm{z}^{(i)}) + \epsilon G_0 (\bm{z}^{(i)})}.
\end{equation}
For the algorithm we set $\epsilon=1e-4$. We repeat this process until a convergence criteria is met. Specifically, we stop the iterations if the loss function $L$ does not decrease when applied to the validation data.
In Algorithm~\ref{alg}, we keep the optimization and validation data separated for performing Adam optimization, but we combine these two datasets when performing OMP and Lasso. Each time Adam optimization is performed, we use the optimization dataset to train the model and the validation dataset to select the best point for performing the next iteration of Lasso. For the OMP and Lasso steps, the optimization and validation datasets are combined in order to use a cross-validation approach. We implement OMP using OrthogonalMatchingPursuitCV from the scikit-learn python package \cite{Pedregosa2011}. OMP is performed using a $k$-fold cross-validation with $k=5$ folds.
For the Lasso steps, we again use a cross-validation approach, with $k=5$ folds, and select the value of $\lambda$ using the ``one-standard-error" rule \cite{Hastie2009}; see Algorithm~\ref{alg:Lasso}. This algorithm is similar to the standard form of Lasso with $k$-fold cross validation, but with an increased bias towards sparsity. Specifically, rather then picking the $\lambda$ that minimizes the mean reconstruction error, i.e., $\lambda_L$ in Algorithm~{\ref{alg:Lasso}}, we pick the maximum $\lambda$ that is within one standard error of $\lambda_L$. Within the implementation of this algorithm we use the LassoCV function from the scikit-learn python package.
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetNoFillComment
\caption{GenMod($\Psi_{op}$,$\bm{u}_{op}$,$\Psi_{va}$,$\bm{u}_{va}$).}
\label{alg}
$\Psi =$ [$\Psi_{op}$; $\Psi_{va}$] \;
$\bm{u} =$ [$\bm{u}_{op}$; $\bm{u}_{va}$] \;
$\bm{z}^{(0)} = \left(\log\left(\left|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N u_i\right|\right),\bm{1}_{2d}\right)$ \;
$\bm{\nu}^{(0)} = \bm{0}_P$ \;
\tcc{Generate initial prediction of coefficient signs}
$\tilde{\bm{c}}$ = OrthogonalMatchingPursuitCV($\Psi$,$\bm{u}$,folds=5) \;
\uIf{$\tilde{c}_i \ne 0$}
{
$\zeta_i = \text{sign}(\tilde{c}_i)$
}
\uElse
{
$\zeta_i = \text{sign}((\Psi^{(i)})^T(\bm{u}-\Psi\tilde{c}))$
}
$\bm{\zeta} = [\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\dots,\zeta_P]^T$ \;
\tcc{Alternate Adam and Lasso}
\For{$k=1,2,\dots,\text{max\_iteration}$}
{
Set $\bm{z}^{(k,0)} = \bm{z}^{(k-1)}$ \;
\tcc{Run Adam Optimization}
$\bm{m} = \bm{0}_k$ \;
$\bm{v} = \bm{0}_k$ \;
\For{$t=1,2,\dots,\text{max\_adam\_iteration}$}
{
$\bm{z}^{(k,t)},\bm{m},\bm{v} =$ AdamStep($\bm{z}^{(k,t-1)}$,$\bm{\nu}^{(k-1)}$,$\bm{\zeta}$,$\Psi_{op}$,$\bm{u}_{op}$,$\bm{m}$,$\bm{v}$,$t$) \;
\tcc{Enforce exponential decay}
\If{$\bm{z}_i^{(k,t)} < 0$ for $i=2,\dots,d+1$}
{
$\bm{z}_i^{(k,t)} = 0$
}
Break if $\Delta L(\bm{z}^{(k,t)},\bm{z}^{(k,t-1)},\bm{\nu}^{(k-1)};\bm{\zeta},\Psi_{op},\bm{u}_{op}) < \varepsilon$\;
}
\tcc{Find best $\bm{z}$ given validation data}
Set $\mathcal{Z}^{(k)} = \{\bm{z}^{(k,0)},\bm{z}^{(k,1)},\dots\}$ \;
$\bm{z}^{(k)} = \argmin_{\bm{z} \in \mathcal{Z}^{(k)}} L(\bm{z},\bm{\nu}^{(k-1)};\bm{\zeta},\Psi_{va},\bm{u}_{va})$ \;
\tcc{Run weighted lasso with cross validation}
$\bm{x}$ = LassoWithStErRule($\Psi (W(\bm{z}^{(k)}))^{-1}$, $\bm{u} - \Psi D_{\bm{\zeta}} G(\bm{z}^{(k)})$;$\bm{\lambda}$)\;
$\bm{\nu}^{(k)} = (W(\bm{z}^{(k)}))^{-1}\bm{x}$ \;
\tcc{If no improvement on validation data, stop}
\If{$L(\bm{z}^{(k)},\bm{\nu}^{(k)};\bm{\zeta},\Psi_{va},\bm{u}_{va}) > L(\bm{z}^{(k-1)},\bm{\nu}^{(k-1)};\bm{\zeta},\Psi_{va},\bm{u}_{va})$}
{
Break
}
}
\Return{$\bm{z}^{(k)}$,$\bm{\nu}^{(k)}$,$\bm{\xi}$}
\algorithmfootnote{The vector $\bm{1}_{2d} \in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ is composed of ones and $\bm{0}_P \in \mathbb{R}^P$ is composed of zeros. Additionally, for the examples considered in Section~{\ref{sec:numerical-results}}, we set $\varepsilon=1e-6$ and the $\bm{\lambda}$ vector in the LassoWithStErRule() is constructed automatically by the scikit learn LassoCV function. For details on AdamStep() see \ref{sec:appA} or Algorithm 1 in \cite{Kingma2015}.}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetNoFillComment
\caption{LassoWithStErRule($\Phi$,$\bm{u}$;$\bm{\lambda}$).}
\label{alg:Lasso}
Split data $\bm{u}$ and matrix $\Phi$ into $k$ folds; $\bm{u} = [\bm{u}^{(1)},\dots,\bm{u}^{(5)}]$ and $\Phi = [\Phi^{(1)};\dots;\Phi^{(k)}]$ \;
Let $\bm{u}^{(j^C)}$ and $\Phi^{(j^C)}$ denote the data and matrix with the $j$th fold removed \;
$N_{\lambda} = \text{size}(\bm{\lambda})$ \;
\For{$\ell = 1,\dots,N_{\lambda}$} {
\For{$j=1,\dots,k$} {
\tcc{Perform Lasso using all data except the $j$th fold.}
$\bm{x}$ = Lasso($\Phi^{(j^C)}$,$\bm{u}^{(j^C)}$,$\lambda$=$\lambda_{\ell}$) \;
\tcc{Calculate the reconstruction error using the $j$th fold.}
$e_{\ell,j} = \|\Phi^{(j)}\bm{x} - \bm{u}^{(j)}\|_2^2$
}
\tcc{Find the mean reconstruction error across the folds}
$e_{\ell} = \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^{k} e_{\ell,i}$
}
\tcc{Find the final hyperparameter using the standard error rule}
$L= \argmin_{\ell} e_{\ell}$ \;
$s_{L}$ = $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \text{std}([e_{L,1},e_{L,2},\dots,e_{L,k}])$ \;
$\lambda_{final} = \text{maximum } \lambda_{\ell}$ such that $e_{\ell} < e_{L} + s_{L}$. \;
\tcc{Perform Lasso using the final hyperparameter value on the full dataset}
$\bm{\nu} =$ Lasso($\Phi,\bm{u},\lambda_{final}$). \;
\Return{$\bm{\nu}$}
\end{algorithm}
For the remainder of the paper, we assume that Algorithm~\ref{alg} provides a close to optimal coefficient vector. We do not prove this result, but in practice we find the coefficient vectors predicted by Algorithm~\ref{alg} are consistently accurate (see Section~\ref{sec:numerical-results}).
\subsection{Lasso and Orthogonal Matching Pursuit}\label{sec:methods-las-omp}
We will compare our optimization algorithm to approaches where we use iteratively-reweighted (IRW) Lasso \cite{Candes2008} or OMP to directly find the coefficient vector. In both these approaches the underlying assumption is that the coefficient vector is sparse. As in Algorithm {\ref{alg}}, to perform OMP we use the scikit-learn python package and perform $k$-fold cross validation using $k=5$ folds. Algorithm {\ref{alg:IRW-Lasso}} in \ref{sec:appA} describes the steps of the IRW Lasso approach. The goal of this algorithm is to find a solution to the following optimization problem:
\begin{mini}
{\substack{\bm{c}\in\mathbb{R}^P}}
{\|\Psi \bm{c} - \bm{u}\| + \lambda \| W \bm{c}\|_1,}
{\label{opt:IRW-Lasso}}
{}
\end{mini}
where $W$ is a diagonal matrix such that
\begin{equation}
W_{ii} = \frac{1}{|c_i| + \tau}.
\end{equation}
Note, in contrast to previous implementations of IRW Lasso, if a convergence criteria is not met, we repeat the algorithm at increasing values of $\tau$. In our numerical examples, we set the initial value of $\tau=10^{-4}$ and found that in no cases did we need to increase $\tau$ greater than $\tau=10^{-1}$ to obtain convergence.
\subsection{Notational notes}
For the remainder of the paper we will use $A \in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ to refer to an arbitrary measurement matrix and $\Psi \in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ to refer to the more specific Legendre measurement matrix. We also define the matrix $\Phi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \Psi D_{\bm{\xi}}$, which will be used extensively in the theoretical results section. We define the vector $\bm{\xi} \in \{-1,1\}^P$ to represent a Rademacher sequence \mbox{\cite{Wainwright-Ch2-2019}}, i.e., uniformly distribute on $\{-1,1\}^P$ and set $D_{\bm{\xi}} = \text{diag}(\bm{\xi})$. Finally, we recall that the probability of an event $x$ is written as $\mathbb{P}(x)$.
\section{Previous Theoretical Results}\label{sec:previous-theory}
In this section we discuss previous work that is used in Section~\ref{sec:theory-results} to prove our main theoretical results. In Section~\ref{sec:previous-theory-1} we present details from studies that used generative models for compressed sensing \cite{Bora2017,Dhar2018}. The theory behind this work relies on showing that a random measurement matrix satisfies certain distributional properties with high probability. Therefore, in Section~\ref{sec:previous-theory-2}, we discuss background information on these properties in the context of the Legendre measurement matrix.
\subsection{Compressed sensing using generative models}\label{sec:previous-theory-1}
Whether a generative model leads to accurate signal recovery depends on both the measurement matrix $A$ and the form of the generative model \cite{Bora2017}. Suppose $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^P$ is equal to the range of the generative model. Then, we are guaranteed accurate signal recovery if the measurement matrix $A$ satisfies the Set-Restricted Eigenvalue Condition (S-REC), first defined by \cite{Bora2017}, on $S$.
\begin{definition}
Let $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^P$. For $\gamma >0, \delta \ge 0$, a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ satisfies the S-REC($S,\gamma,\delta$), if $\forall \bm{x}_1,\bm{x}_2\in S$,
\begin{equation}
\|A(\bm{x}_1-\bm{x}_2)\|_2 \ge \gamma \|\bm{x}_1 - \bm{x}_2\|_2 - \delta.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The random Gaussian matrix satisfies the S-REC($S$,$\gamma$,$\delta$) for specific sets $S$, if the number of measurements $N$ exceeds a threshold value dependent on $\gamma$ and $\delta$ \cite{Bora2017,Dhar2018}. Specifically, this result applies when $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times P}$ where $A_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{N})$ and when $S$ is either the range of $G$ (see Lemma 4.1, \cite{Bora2017}) or the set of sparse deviations from the range of $G$ (see Lemma~2 from \cite{Dhar2018}).
To the authors' knowledge, the S-REC condition has not been studied for measurement matrices other than the random Gaussian matrix. That is, this is the first paper that has studied the S-REC as applied to the Legendre measurement matrix.
If a matrix $A \in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ satisfies the S-REC on the set $S$, then the solution to
\begin{mini}
{\bm{x} \in S}
{\|A \bm{x} - \bm{u}\|_2^2}
{\label{opt:3}}
{}
\end{mini}
is close to the true solution, $\bm{x}^* \in\mathbb{R}^P$, of the linear problem $\bm{u}=A \bm{x}^*+\bm{\eta}$, where $\bm{\eta}$ represents measurement noise. This is stated formally in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 4.3 from \cite{Bora2017}]\label{lemma:bora-result}
Let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ be drawn from a distribution that (1) satisfies the S-REC($S,\gamma,\delta$) with probability at least $1-\mu$ and (2) for every fixed $\bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^P$ has $\|A \bm{x}\|_2\le2\|\bm{x}\|_2$ with probability at least $1-\mu$. For any $\bm{x}^* \in \mathbb{R}^P$ and noise $\bm{\eta}$, let $\bm{u}=A \bm{x}^*+\bm{\eta}$. Let $\hat{\bm{x}}$ approximately minimize $\|\bm{u}-A \bm{x}\|_2$ over $\bm{x}\in S$, i.e., for some $\epsilon>0$,
\begin{equation}
\|\bm{u}-A\hat{\bm{x}}\|_2\le \min_{\bm{x}\in S} \|\bm{u}-A \bm{x}\|_2 +\epsilon.
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:err-bound-bora}
\|\hat{\bm{x}}-\bm{x}^*\|_2 \le \left(\frac{4}{\gamma} + 1\right) \min_{\bm{x} \in S} \|\bm{x}^* - \bm{x}\|_2 + \frac{2\|\bm{\eta}\|_2}{\gamma} + \frac{\epsilon}{\gamma}+ \frac{\delta}{\gamma}\
\end{equation}
with probability at least $1-2\mu$.
\end{lemma}
The error bound given by (\ref{eq:err-bound-bora}) contains four terms: The first is error caused by $S$ not containing $\bm{x}^*$ (i.e., error when the generative model does not approximate the solution well), the second is error from measurement noise, the third is error due to the optimization algorithm not finding the optimal solution, and the fourth is error caused by the slack term $\delta$ in the S-REC definition.
\begin{remark}
Although the approximation error given by ({\ref{eq:err-bound-bora}}) scales with the noise magnitude $\|\bm\eta\|_2$, this error term will not grow as we increase the number of measurements $N$ for the examples considered here, i.e., the Gaussian random matrix $A$ where $A_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}\left(0,\frac{1}{N}\right)$ and the Legendre measurement matrix $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Psi$. This is because both these matrices have a $1/\sqrt{N}$ scaling.
\end{remark}
To apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-result} to the PC expansion system, we will show that $\Phi$, a variation of the Legendre measurement matrix, satisfies the S-REC and that for $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^P$, $\|\Phi \bm{x} \|_2 \le 2\|\bm{x}\|_2$. To do this, we use an approach similar to methods presented in \cite{Bora2017,Dhar2018}. These studies proved the random Gaussian matrix satisfies the S-REC by using known concentration tail inequalities. For the random Gaussian matrix these concentration inequalities are as follows. If $A$ is such that $A_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{N})$, then $Y = N \frac{\|A\bm{x}\|_2^2}{\|\bm{x}\|_2^2}$ follows a chi-squared distribution with $N$ degrees of freedom and, therefore, $Y$ is sub-exponential, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(|Y - \mathbb{E}(Y)| \ge t) \le
\begin{cases}
2e^{-\frac{t^2}{2\nu^2}} & 0 \le t \le \nu^2/b \\
2e^{-\frac{t}{2b}} & t > \nu^2/b,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $(\nu,b)=(2\sqrt{N},4)$ \cite{Wainwright-Ch2-2019}. Setting $t = \epsilon N$ and rearranging we have that $A$ satisfies the following concentration inequalities,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A-conc-bound}
\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\frac{\|A\bm{x}\|_2^2}{\|\bm{x}\|_2^2} - 1\right| \ge \epsilon\right) \le
\begin{cases}
2e^{-\frac{N\epsilon^2}{8}} & 0 \le \epsilon \le 1\\
2e^{-\frac{N\epsilon}{8}} & \epsilon > 1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In the present work our goal is to show that that the Legendre measurement matrix satisfies a probability bound similar to (\ref{eq:A-conc-bound}). Importantly, this bound must be valid for large values of $\epsilon$.
\subsection{The restricted isometry and Johnson-Lindenstrauss properties}\label{sec:previous-theory-2}
To show the Legendre measurement matrix $\Psi$ satisfies the necessary concentration inequalities, we will leverage previous results. Specifically, it is known that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Psi$ satisfies the restricted isometry property (RIP) \cite{Peng2014} and, given a matrix satisfies the RIP, certain distributional tail inequalities follow with high probability \cite{Krahmer2011}.
The RIP is defined as follows:
\begin{definition}
We say a matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ satisfies the RIP($s$,$\delta$) if
\begin{equation}
(1-\delta) \|\bm{x}\|_2^2 \le \|A \bm{x}\|_2^2 \le (1+\delta)\|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\end{equation}
for any vector $\bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^P$ such that $\|\bm{x}\|_0 \le s$.
\end{definition}
The following corollary states that, given a sufficient sample size, the Legendre measurement matrix satisfies the RIP with high probability. This is a modified version of Corollary 3.1 from \cite{Peng2014} based on the original results for bounded orthonormal systems \cite{Rauhut2010}.
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:RIP}
Let $\Psi\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ be a Legendre measurement matrix. If
\begin{equation}\label{eq:RIP-Psi}
N \ge C 3^p \delta^{-2} s \log^2(s)\log^2(P),
\end{equation}
then $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Psi$ satisfies the RIP($s$,$\delta$) with probability at least than $1-e^{-\gamma\log^2(s)\log^2(P)}$, where $C$ and $\gamma$ are constants independent of $N$ and $p$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
Corollary~{\ref{corollary:RIP}} gives a slightly different result when compared to Corollary 3.1 from \mbox{\cite{Peng2014}}. The result given in \mbox{\cite{Peng2014}} relies on the assumption that $s \ge 3^p \delta^{-2} \log(P)$ (see \mbox{\cite{Foucart2010}}). In order to avoid this assumption, we consider the more general bound given by \mbox{\cite{Rauhut2010}},
\begin{equation}
\frac{N}{\log(N)} \ge C 3^p \delta^{-2} s \log^2(s) \log(P),
\end{equation}
and note that ({\ref{eq:RIP-Psi}}) implies this bound, assuming that $N<P$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Typically, the restricted isometry constant $\delta$ is assumed to be such that $\delta \in (0,1)$. However, in later proofs, we allow for $\delta > 1$. The result in Corollary~\ref{corollary:RIP} is still valid; however, modifications to the constants, as presented in \cite{Rauhut2010}, might be necessary.
\end{remark}
Since $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Psi$ satisfies the RIP, we will use relationships between the RIP and Johnson-Lindenstrauss (JL) distributional property to obtain concentration inequalities similar to (\ref{eq:A-conc-bound}). The JL distribution property is defined as follows:
\begin{definition}
We say a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ satisfies the JL distributional property at level $\epsilon$, i.e., JL($\epsilon$), if for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^P$
\begin{equation}
(1-\epsilon)\|\bm{x}\|_2^2 \le \|A \bm{x}\|_2^2 \le (1+\epsilon)\|\bm{x}\|_2^2.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Given the matrix $A$ satisfies the RIP, the following theorem gives the probability that the matrix $AD_{\bm{\xi}}$ satisfies the JL distributional property, where we recall $\bm{\xi} \in \mathbb{R}^P$ is a Rademacher sequence.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 3.1 from \cite{Krahmer2011}]\label{thm:JL}
Fix $\eta > 0$ and $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, and consider a finite set $E \subset \mathbb{R}^P$ of cardinality $|E| = e$. Set $s \ge 40 \log \frac{4e}{\eta}$ to be an even integer and suppose $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ satisfies the RIP of order $s$ and level $\delta \le \frac{\epsilon}{4}$. Let $\bm{\xi} \in \mathbb{R}^P$ be a Rademacher sequence. Then with probability exceeding $1-\eta$
\begin{equation}
(1-\epsilon)\|\bm{x}\|_2^2 \le \|A D_{\bm{\xi}} \bm{x}\|_2^2 \le (1+\epsilon)\|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\end{equation}
uniformly for all $\bm{x} \in E$.
\end{theorem}
If we consider a single point $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^P$ and set $E=\{\bm{x}\}$ in Theorem~{\ref{thm:JL}}, then the theorem implies the following statement:
Let $s$ be an even integer and set $\eta:=4e^{-c_0s}$ where $c_0 = 1/40$. If $A$ satisfies the RIP($s$,$\epsilon/4$), then for a given $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^P$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:JL-given-RIP}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\|A D_{\bm{\xi}} \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2\right| \ge \epsilon \|\bm{x}\|_2^2 \right) &\le \eta = 4e^{-c_0 s}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that here $\eta$ is chosen to be the minimum value for which the inequality $s\ge40\log\frac{4e}{\eta}$ is satisfied.
This result provides a useful starting point for showing that the Legendre measurement matrix satisfies a probability bound similar to (\ref{eq:A-conc-bound}), but additional work is still required. Theorem~\ref{thm:JL} assumes a matrix deterministically satisfies the RIP, but the Legendre measurement matrix only satisfies the RIP with a specific probability. Additionally, the bound on the probability given in (\ref{eq:JL-given-RIP}) depends on the sparsity level $s$ at which the RIP is satisfied. We instead need this bound to depend on $\epsilon$ and the number of measurements $N$. In Proposition 3.2 from \cite{Krahmer2011}, they obtain such a bound for a specific class of systems. These results provide a useful starting point for the present work.
\section{Main Theoretical Results}\label{sec:theory-results}
\subsection{Theoretical results for general generative model}
We present theoretical results detailing the number of measurements required to accurately recover the coefficient vector for the Legendre measurement matrix when using a generative model approach. For high-dimensions, where the number of basis elements $P$ is sufficiently large, the number of samples $N$ must satisfy
\begin{equation}
N = \mathcal{O}\left(3^p\log^4(P)\left(k\log\frac{Lr}{\delta} + \ell \log(P)\right) \right).
\end{equation}
Here, $L$ is the Lipschitz constant of the generative model $G$, $r$ is the minimum radius of a $k$-dimensional ball that contains the domain of $G$, i.e. if $G:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ then $\Omega \subseteq B_k(r)$, and $\delta$ is the slack term the S-REC definition. Recall that $k$ represents the dimension the latent space that the generative model acts on, and $\ell$ is the sparsity of the vector $\bm{\nu}$ this is added to the output of the generative model.
For simplification we present the following definitions which will be used throughout this section. First we define the constants: $c_0=1/40$, $c_1=16C$, $c_2 = 0.9$, $c_3=c_2/c_1$, $c_4=16$, and $C$ and $\gamma$ are the constants given in Corollary~\ref{corollary:RIP}. Next define the function $g$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:g}
g(k,\ell,P,\delta,\alpha,L,r) := \frac{3}{\alpha^2}
\left(
k\log\left(\frac{4 L r}{\delta}\right)
+ \frac{2\ell+1}{2}\log\left(\frac{eP(2\ell+1)}{2\ell\alpha}\right)
\right).
\end{equation}
Additionally, define $s_0$ implicitly as the largest real number that satisfies,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s0}
c_0 s_0 - \gamma \log^2(s_0) \log^2(P) = 0.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
Since $c_0,\gamma > 0$, (\ref{eq:s0}) has two positive solutions. For the smaller solution, either $s_0<1$ or
\begin{equation}
s_0 \le \exp\left(\left(\frac{c_0 s_0}{\gamma \log^2(P)}\right)^{1/2}\right) \le \exp\left(\left(\frac{c_0}{\gamma \log^2(P)}\right)^{1/2}\right) < 2
\end{equation}
assuming $\log(P) > 2\sqrt{c_0/\gamma}$. This condition is satisfied, since $c_0/\gamma < 1$. Therefore, there is only one solution to (\ref{eq:s0}) such that $s_0 \ge 2$, which will be the solution of interest here.
\end{remark}
Finally, for $\epsilon>0$ we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Neps}
N_{\epsilon} := c_1 \epsilon^{-2}3^p s_0\log^2(s_0)\log^2(P).
\end{equation}
Later in this section we will see that $N_{\epsilon}$ represents a threshold sample size at which a JL like probability bound for the Legendre measurement matrix changes form.
The main recovery result is stated formally in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:1}
Let $\Omega \subseteq B^k(r) = \{\bm{z} \in \mathbb{R}^k \mid \|\bm{z}\|_2 < r\}$ and let $G:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ be $L$-Lipschitz. Define the set $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^P$ such that
\begin{equation}
S=\{ G(\bm{z}) + \bm{\nu} \mid \bm{z} \in \Omega, \|\bm{\nu}\|_0 \le \ell\}.
\end{equation}
Using $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times P}$, $\bm{c}^* \in \mathbb{R}^P$, and $\bm{\eta} \in \mathbb{R}^N$, let $\bm{u} = A \bm{c}^* + \bm{\eta}$.
For $\alpha < 1/4$ and $\delta < 4Lr/10$ , let $g=g(k,\ell,P,\delta,\alpha,L,r)$ be as defined in (\ref{eq:g}) and $s_0$ be as defined implicitly in (\ref{eq:s0}). Suppose $P$ is large enough, such that
\begin{equation}
s_0 > \frac{1}{c_0 c_1 c_3}(\log(5) + 4Jk + g)
\end{equation}
and $N$ is large enough, such that,
\begin{equation}
N \ge \frac{3^{p}s_0}{\gamma c_3} g.
\end{equation}
Let $\tilde{N} = \min\{N,N_{\epsilon_{max}}\}$ where $N_{\epsilon_{max}}$ is given by (\ref{eq:Neps}) with
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^2_{max} := \max\left\{\frac{1}{g}(\log(5)+4Jk)+1,9\right\},
\end{equation}
and $J = \lceil 2 \log(P 3^p)/\log(2)\rceil$.
Then with probability at least $1-14e^{-\frac{\alpha^2 \gamma c_3 \tilde{N}}{3^{p+1} s_0}}$,
\begin{equation}
\|\hat{\bm{c}}-\bm{c}^*\|_2 \le
\left(\frac{4}{1-4\alpha} + 1\right) \min_{\bm{c}\in S} \|\bm{c}^*-\bm{c}\|_2 + \frac{2\|\bm{\eta}\|_2}{1-4\alpha} + \frac{\epsilon}{1-4\alpha} + \frac{16 \delta}{1-4\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ defines how close $\hat{\bm{c}}$ is to the optimal value over $\bm{c} \in S$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon \ge \|\bm{u} - A\hat{\bm{c}}\|_2 - \min_{\bm{c} \in S} \|\bm{u} - A \bm{c}\|_2.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\noindent The result in Theorem~\ref{thm:1} relies on assuming the true coefficient vector $\bm{c}^*$ is close to the range of the generative model, up to a sparse deviation, and that Algorithm~\ref{alg} provides a close to optimal solution.
We will use Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-result} to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:1} by showing that the Legendre measurement matrix satisfies the S-REC with high probability. This result is given in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:SREC}
Let $\Phi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \Psi D_{\bm{\xi}} \in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ where $\Psi$ is the Legendre measurement matrix.
Let $\Omega$, $G$, $S$, $g$, and $s_0$ be as defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:1}.
Let $\alpha < 1/4$ and $\delta < 4Lr/10$ and suppose $P$ is large enough such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s0bound}
s_0 > \frac{1}{c_0 c_1 c_3}\left(\log(5) + 4Jk + g\right)
\end{equation}
and $N$ is large enough, such that,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Nbound-linear}
N \ge \frac{3^{p}s_0}{\gamma c_3} g.
\end{equation}
Then $\Phi$ satisfies the S-REC$(S,1-4\alpha,16\delta)$ with probability at least $1-7e^{-\frac{\alpha^2 \gamma c_3 \tilde{N}}{3^{p+1} s_0}}$, where $\tilde{N} = \min\{N,N_{\epsilon_{max}}\}$ with $N_{\epsilon_{max}}$ as given by (\ref{eq:Neps}) with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:emax}
\epsilon^2_{max} := \frac{1}{g}(\log(5)+4Jk)+1,
\end{equation}
and $J = \lceil 2 \log(P 3^p)/\log(2)\rceil$.
\end{lemma}
To prove this result we first show that $\Phi$ satisfies a concentration inequality similar to (\ref{eq:A-conc-bound}). Since, to the authors' knowledge, this is the first time such a concentration inequality has been derived for the Legendre measurement matrix, we present these results in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:gauss-result-1}
Let $\Phi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \Psi D_{\bm{\xi}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ where $\Psi$ is the Legendre polynomial measurement matrix and let $s_0$ be as given implicitly by (\ref{eq:s0}).
Define the functions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fn-1-a}
\begin{aligned}
f_1(N) :&= \frac{c_0 c_3 N}{3^p \log^2(s_0) \log^2(P)}, \\
f_2(N) :&= \gamma \log(P) \sqrt{\frac{c_3}{3^p}}\left(
\log\left(\frac{N}{c_4^2\gamma^2\log^6(P)}\right)
+ 2\right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}
\epsilon_{min}^2 &:= \frac{1}{N} c_1 3^p 2 \log^2(2) \log^2(P), \label{eq:emin} \\
\epsilon_0^2 &:= \frac{1}{N} c_1 3^p s_0 \log^2(s_0) \log^2(P).
\end{align}
Then, for any $\bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Tail-Bounds}
\mathbb{P}\left(
\left|\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2\right| \ge \epsilon \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right)
\le \begin{cases}
5e^{-f_1(N) \epsilon^2} & \epsilon_{min} \le \epsilon \le \epsilon_0, \\
6e^{-f_2(N) \epsilon} & \epsilon_0 < \epsilon.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
The proofs of these results will be given in Section~\ref{sec:proofs}.
\subsection{Theoretical results for exponential/algebraic decay model}
We study the specific case where $G$ is given by the exponential decay model presented in Section~\ref{sec:methods-genmod}; see (\ref{eq:G}). Recall that Theorem~\ref{thm:1} requires the domain of $G$ be bounded, i.e. $G:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ where $\Omega \subseteq B_k(r)$. However, in the case where the generative model $G$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
G(\bm{z}) &= [G_1(\bm{z}),G_2(\bm{z}),\dots,G_P(\bm{z})]; \\
G_i(\bm{z}) &= e^{-\left(\bm{b}^{(i)}\right)^T\bm{z}},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{b}^{(i)} > 0$, we can prove a stronger result. Specifically, rather than requiring that $\bm{z} \in B_k(r)$, we can instead consider any $\bm{z}$ such that $z_j \in [z_j^{(0)},\infty)$. We do this by introducing a change of variables. That is, for $z_j \in [z_j^{(0)},\infty)$, there is an $a_j \in [0,1)$ such that
\begin{equation}
z_j = \frac{a_j}{1-a_j} + z^{(0)}_{j}.
\end{equation}
This allows us to instead consider $G$ as a function of $\bm{a}$ where $\bm{a} \in [0,1)^k$. In the following lemma we show that $G(\bm{z}(\bm{a}))$ is Lipschitz continuous with respect to $\bm{a}$ and derive the Lipschitz constant. This result applies to Theorem~\ref{thm:1} with $\Omega=[0,1)^k$ and $r=\sqrt{k}/2$. This value of $r$ is sufficient because the $\ell_2$ ball, $B_k(\sqrt{k}/2)$, fully encloses the $[0,1]^k$ cube when appropriately centered.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:G-Lip}
Consider the function $G:\mathbb{R}^k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ such that
\begin{equation}
G_i(\bm{z}(\bm{a}))
= c_i e^{-(\bm{b}^{(i)})^T \bm{z}(\bm{a})}
= c_i \prod_{j=1}^k e^{
-b_j^{(i)} \left(\frac{a_j}{1-a_j} + z^{(0)}_{j}\right)
}, \quad \quad i=1,\dots,P,
\end{equation}
where $c_i \in \mathbb{R}$, $\bm{b}^{(i)} \ge \bm{0}$ for $i=1,\dots,P$, and $\bm{z}^{(0)} \in \mathbb{R}^k$. For $\bm{a} \in [0,1)^k$, $G(\bm{z}(\bm{a}))$ is $L$-Lipschitz continuous with
\begin{equation}
L = \sqrt{Pk} \max_{i,j} L_{i,j},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
L_{i,j} = \begin{cases}
|c_i| b^{(i)}_{j} e^{
-(\bm{b}^{(i)})^T \bm{z}^{(0)}
} g\left(b_{j}^{(i)}\right) & b_{j}^{(i)} > 0, \\
0 & b_{j}^{(i)} = 0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
g(b) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } b\ge 2, \\
\frac{4}{b^2}e^{b-2} & \text{if } 0 < b < 2.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
In the context of the exponential decay generative model given by (\ref{eq:G}), the constants in Lemma~\ref{lemma:G-Lip} are as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
c_i &= \frac{|\bm{\alpha}^{(i)}|!}{\bm{\alpha}^{(i)}!}\le 1; \\
\bm{b}^{(i)}_j &= \begin{cases}
1 & j=1\\
\alpha^{(i)}_j & j=2,\dots,d+1 \\
\log(1+\alpha^{(i)}_j) & j=d+2,\dots,2d+1.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
If we only allow exponential and algebraic decay (i.e. $\bm{z}^{(0)} = \bm{0}$), using Lemma~\ref{lemma:G-Lip}, we have that, for the Legendre system with $p\ge 2$,
\begin{equation}
L \le p\sqrt{Pk}.
\end{equation}
\section{Proofs}\label{sec:proofs}
In this section we prove the main result. We start with a corollary that combines the RIP and JL results given in Corollary~\ref{corollary:RIP} and Theorem~\ref{thm:JL}.
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:RIP-plus-JL}
Let $\Phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \Psi D_{\bm{\xi}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ where $\Psi$ is the Legendre measurement matrix. Pick $\epsilon>0$ and suppose $s$ is an even integer such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Nbound}
N \ge c_1 3^p \epsilon^{-2} s \log^2 (s) \log^2 (P),
\end{equation}
where $c_1 = 16 C$ and $C$ is as given in Corollary~\ref{corollary:RIP}. Then for $\bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^P$ and $\gamma>0$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:RIP-JL-Bound}
\mathbb{P}\left(
\left|
\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right| \ge \epsilon \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right)
\le 5e^{-\min\left\{c_0 s,\gamma\log^2(s)\log^2(P)\right\}}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From Corollary~\ref{corollary:RIP} and the bound given by ({\ref{eq:Nbound}}), we have that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \Psi$ satisfies the RIP($s$,$\epsilon/4$) with probability
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}\left(\text{RIP}\left(s,\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right)\right)
\ge 1 - e^{-\gamma\log^2(s)\log^2(P)}.
\end{equation}
Additionally, from Theorem~\ref{thm:JL} and (\ref{eq:JL-given-RIP}), given $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \Psi$ satisfies the RIP($s,\epsilon/4$), we have that $\Phi$ satisfies the JL distributional property at level $\epsilon$, i.e., JL($\epsilon$), with probability
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}\left(
\text{JL}(\epsilon) \mid \text{RIP}\left(s,\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right)
\right)
\ge 1-4e^{-c_0s},
\end{equation}
where $c_0=1/40$. We combine these results to obtain the probability that $\Phi$ satisfies the JL distributional property at level $\epsilon$.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}(\text{JL}(\epsilon))
&\ge \mathbb{P}\left(
\text{JL}(\epsilon) \mid \text{RIP}\left(s,\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right)
\right)\mathbb{P}\left(
\text{RIP}\left(s,\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right)
\right) \\
\mathbb{P}\left(
\left|\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2\right| \le \epsilon\|\bm{x}\|_2^2 \mid \bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^P
\right)
&\ge (1-4e^{-c_0 s})\left(1-e^{-\gamma\log^2(s)\log^2(P)}\right) \\
&\ge 1 - 4e^{-c_0 s} - e^{-\gamma\log^2(s)\log^2(P)} \\
&\ge 1 - 5e^{-\min\left\{c_0 s,\gamma\log^2(s)\log^2(P)\right\}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
The probability bound given by (\ref{eq:RIP-JL-Bound}) in Corollary~\ref{corollary:RIP-plus-JL} depends on the sparsity order $s$ at which the RIP is satisfied with high probability. This sparsity order is dependent on the number of samples $N$ and the level of the RIP, i.e., $\epsilon/4$. Therefore, we can instead write the bound given by (\ref{eq:RIP-JL-Bound}) as a function of $N$ and $\epsilon$. This will give us the results as stated in Lemma~\ref{lemma:gauss-result-1} and the modified probability bound given by (\ref{eq:Tail-Bounds}).
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:gauss-result-1}]
Pick $\epsilon \ge \epsilon_{min}$ and define $s_{\epsilon}$ implicitly as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:se}
s_{\epsilon} \log^2(s_{\epsilon}) = \frac{\epsilon^2 N}{c_1 3^p \log^2(P)}.
\end{equation}
Let $s$ be the largest even integer such that $s \le s_{\epsilon}$. Since $\epsilon \ge \epsilon_{min}$, we are guaranteed that $s_{\epsilon}\ge 2$ and, hence, $s \ge 2$. Under these conditions, the required bound in Corollary~\ref{corollary:RIP-plus-JL}, given by (\ref{eq:Nbound}), is satisfied, and, therefore, (\ref{eq:RIP-JL-Bound}) holds.
We will modify {(\ref{eq:RIP-JL-Bound})} by obtaining lower bounds for $s$ and $\log(s)$. First note that, since $s \ge 2 $ is the largest even integer less than $s_{\epsilon}$, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s_se}
\frac{s \log^2(s)}{s_{\epsilon} \log^2(s_{\epsilon})}
\ge \min_{i\ge2} \frac{i\log^2 i}{(i+2)\log^2(i+2)}
= \frac{2\log^2(2)}{4\log^2(4)}
=: c_2.
\end{equation}
For larger values of $s$, the value of $c_2$ approaches 1.
Using (\ref{eq:se}) and (\ref{eq:s_se}), we obtain the following bound
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s}
s \log^2(s)
\ge c_2 s_{\epsilon} \log^2(s_{\epsilon}) = \frac{c_3 \epsilon^2 N}{3^p \log^2(P)},
\end{equation}
where $c_3=c_2/c_1$.
When $\epsilon \le \epsilon_0$. We have that $s \le s_{\epsilon} \le s_0$ and using (\ref{eq:s}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sbound1}
s \ge \frac{c_3 \epsilon^2 N}{3^p \log^2(s) \log^2(P)} \ge \frac{c_3 \epsilon^2 N}{3^p \log^2(s_0) \log^2(P)}.
\end{equation}
By definition of $s_0$, see (\ref{eq:s0}), we have that $c_0 s \le \gamma \log^2(s)\log^2(P)$ and therefore, using (\ref{eq:sbound1}), the inequality given by (\ref{eq:RIP-JL-Bound}) reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:RIP-JL-Bound-1}
\mathbb{P}\left(
\left|
\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right| \ge \epsilon \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right)
\le 5e^{-c_0 s}
\le 5e^{-\epsilon^2 \frac{c_0 c_3 N}{3^p \log^2(s_0) \log^2(P)}}
= 5e^{-\epsilon^2 f_1(N)},
\end{equation}
where $f_1(N)$ is as defined in (\ref{eq:fn-1-a}).
When $\epsilon > \epsilon_0$, we have that $s_\epsilon > s_0$ and, using the definition of $s_0$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
c_0 (s+2) \ge c_0 s_\epsilon > \gamma \log^2(s_\epsilon)\log^2(P) \ge \gamma \log^2(s)\log^2(P).
\end{equation}
Therefore, $c_0 s > \gamma \log^2(s)\log^2(P) - 2c_0$, implying that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:RIP-JL-Bound-2}
\mathbb{P}\left(
\left|
\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right| \ge \epsilon \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right)
\le 5e^{-\gamma\log^2(s)\log^2(P)+2 c_0}
\le 6e^{-\gamma\log^2(s)\log^2(P)}.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{eq:s}) and the assumption that $s < N < P$, we obtain the follow two bounds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sbound2}
\log^2(s) \ge \frac{c_3 \epsilon^2 N}{3^p \log^2(P) s} \ge \frac{c_3 \epsilon^2}{3^p \log^2(P)}, \quad \quad \quad s \ge \frac{c_3\epsilon^2 N}{3^p \log^4(P)}.
\end{equation}
We then write $\log^2(s)=\log(s)\log(s)$ and bound the first and second $\log(s)$ terms using the first and second bound given in (\ref{eq:sbound2}), respectively,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\log^2(s) &= \log(s) \log(s)
\ge \frac{\epsilon}{\log(P)}\sqrt{\frac{c_3}{3^p}}
\log\left(\frac{c_3\epsilon^2 N}{3^p \log^4(P)}\right) \\
&= \frac{\epsilon}{\log(P)}\sqrt{\frac{c_3}{3^p}}
\left(
\log\left(\frac{N}{c_4^2\gamma^2\log^6(P)}\right) + \log\left(\frac{c_4^2\gamma^2c_3\epsilon^2\log^2(P)}{3^p}\right)
\right) \\
&\ge \frac{\epsilon}{\log(P)}\sqrt{\frac{c_3}{3^p}}
\left(
\log\left(\frac{N}{c_4^2\gamma^2\log^6(P)}\right) + 2 - \frac{2 \sqrt{3^{p}}}{c_4 \gamma\sqrt{c_3}\epsilon\log(P)}
\right) \\
&= \frac{\epsilon}{\log(P)} \sqrt{\frac{c_3}{3^p}}\left(
\log\left(\frac{ N}{c_4^2\gamma^2\log^6(P)}\right)
+ 2\right)
-\frac{2}{c_4\gamma\log^2(P)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $c_4>0$ is an arbitrary constant. For the second inequality above, we use that $\log(x^2) = 2\log(x) \ge 2 - 2/x$. We then have that
\begin{equation}
\gamma \log^2(s)\log^2(P) \ge \epsilon\gamma \log(P) \sqrt{\frac{c_3}{3^p}}\left(
\log\left(\frac{ N}{c_4^2\gamma^2\log^6(P)}\right)
+ 2\right)
-\frac{2}{c_4} = \epsilon f_2(N) - \frac{2}{c_4}.
\end{equation}
We apply this inequality to (\ref{eq:RIP-JL-Bound-2}), to obtain $f_2(N)$ as defined in (\ref{eq:fn-1-a}). Since $c_4$ is an arbitrary constant, we can pick it such that the constant of 6 in front of the exponential given by (\ref{eq:RIP-JL-Bound-2}) is still valid, i.e., $5c^{2c_0+2/c_4} < 6$. This is true if, for example, $c_4=16$.
\end{proof}
We have now obtained a probability tail bound similar to the bound for the random Gaussian matrix, see (\ref{eq:A-conc-bound}). This bound shows us that at lower values of $N$, the exponential decay rate is a linear function of $N$. However, once the value of $N$ surpasses a threshold value the decay rate is only logarithmically dependent on $N$. For a given $\epsilon$, $N_\epsilon$ as given by (\ref{eq:Neps}) is the sample size at which this transition occurs. As we increase the size of our Legendre basis, i.e., as $P$ increase, the value of $N_\epsilon$ also increases. Therefore, if $P$ is large enough, we can assume that we are in the linear regime of exponential decay.
In our proof showing that $\Phi$ satisfies the S-REC property, we will find a value of $P$ and hence $s_0$, i.e., see (\ref{eq:s0}), such that for the needed values of $\epsilon$ we will be in this linear decay regime. This will allow us to use the following corollary, which is a simplified version of Lemma~\ref{lemma:gauss-result-1}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:tailbound}
Let $\Phi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \Psi D_{\bm{\xi}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ where $\Psi$ is the Legendre polynomial measurement matrix and let $s_0$ be as given by (\ref{eq:s0}).
Define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fn}
f(N;\epsilon) := \frac{c_0 c_3 \tilde{N}}{3^p \log^2(P)\log^2(s_0)}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{N} = \min\{N,N_{\epsilon}\}$ with $N_{\epsilon}$ as given by (\ref{eq:Neps}).
Then, for any $\bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\epsilon>\epsilon_{min}$, where $\epsilon_{min}$ is given by (\ref{eq:emin}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Tail-Bounds-2}
\mathbb{P}\left(
\left|\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2\right| \ge \epsilon \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right)
\le 5e^{-f(N;\epsilon) \epsilon^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\epsilon_0$ and $f_1(N)$ be as defined in Lemma~\ref{lemma:gauss-result-1}.
If $N \le N_{\epsilon}$ then $\epsilon_{min} < \epsilon < \epsilon_0$ and $f(N,\epsilon)=f_1(N)$. Thus, (\ref{eq:Tail-Bounds-2}) follows directly from Lemma~\ref{lemma:gauss-result-1}. Suppose instead that $N>N_{\epsilon}$ and therefore $s_\epsilon > s_0$ where $s_\epsilon$ is as defined in (\ref{eq:se}). Let $s$ be the largest even integer such that $s < s_{\epsilon}$. We have that
\begin{equation}
\frac{s\log^2(s)}{s_0 \log^2(s_0)} \ge \frac{s\log^2(s)}{s_\epsilon \log^2(s_\epsilon)} \ge c_2,
\end{equation}
and therefore the logic given by (\ref{eq:s})-(\ref{eq:RIP-JL-Bound-1}) holds with $N \rightarrow N_{\epsilon}$. Since $f(N,\epsilon)=f_1(N_\epsilon)$ this gives us (\ref{eq:Tail-Bounds-2}).
\end{proof}
We next state two lemmas that show the concentration inequality given by Lemma~\ref{lemma:gauss-result-1} implies the S-REC is satisfied. The first lemma is equivalent to Lemma~8.2 in \cite{Bora2017}, and the proof is nearly identical with few modifications. Specifically, we show that the needed concentration inequality is satisfied at the required values of $\epsilon$. We additionally carry the constants through in all the calculations. Because of the similarity with the result from \cite{Bora2017} the proof of this lemma is moved to the appendix.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:bora_8.2_modified}
Let $\Omega \subseteq B^k(r) = \{\bm{z} \in \mathbb{R}^k \mid \|\bm{z}\|_2 \le r\}$ and let $G:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^P$ be a $L$-Lipschitz function. Set $S=G(\Omega)$ and let $M$ be a $\delta/L$-net on $\Omega$ such that $\log |M| \le k\log\left(\frac{4L r}{\delta}\right)$. Let $f$ be a positive, increasing function of $N$ and suppose $N$ is large enough such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Nbound1}
f(N) \ge 3k\log\left(\frac{4 L r}{\delta}\right).
\end{equation}
Let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times P}$ and set $J \ge \log(\|A\|)/\log(2)$. Suppose that for $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^p$ and $j=0,\dots,J$
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}\left(\|A \bm{x}\|_2^2 \ge (1+\epsilon_j)\|\bm{x}\|_2^2\right) \le 5e^{-f(N) \epsilon_j^2},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_j$ is such that
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_j^2 = \frac{1}{f(N)}(\log(5)+4jk) + 1.
\end{equation}
For any $\bm{x} \in S$, if $\bm{x}' = \argmin_{\hat{\bm{x}} \in G(M)} \|\bm{x}-\hat{\bm{x}}\|$, we have that $\|A(\bm{x}-\bm{x}')\| \le C \delta$ with probability at least $1 - 2e^{-\frac{f(N)}{3}}$. Here, $C$ is a constant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
In the above lemma if we assume $4Lr/\delta > 10$, then we can set the constant $C = 7$.
\end{remark}
The next lemma is analogous to Lemma 2 in \cite{Dhar2018} and Lemma 4.1 in \cite{Bora2017}, and again the corresponding proof is nearly identical. Because of this we place the proof in the appendix. Note that in contrast to the previous proofs, we carry constants through the calculation and use the oblivious subspace embedding result given by Claim~\ref{claim:oblivious} in \ref{sec:appB-OSE}. By using this form of the oblivious subspace embedding result, we obtain slightly different bounds on the required number of measurements as compared with \cite{Dhar2018}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:bora-mod-2}
Let $\Omega \subseteq B^k(r) = \{\bm{z} \in \mathbb{R}^k \mid \|\bm{z}\|_2 <r\}$ and let $G:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ be $L$-Lipschitz. Define the set $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^P$ such that
\begin{equation}
S=\{ G(\bm{z}) + \bm{\nu} \mid \bm{z} \in \Omega, \|\bm{\nu}\|_0 = \ell\}.
\end{equation}
Let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ and pick $\alpha \in (0,1/4)$.
Set $J \ge \log(\|A\|)/\log(2)$ and suppose that for $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^p$ and $j=1,\dots,J$ there exists a positive function $f(N)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:req1}
\mathbb{P}\left(\|A \bm{x}\|_2^2 \ge (1+\epsilon_j)\|\bm{x}\|_2^2\right) \le 5e^{-f(N) \epsilon_j^2},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_j$ is such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ej}
\epsilon_j^2 = \frac{1}{f(N)}(\log(5)+4jk) + 1.
\end{equation}
Let $\alpha<1/4$ and let $g=g(k,\ell,P,\delta,\alpha,L,r)$ be as given in (\ref{eq:g}), if (\ref{eq:req1}) holds with $\epsilon_j \rightarrow \alpha$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fN-bound}
f(N) \ge g,
\end{equation}
then $A$ satisfies the S-REC$(S,1-4\alpha,2(1+C)\delta)$ with probability at least $1-7e^{-\alpha^2\frac{f(N)}{3}}$.
\end{lemma}
Next we combine the results given in Lemma~\ref{lemma:gauss-result-1} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-mod-2} to prove Lemma~\ref{lemma:SREC}. To apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-mod-2}, we need to show that $\Phi$ satisfies the concentration inequality given by (\ref{eq:req1}) for all $\epsilon_j$ and for $\alpha<1/4$ and that the matrix norm of $\|\Phi\|$ is bounded.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:SREC}]
First we will show that the required tail concentrations inequalities are satisfied. To do this we will use Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-mod-2} where $f(N)$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fN2}
f(N) = \frac{\gamma c_3 \tilde{N}}{3^p s_0} = \frac{c_0 c_3 \tilde{N}}{3^p \log^2(s_0) \log^2(P)},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{N}=\min\{N,N_{\epsilon_{max}}\}$.
We will first show that the bound given by (\ref{eq:fN-bound}) in Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-mod-2} holds, i.e., $f(N) \ge g$. If $N<N_{\epsilon_{max}}$, (\ref{eq:Nbound-linear}) immediately implies $f(N) \ge g$. Therefore, we need to show that (\ref{eq:fN-bound}) holds when $N>N_{\epsilon_{max}}$ and thus, $\tilde{N}=N_{\epsilon_{max}}$ and $f(N)=f(N_{\epsilon_{max}})$. Using (\ref{eq:fN2}) and (\ref{eq:Neps}), we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fNmax}
f(N_{\epsilon_{max}}) = c_0 c_1 c_3 \epsilon_{max}^{-2} s_0.
\end{equation}
Rearranging (\ref{eq:fNmax}) and applying the bound on $s_0$ given by (\ref{eq:s0bound}), we then have that
\begin{equation}
s_0 = \frac{\epsilon_{max}^2 f(N_{\epsilon_{max}})}{c_0 c_1 c_3} \ge \frac{1}{c_0 c_1 c_3}\left(\log(5) + 4Jk + g\right).
\end{equation}
Simplifying and using the definition of $\epsilon_{max}$ given by (\ref{eq:emax}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{1}{g}(\log(5)+4Jk)+1\right) f(N_{\epsilon_{max}}) \ge \log(5) + 4Jk + g
\end{equation}
which gives us
\begin{equation}
f(N_{\epsilon_{max}}) \ge \frac{\log(5) + 4Jk + g}{\frac{1}{g}(\log(5)+4Jk+g)} = g.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we have that the condition given by (\ref{eq:fN-bound}) in Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-mod-2} is satisfied.
We next need to show that the concentration tail inequality given by (\ref{eq:req1}) is satisfied for $\alpha<1/4$ and $\epsilon_j$ as defined in (\ref{eq:ej}) for $j=1,\dots,J$. To do this we will show that, for $j=1,\dots,J$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:e-inequal}
\epsilon_{min} < \alpha < \epsilon_j < \epsilon_{max}.
\end{equation}
This then allows us to apply Corollary~\ref{cor:tailbound} to show that (\ref{eq:req1}) holds for $\alpha$ and $\epsilon_j$, $j=1,\dots,J$. That is suppose $\epsilon$ is such that $\epsilon_{min} < \epsilon < \epsilon_{max}$. Let $f(N;\epsilon)$ and $N_\epsilon$ be as defined in Corollary~\ref{cor:tailbound} and (\ref{eq:Neps}). Since $\epsilon < \epsilon_{max}$, we have that $N_{\epsilon_{max}} < N_\epsilon$ and $f(N;\epsilon) \ge f(N)$. Applying Corollary~\ref{cor:tailbound} gives us
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Tail-Bounds-old2}
\mathbb{P}\left(
\left|\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2\right| \ge \epsilon \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right)
\le 5e^{-f(N;\epsilon) \epsilon^2} \le 5e^{-f(N)\epsilon^2}.
\end{equation}
This logic shows us that given (\ref{eq:e-inequal}) holds, (\ref{eq:req1}) is satisfied for $\alpha$ and $\epsilon_j$, $j=1,\dots,J$.
The upper bound in (\ref{eq:e-inequal}) follows immediately from
\begin{equation}\label{eq:emax-old}
\epsilon^2_{max} := \frac{1}{g}(\log(5)+4Jk)+1 \ge \frac{1}{f(N)}(\log(5)+4jk)+1 = \epsilon_j^2 \ge \alpha^2.
\end{equation}
To prove the lower bound of (\ref{eq:e-inequal}) holds, first note, due to the bound on $N$ given by (\ref{eq:Nbound-linear}) and the definition of $s_0$ given by (\ref{eq:s0}), we have that
\begin{equation}
N \ge \frac{c_1 3^p}{c_0 c_2} \log^2(s_0) \log^2(P) g \ge \frac{c_1}{\alpha^2} 3^p 2 \log(2) \log^2(P),
\end{equation}
where we pull out the $\alpha^2$ term from the $g$ function and note that the remaining multiplicative terms are greater than 1. Therefore, using the definition of $\epsilon_{min}$ given by (\ref{eq:emin}), we have that $\epsilon_{min}<\alpha<\epsilon_j$ for $j=1,\dots,J$.
To apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-mod-2}, it remains to show that $J \ge \log(\|\Phi\|)/\log(2)$. It is known that Legendre polynomials are bounded as follows (see Lemma~3.3 from \cite{Doostan2011}),
\begin{equation}
\text{max}_{\bm{\alpha}\in\Lambda_{d,p}}\|\psi_{\bm{\alpha}}\|_{\infty} = 3^{\frac{p}{2}}
\end{equation}
which gives us the following bound for the matrix norm,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Psi-norm-bound}
\|\Psi\|_2 \le \sqrt{NP} \max_{ij} |\Psi_{ij}| \le \sqrt{NP} 3^{p/2}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $\|\Phi\|_2=\left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Psi D_{\bm{\xi}}\right\|_2\le \sqrt{P}3^{\frac{p}{2}}$ and $J = \lceil 2 \log(P 3^p)/\log(2)\rceil \ge \log(\|\Phi\|)/\log(2)$.
\end{proof}
Finally, we combine Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-result} and \ref{lemma:SREC} to prove the main result.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:1}]
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:SREC}, we have that $\Phi$ satisfies the S-REC($S$,$1-4\alpha$,$16\delta$) with probability at least $1-7e^{-\frac{\alpha^2 f(N)}{3}}$ where $f(N)$ is as defined in (\ref{eq:fN2}).
Additionally, using Corollary~\ref{cor:tailbound} and the same logic as described in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:SREC}, we can show (\ref{eq:Tail-Bounds-old2}) holds when $\epsilon=3$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}\left(
\left|\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2^2 - \|\bm{x}\|_2^2\right| \ge 3 \|\bm{x}\|_2^2
\right)
\le 5e^{-9f(N;\epsilon)} \le 5e^{-9 f(N)}.
\end{equation}
Note that in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:1}, we are guaranteed that $\epsilon_{max} \ge 3$.
Therefore, $\|\Phi \bm{x}\|_2 \le 2\|\bm{x}\|_2$ with probability at least $1-5e^{-9 f(N)}$. We now apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:bora-result} and set the value of $\mu$ in the lemma such that
\begin{equation}
\mu = \max\left\{7e^{-\frac{\alpha^2 f(N)}{3}},5 e^{-9 f(N)}\right\} = 7e^{-\alpha^2 \frac{f(N)}{3}}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Results for the exponential decay generative model}
Next we prove Lemma \ref{lemma:G-Lip}, demonstrating that the results of Theorem~\ref{thm:1} can be applied to the exponential decay model (and variations of this model) described in Section~\ref{sec:methods-genmod}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:G-Lip}]
For notational simplicity we write $G_i(\bm{a}) = G_i(\bm{z}(\bm{a}))$. First we will bound the derivative of $G_i$ with respect to $a_{\ell}$.
For $\ell$ such that $b_{\ell}^{(i)}=0$ we have that $\partial G_i(\bm{a})/\partial a_{\ell} = 0$ since
\begin{equation}
G_i(\bm{a}) = c_i\prod_{j=1}^k e^{-(b_j^{(i)})^T \left(\frac{a_j}{1-a_j} + z^{(0)}_{j}\right)} = c_i\prod_{\substack{j=1 \\j\ne \ell}}^k e^{-(b_j^{(i)})^T \left(\frac{a_j}{1-a_j} + z^{(0)}_{j}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, below we consider $\ell$ such that $b_{\ell}^{(i)} > 0$. For $a_{\ell} \in [0,1)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Lip-deriv-1}
\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{\partial G_i(\bm{a})}{\partial a_{\ell}}\right|
&= \left|\frac{\partial G_i(\bm{a})}{\partial z_{\ell}}\frac{dz_{\ell}}{da_{\ell}}\right| \\
&= |c_i| b^{(i)}_{\ell} \left(\prod_j e^{-b_j^{(i)} \left(\frac{a_j}{1-a_j}+z_{j}^{(0)}\right)}\right) \frac{1}{(1-a_{\ell})^2} \\
&= \left(\prod_{j\ne \ell} e^{-b_j^{(i)} \left(\frac{a_j}{1-a_j}+z_{j}^{(0)}\right)}\right) \frac{|c_i| b^{(i)}_{\ell}}{(1-a_{\ell})^2}e^{-b_{\ell}^{(i)} \left(\frac{a_{\ell}}{1-a_{\ell}}+z_{\ell}^{(0)}\right)} \\
&\le \left(\prod_{j\ne \ell} e^{-b_j^{(i)} z_{j}^{(0)}}\right) \left(|c_i| b^{(i)}_{\ell} e^{-b_{\ell}^{(i)} z_{\ell}^{0}} \right)\left(\frac{1}{(1-a_{\ell})^2}e^{-b_{\ell}^{(i)} \left(\frac{a_{\ell}}{1-a_{\ell}}\right)}\right) \\
&= |c_i| b^{(i)}_{\ell} e^{-(\bm{b}^{(i)})^T \bm{z}^{(0)}} \left(\frac{1}{(1-a_{\ell})^2}e^{-b_{\ell}^{(i)} \left(\frac{a_{\ell}}{1-a_{\ell}}\right)}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let us examine what the following term looks like for $a \in [0,1)$ and $b>0$
\begin{equation}
f(a) = (1-a)^2 e^{\frac{ba}{1-a}}.
\end{equation}
Notice that $f(a)$ is the inverse of the final term in parentheses in (\ref{eq:Lip-deriv-1}). To obtain a bound for $f(a)$, we consider the derivative
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
f'(a)
&= -2(1-a) e^{\frac{ba}{1-a}} + (1-a)^2 \left(\frac{b}{1-a}+\frac{ba}{(1-a)^2}\right) e^{\frac{ba}{1-a}} \\
&= (-2 + 2a + b)e^{\frac{ba}{1-a}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
If $b\ge2$ we have that $f'(a)\ge 0$ for $a \in [0,1)$ and
\begin{equation}
f(a) \ge f(0) = 1.
\end{equation}
Otherwise $f(a)$ is minimized at $a=(2-b)/2$ and, therefore,
\begin{equation}
f(a) \ge f\left(\frac{2-b}{2}\right) = \left(\frac{b}{2}\right)^2 e^{2-b}.
\end{equation}
Taken together, this implies that
\begin{equation}
\left|\frac{\partial G_i(\bm{a})}{\partial a_{\ell}}\right| \le |c_i| b^{(i)}_{\ell} e^{-(\bm{b}^{(i)})^T \bm{z}^{(0)}} g\left(b_{\ell}^{(i)}\right) =: L_{i,\ell},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g(b) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } b\ge 2 \\
\frac{4}{b^2}e^{b-2} & \text{if } b \in [0,2).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Recall that we are only considering $\ell \in 1,\dots,k$ for which $b_{\ell}^{(i)} \ne 0$. For $\ell$ such that $b_{\ell}^{(i)} = 0$, we define $L_{i,\ell} := 0$ since $\partial G_i(\bm{a})/\partial a_{\ell} = 0$.
Next, we use the bounds on the partial derivatives to calculate the Lipschitz constant. We have that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
|G_i(\bm{a}^{(1)}) - G_i(\bm{a}^{(2)})|
&\le \sum_{i=1}^k L_{i,j} |a_j^{(1)} - a_j^{(2)}| \\
&\le \max_j L_{i,j} \|a^{(1)} - a^{(2)}\|_1 \\
&\le \sqrt{k} \max_j L_{i,j} \|a^{(1)} - a^{(2)}\|_2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Squaring and summing across all $P$ terms gives us
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^P (G_i(\bm{a}^{(1)}) - G_i(\bm{a}^{(2)}))^2
&\le \sum_{i=1}^P k (\max_j L_{i,j})^2 \|a_j^{(1)} - a_j^{(2)}\|_2^2 \\
&\le (\max_{i,j} L_{i,j})^2 P k \|a_j^{(1)} - a_j^{(2)}\|_2^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The square root of this equation gives us the $\ell 2$ bound
\begin{equation}
\|G(\bm{a}^{(1)}) - G(\bm{a}^{(2)})\|_2 \le \sqrt{Pk}(\max_{ij} L_{i,j}) \|\bm{a}^{(1)} - \bm{a}^{(2)}\|_2.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the Lipschitz constant is
\begin{equation}
L = \sqrt{Pk} \max_{i,j} L_{i,j}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical Results}\label{sec:numerical-results}
We examine the performance of the GenMod algorithm on three example problems. The examples are presented in order of increasing complexity, as measured by the random input space dimension. In addition to GenMod, we consider results when no sparse vector is added (i.e., GenMod-NoSparse). In the context of Algorithm~\ref{alg} this is equivalent to setting \textit{max\_iteration}=1 and skipping the weighted lasso step (i.e., skipping lines 22-25). We compare the results of our algorithm with techniques that promote sparsity of the coefficient vector, i.e., OMP and IRW-Lasso (see Algorithm~\ref{alg:IRW-Lasso}). For each replication, we obtain the QoI $u$ at $N$ realizations of the random input vector $\bm{Y}$ and run Algorithm~\ref{alg} with $N_{op} = 4N/5$ and $N_{va}=N/5$. We use the same $N$ data points to perform OMP and Lasso as described in Section~\ref{sec:methods-las-omp}.
To compare the performance of the four approaches, we calculate the relative coefficient and/or reconstruction errors. Specifically, for Examples 1 and 2 we find the relative coefficient error by obtaining the least squares coefficient solution $\bm{c}_{ls}$, using $N_{ls} \gg P$ datapoints. The relative coefficient error is defined as
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{c}(\text{Method})
:= \frac{\|\hat{\bm{c}}(\text{Method})-\bm{c}_{ls}||_2}{\|\bm{c}_{ls}\|_2},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\bm{c}}(\text{Method})$ is the coefficient vector obtained using a specific method (i.e., GenMod, GenMod-NoSparse, OMP, IRW-Lasso).
For all three examples we report the relative reconstruction error, which quantifies how well the optimized coefficients predict the value of the QoI $u$ for testing data that was not used during training. We let $N_{te}$ denote the number of samples used for testing and note that, for a given sample replication, the same testing data was used for each method. Let $\Psi_{te}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{te}\times P}$ represent the Legendre measurement matrix evaluated at the $N_{te}$ realizations of $\bm{Y}$ used for testing. Let $\bm{u}_{te}$ represent the vector containing the value of the QoI at each of the $N_{te}$ realizations. The relative reconstruction error is then given as
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_u(\text{Method})
:= \frac{\|\Psi_{te} \hat{\bm{c}}(\text{Method})
- \bm{u}_{te}||_2}{\|\bm{u}_{te}\|_2}.
\end{equation}
We will additionally examine the relative improvement of GenMod compared with OMP or IRW-Lasso. For the relative coefficient and reconstruction error, respectively, this improvement will be reported as a percentage as follows
\begin{align}
\Delta \varepsilon_c
&:= \frac{
\varepsilon_c(\text{Method}) - \varepsilon_c(\text{GenMod})
}{\varepsilon_c(\text{Method})} \cdot 100 \% \\
\Delta \varepsilon_u
&:= \frac{
\varepsilon_u(\text{Method}) -\varepsilon_u(\text{GenMod})
}{\varepsilon_u(\text{Method})} \cdot 100 \%.
\end{align}
where Method=OMP or IRW-Lasso.
For Examples 1 and 2, we repeated this training and testing process for $n_r=50$ independent replications at each value of $N$. For Example 3, in order to better quantify the relative reconstruction error distribution, we performed $n_r=100$ independent replications.
\subsection{Example 1: 1D Elliptic Equation}\label{sec:Ex1}
We consider the following elliptic equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ex1}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{d}{dx}\left(a(x,\bm{Y})\frac{du}{dx}\right) &= 1,
\quad x \in \mathcal{D}=(0,1) \\
u(0,\bm{Y})&=u(1,\bm{Y})=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The stochastic diffusion coefficient $a(x,\bm{Y})$ is given by the expansion
\begin{equation}
a(x,\bm{Y})=\bar{a}+\sigma \sum_{i=1}^d\sqrt{\lambda_i}\phi_i(x)Y_i,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{a}$ is constant and $\sigma$ controls the magnitude of fluctuations from the mean. Here, $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=1}^d$ and $\{\phi_i(x)\}_{i=1}^d$ are, respectively, the $d$ largest eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions of the Gaussian covariance kernel
\begin{equation}
C(x_1,x_2) = \exp\left(-\frac{(x_1-x_2)^2}{L^2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the correlation length. The random vector $\bm{Y}=(Y_1,\dots,Y_d)$ is assumed to be uniformly distributed on $[-1,1]^d$, i.e., $Y_i \sim U(-1,1)$ for $i=1,..,d$.
We numerically calculated the solution to the 1D elliptic equation (\ref{eq:ex1}) at $d=14$, $L=1/5$, $\bar{a}=0.1$, and $\sigma=0.03$. These parameter values guarantee that all realizations of $a(x,\bm{Y})$ are strictly positive on $\mathcal{D}$. The solution to the PDE is calculated using the Finite Element Method with quadratic elements. A mesh convergence analysis is performed to ensure that spatial discretization errors are insignificant.
Our QoI is the value of $u$ at the center of the 1D domain, i.e. $u(0.5,\bm{Y})$. We approximate the QoI using a PC expansion containing Legendre polynomials up to degree $p=3$. Using (\ref{eq:P}) this implies that the generative function $G:\mathbb{R}^k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ maps from a $k=2d+1=29$ dimensional space to a $P=680$ dimensional space (i.e., there are 680 coefficients in the PC expansion). For this example, we examine how the different methods perform as we increase the sample size $N$ from 30 to 320. We use $N_{ls}=40000$ points to find the least squares coefficients and $N_{te}=1000$ testing points to calculate the relative reconstruction error.
We find that at a low sample sizes ($N=30,40$), GenMod consistently outperforms both OMP and IRW-Lasso (see Figure~\ref{fig:data1-a} and \ref{fig:data1-b}). At $N=30$, GenMod outperforms OMP and IRW-Lasso for all 50 sample replications (see Figure~\ref{fig:data1-b}, bottom row) and at $N=40$, GenMod outperforms OMP and IRW-Lasso in all but one or two of the 50 sample replications. Additionally, at low sample sizes (i.e., $N=30,40,80$), GenMod has less variability in the error results compared to both OMP and IRW-Lasso (see Figure~\ref{fig:data1-b}, top row), demonstrating the consistency of the GenMod approach.
When comparing the GenMod and the GenMod-NoSparse methods (see Figure~\ref{fig:data1-b}, middle row), we find that at low values of $N$ the two methods perform similarly (i.e., $N=30,40$). However, as $N$ increases, we find that the error of GenMod-NoSparse plateaus, while the error of GenMod continues to decrease. This is as expected since the number of parameters in the GenMod-NoSparse method does not increase with $N$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[]{figures/fig_data1_n=40_barplots.pdf}
\caption{GenMod reduces the coefficient (top row) and reconstruction errors (bottom row) when compared with OMP and IRW-Lasso for Example 1, the 1D elliptic equation. The plots on the right show the percent improvement of GenMod compared with IRW-Lasso. Results are for 50 independent sample replications that used $N=40$ points for training and $N_{te}=1000$ points for testing.}
\label{fig:data1-a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[]{figures/fig_data1_increasing_N.pdf}
\caption{Coefficient and reconstruction errors as a function of sample size $N$ for Example~1, the 1D elliptic equation. Error bars represent the range of results for 50 independent sample replications at each value of $N$. For each replication, $N_{te}=1000$ testing points were used to calculate the relative reconstruction error. Results are given for $N=30,40,80,160,320$. For the distribution of results at $N=40$ see Figure~\ref{fig:data1-a}.}
\label{fig:data1-b}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example 2 and 3: Heat driven cavity flows}\label{sec:Ex23}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\newcommand{5}{5}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[->] (-3,0) -- (-3,1) node[above] {$x_2$};
\draw[->] (-3,0) -- (-2,0) node[right] {$x_1$};
\filldraw (0,0) circle (1pt) node[below] {\footnotesize (0,0)};
\filldraw (5,5) circle (1pt) node[above] {\footnotesize (1,1)};
\draw[ultra thick,red] (0,0) -- node[above,rotate=90] {Hot wall} ++(0,5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue] (5,0) -- node[below,rotate=90] {Cold wall} ++(0,5);
\draw[thick] (0,0) -- node[below] {$\frac{\partial T}{\partial x_2}=0$} ++(5,0);
\draw[thick] (0,5) -- node[above] {$\frac{\partial T}{\partial x_2}=0$} ++(5,0);
\coordinate (A) at (5/4,5/4);
\coordinate (B) at (2,2.5);
\filldraw (A) circle (2pt) node[below] {\footnotesize (0.25,0.25)};
\draw[-{angle 60},thin] (A) -- node[left] {$\bm{v}$} ++(1,1.5);
\draw[-{latex},ultra thick] (5/4+1,5/4) -- node[right] {$v_2$ {\footnotesize $\leftarrow$ Ex~2 QoI}} ++(0,1.5);
\draw[-{angle 60},thin] (A) -- node[above] {} ++(1,0);
\filldraw (0,5/2) circle (2pt) node[above right,text width=2cm] {{\footnotesize Ex~3 QoI\vspace{-.2cm}
\hspace{2cm} $\text{ }\downarrow$ \hspace{1cm}}$\partial \Theta/\partial x_1$};
\draw[-{latex},ultra thick] (0,5/2) -- (1.5,5/2);
\draw[blue] (5 + 1.2,0) to [ curve through={(5 + 1.4,.2*5) . . (5 + 1,.5*5) . . (5 + 1.4,.6*5) . . (5 + 1,.7*5)}] (5+1.2,5);
\draw[blue] (5 + 1,0) to [ curve through={(5 + .8,0.2*5) . . (5 + 1.6,.6*5)}] (5 + .8,5);
\node[right,blue] at (5 + 2,5/2) {$T_c(x_1=1,x_2,\bm{Y})$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Diagram of the heat driven cavity flow problem. In Example 2 the QoI is the upward velocity $v_2$ at (0.25,0.25). In Example 3 the QoI is the heat flux at the middle of the hot wall.}
\label{fig:diagram}
\end{figure}
For the next two examples, we consider a 2D heat-driven square cavity flow problem (Figure~\ref{fig:diagram}). This example has been considered previously in \cite{LeMatre2002,Peng2014,Hampton2015,Fairbanks2017,Hampton2018,Hampton2018a}. The left vertical wall has a either a deterministic (Example~2) or random (Example~3) constant temperature $T_h$. For both examples, the right vertical wall has a stochastic, spatially-varying temperature $T_c(x_1=1,x_2,\bm{Y})$ with constant mean $\bar{T}_c$. The top and bottom walls are assumed to be adiabatic, i.e. $\frac{\partial T}{\partial x_2}(x_1,x_2=0,\bm{Y}) = \frac{\partial T}{\partial x_2}(x_1,x_2=1,\bm{Y}) = 0$. Under the assumption of small temperature differences, i.e., the Boussinesq approximation, the governing equations that determine the velocity vector field $\bm{v}=(v_1,v_2)$, the normalized temperature $\Theta$, and the pressure $p$ across the domain are
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \bm{v}}{\partial t} + \bm{v} \cdot \nabla \bm{v}
&= -\nabla p + \frac{\text{Pr}}{\sqrt{\text{Ra}}}\nabla^2 \bm{v}
+ \text{Pr} \Theta \bm{e}_{2} \\
\nabla \cdot \bm{v}
&= 0 \\
\frac{\partial \Theta}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (\bm{v} \Theta )
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\text{Ra}}}\nabla^2 \Theta,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{e}_{2}$ is the unit vector in the $x_2$ direction, i.e. $\bm{e}_2 = (0,1)$, and $t$ is time. The normalized temperature $\Theta$ is related to the absolute temperature $T$ as follows
\begin{equation}
\Theta = \frac{T-T_{ref}}{T_h-\bar{T}_c},
\end{equation}
where $T_{ref}$ is the average temperature of the two walls, i.e. $T_{ref} = (T_h + \bar{T}_c)/2$.
This implies the normalized hot and mean cold wall temperatures are $\Theta_h = 0.5$ and $\bar{\Theta}_c = -0.5$, respectively. The dimensionless Prandtl and Rayleigh numbers are defined, respectively, as $\text{Pr}=\nu/\alpha$ and $\text{Ra}=g\tau(T_{h}-\bar{T}_c)L^3/(\nu\alpha)$. Here, $\nu$ is the viscosity, $\alpha$ is thermal diffusivity, $g$ is gravitational acceleration, $\tau$ is the coefficient of thermal expansion, and $L$ is the length of the cavity. For more information on these constants and how they relate to the physical properties of the system see \cite{LeMatre2002}.
On the cold wall, we apply a temperature distribution with stochastic fluctuations as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ex3-Tc}
T_c(x_1 = 1,x_2,\bm{Y})
= \bar{T}_c + \sigma_T\sum_{i=1}^{d_T} \sqrt{\lambda_i}\phi_i(x_2)Y_i,
\end{equation}
or, alternatively, in normalized form,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ex2-Thetac}
\Theta_c(x_1 = 1,x_2,\bm{Y})
= \bar{\Theta}_c
+ \sigma_{\Theta}\sum_{i=1}^{d_T}\sqrt{\lambda_i}\phi_i(x_2)Y_i,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{\Theta} = \sigma_T/(T_h-\bar{T}_c)$. Here, $\sigma_T$ controls the magnitude of the temperature fluctuations along the cold wall, and $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=1}^d$ and $\{\phi_i(x)\}_{i=1}^d$ are, respectively, the $d_T$ largest eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions of the exponential covariance kernel
\begin{equation}
C(x_1,x_2) = \exp\left(-\frac{|x_1-x_2|}{L^2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the correlation length.
Using this physical model as a starting point, we next present details and results for the two examples considered. Note that the QoI and sources of uncertainty differ between these two examples.
\subsubsection{Example 2}\label{sec:Ex2}
In this example, the random input space is composed of the parameters $Y_i$ for $i=1,..,d_T$, which determine the cold wall temperature as given by (\ref{eq:Ex2-Thetac}). We set $d=d_T=20$, $L=1/21$, $\sigma_{\Theta}=11/100$, $\text{Ra}=10^6$ and $\text{Pr}=0.71$, and, by definition we have that $\bar{\Theta}_c=-0.5$ and $\Theta_h=0.5$. Notice that we are setting parameters for the normalized version of the system, as the absolute temperature is not a source of uncertainty.
We will consider polynomial chaos expansions up to order $p=3$. This implies that the generative function $G:\mathbb{R}^k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^P$ maps from a $k=2d+1=41$ dimensional space to a $P=1771$ dimensional space (i.e., there are 1771 coefficients in the PC expansion). We use $N=60$ points to train the model, $N_{ls}=30000$ points to find the least squares coefficients, and $N_{te}=1000$ points to test and compare the performance of the different methods.
Our results demonstrate that GenMod consistently outperforms both OMP and IRW-Lasso (Figure~\ref{fig:data2-a}). In all but 2 or 4 of the 50 sample replications GenMod decreases the coefficient error compared with OMP and IRW-Lasso, respectively. Similarly, GenMod decreased the reconstruction error in all but 4 of the 50 sample replications for both OMP and IRW-Lasso.
We explored this example further by comparing the absolute values of the coefficients between the three methods (for an example of one replication see Figure~\ref{fig:data2-b}, top row). Lasso often finds nonzero coefficients for polynomials with larger degree that, in reality, do not have significant contributions (e.g., consider the nonzero coefficients with indices over $100$). Meanwhile, OMP often leads to fewer nonzero coefficients and hence misses some coefficients that GenMod accurately predicts (e.g., consider the second coefficient, $\hat{c}_2$). By biasing the expansion towards having decaying coefficients and not enforcing sparsity, GenMod correctly determines that many of the coefficients corresponding to higher degree polynomials are insignificant.
We also examine how well the GenMod algorithm predicts the coefficient signs. For the example replication shown in Figure~\ref{fig:data2-b}, bottom row, we find that, for all coefficients with magnitudes greater than $10^{-5}$, we have correctly predicted the sign. We additionally examine the role of the sparse vector in flipping the signs of the coefficients. We find that there were on average 4.8 sign flips per replication of which 68.1\% were in the correct direction. The example shown in Figure~\ref{fig:data2-b} was chosen to accurately capture the proportion of correct to incorrect sign flips.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{figures/fig_data2_n=60_barplots.pdf}
\caption{Relative coefficient error (top row) and relative reconstruction error (bottom row) of testing data for Example 2. Results are for 50 independent sample replications that used $N=60$ points for training and $N_{te}=1000$ testing points for calculating the reconstruction error. The right column shows the percent improvement of GenMod compared with IRW-Lasso.}
\label{fig:data2-a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figures/fig_2_coef_mag.pdf}
\caption{Optimized coefficients for one of the replications in Example 2. The top plot compares the coefficient values obtained for the different optimization methods. The bottom plot shows GenMod coefficients with correct/incorrect signs compared with the least squares optimization. Coefficients with signs that flipped due to the addition of the sparse vector are highlighted with a star.}
\label{fig:data2-b}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Example 3}\label{sec:Ex3}
In this example we increase the size of the random input space by including the hot wall temperature $T_{h}$ and the viscosity $\nu$ as stochastic parameters. We also increase the number of random parameters $d_T$ used to define variations in the cold wall temperature. This example was previously considered in \cite{Hampton2018}. We set $d_T=50$, $\sigma_T=2$, $g=10$, $L=1$, $\tau=0.5$, $\text{Pr}=0.71$, and $\bar{T}_c=100$. Note that here, unlike in Example 2, we are defining the absolute temperature parameters, since one of these parameters $T_h$ is a source of uncertainty. The value of the hot wall temperature is assumed to be uniformly distributed over [105,109] and the value of the viscosity $\nu$ is assumed to be uniformly distributed over [0.004,.01]. Note that these variables can be transformed into corresponding variables $\tilde{T}_h$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ that are uniformly distributed on $[-1,1]$. We then have that the random input vector is $Y=(Y_1,\dots,Y_{d_T}, \tilde{T}_h, \tilde{\nu})$ with size $d=52$
In this example we consider the polynomial chaos expansion up to order $p=2$, implying that the number of coefficients is $P=1431$. Additionally, we have that $k=2d+1=105$. In this example we consider a sample of size $N=50$ and use $N_{te}=250$ points for testing. Note that for this scenario, the sample size $N$ is less than the dimension of the latent space $k$ of the Generative model.
In Example 3, GenMod leads to a decreased variance of the relative reconstruction error (Figure~{\ref{fig:data3}}). More specifically, the mean and standard deviation of the three methods are: $\bar{\varepsilon}_u(\text{GenMod}) = 0.009 \pm 0.0027$, $\bar{\varepsilon}_u(\text{OMP}) = 0.010 \pm 0.0042$, $\bar{\varepsilon}_u(\text{IRW-Lasso})=0.011 \pm 0.0053$. This implies that, although the sparsity promoting methods outperform GenMod for some sample replications (Figure~{\ref{fig:data3}}, left plot), GenMod is more likely to decrease the error below a maximum tolerance level. Additionally, this example shows that GenMod still performs well when the maximum order of the PC expansion, $p$, is small and the number of samples $N$ is less than the dimension of the latent space $k$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figures/fig_data3_n=50_barplots.pdf}
\caption{Relative reconstruction error of testing data for Example 3. Results are for 100 independent sample replications that used $N=50$ points for training and $N_{te}=250$ points for validation. The percent improvement of GenMod is shown with respect to IRW-Lasso.}
\label{fig:data3}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
We have shown that a nonlinear generative model can improve the prediction of stochastic PDE solutions at small sample sizes, which is the sampling regime of interest in this work. In particular, this work is focused on situations were the number of solution evaluations is roughly equivalent to the number of independent sources of uncertainty. These results have the potential to be further improved by considering alternative generative models and other optimization algorithms.
The generative model we used, see (\ref{eq:G}), is motivated by PDE theory and does not require initial training. Our choice of generative model could be modified in multiple ways. For example, we may explore alternative functions that still encourage exponential decay of the coefficients. The resulting model would still have the quality that initial training is not required. Alternatively, we may consider a generative model that does require initial training. This approach is challenging in systems where measurements are extremely limited. However, by employing ideas from transfer learning or multi-fidelity modeling it might be possible to instead consider a generative model that, for example, is a neural network trained on lower fidelity data. Similar to \cite{Bora2017} our theoretical results apply to a range of generative models and, therefore, are applicable to these alternative scenarios.
We developed the GenMod algorithm (Algorithm~\ref{alg}) to solve the optimization problem given by (\ref{opt:1}), and found that, in practice, this approach performed well. However, this algorithm is likely sub-optimal since it sets the sign of the coefficients independently of the other parameters in the system, i.e., the input to the generative model and the sparse vector. Future work will involve refining this algorithm so that the variables are optimized simultaneously. As another possible improvement, we may develop a way to use the exponential decay function as only a bound on the coefficient magnitude. This would more closely reflect the known PDE theory. For example, at the end of the GenMod algorithm, we may include a relaxation step that allows the coefficients to decrease in magnitude. Determining whether this approach would lead to accurate recovery is a topic of future work.
The generative model approach outperformed OMP and IRW-Lasso for three example physical systems. Notably, alternative sparsity promoting algorithms exist that take into account some of the underlying PC coefficient structure \cite{Baraniuk2010,Peng2014,Chkifa2017}. In future work a more thorough comparative analysis of our approach with these alternative methods is warranted. However, our approach is unique in that we use a nonlinear function to estimate the coefficients and explicitly incorporate the coefficient decay into this function. This work provides a novel method for finding the coefficients in PC expansions for stochastic PDEs.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors acknowledge support by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program (PSAAP) under Award Number DE-NA0003962. The work of AD was also supported by the AFOSR grant FA9550-20-1-0138.
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Results}
How can the arguments in (1.6) and (1.7) be rendered bijective? To prove (1.2)
combinatorially, one needs a bijection
\begin{equation}
\phi :(S, i) \longleftrightarrow T,\tag{2.1}
\end{equation}
where $T$ varies over all standard tableaux whose shape is in $\Lambda^+$, and
$i$ runs over all integers $1\le i\le n+1$. It will be convenient to let $S$
vary not over the standard tableaux of shape $\lambda$, but over all tableaux of
shape $\lambda$ whose entries are the integers $1, 2, \ldots,i-1, i
+1,\ldots,n+1$. These pairs $(S, i)$ are in obvious bijection with the pairs
$(S, i)$ where $S$ is standard.
The bijection $\phi$, like row and column insertion, maps a tableau and an
integer to a new tableau with one more square than the old. For this reason, we
call $\phi$ an {\it insertion scheme,\/} and we speak of the evaluation of
$\phi(S, i)$ as the insertion of $i$ into ~$S$.
There are three equalities in (1.6). The first comes from (1.3), the downward
recursion from $f_\lambda$. The next comes from (1.5), the upward recursion
applied to the numbers $f_{\lambda^-}$. The last comes from (1.4), the downward
recursion applied to the numbers $f_{\lambda^+}$. This suggests the following
rough recipe for computing $\phi$. Assume that $\phi$ has already been defined
whenever $S$ is a tableau of size less than $n$, and let $\text{sh}(S)
=\lambda\vdash n$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Given $(S, i)$ with $\text{sh}(S) =\lambda\vdash n$ and $1 \le i\le n+1$,
remove the largest element
from $S$ to produce the tableau $S^-$.
\item Let $T^{-}=\phi(S^-, i)$. That is, use the upward recursion $\phi$ to
associate a tableau
$T^-$ with the pair $(S^-, i)$. Since $\text{sh}(T^-)$ is a successor of
$\text{sh}(S^-)$ in the Young
lattice, we have either $\text{sh}(T^-) \in\Lambda^{+-}$ or $\text{sh}(T^-)
=\lambda$.
\item As long as $\text{sh}(T^-) \in\Lambda^{+-}$, produce $T$ by adding $n +1$
to the boundary of $T^-$ so
as to make $\text{sh}(T) \in\Lambda^+$. Since every $\lambda^{+-}$ is contained
in exactly one $\lambda^+$, this can be done in only one way.
\end{enumerate}
Removing the largest entry from a tableau was how we proved the downward
recursion (1.1), so the three steps in this outline correspond to the three
equalities in (1.6).
In order to turn this outline into an exact algorithm for $\phi$, and thus to
prove (1.2) bijectively, we must settle two details. First, what happens if $i=
n +1$, in which case $\phi(S^-, i)$ makes no sense? Second, what if
$\text{sh}(T) =\lambda$? To answer these questions, we need to look more closely
at the arguments in Section 1.
Formula (1.6) uses the fact that every Ferrers diagram has one more addible
square than removable square. By a {\it bumping scheme} we mean a family of
injections proving this fact, i.e., a set $\{\beta_\lambda: \lambda\vdash n, n
\in{\mathbb N}\}$ of injections, one for each shape, such that
$$
\beta_\lambda : \{\text{removable squares of $\lambda$}\} \rightarrow
\{\text{addible squares of $\lambda$}\}
$$
Equivalently, $\beta_\lambda$ can be regarded as an injection $\beta_\lambda :
\Lambda^-\rightarrow\Lambda^+$. These injections can be chosen completely
arbitrarily. Under any bumping scheme, each $\lambda$ will have a unique addible
square not in the image of $\beta_\lambda$. This square is called the {\it lone
square\/} of~$\lambda$.
A simple bumping scheme is that in which any removable square is mapped by
$\beta_\lambda$ to the addible square one row higher. The lone square thus lies
at the end of the bottom row. This scheme, which will give rise to row
insertion, is illustrated in Fig.~3.
\mypdf{1.0}{rowbump}{A typical shape $\lambda$ (left) and the effect of the
injection $\beta_\lambda$ for the row insertion bumping scheme (right). Addible
squares are denoted $*$ and $+$ , the square marked $+$ being the lone square.}
A slightly more complex bumping scheme might take the bottom removable square of
any shape to the top addible square, the second lowest removable square to the
second highest addible square, and so on. For this scheme as well, the lone
square is always in the first row. Figure 4 shows a picture.
\mypdf{1.0}{hardbump}{An example of the injection $\beta_\lambda$ for a more
complicated bumping scheme.}
Since there is free choice of the injection $\beta_\lambda$ for each Ferrers
diagram $\lambda$, there are continuum many bumping schemes.
We now fix a bumping scheme and return to fill in the details in our
construction of the bijection $\phi$. Given an integer $i$ such that $1\le i\le
n+1$ and a tableau $S$ of shape $\lambda\vdash n$ whose entries are
$1,\ldots,i-1, i +1,\ldots,n+1$, the tableau
$T= \phi(S, i)$ is constructed as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $i=n+1$, $T$ is obtained by adding $n+1$ to $S$ in the lone square of
$\lambda$. Call
this situation {\bf Case I\/}.
\par\noindent
If $i\ne n+1$, begin by removing the largest entry in $S$ to produce the
tableau~$S^-$.
\item If we are not in Case I, $T^- = \phi(S^-, i)$ is computed recursively. There
are now 2 more cases.
\item {\bf Case II:\/} If $\text{sh}(T^-) \ne\lambda$, then $\text{sh}(T^-) =
\lambda^{+-}$ is the predecessor of a unique
shape $\lambda^+\in\Lambda^+$. The shape $\lambda^+$ is obtained by adding to
$\lambda^{+-}$ the unique square of $\lambda$ which is not in $\lambda^{+-}$. To
produce $T$, add $n +1$ to $T^-$ in this square.
\par\noindent
{\bf Case III:\/} Finally, suppose $\text{sh}(T^-) = \lambda$. In this case, let
$\lambda^+ = \beta_\lambda(\text{sh}(S^-))$. Produce $T$ from $T^-$ by adding
$n+1$ to the unique square in
$\lambda^+/\lambda = \{\text{squares in $\lambda^+$ but not in $\lambda$}\}$. In
other words, place $n +1$ in the addible square of $\lambda$ associated by the
bumping scheme with the removable square which contained $n +1$ in $S$. Even
more informally, bump $n +1$ using $\beta_\lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
The purpose of this construction is to associate the $m$ copies of $f_\lambda$
on the left hand side of (1.5) with $m$ of the copies of $f_\lambda$ on the left
hand side of (1.4) in some explicit fashion. The last copy of $f_\lambda$ in
(1.4) comes from Case I. A bit of reflection shows that this algorithm is an
exact combinatorial rephrasing of (1.6).
We will give examples of insertion schemes $\phi$ below, but first we prove two
propositions establishing that $\phi$ is a bijection and giving a more
computationally convenient description.
\begin{prop}
$\phi$ is a bijection.
\end{prop}
\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{{\bf QED}}
\begin{proof}
We explicitly compute
$$
\phi^{-1}:T\longleftrightarrow(S, i)
$$
The idea of the construction is straightforward: one removes $n + 1$ from $T$,
applies $\phi^{-1}$ recursively to produce a pair $(S^-, i)$ with shape
$\text{sh} (S^-) \in\Lambda^-$, and then adds $n+1$ to the boundary of $S^-$ to
obtain the tableau $S$ of shape $\lambda$. The details look like this (steps are
numbered to agree with the steps in the definition of $\phi$):
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(3)] Beginning with a shape $\lambda$ and a standard tableau $T$ of some
shape $\lambda^+$, remove
the square containing $n +1$ from $T$. Call the resulting standard tableau
$T^-$.
\end{enumerate}
\par\noindent
There are again three cases.
\smallskip
\par\noindent{\it Case I:\/} If $\text{sh}(T^-) = \lambda$ and $T$ is obtained
from $T^-$ by adding $n+1$ in the lone square, let $(S, i) = (T^-, n + 1)$.
\medskip
\par\noindent{\it Case II:\/} If $\text{sh}(T) \in\Lambda^{+-}$, then there is a
unique shape $\lambda^-\in\Lambda^-$ such that
$\lambda^-\subseteq\text{sh}(T^-)$. With this shape $\lambda^-$, proceed as
follows:
\smallskip
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2)] Use $\phi^{-1}$ recursively to map the tableau $T^-$, whose shape is
a successor of $\lambda^-$, to
a pair $(S^-, i)$ with $\text{sh}(S^-) = \lambda^-$ and $1 \le i\le n$.
\item[(1)] Produce $S$ from $S^-$ by adding $n+1$ to the unique square in
$\lambda/\lambda^-$. It is not
hard to see that this is the same square which contained $n +1$ in $T$. Both
elements of the pair $(S, i)$ are now defined.
\end{enumerate}
\smallskip
\par\noindent
{\it Case III:} Finally, suppose that $\text{sh}(T^-)=\lambda$ and $\text{sh}(T)
\in \text{image} (\beta_\lambda)$. In other words, $T$ is not obtained from
$T^-$ by adding $n+1$ in the lone square. Let
$\lambda^-=\beta_\lambda^{-1}(\text{sh}(T))$, i.e., find the removable square of
$\lambda$ associated by the bumping scheme with the addible square in
$\text{sh}(T)/\lambda$. Remove this square from $\lambda$ to obtain $\lambda^-$,
and proceed just as above:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[($2'$)] Use $\phi^{-1}$ recursively to map $T^-$ to a tableau $S^-$ of
shape $\lambda^-$ and an integer~$i$
such that $1 \le i\le n$.
\item[($1'$)] Produce $S$ from $S^-$ by adding $n +1$ to the unique square in
$\lambda/\lambda^-$. In this case
$n+1$ does not land in the same square it occupied in $T$. It lands in the
removable square of $\lambda$ associated by the bumping scheme to this addible
square.
\end{enumerate}
It is straightforward to see that case (I) of this definition inverts case (I)
in the definition of $\phi$, case (II) inverts case (II), and case (III) inverts
case (III).
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
$\phi(S,i)$ can be computed as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Remove from the tableau $S$ all entries $j>i$; place $i$ in the lone
square of the resulting tableau. Call the result $T^i$.
\end{enumerate}
\par\noindent
Now construct a sequence $T^{i+1}, T^{i+2}, \ldots, T^{n+1}= T$ using these
rules:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(2)] If the square containing $j$ in $S$ is vacant in $T^{j-1}$, produce
$T^j$ from $T^{j-1}$ by
adding $j$ to this square.
\smallskip
\item If, on the other hand, the square containing $j$ in $S$ is occupied in
$T^{j-1}$, then it
will be a removable square of $T^{j-1}$. Produce $T^j$ by adding $j$ to
$T^{j-1}$ in the addible square associated with this removable square by the
bumping scheme.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
A trivial induction establishes that if $S_{\le j}$ is the tableau obtained from
$S$ by deleting all entries $>j$, then either $\text{sh}(T^j) = \text{sh}(S_{\le
j})$ or $\text{sh}(T^j) = \text{sh}(S_{\le j})^{+-}$. This guarantees that the
sequence in (2) and (3) is well-defined. It is easy to see that the algorithm
described here satisfies the recursive description given above for~$\phi$. In
particular, rule (1) corresponds to case (I) in the definition of $\phi$, rule
(2) corresponds to case (II), and rule (3) corresponds to case (III).
\end{proof}
As an example, let $\phi$ be the insertion scheme induced by the row insertion
bumping scheme of Fig.~3. The sequence of tableaux obtained in inserting $i= 3$
into the tableau
\begin{equation}
S=\begin{array}{ccccc}
10&11& & & \\
4&5&8& & \\
1&2&6&7&9
\end{array}\tag{2.2}
\end{equation}
is shown in Fig.~5.
\mypdf{1.0}{fig5}{The process of inserting 3 into the tableau $S$ of (2.2) using
the row insertion bumping scheme. The rule from Prop.~2 used at each stage is
shown under the appropriate arrow.}
Notice that the result of the insertion in Fig.~5 is the same as that of just
row inserting 3 into $S$. The numbers which were added in Fig.~5 using rule (3)
(the one involving bumping) are exactly those which are bumped to a higher row
during row insertion. We shall prove in a moment that the insertion scheme
engendered by the row insertion bumping scheme is indeed ordinary row insertion.
As a more exotic example, consider again the bumping scheme in Fig.~4. The
sequence of tableaux obtained when 3 is inserted into the tableau $S$ of (2.2)
using this bumping scheme is shown in Fig.~6.
\mypdf{1.0}{fig6}{The process of inserting 3 into the tableau $S$ of (2.2) using
the bumping scheme of Fig.~4. The rule used at each stage is shown under the
appropriate arrow.}
The final tableau of Fig.~6 can be obtained from the initial tableau of (2.2) by
an algorithm resembling row insertion but having a different bump path. Most of
the entries of~$S$ are unchanged by the insertion; but the 3 has bumped the 6 up
to the top row, and the 6 has then bumped the 10 down to the second row. The
bumped numbers
are those added using rule (3) of Prop.~2. This interpretation shows how close
all our insertion schemes are to row insertion: different bumping schemes just
result in different bump paths.
In defining an insertion scheme, we inserted the letter $i$ into a tableau whose
entries are $1, 2, \ldots,i-1, i+ 1, \ldots, n +1$. In what follows, however, it
will be desirable to be able to insert $i$ into any tableau $S$ with distinct
entries not including $i$. This can be done by an obvious extension of the
algorithm of Prop.~2: one writes down all the entries of $S$ which are less than
$i$, puts $i$ in the lone square, then adds in increasing order the entries of
$S$ which are greater than $i$, bumping them if need be using
$\{\beta_\lambda\}$. We use $\phi$ to denote this extended insertion scheme as
well.
If this extension seems unmotivated by the algebra, one may adopt an alternative
approach in which integers are always inserted into {\it standard\/} tableaux. To insert
$i$, one first adds 1 to all entries of $S$ which are greater or equal to $i$,
and then inserts $i$ using Prop.~2. This approach is actually the direct
translation of Young's algebraic arguments, and is the one we originally
followed. The alternative approach taken here slightly simplifies the algorithms
and highlights their similarity to the classical RSA.
\begin{prop}
If $\phi$ is the insertion scheme engendered by the row insertion bumping
scheme, then $\phi(S, i)$ is the tableau $(S \leftarrow i)$ obtained by row
inserting $i$ into $S$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $S_{ab}$ be the element in the $a^\text{th}$ row (from the bottom) and
$b^\text{th}$ column of $S$, and assume to begin with that $S$ is a single row
$S_{11}, \ldots, S_{1n}$. To compute $\phi(S, i)$ using Prop.~2, we write all
entries of $S$ which are $\le i$, and we place $i$ at the end of this row. If
$S_{1, b-1} \le i< S_{1b}$, then $S_{1b}$ has just been displaced by $i$, so
$S_{1b}$ must be added to the tableau using rule (3). Since the row insertion
bumping scheme associates the removable square in the first row with the addible
square in the second row, this means that $S_{1b}$ is added as the leftmost
entry in row 2. Subsequent entries are added one at a time using rule (2), so
that they occupy the same positions in $T$ as in $S$. The resulting tableau $T$
is $(S \leftarrow i)$, so the proposition is proven in this case.
Suppose now that the proposition is true for all tableaux with fewer rows than~$S$.
If $S_{1, b-1} \le i< S_{1b}$ , then inserting $i$ using Prop.~2 produces a
tableau whose first row begins $S_{11}, S_{12}, \ldots, S_{1, b-1} , i$.
Further, since bumped elements always move upward, the elements to the right of
$i$ in row 1 of $T$ must be exactly those of $S$. The first row of $\phi(S, i)$
is thus the first row of $(S \leftarrow i)$. In the remainder of the insertion
algorithm,
$S_{1b}$ is added to the second row at the right of all elements which are
smaller than it, and insertion continues. This is exactly what would happen in
computing $\phi(S^*, S_{1b})$, where $S^*=S - \text{($1^{\text{st}}$ row)}$.
Since $S^*$ has fewer rows than $S$, however, $\phi(S^*, S_{1b}) = (S^*
\leftarrow S_{1b})$, and the proposition follows by induction.
\end{proof}
Proposition 3 shows that we have succeeded in producing from the downward
recursion (1.1) a family of bijections proving the upward recursion and
including row insertion. Column insertion is also included among these
bijections; its insertion scheme is the conjugate of that shown in Fig.~3. This
completes the combinatorial translation of~(1.6).
We now turn our attention to the proof of (I.1) in (1.7). In order to prove
(I.1) combinatorially, we need a bijection
$$
\rho:\sigma\longleftrightarrow (P, Q)
$$
between permutations and pairs of standard tableaux of the same shape. The
algebra in (1.7) tells us exactly how to compute $\rho$ recursively. The left
hand expression counts pairs $(P, Q)$ of tableaux together with an integer $i$.
The first equality says to insert $i$ into $P$ using $\phi$, i.e., to employ the
upward recursion (1.2). The second equality is just a relabeling. The last
equality, coming from the downward recursion (1.1), says to add a square
containing $n+1$ to $Q$ so as to produce a tableau of the same shape as the new
$P$ tableau.
In short, given a permutation $\sigma$ one proceeds as in the ordinary RSA to
insert the letters of $\sigma$ one at a time (using the insertion scheme $\phi$)
to produce the $P$~tableau. The $Q$ tableau records the positions at which new
squares are added to the boundary of the $P$ tableau at each stage of this
algorithm. Since $\phi$ is a bijection, each stage of this algorithm is
invertible; so $\rho$ is a bijection as well.
As an example, the figure below shows the tableaux produced when the permutation
$4265173$ is inserted one letter at a time using the bumping scheme of Fig.~4.
\mypdf{0.9}{fig7}{The $P$ tableaux obtained by inserting the permutation
$4265173$ one letter at a time using the bumping scheme of Fig.~4. The final
$P$ and $Q$ tableaux are shown at bottom.}
With the construction of $\rho$ we complete our program of combinatorializing
Young's algebraic arguments. It is pleasant that this effort so easily
reconstructs the classical RSA, though it is startling that it produces so many
other related algorithms. We end with some remarks on these.
By way of stressing the number of the correspondences $\rho$, we note that for
any standard tableau $P$ one can find a correspondence $\rho$ such that
$\rho(\text{id}) = (P, P)$. (When the identity is inserted, the new entry is
always added to the lone square, so $P$ must equal $Q$.) Indeed, in finding such
a $\rho$ one needs only specify the lone squares of the tableaux $P_{\le i}$; so
in fact a large number of correspondences produce a given target tableau from
the identity.
Not all these correspondences are equally natural or convenient, however. For
example, the classical RSA extends to words other than permutations. It provides
a bijection between $\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}^*$ and the class of ordered pairs $(P,
Q)$ where $P$ and $Q$ have size $n$, $\text{sh}(P) = \text{sh}(Q)$, $Q$ is
standard, and $P$ is column-strict. (A column-strict tableau is one in which
entries increase strictly in columns and weakly in rows.) It is not clear, in
general, whether or not our algorithms admit such extensions.
Further properties of these algorithms, and other types of tableaux are
considered in [3] and later publications.
\section*{References}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{[1]}] Knuth, Donald E., ``The Art of Computer Programming, vol.~3,
Sorting and Searching,'' Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1973.
\item[{[2]}] Knuth, Donald E., ``Permutations, Matrices, and Generalized Young
Tab-leaux,'' Pacific J.~Math., {\bf 34}, 709-727 (1970).
\item[{[3]}] T. J. McLarnan, ``Tableaux recursions and symmetric Schensted
Correspondences for ordinary, shifted and oscillating tableaux'',
(U.C.S.D.~Thesis 1986)
\item[{[4]}] Robinson, G.~de B., ``On the Representations of the Symmetric
Group,'' Amer.~J.~Math., {\bf 60}, 745-760 (1938).
\item[{[5]}] Rutherford, Daniel Edwin, ``Substitutional Analysis,'' New York,
Haffner, 1968.
\item[{[6]}] Schensted, C., ``Longest Increasing and Decreasing Subsequences,''
Canad.{} J.{} Math., {\bf 13}, 179-191 (1961).
\item[{[7]}] Schützenberger, M.-P., ``La correspondance de Robinson,'' in
Dominique Foata, ed., “Combinatoire et représentation du groupe symétrique,”
Springer Lecture Notes no.~579, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1977.
\item[{[8]}] Schützenberger, M.-P., ``Quelques remarques sur une construction de
Schensted,'' Math.~Scand., {\bf 12}, 117-128 (1963).
\item[{[9]}] Young, Alfred, ``On Quantitative Substitutional Analysis III,''
Proc.{} London Math.{} Soc., {\bf 28}, 255-292 (1928) or in ``The Collected
Papers of Alfred Young,'' Mathematical Expositions no. 21, Toronto, University
of Toronto Press, 1977.
\end{enumerate}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
A better understanding of the electrode-electrolyte interface is crucial to further progress in energy storage, electrocatalysis, and other electrochemical applications, many of which are vital for meeting the historic challenge of climate change. Room-temperature ionic liquids (RTILs) are especially promising as electrochemical solvents due to their high ionic conductivity and thermal stability, wide electrochemical window and liquid range \cite{Liu2010IonicElectrochemistry,Lian2019HuntingWindows} and extensive tunability \cite{Hayes2015StructureLiquids}. However, modelling the interface between RTILs and electrodes is especially challenging due to the high ionic concentrations of RTILs, for which models beyond mean-field theory are required to take into account dynamic ionic correlations, both within the RTIL and with the electrode\cite{Kornyshev2007Double-layerChange}.
Classical molecular dynamics (MD) is an important technique for studying the interface between electrodes and RTILs, as well as other concentrated electrolytes, to provide insights beyond the current theoretical models. More detailed quantum mechanical methods, such as ab-initio MD, can provide more fundamental models, but cannot reach the nano- to microsecond timescales required for observing ionic layer rearrangement and other slow electrolyte phenomena, which is routinely achievable in classical MD simulations. Therefore, improving MD simulations of RTILs is an active area of research, with many recent promising calibrations of polarizable \cite{Bedrov2019MolecularFields}, atomistic \cite{Doherty2017RevisitingSimulations} and coarse-grained \cite{Roy2010AnModel,Fajardo2020MolecularForce-field} force-fields for RTILs.
As electrolyte force fields become more sophisticated and realistic, more effort should be invested at the same time into modelling conductive electrodes with more realistic dynamics. Most MD simulations consider an oversimplified model of the electrode, where charge is simply uniformly distributed across the electrode surface and remains fixed over time. This fixed-charge method (FCM) does not maintain a constant potential across the electrode surface, and thus does not accurately model a conductive electrode. In addition, it clearly omits phenomena where the surface charge changes over time, the most prominent being capacitor charging and discharging.
By contrast, the constant potential method (CPM) \cite{Siepmann1995InfluenceSystems,Reed2007ElectrochemicalElectrode,Gingrich2010OnSurfaces,Tazi2010Potential-inducedInterface} explicitly includes charge redistribution steps to better model conductive electrodes. CPM MD generally provides better accuracy for simulations of electrochemical interfaces \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors,Haskins2016EvaluationLayers}, and is particularly important for understanding non-planar electrodes \cite{Xing2013OnPores,Merlet2013SimulatingSurfaces,Vatamanu2017OnLayers}. Capturing the dynamic local fluctuations in electrode charges is also indispensable when studying dynamical phenomena of electrochemical interfaces, which influence capacitor charging and discharging \cite{Noh2019UnderstandingSimulations,Demir2020InvestigationSimulations}, electrochemical thermodynamics \cite{Merlet2013SimulatingSurfaces}, and electroresponsive tribology \cite{Seidl2021MolecularElectrolytes}. The technical aspects of CPM MD are themselves a burgeoning field of research, with modifications recently proposed to model electrode metallicity in addition to conductivity \cite{Nakano2019ASimulations,Scalfi2020ASimulations}. A recent publication\cite{Ahrens-Iwers2021ConstantMesh} describes independent upgrades to the CPM implementation in the Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator (LAMMPS) software package\cite{LAMMPS}, including adaptations to mesh-based long ranged electrostatic evaluation, that are complementary to the implementations in this paper\cite{Tee2022Repo,GitHubLink} and raise the possibilities for significant efficiency gains.
Nonetheless, computational cost remains a significant obstacle to more widespread adoption of CPM MD, since every charge update step includes at least one re-evaluation of the system's overall electrostatic energy. In any MD simulation with a large proportion of charged particles, the Fourier space calculation of long-ranged electrostatic interactions are usually the most computationally intensive component. Simulations of systems with mixed periodicity -- such as electrode-electrolyte systems, which are not periodically repeated transverse to the electrodes -- are even more expensive, even considering the ``slab correction'' \cite{Yeh1999EwaldGeometry} techniques often employed.
Recently, two fully periodic approaches for studying electrochemical interfaces have been proposed and explored as fully periodic alternatives to the slab correction: finite field simulations \cite{Dufils2019SimulatingElectrode} and doubled cell simulations \cite{Raiteri2020MolecularInterface}. In this paper, we demonstrate that these approaches make RTIL-electrode simulations significantly more efficient by enabling fully periodic CPM MD simulations and eliminating the need for slab corrections. Full periodicity substantially reduces the computational cost of evaluating long-range electrostatics, to the extent that fully periodic CPM MD simulations can be faster than non-periodic FCM MD simulations run on the same hardware. As such, the increased accuracy afforded by CPM MD simulations can be achieved with little or even no overhead relative to FCM MD, and we recommend their routine use when studying RTIL-electrode interfaces. A copy of the source code used in this paper is available online\cite{Tee2022Repo,GitHubLink}.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{An overview of CPM MD}
\label{ss:basiccpm}
Molecular dynamics can provide a detailed model of electric layers in capacitors, using a fixed volume simulation cell containing electrolyte molecules sandwiched between two charged electrodes (Figure \ref{fig:boxpsis}). In CPM MD simulations, the electrode charges $q_i$ are periodically updated to maintain the electrode potentials $\Psi_i$ at their prescribed values \cite{Reed2007ElectrochemicalElectrode,Merlet2013SimulatingSurfaces,Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors}. Here we give a brief overview of the method, as excellent detailed descriptions are available in other recent publications\cite{Scalfi2020ChargeEnsemble,Ahrens-Iwers2021ConstantMesh}.
The potential energy of the MD simulation cell, $U$, is the sum of all non-Coulombic energies $U_{NC}$ and all Coulombic interactions. The Coulombic interactions can further be divided into electrolyte-electrolyte, electrolyte-electrode, and electrode-electrode interactions. Due to the delocalisation of charge on the conductive electrodes, it is usual to represent these as a set of Gaussian functions centred on the atomic sites, whereas the charges on the ions or molecules in the liquid are usually treated as point-charges. Using $i$ to index the electrode atoms and $j$ to index the charged sites of the electrolyte ions and molecules, we can then write $U$ as
\begin{align}
U = & U_{NC} + \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\Bigg[\sum_{j,j',\,\mathrm{pbc}} \frac{Q_j Q_{j'}}{|\mathbf{R}_j - \mathbf{R}_{j'}|} + \sum_{i,j,\,\mathrm{pbc}} \int \frac{Q_j \rho_i(\mathbf{r})}{|\mathbf{R}_j - \mathbf{r}|} d^3\mathbf{r} \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{i,i',\,\mathrm{pbc}} \iint \frac{\rho_i(\mathbf{r}) \rho_{i'}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'|} d^3\mathbf{r} \, \, d^3\mathbf{r}'\Bigg]. \label{eqn:U_definition}
\end{align}
Here the subscripts ``pbc'' denote periodic boundary conditions (to be discussed later), $\epsilon_0$ is the permittivity of free space, and $Q_j$ and $\mathbf{R}_j$ are the charge and position of electrolyte charge indexed $j$. The charge density $\rho_i(\mathbf{r})$ associated with electrode particle indexed $i$ is a Gaussian density centered at position $\mathbf{r_i}$,
\begin{align}
\rho_i(\mathbf{r}) = q_i n_i(\mathbf{r})= q_i \frac{\eta^3}{\pi^{3/2}} \exp \left(-\eta^2 |\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_i|^2 \right) \label{eqn:gauss_definition}
\end{align}
where $q_i$ is the total charge on the electrode atom and $\eta$ (in inverse length units) serves as a width parameter for the Gaussian charges. The use of Gaussian charge densities ensures that the electrode-electrode interactions can later be written as an invertible matrix\cite{Gingrich2010OnSurfaces}.
Writing the vector of the electrode charges $\mathbf{q} \equiv \{q_1, \cdots q_i, \cdots\}$, the simulation box potential energy $U$ (Equation \eqref{eqn:U_definition}) can be written as a quadratic form in $\mathbf{q}$:
\begin{equation}
U = U_{NC} + U_{elyt} - \mathbf{q}^T \mathbf{b} + \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{q}^T \mathbf{A} \mathbf{q}. \label{eqn:quadform}
\end{equation}
Here $U_{elyt}$ is the sum of the electrolyte-electrolyte Coulombic interactions, the vector $\mathbf{b}$ represents electrolyte-electrode interactions and the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ represents electrode-electrode interactions -- that is, equation \eqref{eqn:quadform} represents the terms (in order) from equation \eqref{eqn:U_definition} as functions of $\mathbf{q}$. The electrostatic potential vector $\boldsymbol{\Psi} \equiv \{\Psi_1, \cdots, \Psi_i, \cdots \}$ is the derivative of the energy with respect to the electrode charges, and therefore
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Psi} \equiv \frac{\partial U}{\partial \mathbf{q}^T} = \mathbf{A}\mathbf{q} - \mathbf{b} \label{eqn:psifromu}
\end{equation}
where the second equality follows from equation \eqref{eqn:quadform}. The elements of $\mathbf{b}$ depend on the positions of the electrolyte atoms which will vary with time. However, the electrode atoms are often fixed during a simulation, in which case $\mathbf{A}$ will not vary with time.
In CPM MD, the electrode charges $\mathbf{q}$ are updated so that the electrode potentials are specified. That is, we seek a specific $\mathbf{q^*}$ such that substituting into equation \eqref{eqn:psifromu} gives
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Psi} = \overline{\psi} \mathbf{e} + \Delta \psi \mathbf{d} \label{eqn:psiresult}.
\end{equation}
Here $\mathbf{d}$ is an ``indicator'' vector with entries $-1/2$ for elements corresponding to atoms on one electrode and $1/2$ for elements corresponding to atoms on the other, and $\mathbf{e}$ is a ``sum'' vector with entries 1 for all elements. This general form ensures that atoms of the same electrode have equal potential and there is a potential difference $\Delta \psi$ between the electrodes, while allowing for an overall offset potential $\overline{\psi}$ relative to the potential at infinity. Then $\mathbf{q}^*$ can be directly determined:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{q}^* = \mathbf{A}^{-1}( \overline{\psi} \mathbf{e}+\Delta \psi \mathbf{d}+\mathbf{b}). \label{eqn:exact_fixedoffset}
\end{equation}
Other studies, including the prior LAMMPS implementation of CPM MD \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors} simply adopted $\overline{\psi} = 0$. However, this results in the total charge of the system being non-zero in general; this can severely jeopardize the accuracy of the resulting CPM MD simulation, as recently discussed \cite{Ahrens-Iwers2021ConstantMesh}. Substituting equation (\ref{eqn:psiresult}) into the electroneutrality constraint $\mathbf{e}^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$ and solving for $\overline{\psi}$ gives
\begin{equation}
\overline{\psi} = -\frac{\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\Delta\psi\mathbf{d}+\mathbf{b})}{\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}} \label{eqn:charge_neutral}
\end{equation}
in which case the constant potential, electroneutral charge vector $\mathbf{q^*}$ is given by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{q}^* &= \mathbf{A}^{-1}\left(\Delta \psi \mathbf{d}+\mathbf{b} - \frac{\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\Delta\psi\mathbf{d}+\mathbf{b})}{\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}}\mathbf{e}\right) \nonumber \\
&= \mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1} \left( \Delta \psi \mathbf{d} + \mathbf{b} \right). \label{eqn:matr}
\end{align}
where the final result is arrived at by defining an ``electroneutrality projector'' matrix,
\begin{equation}\mathbf{O} \equiv \mathbf{I}-(\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}\mathbf{e}^T)/(\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}).
\label{eqn:odefinition}
\end{equation}
This is the same result recently obtained by considering statistical mechanics on the constant potential ensemble \cite{Scalfi2020ChargeEnsemble}. If the electrode particles used in CPM MD remain stationary, the matrix $\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}$ will be constant and can be precomputed, as its entries only depend on the electrode particle positions. Along these lines, we have updated the previous version of the LAMMPS CPM MD package \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors} to include the electroneutrality correction, and use the new charge-neutral version \cite{Tee2022Repo,GitHubLink} in the calculations below.
Then, the main computational burden during each charge update step is to obtain the vector of electrode potentials, $\mathbf{b}$, from the positions of the electrolyte particles. Switching from partially periodic to fully periodic boundary conditions substantially speeds up this step, as we discuss in the next section.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{confpsis_v2}
\caption{\textbf{Depiction of simulated constant potential supercapacitor}, showing the cations (magenta) and anions (teal) between three-layer graphene electrodes (white). For each electrode, a single proximal layer is charge-updated during CPM MD, leading to either negative (red) or positive (blue) charges induced on each electrode as appropriate. This results in the potential difference $\Delta \psi$ being imposed between the electrodes. The potential offset $\overline{\psi}$ maintains the overall electroneutrality of the system (depicted here as one of the electrodes being grounded).}
\label{fig:boxpsis}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Faster Electrostatic Evaluation Using Fully Periodic Boundary Conditions}
\label{ss:optim}
MD simulations are performed with periodic boundary conditions to enable inferences about macroscopic systems from a nanometer-scale simulation volume. In supercapacitor simulations, the electrodes and electrolyte are usually repeated infinitely parallel to the electrode surface (which we label the $x$ and $y$ axes) but not transverse to the electrodes (which we label the $z$ axis), as depicted in Figure 2(a). Given the slow $1/r$ decay of the Coulombic interaction, direct evaluation of the Coulombic interaction terms in \eqref{eqn:U_definition} is not feasible. Instead Ewald summation can be used, where the Coulomb interaction is truncated in real-space so that it can be treated with a finite cutoff, with the truncated long-range Coulombic interaction being calculated using Fourier transforms in reciprocal space, where it rapidly converges \cite{deLeeuw1980SimulationConstants,Allen1989ComputerLiquids}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{configs_v2}
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of mixed and fully periodic simulation boxes for CPM MD.} With mixed periodicity, either (a) exact 2D Ewald summation or (b) slab correction must be used for the long-range electrostatics of the simulation box. Full periodicity can be recovered with either (c) the finite field method, that adds an electric field to impose the desired potential difference across the simulation box, or (d) the doubled cell method which combines two cells of reverse polarity to create an overall zero-dipole simulation box.}
\label{fig:configandsnapshot}
\end{figure}
Although this is straightforward in systems with full, three-dimensional periodicity, the electrolyte-electrode system as described is trickier to handle because of its mixed periodicity. The finite $z$ size of the system changes the associated Fourier sum into a Fourier integral \cite{Kawata2001RapidPeriodicity,Reed2007ElectrochemicalElectrode}, and this ``exact Ewald 2D'' method is rarely implemented in major MD codes. Instead, the ``slab correction'' is commonly used: as shown in Figure 2(b), $z$-periodicity is imposed with empty space added between repeats of the simulation box, and a charged-sheet approximation is used to remove the residual dipole-dipole interaction between those repeats \cite{Yeh1999EwaldGeometry}.
The slab correction is equivalent to discretizing the exact Ewald 2D method \cite{Brodka2002ElectrostaticSummation}, but still bears increased computational costs: since the simulation box has been expanded in the $z$ direction, more reciprocal vectors are required to reach the same accuracy, resulting in larger Fourier grids and more computational burden for the reciprocal space calculation. This has motivated a search for methods of simulating electrode-electrolyte systems that preserve full periodicity. Two such methods have been recently described in the literature \cite{Dufils2019SimulatingElectrode,Raiteri2020MolecularInterface} and are introduced below. They are applied to the simulation of a model supercapacitor with CPM MD and compared in this paper.
\subsubsection{Finite Field Method}
The first method utilizes an applied ``finite field'' to decouple adjacent simulation boxes \cite{Dufils2019SimulatingElectrode} (Figure 2(c)), motivated by a related approach to modelling polarizability in bulk systems \cite{Zhang2020ModellingDynamics}. In this method, for an intended potential difference $\Delta \psi$, an electric field $E_z = -\Delta \psi / L_z$ is applied across the simulation box
The simulation box potential energy under a finite field, $U_{ff}$, is obtained by adding a polarization term to the original potential energy $U$ from equation \eqref{eqn:U_definition}:
\begin{equation}
U_{ff} = U - \frac{\Delta \psi}{L_z}\left(\sum_i q_i z_i+ \sum_j Q_j Z_j\right) \label{eqn:ffield}.
\end{equation}
where $z_i$ and $Z_j$ are the z-positions of the electrode atoms and electrolyte charge sites, respectively. We also define $\mathbf{z}$ as the vector of z-positions of the electrode atoms. (The ``itinerant'' polarization\cite{Zhang2020ModellingDynamics} does not need to be tracked because all particles are bounded between the electrodes.)
The electrode charges $\mathbf{q}$ are then simply obtained by considering the electric field in specification of the potential in equation (\ref{eqn:psiresult}) (i.e. $\boldsymbol{\Psi} = \overline{\psi} \mathbf{e} -\Delta\psi\mathbf{z}/L_z$), and solving for $\mathbf{q}$ with a variable $\overline{\psi}$ and imposing charge neutrality. The field introduces a discontinuity in the potential generated across the box with a value $\Delta\psi$ which is the potential difference between the electrodes. The electrode charges are then,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{q}^* = \mathbf{O} \mathbf{A}^{-1}\left(-\frac{\Delta \psi}{L_z}\mathbf{z}+\mathbf{b}\right). \label{eqn:matr_ff}
\end{equation}
which is a simple modification of (\ref{eqn:matr}) and allows an implementation that is similar to the basic CPM MD algorithms. Although the finite field method has very recently been applied to a computational RTIL-electrode interface \cite{Dufils2021ComputationalSimulations}, comparisons have not been made with the slab correction method in terms of either accuracy or computational speed. We document these comparisons and as our first major computational result show that, with properly optimized algorithms, the finite field method is significantly faster thanks to full periodicity in long-range electrostatics evaluations.
\subsubsection{Doubled Cell Method}
Another available method which has been used for other systems, but not for CPM MD, is a ``doubled cell'' approach. In this approach, two sub-cells are built back-to-back with opposing polarities; this yields a unit cell which has zero net dipole, and thus automatically has no dipole-dipole interactions along the $z$ direction. Although the system to be simulated is twice as large, each sub-cell is effectively independent, so that twice as much data can be collected per simulation interval.
This method has previously been applied to polar surfaces as the ``mirrored slab'' method \cite{Croteau2009SimulationConditions,Ren2020EffectsWater}, to capture the dynamics of polar liquids near statically charged surfaces. More recently, this method was applied to simulate the effects of an applied electric field on a liquid-liquid interface \cite{Raiteri2020MolecularInterface}. However, the same motivation in both cases -- allowing fully periodic electrostatic evaluation for systems with significant overall dipole -- also applies to CPM MD, and we demonstrate as the second major computational result that doubled cell CPM MD also yields accurate results with reduced computational cost relative to slab correction.
The only additional complexity occurs if we require each sub-cell to be independently electroneutral to resemble the single cells. We can accomplish this by modifying equation \eqref{eqn:psiresult} to include two offset potentials:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Psi} = \overline{\psi} \mathbf{e} + \overline{\psi_1} \mathbf{e}_1 + \Delta \psi \mathbf{d} \label{eqn:psi_doublecell}.
\end{equation}
The vectors $\mathbf{e}$, $\mathbf{e_1}$ and $\mathbf{d}$ run over all electrode particles in both sub-cells. As above, the elements of $\mathbf{e}$ are 1 for all electrode particles and the elements of $\mathbf{d}$ are $1/2$ for atoms on both positive electrodes (one for each sub-cell) and $-1/2$ for atoms on the negative electrodes. The new vector $\mathbf{e}_1$ ``selects'' the electrode particles of only one sub-cell -- that is, its elements are 1 for all particles of the electrodes (both positive and negative) in one of the sub-cells , and 0 for all electrode particles in the other sub-cell. When we require that $\mathbf{e}^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$ and $\mathbf{e}_1^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$, this ensures that both sub-cells are electroneutral.
We can then write out the two corresponding projection matrices in analogy with equation \eqref{eqn:matr}. Fulfilling the first constraint $\mathbf{e}^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$, and solving for $\overline{\psi}$, gives us
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{q}^* = \mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\overline{\psi_1}\mathbf{e}_1 + \Delta \psi \mathbf{d} + \mathbf{b}) \label{eqn:psi_step_doublecell}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{O}$ is defined as above (equation (\ref{eqn:odefinition})). Fulfilling the second constraint, $\mathbf{e}_1^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$, and solving for $\overline{\psi_1}$ then gives
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{q}^* = \mathbf{O}_1\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\Delta \psi \mathbf{d} + \mathbf{b}) \label{eqn:psiresult_doublecell},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{O}_1 \equiv \mathbf{I} - \frac{\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}_1\mathbf{e}^T_1}{\mathbf{e}^T_1\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}_1}.
\end{equation}
In short, maintaining independent electroneutrality for each cell simply requires pre-calculation of one additional projection matrix then $\mathbf{O}_1\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}$, which does not change in systems with stationary electrode particles, resulting in minimal additional computational burden. Although this does result in a nominal difference in the instantaneous offset potentials \emph{between} the cells, our results show that electrolyte dynamics within one cell is not affected by the configuration in the other. Intuitively, this arises since conductors screen electric fields and therefore the presence of conductive electrodes between the electrolytes of each cell prevents them from interacting, provided the separation of the sub-cells is larger than the cutoff radii for the short-range interactions. This further emphasizes that the offset potential serves only to maintain electroneutrality and does not affect the accuracy of simulation results in any other way.
\subsection{Calculating Potential Profiles In Different Optimized Geometries}
\label{ss:potprof}
The electric potential profile across the simulation box, $\psi(z)$, is a key measurement output for a computational supercapacitor, as it is used to determine the differential capacitance at each electrode, and our third major result is that full periodicity also simplifies the calculation of $\psi(z)$. If the potential profile only varies in $z$, then it can be calculated by obtaining the linear charge density, $\rho(z)$, and solving the 1D Poisson equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2}{dz^2} \psi(z) = -\frac{1}{\epsilon_0} \rho(z). \label{eqn:pois}
\end{equation}
subject to the appropriate boundary conditions. For this paper we use a matrix-based finite difference method, which approximates $d^2/dz^2$ as a linear finite difference relation; this method converges well even at low finite-difference orders \cite{Wang2016ElectricCapacitors}. The Poisson equation can then be inverted simply by applying the inverse finite difference matrix to the discretization of the charge density $\rho(z)$.
If electroneutrality is not imposed, the boundary conditions involve setting the potential at each electrode to their CPM pre-specified values (see Supporting Information of \cite{Demir2020InvestigationSimulations}, for example). If this is not the case, the set potential difference, $\Delta \psi$, and $\overline{\psi}$ can be calculated from equation (\ref{eqn:psiresult}) can be used. Since the both finite field and doubled cell methods have full periodicity, this can be exploited and replace $\Delta \psi$. In the finite field method, the total potential rise $\psi(L_z) - \psi(0)$ is simply the preset potential difference $\Delta \psi$, which enters the boundary conditions as a discontinuity across the $z$-boundary of the unit cell. In the doubled cell method, the (doubled) unit cell is repeated with no further modification and the boundary condition is just continuity across the $z$-boundary, $\psi(L_z) - \psi(0) = 0$. The continuity of the potential is likely to be easier to apply if the electrodes are not planar. Furthermore, our results show that for the special case of planar electrodes, the boundary condition can accommodate the use of CPM MD to only charge or discharge the electrode layers closest to the electrolyte, resulting in further computational savings.
\section{Simulations and Analyses}
\label{sec:simulations}
We demonstrate the slab, finite field, and doubled cell methods with a computational ionic liquid supercapacitor (Figure \ref{fig:boxpsis}). The supercapacitor electrolyte consists of a 10-nm wide block of 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate (BMim$^+$-PF$_6^-$). The electrolyte is sandwiched between two atomistic graphene electrodes of three layers each, with the interlayer spacing set to 0.335 nm as standard. The ions are simulated using a coarse-grained model that has been tested previously\cite{Roy2010AnModel}. The BMim$^+$ cations and PF$_6^-$ anions are coarse-grained to three particles and one particle per ion respectively, with Lennard-Jones and Coulomb interactions modelled using parameters from the literature\cite{Roy2010AnModel}. In the model, the IL ions are charge-scaled so that the charge on each cation (anion) is +0.78 (-0.78). Literature values for the graphene carbon atom Lennard-Jones parameters \cite{Cole1983TheGraphite} were used and Lennard-Jones parameters for interactions betweeen the carbon and IL atoms were obtained using standard Lorentz-Berthelot rules. The supercapacitor was simulated over a set of potential differences from 0.0 to 2.5 V, for 30 ns per run at each potential difference, and each set of runs was repeated three times for each method from statistically different initial configurations.
During production runs, only the first layer of each electrode closest to the electrolyte was ``charged'' with CPM MD, with the next two layers contributing only non-Coulombic interactions, based on previous studies finding that charge is predominantly induced on the first layer \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors}, and consistent with the charge distribution of a conductor. Snapshots from each run were separately post-processed to determine the charges that would have been obtained with the constant potential applied to all three layers. The resulting charge distribution was found to confirm the findings of the previous studies, as we discuss later, validating the choice to charge only one layer during production for significant computational savings. In subsequent discussion, these differing configurations of electrode charges are referred to as ``single-layer'' and ``three-layer'' charges respectively.
From each run, the transverse charge profile across the cell was obtained as an equilibrium average and the potential profile calculated using the finite-difference method discussed earlier. The potential on each electrode was subsequently obtained by comparison to the bulk potential, and charge-potential curves were then used to obtain the single-electrode differential capacitance by spline fitting. Further details for the simulations and analyses are given in the appendix.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Charging and Steady State Properties}
Figure \ref{fig:stv}(a) shows typical traces of the surface charge density, $\sigma$, against simulation time, at 0.0, 1.2 and 2.5 V for the first 15 ns of the 30 ns trajectories. These graphs (as well as for other potential differences, supplied in the SI Fig A) show a non-zero charging time characteristic of the CPM MD simulation, allowing equilibration to be visually estimated. Equilibrium charges are attained within a few nanoseconds, which is a typical timescale for coarse-grained simulations, and so the final 25 ns of each trajectory is taken as the equilibrium portion for further analysis.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{stv_blockaves}
\caption{(a) Charging curves of electrode charge against time show that slab, finite field, and doubled-cell methods return statistically similar instantaneous results, as displayed for 0.0, 1.2, or 2.5 V potential difference. (b) The equilibrium surface charge density, averaged over the final 25 ns of each trajectory, as plotted against imposed potential difference $\Delta \psi$ shows that slab, finite field, and doubled-cell methods also return statistically similar ensemble results. Standard error of mean charge (as calculated from the averages of 5 ns trajectory blocks) are smaller than the symbol size. Results from both sub-cells were averaged for the doubled cell data points.\label{fig:stv}}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
The simulations using the slab, finite field, and doubled cell geometries return largely identical results, whether from the charging curves or from obtaining the equilibrium average charges as a function of potential difference (Fig 1(b)). To further validate the doubled cell method, we analysed both long term charges and short term dynamics of doubled cell trajectories.
\subsection{Validating the Doubled Cell Method}
\label{ss:2cell}
In order for the doubled cell method to be computationally efficient, both cells must return independent trajectories so that the doubled system size truly gives twice as much data. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:cellslr}, the instantaneous electrode charges are indeed uncorrelated between different cells.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{cells_leftright}
\caption{Scatter plot of instantaneous electrode charge densities in doubled cell CPM MD, after equilibration. Left and right cells have identical averages at all potential differences (denoted by point color), as highlighted by the green line (left $\sigma(t)$ = right $\sigma(t)$), but are not noticeably correlated.\label{fig:cellslr}}
\end{figure}
To further validate trajectory independence in the doubled cell method, two short trajectories with $\Delta \psi = 0 V$ and with different initial conditions were compared (Figure \ref{fig:trajcheck} (a)). In the \emph{antisymmetric} (or \emph{anti}) initial condition, a single cell configuration (comprising both positions and velocities) was reflected along the $z$-axis, while in the \emph{symmetric} (or \emph{sym}) initial condition the duplicated cell was also $z$-reversed, resulting in a reflected image. Thus, in the \emph{sym} condition, the electrolyte and electrodes initially have the same alignment in both cells, while in the \emph{anti} condition the electrolyte and electrodes initially have opposite alignment, making two maximally different initial conditions. If the duplicated cell does not influence the behaviour of the original cell, then (to within numerical error) the properties of the system in the first cell will not change if the duplicated cell changes.
Figure \ref{fig:trajcheck} (b)(i) shows the subsequent evolution of the electrolyte dipole moment ($\sum Q_j Z_j$) in the left cell from these initial configurations, as well as for slab and finite field-based comparison trajectories. Importantly, the divergence between \emph{anti} and \emph{sym} trajectories primarily emerges at about 2.5 ps, showing that until that point the left cell evolves identically despite the right cell being maximally different. The slab, finite field, and doubled cell trajectories start diverging just before then, suggesting that the trajectory divergence is a result of typical floating-point error accumulation. We note that in the doubled cell method, two separate Nose-Hoover thermostats are used, one for each cell; using a single Nose-Hoover thermostat across the electrolytes of both cells couples them together and reduces their independence (data not shown).
We demonstrate that for the fixed charge MD, statistical independence of the two cells is not observed by repeating simulation of the short trajectories under a fixed charge condition, simply leaving all electrode particles neutral. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:trajcheck} (b)(ii), there is an immediate difference between \emph{sym} and \emph{anti} trajectories, showing that in fixed charge MD the two cells are no longer completely uncoupled. Both the \emph{sym} and \emph{anti} trajectories also quickly diverge from a single cell, slab-corrected fixed charge comparison trajectory.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{testing_2cell_a}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{tc}
\caption{Validating the independence of the two cells in the doubled cell CPM MD with \emph{anti} vs \emph{sym} replication. (a) Depictions of \textit{anti} and \textit{sym} initial configurations. (b) Cell dipole evolution for short trajectories of CPM and fixed charge MD in various unit cell configurations. Single lines are shown for each doubled cell method simulation, as the divergence between individual cell dipoles is not visible on the graph within the 6 ps duration shown (for both CPM and fixed charge MD). \label{fig:trajcheck}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Electrolyte and Charge Densities}
\label{ss:ecd}
Figure \ref{fig:cl} shows the equilibrium density profiles of BMim$^+$ and PF$_6^-$ particles across the cell for the imposed potential differences $\Delta V = $ 0.0, 1.2 and 2.5 V (with graphs for other potential differences supplied in the SI Fig D). Again, little difference is seen between the slab, finite field, and doubled cell geometries. Ionic layers are observed to form at the interfaces with the conducting electrodes, with the layers at 0.0 V attributable purely to size and symmetry of the ions and their interactions with the carbon atoms of the electrode. At higher voltages, distinct phenomena control the electrode ionic layering. The anion, which is represented as a sphere, can be packed into the layer nearest the electrode with increasing density at higher potential differences. Since the cation has an irregular shape, cationic layers cannot pack with the same efficiency, and increased electrode charge causes cationic density to broaden and build up in the second layer instead. In either case, there is a clear change from co-layering at low electrode charges, where anion and cation layers almost coincide, to counter-layering where anions and cations alternate.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{an_cat_dens}%
\caption{Trajectory averaged anion and cation densities near the cell electrodes at electrode potential differences of $\Delta V$ = 0.0 V (top), 1.2 V (middle), and 2.5 V (bottom), with the dashed gray lines indicating the positions of the electrodes nearest to the ionic liquid. Densities were drawn using dashed, dotted, and solid lines for slab, finite field, and doubled cell geometries respectively, but the differences cannot be visually distinguished and are not larger than between different runs using identical geometries.\label{fig:cl}}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:qz} shows the charge density across the cell, accounting for the Gaussian charge densities on the electrode layers. Again, all three methods return very similar charge densities, with larger oscillations near the electrodes as the potential difference increases. Comparing the post-processed three-layer charges to the single-layer charges shows that, when CPM MD is applied to all three electrode layers, more than 90\% of the charge is still induced on the single layers closest to the electrolyte. Leaving the basal layers uncharged is thus expected to have minimal effect on the electrolyte dynamics, but has consequences for obtaining the correct potential profile using Poisson methods, as discussed below.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{qz}
\caption{Trajectory averaged charge densities across the simulation cell for slab (top left), finite field (top right, with $z$ reversed), and doubled cell (bottom) geometries, at imposed potential differences $\Delta V =$ 0.0, 1.2, and 2.5 V. Electrode positions are indicated by the dotted lines, with blue (red) colour indicating the layers of the positive (negative) electrodes. (Inset) The electrode region is magnified to better visualize the three-layer predicted charges (dashed lines).\label{fig:qz}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulation Cell Potential Profiles and Differential Capacitances}
Figure \ref{fig:vz} shows the potential profiles, $\psi(z) - \overline{\psi}$, across the cell for $\Delta V = $ 0.0, 1.2, and 2.5 V, in slab, finite field, and doubled cell methods. The average values of $\overline{\psi}$ are very small compared to $\psi(z)$ for these systems (e.g. for slab simulations, $|\overline{\psi}|<0.03V$ at all potentials considered). As in Figure \ref{fig:qz}, solid lines show the single-layer potential profile and dashed lines show the three-layer potential profile.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{vz_3inset}
\caption{Trajectory averaged electrostatic potential ($\psi(z) - \overline{\psi}$) across the simulation cell for slab (top left), finite field (top right), and doubled cell (bottom) methods, at imposed potential differences $\Delta V =$ 0.0, 1.2, and 2.5 V. As in Figure \ref{fig:qz}, solid lines are single-layer potential profiles and dashed lines are three-layer predicted potential profiles, and electrode positions are indicated by the dotted lines. The solid lines for the slab results are obtained by setting the potential difference between the innermost electrode layers to the simulation-imposed value. (Insets) Potentials in the electrode regions are magnified to better visualize the effect of inner-layer charges on the potential profile. \label{fig:vz}}
\end{figure}
The three-layer potential profiles show little difference between the three methods (besides statistical variation between trajectories). For all methods, the potential difference between the inner-most electrodes and the cell boundaries is equal to the imposed electrode potential difference, as with the finite field and doubled cell methods.
The single-layer potential profiles within the electrodes, on the other hand, are visibly affected by the choice of boundary conditions, and differ visibly between slab, finite field, and doubled cell methods. We discuss these results for the particular case of $\Delta \psi = 2.5 $V, but the same phenomena are seen at all other potential differences (shown in Figure \ref{fig:vz} for 0.0 and 1.2 V).
Considering the single-layer charged electrodes first (solid lines in Figure \ref{fig:vz}), the insets show that for all systems $\psi(z) - \overline{\psi}$ is exactly -1.25 V at the electrode in contact with the electrolyte, as set. Between this electrode and the next, the magnitude of the potential initially increases in all cases, due to the Gaussian distribution of the charges. In the slab and double cell system, it then reaches a constant value which is maintained until the edget of the 2D simulation cell is reached (slab) or the charge of the other surface electrode becomes significant (doubled cell). In the finite field method, the field due to the added ramp potential that has been applied across the whole simulation cell rather than between the electrodes is evident, and results in a linear drop in the magnitude back to the value of -1.25 V at the simulation cell boundary. For all systems with use of the three-layer charged electrodes, $\psi(z) - \overline{\psi}$ at each of the three electrodes is fixed to -1.25 V, so after the initial increase in magnitude of the electrostatic potential due to the Gaussian distribution of charge, there is a drop back to -1.25 V at the next electrode. Since the charge on this electrode is small, there is little evidence of the Gaussian distribution of charges. The potential within the electrode is artificially increased due to the absence of the counter-charges from the inner layers.
Given the electrostatic potential profiles, the electric surface potential (the difference in the electrostatic potential at each electrode and in the bulk,) $\psi_e$ can be determined, and the dependence of the electrode charges on $\psi_e$ are shown in Figure \ref{fig:dc}. Within statistical error, the same average charge and electrode potentials are evolved for each simulation at the same potential difference, regardless of the method used. Therefore the calculated differential capacitance, $C_D = d\sigma/d\psi_e$, is also the same between slab, finite field and doubled cell methods (within statistical uncertainties), as Figure \ref{fig:dc} shows, and the double-humped curve characteristic of screening and overcrowding in complex ionic electrolytes is obtained \cite{Kornyshev2007Double-layerChange,Bazant2009TowardsSolutions}. The method used to determine the uncertainties in $C_D$ is discussed in the Supplementary Information.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dc}
\caption{Electrode charges (top) and differential capacitance (bottom) as a function of the electrode potential $\psi_e$, calculated from three-layer charges
\label{fig:dc}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Computational Efficiency}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{comp_timings}
\caption{CPU-hours per nanosecond for simulating the ionic liquid-electrode system in slab, fixed charge, finite field, and doubled cell geometries, on four Intel Xeon Haswell 2.6 GHz processors. The time taken is itemized by pair interactions, PPPM long-range electrostatic calculations, neighbor-list building, and LAMMPS ``fixes'' -- mainly the additional computation required for constant potential routines. Right-hand diagrams show each geometry as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:configandsnapshot}. \label{fig:comp}}
\end{figure}
Although the three methods compared so far give similar results, their computational costs required differ greatly. Figure \ref{fig:comp} shows the computational expense for simulations using each method running on four Intel Xeon Haswell 2.6 GHz processors. (For the doubled cell geometry, each nanosecond of simulation time was counted as providing two nanoseconds of simulation data, since sub-cells have independent dynamics.) The supercapacitor system was also simulated in slab geometry with fixed (single-layer) charges of $+/- 9 \times 10^{-5} \,e$ per atom, to allow the computational costs of CPM and FCM MD to be compared.
Comparison of constant potential and fixed charge methods for the slab geometry shows that CPM charge updating incurs a computational overhead of about 20\% for this system. A similar overhead is incurred in doubled cell and finite field geometries -- however, the significantly reduced unit cell size, and subsequent reduction in long-range electrostatic calculations, more than offsets the overhead. In either periodic geometry the long-range electrostatic calculations are about 60\% cheaper than in the slab geometry. As such, on aggregate, either fully-periodic method for CPM MD results in simulations that are 30--35\% \textit{cheaper} than FCM MD slab simulations. The strong scaling (speedup when using more processors on a problem of the same size) is similar for all four methods, with the finite field and doubled cell methods showing slightly better scaling
In closing, it is interesting to note that the use of doubled-cell configuration has been used in fixed charge MD simulations for some time, with the purpose of more realistically applying a field across a slab-like system\cite{Raiteri2020MolecularInterface}. One main purpose of our paper is to demonstrate the application of the doubled-cell configuration to CPM MD simulations, which are important for modelling realistic electrode-electrolyte interactions, but our results suggest that in a doubled-cell, fixed charge simulation the two sub-cells are not fully decoupled (while in a CPM MD simulation they are). Fixed charge simulations will generally be more straightforward and quicker than an equivalent CPM MD simulation, and if the quantities of interest do not depend intimately on the details of electrode charges (such as polarization in the bulk electrolyte, far from electrodes) then the added complexity of a CPM MD simulation may not be worthwhile. Nonetheless, our results show that the novel application of a doubled-cell configuration to CPM MD can result in substantial computational savings and true decoupling of the trajectories of both sub-cells.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that fully periodic geometries are useful for accelerating CPM MD simulations of electrodes and their interactions with ionic liquid electrolytes. The resulting efficiency gains in long-range electrostatic calculations can more than offset the cost of the CPM charge update procedure, resulting in CPM MD simulations that are computationally cheaper than their fixed charge equivalents in slab geometries.
We have demonstrated these capabilities of CPM MD in a computational ionic liquid supercapacitor with flat electrodes. The charging behavior over time, ionic and charge densities across the cell, and resulting estimates of differential capacitance are statistically identical between the slab geometry and the two periodic geometries tested, namely finite field and doubled cell. In doubled cell geometry, the electrode charges evolved in each sub-cell are statistically uncorrelated, and the dynamics of each sub-cell are found to be independent of the electrolyte configuration of the other sub-cell.
When deriving the simulation cell potential profile in order to calculate electrode potentials and differential capacitances, the use of fully periodic geometries also entails simplified boundary conditions which make trajectory post-processing easier. In our study, we found the use of single-layer charges had no effect on the bulk potential, despite multiple charged sheets being physically necessary to screen charge within the electrode. Thus, the significant advantages of fully periodic CPM MD argue for its wider adoption in simulating electrode-electrolyte interactions.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The authors thank the Australian Research Council for its support for this project through the Discovery program (DP180104031 and FL190100080). We would like to thank Dr Emily Kahl for her invaluable support in developing and debugging the source code used in this project. We acknowledge access to computational resources at the NCI National Facility through the National Computational Merit Allocation Scheme supported by the Australian Government, and this work was also supported by resources provided by the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre with funding from the Australian Government and the government of Western Australia. We also acknowledge support from the Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation (QCIF) and the University of Queensland Research Computing Centre (RCC).
\end{acknowledgements}
\section{Appendix}
\label{ss:simdetails}
\subsection{Force Field and Overall Simulation Details}
The electrolyte modelled was an ionic liquid, [BMim$^+$][PF$_6^-$], using the coarse-grained force field of Roy and Maroncelli \cite{Roy2010AnModel}, with three-site cations (kept rigid using SHAKE) and one-site anions. Each electrode was modelled as three graphene sheets with the usual A-B-A staggering, bond-bond (1.42 \AA) and interlayer (3.35 \AA) distances, and the Lennard-Jones parameters of Cole and Klein \cite{Cole1983TheGraphite}; this combination of CG IL and graphene force fields has frequently been used in prior research \cite{Merlet2011ImidazoliumSimulations}. Non-Coulombic interactions were modelled with the Lennard-Jones form with a cutoff of 16 \AA, whereas Coulombic interactions were modelled using particle-particle particle-mesh (PPPM) summation \cite{Hockney1988ComputerParticles} to a relative accuracy of $10^{-8}$.
All MD simulations were integrated using a velocity-Verlet algorithm with a time step of 2 fs. A Nose-Hoover thermostat \cite{Nose1984AEnsemble,Nose1984AMethods,Hoover1985CanonicalDistributions} with a time constant of 100 fs was applied to the electrolyte particles to maintain a temperature of 400K, and cations were kept rigid using the SHAKE algorithm \cite{Ryckaert1977NumericalN-alkanes}. The LAMMPS package \cite{LAMMPS} was used to run simulations, with modifications to implement the CPM charge update algorithms. The extra code was based on the prior package LAMMPS-CONP \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors} with further optimizations, and is freely available on GitHub.
\subsection{Equilibration, Production, and Post-Analysis}
\label{ss:epp}
Bulk simulations of 1440 ion pairs were first conducted for 4 ns using an NPT barostat \cite{Shinoda2004RapidStress} at 1 bar with a time constant of 4 ps, and the bulk density of the CG IL model was determined to be 1.267 g cm$^{-3}$. A 320 ion pair lattice was then initialized and equilibrated under $x$- and $y$- periodic boundary conditions, with cell sides 32.2 \AA{} and 34.4 \AA{} respectively, while wall potentials with the electrode Lennard-Jones parameters were applied in the $z$-direction until bulk density was replicated in the middle half of the configuration over 1 ns. This slab configuration was then combined with a pair of electrodes whose distance was scanned to maintain bulk density, resulting in a final distance between proximal electrode planes of 109.75 \AA{} and a unit cell z length of 136 \AA.
From this initial state, CPM MD simulations were run for 30 ns ($1.5 \times 10^7$ time steps) in either slab, single cell (finite field), or doubled cell geometries; doubled cell initial states were formed by replicating the one-cell initial state in the $z$-direction and then flipping positions of electrolytes in the second sub-cell. For each geometry, 11 potential differences were used (0.0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, and 2.5 V). Electrode charges were updated every 5 steps (10 fs), which is acceptable since other studies report accurate results even with less frequent charge updates \cite{Tu2020InnerDynamics}, and the electrode charges were modelled as Gaussian distributions (see (\ref{eqn:gauss_definition})) with $\eta = 1.979/$\AA, as used in other studies \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors}. After each set of simulations had been completed, the final state of the 0.0 V simulation was used as the starting state for a new set of simulations; this was repeated twice for a total of three independent simulation sets. At an accuracy of $10^{-8}$, the PPPM meshes used for slab, finite-field and doubled cell geometries contained $30 (x)\times30 (y)\times225(z) $, $30\times30\times90$ and $30\times32\times180$ grid points respectively.
For each run, position configurations were written to disk every 20 ps ($10^4$ time steps). During each run, only the electrode layers nearest to the ionic liquid were charged with the CPM update procedure, while the further two layers of each electrode were left neutral and only contributed Lennard-Jones interactions. To study the accuracy of this approximation, the snapshots of each trajectory were re-run, and the charges that would have evolved had all three electrode layers been charged were recorded for analysis. As described in Section \ref{ss:ecd}, the resulting charges on the further two layers are very small and unlikely to significantly affect the observed dynamics, but they can affect the calculation of the cell potential profile.
The steady state particle and charge densities were subsequently obtained over a $z$-grid spacing of 0.34 \AA, corresponding to 400 grid points per unit cell for the slab and finite field geometries and 800 grid points per unit cell for the doubled cell geometries, and the electrostatic potential profile $\psi(z)$ was obtained using finite differences as described in the text. The average value of $\psi(z)$ across the middle 100 grid points of each unit cell (sub-cell, for doubled-cell calculations) was then defined as the bulk potential and set to $0 V$ for calculating the anode and cathode potentials.
Each set of runs thus contributed 22 data points (two for each potential difference) to the plot of electrode charge against potential in Figure \ref{fig:dc}. Charge-against-potential data sets were subsequently used to estimate the differential capacitance, $C_D = d\sigma/d\psi_e$, by fitting the data set to a fifth-order spline between --1.2 and 1.3 V. The gradient at each end-point was constrained to be equal to the linear least squares gradient of the five furthest points, to prevent oscillatory overfitting at the end points. The uncertainty in $C_D$ was estimated by bootstrapping: each of the 22 data points in the charge-potential curve could take one of three possible values (six, for the doubled-cell results) given the three independent sets of runs, and thus independent $C_D$ curves could be calculated based on which run was chosen at which point. 200 such independent $C_D$ curves were calculated and the 95\% confidence interval, shown in Figure \ref{fig:dc}, was chosen as 1.96 $\times$ the standard deviation at each potential.
\subsection{Initial Charge Trajectories, Charge Density Profiles and Potential Profiles for All Potential Differences}
The following figures show initial charge trajectories, charge density profiles, and potential profiles for all potential differences. While the data shown here is derived from the slab trajectories, similar results are seen when visualising the same quantities from the finite field and doubled cell trajectories.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{qt_allv}
\caption{Typical trajectories of instantaneous surface charge density against simulation time for all potential differences studied under CPM MD, spread over three panels for clarity. The set shown was collected using slab simulations; as discussed in the main text, finite field and doubled cell simulations yield similar results. Each trajectory is labeled with the potential difference used, and the lines are also color-coded using the same color scheme as subsequent graphs. The graphs are spread over three different panels for better visibility \label{fig:qt_allv}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{q_allv}
\caption{Single cell charge profiles for all potential differences studied, with the positions of negative (positive) electrodes denoted by red (blue) dotted lines as in the main text figures, and different line colors showing the simulation imposed potential difference. The three-layer charge is depicted here, but the charges induced on the two further layers are visibly negligible.\label{fig:qallv}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{phi_allv}
\caption{Single cell potential profiles for all potential differences studied, with the positions of negative (positive) electrodes denoted by red (blue) dotted lines as in the main text figures, and different line colors showing the simulation imposed potential difference. The three-layer potentials are depicted here and a constant shift is applied so that the potentials at the cell edges are $\pm \Delta V/2$. The downshifting of the bulk potential at higher potential differences is noticeable and corresponds to the asymmetric electrode differential capacitance documented in the text.\label{fig:phiallv}}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\section{References}
\nocite{*}
\section{Introduction}
A better understanding of the electrode-electrolyte interface is crucial to further progress in energy storage, electrocatalysis, and other electrochemical applications, many of which are vital for meeting the historic challenge of climate change. Room-temperature ionic liquids (RTILs) are especially promising as electrochemical solvents due to their high ionic conductivity and thermal stability, wide electrochemical window and liquid range \cite{Liu2010IonicElectrochemistry,Lian2019HuntingWindows} and extensive tunability \cite{Hayes2015StructureLiquids}. However, modelling the interface between RTILs and electrodes is especially challenging due to the high ionic concentrations of RTILs, for which models beyond mean-field theory are required to take into account dynamic ionic correlations, both within the RTIL and with the electrode\cite{Kornyshev2007Double-layerChange}.
Classical molecular dynamics (MD) is an important technique for studying the interface between electrodes and RTILs, as well as other concentrated electrolytes, to provide insights beyond the current theoretical models. More detailed quantum mechanical methods, such as ab-initio MD, can provide more fundamental models, but cannot reach the nano- to microsecond timescales required for observing ionic layer rearrangement and other slow electrolyte phenomena, which is routinely achievable in classical MD simulations. Therefore, improving MD simulations of RTILs is an active area of research, with many recent promising calibrations of polarizable \cite{Bedrov2019MolecularFields}, atomistic \cite{Doherty2017RevisitingSimulations} and coarse-grained \cite{Roy2010AnModel,Fajardo2020MolecularForce-field} force-fields for RTILs.
As electrolyte force fields become more sophisticated and realistic, more effort should be invested at the same time into modelling conductive electrodes with more realistic dynamics. Most MD simulations consider an oversimplified model of the electrode, where charge is simply uniformly distributed across the electrode surface and remains fixed over time. This fixed-charge method (FCM) does not maintain a constant potential across the electrode surface, and thus does not accurately model a conductive electrode. In addition, it clearly omits phenomena where the surface charge changes over time, the most prominent being capacitor charging and discharging.
By contrast, the constant potential method (CPM) \cite{Siepmann1995InfluenceSystems,Reed2007ElectrochemicalElectrode,Gingrich2010OnSurfaces,Tazi2010Potential-inducedInterface} explicitly includes charge redistribution steps to better model conductive electrodes. CPM MD generally provides better accuracy for simulations of electrochemical interfaces \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors,Haskins2016EvaluationLayers}, and is particularly important for understanding non-planar electrodes \cite{Xing2013OnPores,Merlet2013SimulatingSurfaces,Vatamanu2017OnLayers}. Capturing the dynamic local fluctuations in electrode charges is also indispensable when studying dynamical phenomena of electrochemical interfaces, which influence capacitor charging and discharging \cite{Noh2019UnderstandingSimulations,Demir2020InvestigationSimulations}, electrochemical thermodynamics \cite{Merlet2013SimulatingSurfaces}, and electroresponsive tribology \cite{Seidl2021MolecularElectrolytes}. The technical aspects of CPM MD are themselves a burgeoning field of research, with modifications recently proposed to model electrode metallicity in addition to conductivity \cite{Nakano2019ASimulations,Scalfi2020ASimulations}. A recent publication\cite{Ahrens-Iwers2021ConstantMesh} describes independent upgrades to the CPM implementation in the Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator (LAMMPS) software package\cite{LAMMPS}, including adaptations to mesh-based long ranged electrostatic evaluation, that are complementary to the implementations in this paper\cite{Tee2022Repo,GitHubLink} and raise the possibilities for significant efficiency gains.
Nonetheless, computational cost remains a significant obstacle to more widespread adoption of CPM MD, since every charge update step includes at least one re-evaluation of the system's overall electrostatic energy. In any MD simulation with a large proportion of charged particles, the Fourier space calculation of long-ranged electrostatic interactions are usually the most computationally intensive component. Simulations of systems with mixed periodicity -- such as electrode-electrolyte systems, which are not periodically repeated transverse to the electrodes -- are even more expensive, even considering the ``slab correction'' \cite{Yeh1999EwaldGeometry} techniques often employed.
Recently, two fully periodic approaches for studying electrochemical interfaces have been proposed and explored as fully periodic alternatives to the slab correction: finite field simulations \cite{Dufils2019SimulatingElectrode} and doubled cell simulations \cite{Raiteri2020MolecularInterface}. In this paper, we demonstrate that these approaches make RTIL-electrode simulations significantly more efficient by enabling fully periodic CPM MD simulations and eliminating the need for slab corrections. Full periodicity substantially reduces the computational cost of evaluating long-range electrostatics, to the extent that fully periodic CPM MD simulations can be faster than non-periodic FCM MD simulations run on the same hardware. As such, the increased accuracy afforded by CPM MD simulations can be achieved with little or even no overhead relative to FCM MD, and we recommend their routine use when studying RTIL-electrode interfaces. A copy of the source code used in this paper is available online\cite{Tee2022Repo,GitHubLink}.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{An overview of CPM MD}
\label{ss:basiccpm}
Molecular dynamics can provide a detailed model of electric layers in capacitors, using a fixed volume simulation cell containing electrolyte molecules sandwiched between two charged electrodes (Figure \ref{fig:boxpsis}). In CPM MD simulations, the electrode charges $q_i$ are periodically updated to maintain the electrode potentials $\Psi_i$ at their prescribed values \cite{Reed2007ElectrochemicalElectrode,Merlet2013SimulatingSurfaces,Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors}. Here we give a brief overview of the method, as excellent detailed descriptions are available in other recent publications\cite{Scalfi2020ChargeEnsemble,Ahrens-Iwers2021ConstantMesh}.
The potential energy of the MD simulation cell, $U$, is the sum of all non-Coulombic energies $U_{NC}$ and all Coulombic interactions. The Coulombic interactions can further be divided into electrolyte-electrolyte, electrolyte-electrode, and electrode-electrode interactions. Due to the delocalisation of charge on the conductive electrodes, it is usual to represent these as a set of Gaussian functions centred on the atomic sites, whereas the charges on the ions or molecules in the liquid are usually treated as point-charges. Using $i$ to index the electrode atoms and $j$ to index the charged sites of the electrolyte ions and molecules, we can then write $U$ as
\begin{align}
U = & U_{NC} + \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\Bigg[\sum_{j,j',\,\mathrm{pbc}} \frac{Q_j Q_{j'}}{|\mathbf{R}_j - \mathbf{R}_{j'}|} + \sum_{i,j,\,\mathrm{pbc}} \int \frac{Q_j \rho_i(\mathbf{r})}{|\mathbf{R}_j - \mathbf{r}|} d^3\mathbf{r} \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{i,i',\,\mathrm{pbc}} \iint \frac{\rho_i(\mathbf{r}) \rho_{i'}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'|} d^3\mathbf{r} \, \, d^3\mathbf{r}'\Bigg]. \label{eqn:U_definition}
\end{align}
Here the subscripts ``pbc'' denote periodic boundary conditions (to be discussed later), $\epsilon_0$ is the permittivity of free space, and $Q_j$ and $\mathbf{R}_j$ are the charge and position of electrolyte charge indexed $j$. The charge density $\rho_i(\mathbf{r})$ associated with electrode particle indexed $i$ is a Gaussian density centered at position $\mathbf{r_i}$,
\begin{align}
\rho_i(\mathbf{r}) = q_i n_i(\mathbf{r})= q_i \frac{\eta^3}{\pi^{3/2}} \exp \left(-\eta^2 |\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_i|^2 \right) \label{eqn:gauss_definition}
\end{align}
where $q_i$ is the total charge on the electrode atom and $\eta$ (in inverse length units) serves as a width parameter for the Gaussian charges. The use of Gaussian charge densities ensures that the electrode-electrode interactions can later be written as an invertible matrix\cite{Gingrich2010OnSurfaces}.
Writing the vector of the electrode charges $\mathbf{q} \equiv \{q_1, \cdots q_i, \cdots\}$, the simulation box potential energy $U$ (Equation \eqref{eqn:U_definition}) can be written as a quadratic form in $\mathbf{q}$:
\begin{equation}
U = U_{NC} + U_{elyt} - \mathbf{q}^T \mathbf{b} + \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{q}^T \mathbf{A} \mathbf{q}. \label{eqn:quadform}
\end{equation}
Here $U_{elyt}$ is the sum of the electrolyte-electrolyte Coulombic interactions, the vector $\mathbf{b}$ represents electrolyte-electrode interactions and the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ represents electrode-electrode interactions -- that is, equation \eqref{eqn:quadform} represents the terms (in order) from equation \eqref{eqn:U_definition} as functions of $\mathbf{q}$. The electrostatic potential vector $\boldsymbol{\Psi} \equiv \{\Psi_1, \cdots, \Psi_i, \cdots \}$ is the derivative of the energy with respect to the electrode charges, and therefore
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Psi} \equiv \frac{\partial U}{\partial \mathbf{q}^T} = \mathbf{A}\mathbf{q} - \mathbf{b} \label{eqn:psifromu}
\end{equation}
where the second equality follows from equation \eqref{eqn:quadform}. The elements of $\mathbf{b}$ depend on the positions of the electrolyte atoms which will vary with time. However, the electrode atoms are often fixed during a simulation, in which case $\mathbf{A}$ will not vary with time.
In CPM MD, the electrode charges $\mathbf{q}$ are updated so that the electrode potentials are specified. That is, we seek a specific $\mathbf{q^*}$ such that substituting into equation \eqref{eqn:psifromu} gives
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Psi} = \overline{\psi} \mathbf{e} + \Delta \psi \mathbf{d} \label{eqn:psiresult}.
\end{equation}
Here $\mathbf{d}$ is an ``indicator'' vector with entries $-1/2$ for elements corresponding to atoms on one electrode and $1/2$ for elements corresponding to atoms on the other, and $\mathbf{e}$ is a ``sum'' vector with entries 1 for all elements. This general form ensures that atoms of the same electrode have equal potential and there is a potential difference $\Delta \psi$ between the electrodes, while allowing for an overall offset potential $\overline{\psi}$ relative to the potential at infinity. Then $\mathbf{q}^*$ can be directly determined:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{q}^* = \mathbf{A}^{-1}( \overline{\psi} \mathbf{e}+\Delta \psi \mathbf{d}+\mathbf{b}). \label{eqn:exact_fixedoffset}
\end{equation}
Other studies, including the prior LAMMPS implementation of CPM MD \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors} simply adopted $\overline{\psi} = 0$. However, this results in the total charge of the system being non-zero in general; this can severely jeopardize the accuracy of the resulting CPM MD simulation, as recently discussed \cite{Ahrens-Iwers2021ConstantMesh}. Substituting equation (\ref{eqn:psiresult}) into the electroneutrality constraint $\mathbf{e}^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$ and solving for $\overline{\psi}$ gives
\begin{equation}
\overline{\psi} = -\frac{\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\Delta\psi\mathbf{d}+\mathbf{b})}{\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}} \label{eqn:charge_neutral}
\end{equation}
in which case the constant potential, electroneutral charge vector $\mathbf{q^*}$ is given by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{q}^* &= \mathbf{A}^{-1}\left(\Delta \psi \mathbf{d}+\mathbf{b} - \frac{\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\Delta\psi\mathbf{d}+\mathbf{b})}{\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}}\mathbf{e}\right) \nonumber \\
&= \mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1} \left( \Delta \psi \mathbf{d} + \mathbf{b} \right). \label{eqn:matr}
\end{align}
where the final result is arrived at by defining an ``electroneutrality projector'' matrix,
\begin{equation}\mathbf{O} \equiv \mathbf{I}-(\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}\mathbf{e}^T)/(\mathbf{e}^T\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}).
\label{eqn:odefinition}
\end{equation}
This is the same result recently obtained by considering statistical mechanics on the constant potential ensemble \cite{Scalfi2020ChargeEnsemble}. If the electrode particles used in CPM MD remain stationary, the matrix $\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}$ will be constant and can be precomputed, as its entries only depend on the electrode particle positions. Along these lines, we have updated the previous version of the LAMMPS CPM MD package \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors} to include the electroneutrality correction, and use the new charge-neutral version \cite{Tee2022Repo,GitHubLink} in the calculations below.
Then, the main computational burden during each charge update step is to obtain the vector of electrode potentials, $\mathbf{b}$, from the positions of the electrolyte particles. Switching from partially periodic to fully periodic boundary conditions substantially speeds up this step, as we discuss in the next section.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{confpsis_v2}
\caption{\textbf{Depiction of simulated constant potential supercapacitor}, showing the cations (magenta) and anions (teal) between three-layer graphene electrodes (white). For each electrode, a single proximal layer is charge-updated during CPM MD, leading to either negative (red) or positive (blue) charges induced on each electrode as appropriate. This results in the potential difference $\Delta \psi$ being imposed between the electrodes. The potential offset $\overline{\psi}$ maintains the overall electroneutrality of the system (depicted here as one of the electrodes being grounded).}
\label{fig:boxpsis}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Faster Electrostatic Evaluation Using Fully Periodic Boundary Conditions}
\label{ss:optim}
MD simulations are performed with periodic boundary conditions to enable inferences about macroscopic systems from a nanometer-scale simulation volume. In supercapacitor simulations, the electrodes and electrolyte are usually repeated infinitely parallel to the electrode surface (which we label the $x$ and $y$ axes) but not transverse to the electrodes (which we label the $z$ axis), as depicted in Figure 2(a). Given the slow $1/r$ decay of the Coulombic interaction, direct evaluation of the Coulombic interaction terms in \eqref{eqn:U_definition} is not feasible. Instead Ewald summation can be used, where the Coulomb interaction is truncated in real-space so that it can be treated with a finite cutoff, with the truncated long-range Coulombic interaction being calculated using Fourier transforms in reciprocal space, where it rapidly converges \cite{deLeeuw1980SimulationConstants,Allen1989ComputerLiquids}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{configs_v2}
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of mixed and fully periodic simulation boxes for CPM MD.} With mixed periodicity, either (a) exact 2D Ewald summation or (b) slab correction must be used for the long-range electrostatics of the simulation box. Full periodicity can be recovered with either (c) the finite field method, that adds an electric field to impose the desired potential difference across the simulation box, or (d) the doubled cell method which combines two cells of reverse polarity to create an overall zero-dipole simulation box.}
\label{fig:configandsnapshot}
\end{figure}
Although this is straightforward in systems with full, three-dimensional periodicity, the electrolyte-electrode system as described is trickier to handle because of its mixed periodicity. The finite $z$ size of the system changes the associated Fourier sum into a Fourier integral \cite{Kawata2001RapidPeriodicity,Reed2007ElectrochemicalElectrode}, and this ``exact Ewald 2D'' method is rarely implemented in major MD codes. Instead, the ``slab correction'' is commonly used: as shown in Figure 2(b), $z$-periodicity is imposed with empty space added between repeats of the simulation box, and a charged-sheet approximation is used to remove the residual dipole-dipole interaction between those repeats \cite{Yeh1999EwaldGeometry}.
The slab correction is equivalent to discretizing the exact Ewald 2D method \cite{Brodka2002ElectrostaticSummation}, but still bears increased computational costs: since the simulation box has been expanded in the $z$ direction, more reciprocal vectors are required to reach the same accuracy, resulting in larger Fourier grids and more computational burden for the reciprocal space calculation. This has motivated a search for methods of simulating electrode-electrolyte systems that preserve full periodicity. Two such methods have been recently described in the literature \cite{Dufils2019SimulatingElectrode,Raiteri2020MolecularInterface} and are introduced below. They are applied to the simulation of a model supercapacitor with CPM MD and compared in this paper.
\subsubsection{Finite Field Method}
The first method utilizes an applied ``finite field'' to decouple adjacent simulation boxes \cite{Dufils2019SimulatingElectrode} (Figure 2(c)), motivated by a related approach to modelling polarizability in bulk systems \cite{Zhang2020ModellingDynamics}. In this method, for an intended potential difference $\Delta \psi$, an electric field $E_z = -\Delta \psi / L_z$ is applied across the simulation box
The simulation box potential energy under a finite field, $U_{ff}$, is obtained by adding a polarization term to the original potential energy $U$ from equation \eqref{eqn:U_definition}:
\begin{equation}
U_{ff} = U - \frac{\Delta \psi}{L_z}\left(\sum_i q_i z_i+ \sum_j Q_j Z_j\right) \label{eqn:ffield}.
\end{equation}
where $z_i$ and $Z_j$ are the z-positions of the electrode atoms and electrolyte charge sites, respectively. We also define $\mathbf{z}$ as the vector of z-positions of the electrode atoms. (The ``itinerant'' polarization\cite{Zhang2020ModellingDynamics} does not need to be tracked because all particles are bounded between the electrodes.)
The electrode charges $\mathbf{q}$ are then simply obtained by considering the electric field in specification of the potential in equation (\ref{eqn:psiresult}) (i.e. $\boldsymbol{\Psi} = \overline{\psi} \mathbf{e} -\Delta\psi\mathbf{z}/L_z$), and solving for $\mathbf{q}$ with a variable $\overline{\psi}$ and imposing charge neutrality. The field introduces a discontinuity in the potential generated across the box with a value $\Delta\psi$ which is the potential difference between the electrodes. The electrode charges are then,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{q}^* = \mathbf{O} \mathbf{A}^{-1}\left(-\frac{\Delta \psi}{L_z}\mathbf{z}+\mathbf{b}\right). \label{eqn:matr_ff}
\end{equation}
which is a simple modification of (\ref{eqn:matr}) and allows an implementation that is similar to the basic CPM MD algorithms. Although the finite field method has very recently been applied to a computational RTIL-electrode interface \cite{Dufils2021ComputationalSimulations}, comparisons have not been made with the slab correction method in terms of either accuracy or computational speed. We document these comparisons and as our first major computational result show that, with properly optimized algorithms, the finite field method is significantly faster thanks to full periodicity in long-range electrostatics evaluations.
\subsubsection{Doubled Cell Method}
Another available method which has been used for other systems, but not for CPM MD, is a ``doubled cell'' approach. In this approach, two sub-cells are built back-to-back with opposing polarities; this yields a unit cell which has zero net dipole, and thus automatically has no dipole-dipole interactions along the $z$ direction. Although the system to be simulated is twice as large, each sub-cell is effectively independent, so that twice as much data can be collected per simulation interval.
This method has previously been applied to polar surfaces as the ``mirrored slab'' method \cite{Croteau2009SimulationConditions,Ren2020EffectsWater}, to capture the dynamics of polar liquids near statically charged surfaces. More recently, this method was applied to simulate the effects of an applied electric field on a liquid-liquid interface \cite{Raiteri2020MolecularInterface}. However, the same motivation in both cases -- allowing fully periodic electrostatic evaluation for systems with significant overall dipole -- also applies to CPM MD, and we demonstrate as the second major computational result that doubled cell CPM MD also yields accurate results with reduced computational cost relative to slab correction.
The only additional complexity occurs if we require each sub-cell to be independently electroneutral to resemble the single cells. We can accomplish this by modifying equation \eqref{eqn:psiresult} to include two offset potentials:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Psi} = \overline{\psi} \mathbf{e} + \overline{\psi_1} \mathbf{e}_1 + \Delta \psi \mathbf{d} \label{eqn:psi_doublecell}.
\end{equation}
The vectors $\mathbf{e}$, $\mathbf{e_1}$ and $\mathbf{d}$ run over all electrode particles in both sub-cells. As above, the elements of $\mathbf{e}$ are 1 for all electrode particles and the elements of $\mathbf{d}$ are $1/2$ for atoms on both positive electrodes (one for each sub-cell) and $-1/2$ for atoms on the negative electrodes. The new vector $\mathbf{e}_1$ ``selects'' the electrode particles of only one sub-cell -- that is, its elements are 1 for all particles of the electrodes (both positive and negative) in one of the sub-cells , and 0 for all electrode particles in the other sub-cell. When we require that $\mathbf{e}^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$ and $\mathbf{e}_1^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$, this ensures that both sub-cells are electroneutral.
We can then write out the two corresponding projection matrices in analogy with equation \eqref{eqn:matr}. Fulfilling the first constraint $\mathbf{e}^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$, and solving for $\overline{\psi}$, gives us
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{q}^* = \mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\overline{\psi_1}\mathbf{e}_1 + \Delta \psi \mathbf{d} + \mathbf{b}) \label{eqn:psi_step_doublecell}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{O}$ is defined as above (equation (\ref{eqn:odefinition})). Fulfilling the second constraint, $\mathbf{e}_1^T \mathbf{q}^* = 0$, and solving for $\overline{\psi_1}$ then gives
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{q}^* = \mathbf{O}_1\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\Delta \psi \mathbf{d} + \mathbf{b}) \label{eqn:psiresult_doublecell},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{O}_1 \equiv \mathbf{I} - \frac{\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}_1\mathbf{e}^T_1}{\mathbf{e}^T_1\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{e}_1}.
\end{equation}
In short, maintaining independent electroneutrality for each cell simply requires pre-calculation of one additional projection matrix then $\mathbf{O}_1\mathbf{O}\mathbf{A}^{-1}$, which does not change in systems with stationary electrode particles, resulting in minimal additional computational burden. Although this does result in a nominal difference in the instantaneous offset potentials \emph{between} the cells, our results show that electrolyte dynamics within one cell is not affected by the configuration in the other. Intuitively, this arises since conductors screen electric fields and therefore the presence of conductive electrodes between the electrolytes of each cell prevents them from interacting, provided the separation of the sub-cells is larger than the cutoff radii for the short-range interactions. This further emphasizes that the offset potential serves only to maintain electroneutrality and does not affect the accuracy of simulation results in any other way.
\subsection{Calculating Potential Profiles In Different Optimized Geometries}
\label{ss:potprof}
The electric potential profile across the simulation box, $\psi(z)$, is a key measurement output for a computational supercapacitor, as it is used to determine the differential capacitance at each electrode, and our third major result is that full periodicity also simplifies the calculation of $\psi(z)$. If the potential profile only varies in $z$, then it can be calculated by obtaining the linear charge density, $\rho(z)$, and solving the 1D Poisson equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2}{dz^2} \psi(z) = -\frac{1}{\epsilon_0} \rho(z). \label{eqn:pois}
\end{equation}
subject to the appropriate boundary conditions. For this paper we use a matrix-based finite difference method, which approximates $d^2/dz^2$ as a linear finite difference relation; this method converges well even at low finite-difference orders \cite{Wang2016ElectricCapacitors}. The Poisson equation can then be inverted simply by applying the inverse finite difference matrix to the discretization of the charge density $\rho(z)$.
If electroneutrality is not imposed, the boundary conditions involve setting the potential at each electrode to their CPM pre-specified values (see Supporting Information of \cite{Demir2020InvestigationSimulations}, for example). If this is not the case, the set potential difference, $\Delta \psi$, and $\overline{\psi}$ can be calculated from equation (\ref{eqn:psiresult}) can be used. Since the both finite field and doubled cell methods have full periodicity, this can be exploited and replace $\Delta \psi$. In the finite field method, the total potential rise $\psi(L_z) - \psi(0)$ is simply the preset potential difference $\Delta \psi$, which enters the boundary conditions as a discontinuity across the $z$-boundary of the unit cell. In the doubled cell method, the (doubled) unit cell is repeated with no further modification and the boundary condition is just continuity across the $z$-boundary, $\psi(L_z) - \psi(0) = 0$. The continuity of the potential is likely to be easier to apply if the electrodes are not planar. Furthermore, our results show that for the special case of planar electrodes, the boundary condition can accommodate the use of CPM MD to only charge or discharge the electrode layers closest to the electrolyte, resulting in further computational savings.
\section{Simulations and Analyses}
\label{sec:simulations}
We demonstrate the slab, finite field, and doubled cell methods with a computational ionic liquid supercapacitor (Figure \ref{fig:boxpsis}). The supercapacitor electrolyte consists of a 10-nm wide block of 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate (BMim$^+$-PF$_6^-$). The electrolyte is sandwiched between two atomistic graphene electrodes of three layers each, with the interlayer spacing set to 0.335 nm as standard. The ions are simulated using a coarse-grained model that has been tested previously\cite{Roy2010AnModel}. The BMim$^+$ cations and PF$_6^-$ anions are coarse-grained to three particles and one particle per ion respectively, with Lennard-Jones and Coulomb interactions modelled using parameters from the literature\cite{Roy2010AnModel}. In the model, the IL ions are charge-scaled so that the charge on each cation (anion) is +0.78 (-0.78). Literature values for the graphene carbon atom Lennard-Jones parameters \cite{Cole1983TheGraphite} were used and Lennard-Jones parameters for interactions betweeen the carbon and IL atoms were obtained using standard Lorentz-Berthelot rules. The supercapacitor was simulated over a set of potential differences from 0.0 to 2.5 V, for 30 ns per run at each potential difference, and each set of runs was repeated three times for each method from statistically different initial configurations.
During production runs, only the first layer of each electrode closest to the electrolyte was ``charged'' with CPM MD, with the next two layers contributing only non-Coulombic interactions, based on previous studies finding that charge is predominantly induced on the first layer \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors}, and consistent with the charge distribution of a conductor. Snapshots from each run were separately post-processed to determine the charges that would have been obtained with the constant potential applied to all three layers. The resulting charge distribution was found to confirm the findings of the previous studies, as we discuss later, validating the choice to charge only one layer during production for significant computational savings. In subsequent discussion, these differing configurations of electrode charges are referred to as ``single-layer'' and ``three-layer'' charges respectively.
From each run, the transverse charge profile across the cell was obtained as an equilibrium average and the potential profile calculated using the finite-difference method discussed earlier. The potential on each electrode was subsequently obtained by comparison to the bulk potential, and charge-potential curves were then used to obtain the single-electrode differential capacitance by spline fitting. Further details for the simulations and analyses are given in the appendix.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Charging and Steady State Properties}
Figure \ref{fig:stv}(a) shows typical traces of the surface charge density, $\sigma$, against simulation time, at 0.0, 1.2 and 2.5 V for the first 15 ns of the 30 ns trajectories. These graphs (as well as for other potential differences, supplied in the SI Fig A) show a non-zero charging time characteristic of the CPM MD simulation, allowing equilibration to be visually estimated. Equilibrium charges are attained within a few nanoseconds, which is a typical timescale for coarse-grained simulations, and so the final 25 ns of each trajectory is taken as the equilibrium portion for further analysis.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{stv_blockaves}
\caption{(a) Charging curves of electrode charge against time show that slab, finite field, and doubled-cell methods return statistically similar instantaneous results, as displayed for 0.0, 1.2, or 2.5 V potential difference. (b) The equilibrium surface charge density, averaged over the final 25 ns of each trajectory, as plotted against imposed potential difference $\Delta \psi$ shows that slab, finite field, and doubled-cell methods also return statistically similar ensemble results. Standard error of mean charge (as calculated from the averages of 5 ns trajectory blocks) are smaller than the symbol size. Results from both sub-cells were averaged for the doubled cell data points.\label{fig:stv}}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
The simulations using the slab, finite field, and doubled cell geometries return largely identical results, whether from the charging curves or from obtaining the equilibrium average charges as a function of potential difference (Fig 1(b)). To further validate the doubled cell method, we analysed both long term charges and short term dynamics of doubled cell trajectories.
\subsection{Validating the Doubled Cell Method}
\label{ss:2cell}
In order for the doubled cell method to be computationally efficient, both cells must return independent trajectories so that the doubled system size truly gives twice as much data. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:cellslr}, the instantaneous electrode charges are indeed uncorrelated between different cells.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{cells_leftright}
\caption{Scatter plot of instantaneous electrode charge densities in doubled cell CPM MD, after equilibration. Left and right cells have identical averages at all potential differences (denoted by point color), as highlighted by the green line (left $\sigma(t)$ = right $\sigma(t)$), but are not noticeably correlated.\label{fig:cellslr}}
\end{figure}
To further validate trajectory independence in the doubled cell method, two short trajectories with $\Delta \psi = 0 V$ and with different initial conditions were compared (Figure \ref{fig:trajcheck} (a)). In the \emph{antisymmetric} (or \emph{anti}) initial condition, a single cell configuration (comprising both positions and velocities) was reflected along the $z$-axis, while in the \emph{symmetric} (or \emph{sym}) initial condition the duplicated cell was also $z$-reversed, resulting in a reflected image. Thus, in the \emph{sym} condition, the electrolyte and electrodes initially have the same alignment in both cells, while in the \emph{anti} condition the electrolyte and electrodes initially have opposite alignment, making two maximally different initial conditions. If the duplicated cell does not influence the behaviour of the original cell, then (to within numerical error) the properties of the system in the first cell will not change if the duplicated cell changes.
Figure \ref{fig:trajcheck} (b)(i) shows the subsequent evolution of the electrolyte dipole moment ($\sum Q_j Z_j$) in the left cell from these initial configurations, as well as for slab and finite field-based comparison trajectories. Importantly, the divergence between \emph{anti} and \emph{sym} trajectories primarily emerges at about 2.5 ps, showing that until that point the left cell evolves identically despite the right cell being maximally different. The slab, finite field, and doubled cell trajectories start diverging just before then, suggesting that the trajectory divergence is a result of typical floating-point error accumulation. We note that in the doubled cell method, two separate Nose-Hoover thermostats are used, one for each cell; using a single Nose-Hoover thermostat across the electrolytes of both cells couples them together and reduces their independence (data not shown).
We demonstrate that for the fixed charge MD, statistical independence of the two cells is not observed by repeating simulation of the short trajectories under a fixed charge condition, simply leaving all electrode particles neutral. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:trajcheck} (b)(ii), there is an immediate difference between \emph{sym} and \emph{anti} trajectories, showing that in fixed charge MD the two cells are no longer completely uncoupled. Both the \emph{sym} and \emph{anti} trajectories also quickly diverge from a single cell, slab-corrected fixed charge comparison trajectory.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{testing_2cell_a}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{tc}
\caption{Validating the independence of the two cells in the doubled cell CPM MD with \emph{anti} vs \emph{sym} replication. (a) Depictions of \textit{anti} and \textit{sym} initial configurations. (b) Cell dipole evolution for short trajectories of CPM and fixed charge MD in various unit cell configurations. Single lines are shown for each doubled cell method simulation, as the divergence between individual cell dipoles is not visible on the graph within the 6 ps duration shown (for both CPM and fixed charge MD). \label{fig:trajcheck}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Electrolyte and Charge Densities}
\label{ss:ecd}
Figure \ref{fig:cl} shows the equilibrium density profiles of BMim$^+$ and PF$_6^-$ particles across the cell for the imposed potential differences $\Delta V = $ 0.0, 1.2 and 2.5 V (with graphs for other potential differences supplied in the SI Fig D). Again, little difference is seen between the slab, finite field, and doubled cell geometries. Ionic layers are observed to form at the interfaces with the conducting electrodes, with the layers at 0.0 V attributable purely to size and symmetry of the ions and their interactions with the carbon atoms of the electrode. At higher voltages, distinct phenomena control the electrode ionic layering. The anion, which is represented as a sphere, can be packed into the layer nearest the electrode with increasing density at higher potential differences. Since the cation has an irregular shape, cationic layers cannot pack with the same efficiency, and increased electrode charge causes cationic density to broaden and build up in the second layer instead. In either case, there is a clear change from co-layering at low electrode charges, where anion and cation layers almost coincide, to counter-layering where anions and cations alternate.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{an_cat_dens}%
\caption{Trajectory averaged anion and cation densities near the cell electrodes at electrode potential differences of $\Delta V$ = 0.0 V (top), 1.2 V (middle), and 2.5 V (bottom), with the dashed gray lines indicating the positions of the electrodes nearest to the ionic liquid. Densities were drawn using dashed, dotted, and solid lines for slab, finite field, and doubled cell geometries respectively, but the differences cannot be visually distinguished and are not larger than between different runs using identical geometries.\label{fig:cl}}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:qz} shows the charge density across the cell, accounting for the Gaussian charge densities on the electrode layers. Again, all three methods return very similar charge densities, with larger oscillations near the electrodes as the potential difference increases. Comparing the post-processed three-layer charges to the single-layer charges shows that, when CPM MD is applied to all three electrode layers, more than 90\% of the charge is still induced on the single layers closest to the electrolyte. Leaving the basal layers uncharged is thus expected to have minimal effect on the electrolyte dynamics, but has consequences for obtaining the correct potential profile using Poisson methods, as discussed below.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{qz}
\caption{Trajectory averaged charge densities across the simulation cell for slab (top left), finite field (top right, with $z$ reversed), and doubled cell (bottom) geometries, at imposed potential differences $\Delta V =$ 0.0, 1.2, and 2.5 V. Electrode positions are indicated by the dotted lines, with blue (red) colour indicating the layers of the positive (negative) electrodes. (Inset) The electrode region is magnified to better visualize the three-layer predicted charges (dashed lines).\label{fig:qz}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulation Cell Potential Profiles and Differential Capacitances}
Figure \ref{fig:vz} shows the potential profiles, $\psi(z) - \overline{\psi}$, across the cell for $\Delta V = $ 0.0, 1.2, and 2.5 V, in slab, finite field, and doubled cell methods. The average values of $\overline{\psi}$ are very small compared to $\psi(z)$ for these systems (e.g. for slab simulations, $|\overline{\psi}|<0.03V$ at all potentials considered). As in Figure \ref{fig:qz}, solid lines show the single-layer potential profile and dashed lines show the three-layer potential profile.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{vz_3inset}
\caption{Trajectory averaged electrostatic potential ($\psi(z) - \overline{\psi}$) across the simulation cell for slab (top left), finite field (top right), and doubled cell (bottom) methods, at imposed potential differences $\Delta V =$ 0.0, 1.2, and 2.5 V. As in Figure \ref{fig:qz}, solid lines are single-layer potential profiles and dashed lines are three-layer predicted potential profiles, and electrode positions are indicated by the dotted lines. The solid lines for the slab results are obtained by setting the potential difference between the innermost electrode layers to the simulation-imposed value. (Insets) Potentials in the electrode regions are magnified to better visualize the effect of inner-layer charges on the potential profile. \label{fig:vz}}
\end{figure}
The three-layer potential profiles show little difference between the three methods (besides statistical variation between trajectories). For all methods, the potential difference between the inner-most electrodes and the cell boundaries is equal to the imposed electrode potential difference, as with the finite field and doubled cell methods.
The single-layer potential profiles within the electrodes, on the other hand, are visibly affected by the choice of boundary conditions, and differ visibly between slab, finite field, and doubled cell methods. We discuss these results for the particular case of $\Delta \psi = 2.5 $V, but the same phenomena are seen at all other potential differences (shown in Figure \ref{fig:vz} for 0.0 and 1.2 V).
Considering the single-layer charged electrodes first (solid lines in Figure \ref{fig:vz}), the insets show that for all systems $\psi(z) - \overline{\psi}$ is exactly -1.25 V at the electrode in contact with the electrolyte, as set. Between this electrode and the next, the magnitude of the potential initially increases in all cases, due to the Gaussian distribution of the charges. In the slab and double cell system, it then reaches a constant value which is maintained until the edget of the 2D simulation cell is reached (slab) or the charge of the other surface electrode becomes significant (doubled cell). In the finite field method, the field due to the added ramp potential that has been applied across the whole simulation cell rather than between the electrodes is evident, and results in a linear drop in the magnitude back to the value of -1.25 V at the simulation cell boundary. For all systems with use of the three-layer charged electrodes, $\psi(z) - \overline{\psi}$ at each of the three electrodes is fixed to -1.25 V, so after the initial increase in magnitude of the electrostatic potential due to the Gaussian distribution of charge, there is a drop back to -1.25 V at the next electrode. Since the charge on this electrode is small, there is little evidence of the Gaussian distribution of charges. The potential within the electrode is artificially increased due to the absence of the counter-charges from the inner layers.
Given the electrostatic potential profiles, the electric surface potential (the difference in the electrostatic potential at each electrode and in the bulk,) $\psi_e$ can be determined, and the dependence of the electrode charges on $\psi_e$ are shown in Figure \ref{fig:dc}. Within statistical error, the same average charge and electrode potentials are evolved for each simulation at the same potential difference, regardless of the method used. Therefore the calculated differential capacitance, $C_D = d\sigma/d\psi_e$, is also the same between slab, finite field and doubled cell methods (within statistical uncertainties), as Figure \ref{fig:dc} shows, and the double-humped curve characteristic of screening and overcrowding in complex ionic electrolytes is obtained \cite{Kornyshev2007Double-layerChange,Bazant2009TowardsSolutions}. The method used to determine the uncertainties in $C_D$ is discussed in the Supplementary Information.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dc}
\caption{Electrode charges (top) and differential capacitance (bottom) as a function of the electrode potential $\psi_e$, calculated from three-layer charges
\label{fig:dc}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Computational Efficiency}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{comp_timings}
\caption{CPU-hours per nanosecond for simulating the ionic liquid-electrode system in slab, fixed charge, finite field, and doubled cell geometries, on four Intel Xeon Haswell 2.6 GHz processors. The time taken is itemized by pair interactions, PPPM long-range electrostatic calculations, neighbor-list building, and LAMMPS ``fixes'' -- mainly the additional computation required for constant potential routines. Right-hand diagrams show each geometry as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:configandsnapshot}. \label{fig:comp}}
\end{figure}
Although the three methods compared so far give similar results, their computational costs required differ greatly. Figure \ref{fig:comp} shows the computational expense for simulations using each method running on four Intel Xeon Haswell 2.6 GHz processors. (For the doubled cell geometry, each nanosecond of simulation time was counted as providing two nanoseconds of simulation data, since sub-cells have independent dynamics.) The supercapacitor system was also simulated in slab geometry with fixed (single-layer) charges of $+/- 9 \times 10^{-5} \,e$ per atom, to allow the computational costs of CPM and FCM MD to be compared.
Comparison of constant potential and fixed charge methods for the slab geometry shows that CPM charge updating incurs a computational overhead of about 20\% for this system. A similar overhead is incurred in doubled cell and finite field geometries -- however, the significantly reduced unit cell size, and subsequent reduction in long-range electrostatic calculations, more than offsets the overhead. In either periodic geometry the long-range electrostatic calculations are about 60\% cheaper than in the slab geometry. As such, on aggregate, either fully-periodic method for CPM MD results in simulations that are 30--35\% \textit{cheaper} than FCM MD slab simulations. The strong scaling (speedup when using more processors on a problem of the same size) is similar for all four methods, with the finite field and doubled cell methods showing slightly better scaling
In closing, it is interesting to note that the use of doubled-cell configuration has been used in fixed charge MD simulations for some time, with the purpose of more realistically applying a field across a slab-like system\cite{Raiteri2020MolecularInterface}. One main purpose of our paper is to demonstrate the application of the doubled-cell configuration to CPM MD simulations, which are important for modelling realistic electrode-electrolyte interactions, but our results suggest that in a doubled-cell, fixed charge simulation the two sub-cells are not fully decoupled (while in a CPM MD simulation they are). Fixed charge simulations will generally be more straightforward and quicker than an equivalent CPM MD simulation, and if the quantities of interest do not depend intimately on the details of electrode charges (such as polarization in the bulk electrolyte, far from electrodes) then the added complexity of a CPM MD simulation may not be worthwhile. Nonetheless, our results show that the novel application of a doubled-cell configuration to CPM MD can result in substantial computational savings and true decoupling of the trajectories of both sub-cells.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that fully periodic geometries are useful for accelerating CPM MD simulations of electrodes and their interactions with ionic liquid electrolytes. The resulting efficiency gains in long-range electrostatic calculations can more than offset the cost of the CPM charge update procedure, resulting in CPM MD simulations that are computationally cheaper than their fixed charge equivalents in slab geometries.
We have demonstrated these capabilities of CPM MD in a computational ionic liquid supercapacitor with flat electrodes. The charging behavior over time, ionic and charge densities across the cell, and resulting estimates of differential capacitance are statistically identical between the slab geometry and the two periodic geometries tested, namely finite field and doubled cell. In doubled cell geometry, the electrode charges evolved in each sub-cell are statistically uncorrelated, and the dynamics of each sub-cell are found to be independent of the electrolyte configuration of the other sub-cell.
When deriving the simulation cell potential profile in order to calculate electrode potentials and differential capacitances, the use of fully periodic geometries also entails simplified boundary conditions which make trajectory post-processing easier. In our study, we found the use of single-layer charges had no effect on the bulk potential, despite multiple charged sheets being physically necessary to screen charge within the electrode. Thus, the significant advantages of fully periodic CPM MD argue for its wider adoption in simulating electrode-electrolyte interactions.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The authors thank the Australian Research Council for its support for this project through the Discovery program (DP180104031 and FL190100080). We would like to thank Dr Emily Kahl for her invaluable support in developing and debugging the source code used in this project. We acknowledge access to computational resources at the NCI National Facility through the National Computational Merit Allocation Scheme supported by the Australian Government, and this work was also supported by resources provided by the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre with funding from the Australian Government and the government of Western Australia. We also acknowledge support from the Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation (QCIF) and the University of Queensland Research Computing Centre (RCC).
\end{acknowledgements}
\section{Appendix}
\label{ss:simdetails}
\subsection{Force Field and Overall Simulation Details}
The electrolyte modelled was an ionic liquid, [BMim$^+$][PF$_6^-$], using the coarse-grained force field of Roy and Maroncelli \cite{Roy2010AnModel}, with three-site cations (kept rigid using SHAKE) and one-site anions. Each electrode was modelled as three graphene sheets with the usual A-B-A staggering, bond-bond (1.42 \AA) and interlayer (3.35 \AA) distances, and the Lennard-Jones parameters of Cole and Klein \cite{Cole1983TheGraphite}; this combination of CG IL and graphene force fields has frequently been used in prior research \cite{Merlet2011ImidazoliumSimulations}. Non-Coulombic interactions were modelled with the Lennard-Jones form with a cutoff of 16 \AA, whereas Coulombic interactions were modelled using particle-particle particle-mesh (PPPM) summation \cite{Hockney1988ComputerParticles} to a relative accuracy of $10^{-8}$.
All MD simulations were integrated using a velocity-Verlet algorithm with a time step of 2 fs. A Nose-Hoover thermostat \cite{Nose1984AEnsemble,Nose1984AMethods,Hoover1985CanonicalDistributions} with a time constant of 100 fs was applied to the electrolyte particles to maintain a temperature of 400K, and cations were kept rigid using the SHAKE algorithm \cite{Ryckaert1977NumericalN-alkanes}. The LAMMPS package \cite{LAMMPS} was used to run simulations, with modifications to implement the CPM charge update algorithms. The extra code was based on the prior package LAMMPS-CONP \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors} with further optimizations, and is freely available on GitHub.
\subsection{Equilibration, Production, and Post-Analysis}
\label{ss:epp}
Bulk simulations of 1440 ion pairs were first conducted for 4 ns using an NPT barostat \cite{Shinoda2004RapidStress} at 1 bar with a time constant of 4 ps, and the bulk density of the CG IL model was determined to be 1.267 g cm$^{-3}$. A 320 ion pair lattice was then initialized and equilibrated under $x$- and $y$- periodic boundary conditions, with cell sides 32.2 \AA{} and 34.4 \AA{} respectively, while wall potentials with the electrode Lennard-Jones parameters were applied in the $z$-direction until bulk density was replicated in the middle half of the configuration over 1 ns. This slab configuration was then combined with a pair of electrodes whose distance was scanned to maintain bulk density, resulting in a final distance between proximal electrode planes of 109.75 \AA{} and a unit cell z length of 136 \AA.
From this initial state, CPM MD simulations were run for 30 ns ($1.5 \times 10^7$ time steps) in either slab, single cell (finite field), or doubled cell geometries; doubled cell initial states were formed by replicating the one-cell initial state in the $z$-direction and then flipping positions of electrolytes in the second sub-cell. For each geometry, 11 potential differences were used (0.0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, and 2.5 V). Electrode charges were updated every 5 steps (10 fs), which is acceptable since other studies report accurate results even with less frequent charge updates \cite{Tu2020InnerDynamics}, and the electrode charges were modelled as Gaussian distributions (see (\ref{eqn:gauss_definition})) with $\eta = 1.979/$\AA, as used in other studies \cite{Wang2014EvaluationCapacitors}. After each set of simulations had been completed, the final state of the 0.0 V simulation was used as the starting state for a new set of simulations; this was repeated twice for a total of three independent simulation sets. At an accuracy of $10^{-8}$, the PPPM meshes used for slab, finite-field and doubled cell geometries contained $30 (x)\times30 (y)\times225(z) $, $30\times30\times90$ and $30\times32\times180$ grid points respectively.
For each run, position configurations were written to disk every 20 ps ($10^4$ time steps). During each run, only the electrode layers nearest to the ionic liquid were charged with the CPM update procedure, while the further two layers of each electrode were left neutral and only contributed Lennard-Jones interactions. To study the accuracy of this approximation, the snapshots of each trajectory were re-run, and the charges that would have evolved had all three electrode layers been charged were recorded for analysis. As described in Section \ref{ss:ecd}, the resulting charges on the further two layers are very small and unlikely to significantly affect the observed dynamics, but they can affect the calculation of the cell potential profile.
The steady state particle and charge densities were subsequently obtained over a $z$-grid spacing of 0.34 \AA, corresponding to 400 grid points per unit cell for the slab and finite field geometries and 800 grid points per unit cell for the doubled cell geometries, and the electrostatic potential profile $\psi(z)$ was obtained using finite differences as described in the text. The average value of $\psi(z)$ across the middle 100 grid points of each unit cell (sub-cell, for doubled-cell calculations) was then defined as the bulk potential and set to $0 V$ for calculating the anode and cathode potentials.
Each set of runs thus contributed 22 data points (two for each potential difference) to the plot of electrode charge against potential in Figure \ref{fig:dc}. Charge-against-potential data sets were subsequently used to estimate the differential capacitance, $C_D = d\sigma/d\psi_e$, by fitting the data set to a fifth-order spline between --1.2 and 1.3 V. The gradient at each end-point was constrained to be equal to the linear least squares gradient of the five furthest points, to prevent oscillatory overfitting at the end points. The uncertainty in $C_D$ was estimated by bootstrapping: each of the 22 data points in the charge-potential curve could take one of three possible values (six, for the doubled-cell results) given the three independent sets of runs, and thus independent $C_D$ curves could be calculated based on which run was chosen at which point. 200 such independent $C_D$ curves were calculated and the 95\% confidence interval, shown in Figure \ref{fig:dc}, was chosen as 1.96 $\times$ the standard deviation at each potential.
\subsection{Initial Charge Trajectories, Charge Density Profiles and Potential Profiles for All Potential Differences}
The following figures show initial charge trajectories, charge density profiles, and potential profiles for all potential differences. While the data shown here is derived from the slab trajectories, similar results are seen when visualising the same quantities from the finite field and doubled cell trajectories.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{qt_allv}
\caption{Typical trajectories of instantaneous surface charge density against simulation time for all potential differences studied under CPM MD, spread over three panels for clarity. The set shown was collected using slab simulations; as discussed in the main text, finite field and doubled cell simulations yield similar results. Each trajectory is labeled with the potential difference used, and the lines are also color-coded using the same color scheme as subsequent graphs. The graphs are spread over three different panels for better visibility \label{fig:qt_allv}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{q_allv}
\caption{Single cell charge profiles for all potential differences studied, with the positions of negative (positive) electrodes denoted by red (blue) dotted lines as in the main text figures, and different line colors showing the simulation imposed potential difference. The three-layer charge is depicted here, but the charges induced on the two further layers are visibly negligible.\label{fig:qallv}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{phi_allv}
\caption{Single cell potential profiles for all potential differences studied, with the positions of negative (positive) electrodes denoted by red (blue) dotted lines as in the main text figures, and different line colors showing the simulation imposed potential difference. The three-layer potentials are depicted here and a constant shift is applied so that the potentials at the cell edges are $\pm \Delta V/2$. The downshifting of the bulk potential at higher potential differences is noticeable and corresponds to the asymmetric electrode differential capacitance documented in the text.\label{fig:phiallv}}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\section{References}
\nocite{*}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Molecular dynamics simulations of collision cascades have been used extensively
to determine the radiation damage at atomistic scales \cite{StollerRadDamage}.
The higher scale models of irradiation induced changes in microstructure such
as KMC require defect distribution and their properties like diffusion,
stability and interaction as inputs \cite{WirthMDKMC, BecquartMDKMC,
StollerMDKMC}. Traditionally, the initial defect distribution input from MD
simulation consists of the number of point defects and defect cluster size
distribution. These defects have different morphologies which may have
different properties for diffusion, stability and interaction. For instance, in
W, two kinds of loops are observed: 1/2 $\langle111\rangle$ loops which easily glide in one
dimension and $\langle100\rangle$ loops which glide very slow, and then there are rings that are
completely sessile \cite{PhysRevMaterials.5.093605, savi, potcmp}. For
simplicity, in various KMC studies, point defects are considered glissile while
all other clusters, or clusters above a certain size, are considered sessile
\cite{lakimoca}. The diffusion affects the extent of interaction between the
defects which decides long term microstructural changes. It has been shown that
such assumptions about the transport properties has an affect on the predicted
damage results of the KMC simulation (\cite{becquart:hal-03011208} and
references therein). It is also important to track morphological transitions
of defects because transition to a different morphology will change further
diffusion and interaction of the defect.
There have been various studies investigating the morphological distribution of
defects at different PKA energies in W \cite{potcmp, savi, SETYAWAN2015329, Sand_2013}. The
results show that while majority of the SIA defects consist of $\langle111\rangle$ dumbbells and
dislocation loops, there are also $\langle100\rangle$ loops, mixed loops, C15 like rings and
their basis structures, and mixed rings and dislocation loops. The $\langle111\rangle$ dumbbells and
their clusters forming $\langle111\rangle$ dislocations are the most stable self-interstitial
atom (SIA) defect morphologies in W. These constitute the majority of defects
formed in W collision cascade simulations \cite{Sand_2013, SETYAWAN2015329,
potcmp}. The prevalence of $\langle111\rangle$ dislocations in W simulations is in agreement
with the experiments \cite{yi2012, Yi15, durrschnabel2021new}. In addition to
the $\langle111\rangle$ dislocations, formation of $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations on high energy irradiation of
W has also been reported in experiments \cite{durrschnabel2021new, Yi15,
yi2012} as well as in MD simulations of collision cascades \cite{Sand_2013,
SETYAWAN2015329, savi}. The $\langle100\rangle$ loops inhibit void nucleation and affect the
irradiation swelling resistance of the material \cite{little1980swelling}.
Therefore, it becomes important to account for the $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation loops and
their corresponding properties in higher scale modeling of radiation damage in
W.
The $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations have been found in MD simulations carried out with
various widely used interatomic potentials \cite{SETYAWAN2015329, potcmp}.
Different potentials show differences in numbers and sizes of different defects
morphologies \cite{potcmp}. The PKA energy dependence on morphology of defects
has also been studied \cite{SETYAWAN2015329, savi, potcmp}. The contribution of
bigger mixed loop defects increases after around 100 keV while the
contributions of single loops specifically $\langle100\rangle$ loops decrease. However, the
maximum size and average size for $\langle100\rangle$ loop increases with energy for the range
10 keV to 200 keV.
There have been MD studies to explore the stability of
specific defects. In \cite{GAO2000213}, stability of three defects of size 2, 8
and 13 produced by displacement cascades in Fe is studied. The three defects
studied have different morphologies and sizes. The defects are first isolated so
that their stability can be studied without interaction and influence
of nearby defects. The defects are annealed at different temperatures and their
transition times are noted to find the activation energy for transition
(transition energy). Four sample runs are given for size-2 defect at five
different temperatures while a single run is given for other two defects at four
different temperatures. The maximum duration of a single MD simulation is 1 ns.
In \cite{BONNY2020109727}, transformation of sessile multi-dislocation defects
to single 1/2 $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation is reported by annealing primary damage state of
ten 200 keV cascades. Each cascade is annealed at a single temperature of 1500
K for up to 5 ns. Three different interatomic potentials are used to study the
effects of interatomic potentials. The estimated transition energy for these
defects is reported to be approximately 1.5 eV. As noted in the study, the
transition energy is only indicative or qualitative because of the presence of
other defects that affect stress fields and may interact with the defect being studied.
The shape and internal configuration of $\langle100\rangle$ loops has also been studied. Eyre and Bullough in \cite{rectilinear100} show that the experimental findings of rectilinear shape
of $\langle100\rangle$ loops in bcc metals is due to lower elastic energy of
rectilinear shape when compared to circular. The $\langle100\rangle$ loops maintain
rectilinear shape as the size grows while bigger $\langle111\rangle$ loops are
circular. The study also shows that the rectilinear loops will tend to
be square i.e. the ratio of length to breadth (aspect ratio) of the
rectilinear shape will tend to be lower. Setyawan et el. in
\cite{SETYAWAN2015329} show that the shape of $\langle100\rangle$ loops observed in MD
simulations of collision cascades in W are parallelogram (or a
rhombus). It has been shown for $\langle111\rangle$ dislocations in Fe that the energy
density of the crowdions in the center of the defect is lower than
that on the interface \cite{Dudarev111clusters2003}. This has also
been observed and analyzed for both $\langle111\rangle$ and $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations in W
\cite{savi}. The study also shows that the $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation loops found
in MD simulations of collision cascades in W have a $\langle100\rangle$ bunch of
dumbbells surrounded by non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the fringes.
This work examines the thermal stability and transition mechanism of $\langle100\rangle$
dislocations of varying sizes and configurations formed in W collision cascade
simulations using MD. We examine 34 $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations in a database of 230
collision cascades carried out using three widely used interatomic potentials.
We isolate the defects and then carry out annealing MD simulations. To
calculate transition energy of a defect, we carry out 16 runs for maximum of 10
ns at 12 different temperatures which amounts to 192 runs to estimate the
transition energy of a single defect. We carry out a systematic study with size
and discuss the relationship between size and transition energy of $\langle100\rangle$
dislocations. The activation energy for transition to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocations of
various medium-size $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations, including clusters of 6 to 24 self
interstitial atoms (SIAs) is found to be in the range of 0.1 eV to 3.2 eV. We
show that the transition energy increases with an increase in defect size.
However, the trend is neither continuous nor regular. To understand the reason
behind irregularities, we analyze the internal configuration of defects using
the SaVi \cite{savi} algorithm. We show that the differences in transition
energy of same sized defects is due to the differences in their internal
configuration while defects with different sizes also have similar stability if
the arrangement of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells is the same. We further understand the
relationship of internal configuration, defect size and defect stability by
showing the typical transition pathways that highlight the sources of
instability. We also discuss the similarities and differences in stability of
$\langle100\rangle$ dislocations appearing in the different interatomic potentials.
\section{Methods} \label{sec:method}
\subsection{MD simulation}\label{sec:mdsim}
The $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations explored consist of 34 defects formed in 230 collision
cascades. The procedure used for the collision cascade simulations and the
identification of defect morphologies is discussed in detail in \cite{savi,
potcmp}. The database consists of collision cascades using three interatomic
potentials: Finnis-Sinclair potential \cite{doi:10.1080/01418618408244210} as
modified by Juslin et al. (JW) \cite{JUSLIN201361}, the potential by Derlet et
al. \cite{PhysRevB.76.054107} with the repulsive part fitted by Bj\"orkas et
al. \cite{BJORKAS20093204} (DND-BN), and the potential by Marinica et al.
\cite{Marinica_2013}, stiffened for cascade simulations by Sand et al. (M-S)
\cite{SAND2016119}. Collision cascades from multiple potentials help in
analysing the effect of choice of potential on the stability of $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations
loops. We selected these three potentials owing to the large collision cascade
database that is available with us for these three potentials.
The stability analysis and transition energy calculation is carried out on
the simulation results of several annealing MD simulations. The simulations were performed for each
$\langle100\rangle$ dislocation loop in isolation at different temperatures. We first extract
the desired defect along with five extra unit cells around it from the
simulation box of the collision cascade. We then add more unit cells of W on
each side of the extracted volume to form a simulation box of at least five
times the extracted number of unit cells in each direction to take care of
finite size effects. The Large-scale Atomic Molecular Massively Parallel
Simulator (LAMMPS) \cite{lammps} code is used to carry out MD simulations to
relax the system using an NPT ensemble at 300 K with periodic boundary
conditions (PBC) and zero pressure. This relaxation step is essential given
that we have placed the defects and their nearby unit-cells into a new crystal.
We analyse the dislocation after the relaxation for any change in structure or
inconsistency.
For each relaxed system we carry out a temperature ramping simulation from 300K to 2000K. The temperature at which the defect transitions to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation ($T_r$) in a ramping simulation is noted. We calculate 12 temperatures ($T_1$ to $T_{12}$) around $T_r$ with a difference of 25K i.e. $(T_2-T_1) = (T_3-T_2) = $ ... $=(T_{12} - T_{11})$ = 25K and $T_7 = T_r$. After that, sixteen different NPT runs are carried out at each of these
temperatures with different random number seeds for initializing the
temperature. Periodic boundaries are set at zero pressure. These simulations
are stopped either at 50 ns or if the defect transitions to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation. For
cases where most of the sample runs transition while a few do not transition at
a certain temperature, the non-transitioning simulations are extended for 100
ns. The temperatures where transitions occur are included for the transition energy
calculation. We do not calculate the transition energy of a defect if it does
not transition for the complete 100 ns run even at a high temperature of 2000
K. We use an output frequency of 2 ps for checking transitioning and
configuration changes.
For transition energy calculation, the temperature (T) dependence of time
for transition ($\tau$) is taken to be described by an Arrhenius expression:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:arrh}
\tau = \tau_o exp(E_t/k_b T)
\end{equation}
where $\tau_0$ is a pre-exponential factor, $E_t$ is the activation energy for transition to $\langle111\rangle$ loop and $k_b$ is the Boltzmann constant. A linear regression fit for the equation is found for different runs of each defect. \Cref{fig:fig1} shows a sample fit for a defect of size 11. The plot shows the time of transition of the $\langle100\rangle$ loop to $\langle111\rangle$ loop for different runs at eleven different temperatures. Out of the total twelve temperatures considered initially, for the lowest temperature a few of the runs did not transition within the 100 ns time limit. For this reason only eleven temperatures are shown in the plot. The temperature range is from 550K to 800 K with an interval of 25K. At each temperature there are sixteen different runs having different transition times. All these data-points from the eleven temperatures are included for the transition energy calculation. The transition time is governed by a Poisson distribution which results in a spread of transition times at each temperature. Moreover, different transition pathways and changes in configurations (as discussed in \Cref{sec:transmech} and \Cref{sec:internalConfig}) further add to the variation in the transition times of different runs at a specific temperature.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig-1.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig1}
The transition time in various sample simulation runs of a size 11 $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation loop as a function of annealing temperature. The slope of the linear regression fit is proportional to the transition energy $E_t$ as given in \Cref{eq:arrh}.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Analysis of MD simulation} \label{sec:analMD}
We track morphological changes using the SaVi algorithm \cite{savi} and use
CSaransh \cite{bhardwajcsaransh} to visualize the defects. In addition to
identifying when the morphological transition occurs, SaVi also outputs various
parameters such as the number of dumbbells/crowdions in specific orientations
at each step and the number of neighbors of each dumbbell/crowdion. These
parameters define the internal morphology and help understand the relationship
between stability and internal configuration.
SaVi algorithm uses computational geometry and graph data-structure to find the
various morphological components of a defect and identify the overall
morphology based on the components. The algorithm finds lines across all the
dumbbells and crowdions. The direction of the lines decide the orientation of a
dumbbell or a crowdion. The lines that share a specific angle and distance form
a morphological component. For instance, a dislocation is formed by lines that
are approximately parallel to each other, while a hexagonal ring is formed by
lines that have 60 degree angle. The direction of the Burgers vector for a
dislocation loop is found by the orientation of the constituent lines while the
magnitude is decided by the number of net defects in each line. The algorithm
involves several details that make it robust to noise such as finding cycles
for asserting rings. The algorithm can be used to find if a dumbbell is at the
center of the defect or on the surface by counting its number of nearest
neighbouring parallel lines.
\subsection{Naming Internal Configuration}
The arrangement of dumbbells and crowdions in a dislocation decides
the energy density and stability\cite{Dudarev111clusters2003,
rectilinear100}. This forms the basis of examining relationship
between stability and internal configuration. For the discussions of
internal configurations, it is important to express
it in a way that conveys the shape of the defect especially
the factors that are observed to affect the stability.
The $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells in a $\langle100\rangle$ loop arrange in rectilinear form
\cite{rectilinear100}. More specifically, in a parallelogram or rhombus shape
\cite{SETYAWAN2015329} along with a few residual dumbbells outside the full
parallelogram \cite{savi}. We utilize the length, breadth and residual number
of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells to name the configuration of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells. The naming scheme
also signifies the degree to which dumbbells are packed at the center in a
configuration and can help in understanding stability differences for same
sized defects. The scheme used to name a configuration of size $s$ is as
follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eq1}
s = n + m
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eq2}
n = (l \times b + r)
\end{equation}
where, $n$ is the number of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells while $m$ is the number of non-$\langle100\rangle$
dumbbells on the fringes. The configuration of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells is further divided
into $l$, $b$ and $r$ where $l$ and $b$ are the length and breadth of the
number of completely filled rows and columns (sides of parallelogram) formed by
the $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells. $r$ is the remaining or residual number of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells. The
values of $l$ and $b$ are to be chosen such that the residual $r$ has a minimum
value. \Cref{fig:fig2} shows a schematic representation of a few defect
configurations and their corresponding parameters for naming.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig-2.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig2}
The schematic shows naming parameters for four configurations of size-7 and
two configurations of size-11 $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations. The naming helps in expressing
the arrangement of dumbbells in a $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation. The parameters like $l$,
$b$, their ratio also give an idea of the number of dumbbells in the center of
the defect and on the edges which has an affect on the stability of the
defect. The legend at the top shows colors and symbols for dumbbell orientation,
parameters for the expressions written below each defect and axis orientation
for the plot.
}
\end{figure}
We say that two defect configurations are different if any of the values of
$l$, $b$, $r$ or $m$ are different. Another feature that we will note in a
defect configuration is the ratio of $l$ and $b$, which we refer to the aspect
ratio of the $\langle100\rangle$ component. This ratio together with number of residual dumbbells
gives an idea about the number of dumbbells that will be on the edges. As shown
in \cite{rectilinear100}, the $\langle100\rangle$ loops tend to have lower aspect ratio.
In place of current naming scheme, one can find the number of $\langle100\rangle$
neighbors for each $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbell and use this neighbour count for comparing the
stability of defects where sizes are same. A dumbbell in the center would have
four $\langle100\rangle$ nearest neighbors while the one on the interface will have less than
four. This scheme might be more appropriate for quantitative comparison or for
loops that are more often circular than rectilinear. One drawback of the
neighbor count based scheme is that it does not give a picture of the
arrangement for qualitative discussion. In \Cref{sec:internalConfig}, we will
discuss the relationship of the stability of a configuration with the different
factors of the notation that we have used.
\section{Results}\label{sec:res}
The database of $\langle100\rangle$ edge dislocations contains 34 defects found in a database of
230 collision cascades simulated with the three different potentials at PKA
energies ranging from 5 keV to 200 keV. The distribution of different
morphologies and defect size distribution for each morphology for a subset of
the database has been earlier shown in \cite{potcmp, savi}. The fraction of
defects forming $\langle100\rangle$ loops reduce after around 100 keV energy but the maximum
possible size of $\langle100\rangle$ loop increases with energy. There is no dependence of
internal configuration on PKA energy. All the three potentials predict damage
containing $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations, with almost all the defects having a size between 4
and 50 (the DND-BN potential has an outlier defect of size 147). The size of a
defect refers to the number of SIAs in the defect. \Cref{fig:fig3} shows the
frequency of different sizes of defects present in the database for each of the
potentials. Sizes 29 or bigger are grouped because there are no transitions
observed within MD timescales for defects of sizes 29 onward for all the three
potentials.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{fig-3.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig3}
The number of $\langle100\rangle$ defects for all the defect sizes present in the database for
each of the potentials. The values for each potential are shown separately
with different colors. Defect size implies the number of SIAs in the defect.}
\end{figure}
Out of the total 34 $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations in the database, the transition energies
for 17 defects were calculated. From the remaining 17 defects, 13 large defects
do not transition during MD simulations of 100 ns at 2000K temperature, whereas
four defects of size four transition to $\langle111\rangle$ during the one nanosecond relaxation
run at room temperature. \Cref{fig:fig4} shows the different configurations of
the 17 defects that transition to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation. A single defect can
switch to different arrangements while being in $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation morphology
within a single simulation. The figure also lists other prevalent configurations for
the defects having multiple stable configurations.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{fig-4.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig4}
Defects that show transition within the maximum MD simulation time of 100 ns
at a maximum temperature of 2000 K. A single configuration is shown for each
defect. Other prevalent configurations are listed for the defects that change
configuration. Different defects in same size are marked as a, b and c. A
single plot is shown for multiple defects if the defects have exactly the same
configuration such as for size 6 there are two defects with exactly same
configuration which are shown with a single plot marked with a and b. The axes
for each defect are shown to give an idea of the defect dimensions.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Configuration Dynamics and Transition Mechanism}\label{sec:transmech}
We find the changes in configurations and transition mechanisms in the simulations by
tracing the movements and rotations of dumbbells that are in the center and on
the edges. Although in some cases the configuration changes can be too quick and
non-recurring, most of the times the transition pathways and configuration changes
fall clearly in one of the two categories shown in \Cref{fig:fig5}. These two paths are representative of the reoccurring patterns
that we observe for all the transitioning defects. The figure
traces the significant changes in defect configurations for two separate runs
of a size-12 defect as it transitions to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation. The initial
configuration of the defect is $(3\times3+2)+1$ (shown left of the center in
\Cref{fig:fig5}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig-5.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig5}
Two typical dynamics of dumbbell rotations and pathways for transition of
$\langle100\rangle$ dislocations to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocations. Path-A is common in configurations that
have no residual $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells forming a $\langle100\rangle$ configuration with complete
parallelogram/rhombus. The arrows show the time evolution of configurations.
Different changes in configurations are shown as the size 12 defect transitions
to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation. For both paths, the rotation of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells is initiated
at edges.
}
\end{figure}
Path-A is the preferred path of configuration changes and transition when $r =
0$. In \Cref{fig:fig5} path-A starts when the defect transitions from initial
configuration to $3\times3+0$ configuration. The non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells move around
the fringes from one side to the other while the $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells remain stable in
the same configuration. This movement can result in a climb of the dislocation
loop, which is observed to occur rarely. However, glide in these dislocations
is much more common. As the non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells move around, they may meet and
cluster, making the defect slightly unstable, inducing rotation in adjacent $\langle100\rangle$
dumbbells to non-$\langle100\rangle$. In our example, this is shown by \Cref{fig:fig5} (i) to
(v) of Path A. The rotation of the adjacent dumbbells in the $\langle100\rangle$ bunch may go
back and forth for some time. At some point, a good majority of the dumbbells
in the main bunch rotate, resulting in the transition to highly glissile $\langle111\rangle$
dislocation. In a bigger $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation, the number of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells is more,
and it becomes difficult to reach an instance when a majority of main $\langle100\rangle$
dumbbells are in the non-$\langle100\rangle$ direction. A bigger defect may either stay as a
multi-component mixed loop or may keep looping between stages similar to (iv)
and (v), thus taking longer to eventually transition.
Path-B is typical when $r > 0$ or multiple non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells are distributed
unevenly around the $\langle100\rangle$ component. The exact arrangement of the
$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells keeps changing very often as the $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the
edges keep rotating from $\langle100\rangle$ to non-$\langle100\rangle$ as shown in \Cref{fig:fig5}
(ii) to (v). At a certain moment, the rotation may travel from the edge towards
the center of the dislocation. If a majority of dumbbells get rotated away from
$\langle100\rangle$, the dislocation rather than coming back to $\langle100\rangle$ sways entirely to $\langle111\rangle$
dislocation (\Cref{fig:fig5} (vi)). Again, if the value of $n$ is greater with
more $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells packed inside, it is more likely for the rotating non-$\langle100\rangle$
dumbbells to sway back rather than the disturbance penetrating deep resulting in
the rotation of all $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig-6.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig6}
The transition pathway of a size 21 defect showing rotation of dumbbells from
edges to center. As the initial configuration is a full parallelogram ($r=0$), path-A
is taken. The arrows show the time evolution of configurations. The configurations
in second row change relatively quickly.
}
\end{figure}
It must be noted that at any time the further dynamics of defect configurations may change from one path to another if the defect configuration changes in such a way. For instance, if an incomplete parallelogram ($r>0$) transitions to a smaller but complete parallelogram ($r=0$) then the pattern of further configuration changes will be based on path-A.
For both paths, the transition starts from the edges and moves towards the
central part. \Cref{fig:fig6} shows transition of a size twenty-one
defect. The rotation of dumbbells can be clearly seen to be initiated at the edges and then moving towards the center. For a bigger defect the half rotated configurations in first row are more stable. The defect may stay as a mixed loop for longer time. The configuration then may sway back to $\langle100\rangle$ again or may trickle down to $\langle111\rangle$ loop as in the second row of the \Cref{fig:fig6}. The final transition stages are quick and same in both the paths.The relative instability of dumbbells/crowdions at the edges compared to central ones can be understood by their higher energy density as shown in \cite{Dudarev111clusters2003, savi}. This difference in stability is also observed in our further examination of the relationship between internal morphology and stability in \Cref{sec:internalConfig}.
\subsection{Size dependence of Transition energy} \label{sec:sizedep}
\Cref{fig:fig7} shows the transition energy of various $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations for
transitioning to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocations as a function of defect size. The
configuration of these defects are shown in \Cref{fig:fig4}. In case there are
multiple defects of the same size, the defects in \Cref{fig:fig4} are labeled
by alphabets (a), (b) and so on, starting from defect with lower transition
energy in \Cref{fig:fig7}. The overall trend in \Cref{fig:fig7} shows an
increase in defect stability with an increase in size.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{fig-7.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig7}
Transition energy for various defects. Different colors are used for
different potentials. The transition energy increases with defect size.
The error bars represent the 95\% confidence interval for the transition
energy fit.}
\end{figure}
The majority of $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation loops that get formed in a collision
cascade are of the size ranges that will transition to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation loops at
elevated temperatures. This is in agreement with the experimental findings that
the number of $\langle100\rangle$ loops reduce at elevated temperatures \cite{YI2016105}.
The transition energy does not increase linearly with size but rather in steps.
It remains comparable for a few similar sizes and then increases sharply. For
example, in \Cref{fig:fig7} we see that sizes 7 to 11 have comparable
transition energy, and then for size 12, it increases sharply. Again, the
transition energy values are similar for sizes 19, 21, and 24, whereas size 29
is too stable to transition within the MD simulation time limits, even at a
temperature of 2000 K. We also observe that defects of the same size may have
different transition energy. For example, out of the three defects of size six,
two have similar transition energy, whereas the third has higher transition
energy (\Cref{fig:fig7}) though all three defects are created in collision
cascades using the JW interatomic potential. The internal morphology as discussed in next subsection reveals
the reason behind these observations.
\subsection{Internal morphology and stability\label{sec:internalConfig}}
\subsubsection{Transition energy of different configurations for the same size defects}
There are more than one defects for the sizes 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12. The transition energy of two defects with size 6 (labeled as (a) and (b) in \Cref{fig:fig4}) is same while another defect (labeled as (c)) has a higher value of transition energy. \Cref{fig:fig4} shows the difference in configuration of (a), (b) and (c). While (a) and (b) have $n=4$ (number of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells), (c) has $n = 6$. The difference in transition energy and configuration can also be noted for size-7 (a) and (b), with $n=5$ and $n=6$, respectively. For the two defects of size 8 and size 11, the transition energy and configurations remain the same. We see that there is a direct correlation between the number of dumbbells in the $\langle100\rangle$ orientation ($n$) and transition energy for the same sized defect. For size 12, the two defects have more or less similar configurations, however the transition energy is slightly different. This might be because the defect with higher energy belongs to the M-S potential, that behaves differently from the other two potentials as discussed in \Cref{sec:potcmps}.
A defect can transition from one configuration to another as it thermally vibrates. The two size-8 defects have initial configuration of $(2\times2+0)+4$ and in most of the sample simulations they transition to $(3\times2+2)+0$ configuration before finally transitioning to a $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation. \Cref{fig:fig8} shows the transition time as a function of temperature for all the different sample runs of the defect. We see that the transition time of the samples that remain in $2\times2$ configuration is generally lower than the samples where the configuration changes to a $3\times2$ configuration in the beginning of the simulation. Once the defect transitions to a $3\times2$ configuration it takes longer to transition while in $2\times2$ configuration it never stays as $\langle100\rangle$ loop for long. In the figure, We see that the transition time of the samples that remain $2\times2$ configuration is generally lower than the samples where the configuration changes to $3\times2$ configuration in the beginning of the simulation. The $3\times2$ configuration is present in more samples and is also a more stable configuration.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.70\linewidth]{fig-8.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig8}
Time to transition to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation for different sample runs at various temperatures for a size 8 defect (\Cref{fig:fig4}). The transition time for the initial $2\times2$ configuration is almost always shorter. From the initial $2\times2$ configuration, the defect either changes to a more stable $3\times2$ configuration or transitions to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation quickly.
}
\end{figure}
The bigger defects have a lot more possible configurations that they can
transition between. However, there are certain configurations that are very
stable and remain same for a long duration. We observe that the configurations
with $r = 0$ and $m = 0$ are not found in our dataset of 230 cascades. The
defect with size 6 and size 16 both have a few runs that transition from a
different initial configuration to a configuration with $r = 0$ and $m = 0$,
$3\times2$ and $4\times4$, respectively. These configurations are observed to
be more stable but transition to these occurs rarely.
\subsubsection{Similar transition energy of different sizes}
All of the defects in the size range of 8 to 11 have $l \times b = 3\times2$ (while $r$ varies from 0 to 1 and $m$ ranges from 2 to 4). The transition energy of all these defects are similar. For size-7, the transition energy of the defect with $(2\times2+1)$ configuration of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells is lower, while the one with $(3\times2+0)$ has slightly higher transition energy compared to other $3\times2$ configurations. A jump in the value of transition energy is accompanied with configurational change at size 12. The stable configuration of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells for size 12 defects is $l \times b = 3\times3$. For size 16 defect the transition energy as well as value of $n$ increases with possible configurations of $3\times3+2$, $4\times3+0$ or $4\times4+0$. The transition energy of sizes 19, 21 and 24 is higher than others but remains similar to each other. This agrees with the similarity in their configuration having $l \times b = 4\times3$.
The similarity of the configuration of $\langle100\rangle$ component for a wide range of sizes
can be seen as the preference for addition of non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the fringes
rather than having residual $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells or changing to a lower aspect ratio
configuration. We note that the configurations with higher aspect ratio are
preferred over the ones with lower aspect ratio, e.g. we find $4\times3$ but
not $6\times2$ for 12 $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells. Similarly, the configurations like
$4\times2$ or $5\times2$ are never observed, rather the extra dumbbells with
increase in size get added on the fringes of $3\times2$ as non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells
until the size reaches to a point where $3\times3$ is possible with a few extra
non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells. A low aspect ratio arrangement or addition of residual $\langle100\rangle$
dumbbells increases the fraction of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the edges of the defect.
The residual $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the edges will have a high energy density which
explains the preference of configurations towards non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells over
residual $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells. \cite{rectilinear100} shows similar result using elastic
energy comparison of rectilinear and circular $\langle100\rangle$ loops. It shows that the $\langle100\rangle$
loops grow from all the four sides keeping the shape rectilinear and square (or
low aspect ratio) even for bigger sizes as opposed to $\langle111\rangle$ loops that change to
circular arrangement as the size increases.
The tendency to reduce the fraction of dumbbells on edges explains the
similarity of configurations for very similar sized defects where bigger stable
configuration is not possible. However, it does not explain that the defect
sizes that can have bigger stable configurations still stick to the smaller
configuration with more of the extra non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the edges. This might
be due to higher formation energy required for a bigger $\langle100\rangle$ core. For instance,
a size 8 defect can not attain $3\times3$ configuration (of 9 $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells) and
remains in $3\times2$ configuration, but size-10 or size-11 defect can have
$3\times3$ configuration with a few non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells still left. However, we
only observe $3\times2$ configurations for these sizes too. Similarly, bigger
sized defects such as size 19, 21, 24 do not have configurations that would
maximize the number of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells.
\subsection{Interatomic Potential and Stability\label{sec:potcmps}}
The transition energies of $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations of different sizes show similar
values and trends for all three potentials. However, there are a few
differences, especially in the M-S potential.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.75\linewidth]{fig-9.png}}
\caption{\label{fig:fig9}
The $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation with an initial configuration of 3x2 (left) and a total
size nine occasionally transitions to a mixed hexagonal ring (composed of
$\langle110\rangle$ dumbbells) + $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation morphology (right). The mixed morphology
defect is sessile and very stable. The dumbbells are colored according to
their orientation, with a color map shown in the legend. }
\end{figure}
The size-9 defect in M-S potential sometimes transitions to a mixed morphology
defect having a component of $\langle111\rangle$ dislocation and a hexagonal ring as shown in
\Cref{fig:fig9}. Although the transition to mixed morphology is rare, it is
significant because once formed, this mixed configuration is very stable in M-S
and does not transition even at very high temperatures like 2000 K. Also,
such ring-like defects are formed relatively more often in collision cascades
with M-S potential than with the other two potentials \cite{potcmp}. The M-S
potential has been fitted using liquid configurations in addition to perfect
crystal and point defects. For this reason, it might be more accurate about
the stability of rings in W.
Defects of size 19 onward in M-S do not transition within the limits of our
simulations, while for DND-BN, the defects up to size 24 transition. The two
defects with size 12 have same configurations but different interatomic
potentials. The one that belongs to M-S potential has higher transition energy
than the other one that belongs to the DND-BN potential (\Cref{fig:fig4}).
In \cite{BONNY2020109727}, it has been shown that the big multi-component
dislocations are highly stable in M-S, while it is not the case with other
potentials that they use. It has also been shown that the M-S potential
stabilizes $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation loops over 1/2 $\langle111\rangle$ \cite{CHEN2018141}. Our observation
also indicate that the transition energy for $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations is higher in the
M-S potential compared to the other two potentials especially for bigger sizes
in our dataset.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclude}
We show that the activation energy of a $\langle100\rangle$ dislocation to transition to $\langle111\rangle$
dislocation depends on the size and internal configuration. The bigger $\langle100\rangle$
dislocations are stable. Several defects formed in collision cascades are of
small size and might transition to $\langle111\rangle$ dislocations due to their low transition
energy. This is in agreement with the results from experiments that
show that at elevated temperatures the number of $\langle100\rangle$ loops reduce. We explored
the internal configurations of different $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations to understand the
relationship between defect size, internal configuration and factors that
affect the transition energy that are not clear when considering only the size.
We observe that many similar sized defects have similar configuration of $\langle100\rangle$
component which results in comparable transition energy for a wide band of
sizes. We show that various comparable sizes that have same $\langle100\rangle$ configurations
have same transition energy while two same sized defects with different
configurations have different transition energy.
The similarity of $\langle100\rangle$ configurations for similar sized dislocations is due to
the preference of $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations for having non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the fringes
rather than having residual $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the corners or having a low aspect
ratio configuration with elongated spread of $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells. A high aspect ratio
puts less dumbbells on the interface. The dumbbells in the center are known to
have lower energy density than the ones on the edges. Our results also agree
with analytical results that show that the $\langle100\rangle$ loops prefer square rectilinear shapes
\cite{rectilinear100}. No noticeable affect on the transition energy is
observed due to small changes in the fraction of non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells. The
configurational dynamics show that the non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the fringes move
around the defect. The transition occurs by rotation of dumbbells from $\langle100\rangle$ to $\langle111\rangle$
starting from the edges of the $\langle100\rangle$ component of the dislocation where energy
density is high. If a configuration has residual $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on the edges or
corner then the dumbbells on the edges with high energy density keep rotating
back and forth from $\langle100\rangle$ to non-$\langle100\rangle$ very often. If there are no residual $\langle100\rangle$
dumbbells and the $\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells form complete parallelogram/rhombus, the $\langle100\rangle$
dumbbell arrangement remains more stable. The movement of non-$\langle100\rangle$ dumbbells on
the fringes can also induce instability in a defect. The internal
configurations found and the transition pathways observed have good agreement
across the potentials. However, the transition energy seems to be slightly
higher for the M-S potential especially for bigger size defects. This is in
agreement with other ab-initio and simulation results that show that the M-S
potential stabilizes $\langle100\rangle$ loops more than the $\langle111\rangle$ loops
The understanding of the correspondence of defect sizes with configurations and
trends of transition energy with configuration can be used to approximate the
transition energy values for input to higher scale models like KMC. It is
difficult to say how well the trends of transition energy with size will
generalize to very big $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations. A bigger data-set might enable
quantification of various relationships between different factors such as
transition energy, size and configurations. This study can also guide a similar
stability study for mixed dislocations morphology (having both $\langle100\rangle$ and $\langle111\rangle$
dislocations) which constitute a bigger proportion of defects formed in high
energy W collision cascades. Other crucial properties for higher scale models
include diffusion of $\langle100\rangle$ dislocations and their interactions with other defects.
The systematic studies of the defect properties for each prominent morphology
can help in higher scale modeling of the evolution of microstructure after
irradiation and for designing materials with desired properties. Other methods
such as NEB and ab-initio studies can further supplement the properties found
using dynamic MD simulations. A KMC study that accounts for transition energy,
migration energy and interactions of different morphologies and sizes accurately
can be used to match experimental results quantitatively. The presented transition
energy results and insights into stability of $\langle100\rangle$ loops form part of the input
to such a higher scale study.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank the supercomputing department of the Indian Plasma Research Institute for providing the high performance computing facility for carrying out the simulations.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Introduction}
{\it Introduction--}The Ising model~\cite{friedli2017statistical} is one of the most
fundamental models in statistical physics and condensed matter,
and has great influence in almost every branch of modern physics.
When introduced in 1925, the Ising model was
shown to have no finite-temperature phase transition in one dimension (1D)~\cite{ising1925beitrag}.
In 1944, a milestone was achieved by Onsager~\cite{onsager1944crystal}~\footnote{Onsager first announced the result in a conference in 1942, while the official paper was not published until 1944} who obtained the exact free energy density on the square lattice without external field.
In 1952, Yang derived that, close to the critical temperature,
the spontaneous magnetization vanishes as a power law
with exponent $\beta = 1/8$~\cite{yang1952spontaneous}.
In 1970s, the renormalization group (RG) theory was established, which is now the foundation of
the modern theory of critical phenomena~\cite{wilson1971renormalization,wilson1971renormalizationa,wilson1972critical,wilson1975renormalization}.
An important result of the RG theory is that
the Ising model has the upper critical dimension $d_{c} = 4$,
above which its critical behavior is controlled by the Gaussian fixed point (GFP).
In 3D, extensive numerical studies have been available~\cite{deng2003simultaneous,ferrenberg2018pushing,hou2019geometric},
and, recently, the conformal bootstrap program has led to new insights and an unprecedented precision
of critical exponents~\cite{kos2016precision,poland2019conformal}.
Percolation~\cite{broadbent1957percolation,stauffer2018introduction} has been
intensively studied since 1950s due to its richness in both physics and mathematics.
In bond percolation, the edges of a lattice are occupied with probability $p$, or vacant.
Two sites are connected if there is a path of occupied bonds from one to the other.
A maximal set of connected sites is called a cluster. The upper critical dimension of percolation
is known to be $d_p = 6$~\cite{chayes1987upper}, and, for $d\geq 11$~\cite{AizenmanNewman1984,HaraSlade1990},
many rigorous results have been obtained. Besides their fundamental roles,
both percolation and the Ising model are widely
applied to many fields, including material science, neuroscience,
complex network, epidemiology, ecology and biology
etc.~\cite{Herega2015,Hopfield1982,SergeyStanley2010,Mello2021,ZengStanley2020,Ma2019,BrunkTwarock2021,ZhangStanley2019}.
In 1972, Fortuin and Kasteleyn (FK) derived
the so-called random-cluster (RC) representation~\cite{Grimmett2006}
for the $Q$-state Potts model~\cite{Wu1982},
in which the Ising and percolation models are simply
the special cases for $Q=2$ and $Q \! \rightarrow \! 1$, respectively.
This geometric representation has led to many exact results in 2D and efficient simulation
algorithms~\cite{swendsen1987nonuniversal,wolff1989collective,chayes1998graphicala,zhang2020loop}.
A natural question arises: what is the upper critical dimension $d_u$ of the general RC model.
In 1970s, the RG analysis suggested that, depending on the inclusion of the $\phi^3$ term or not, $d_u$ could be 6 or 4 for general $Q$.
Special attention was paid to the FK-Ising model.
On the Bethe lattice and complete graph (CG)~\footnote{A complete graph with $V$ vertices is a graph in which each vertex is connected to all others.}, both of which can be regarded as the $d \rightarrow \infty$ limit,
$d_u=6$ was conjectured from a hyperscaling relation~\cite{chayes1999meanfield}.
On CGs, a percolation-like scaling window was rigorously shown~\cite{LuczakLuczak2008},
and a recent study revealed that, at criticality,
medium-size clusters are CG-percolation-like~\cite{FangZhouDeng2021}.
In 5D, interesting two-scale scaling behaviors were observed~\cite{FangGrimmZhouDeng2020}.
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{Evidence for the two upper critical dimensions, with power-law scaling illustrated by approximately straight lines in the log-log scale.
(a), evidence for $d_c=4$ from finite-size scaling.
The largest-cluster size $C_1$, the rescaled second-largest-cluster size $\tilde{C}_2$
and the magnetization $M$ are plotted versus system volumn $V$.
Up to non-universal constants, data of $C_1$ and $M$ collapse well onto
a line with slope $3/4$ for $d=4,5,6,7$ and on CGs,
and data of $\tilde{C}_2$ collapse onto a line of slope $1/2$.
(b), evidence for $d_p=6$ from geometric fractals.
Size $s$ of medium clusters is shown versus gyration radius $R$, and the fractal dimension
$ D_\textsc{f2}$ is $1+d/2$ for $4 \leq d < 6$ and $4$ for $d \geq 6$ (percolation universality).
(c), evidence for $d_p=6$ from the largest cluster,
which has fractal dimension $D_{\textsc{f1}}=3d/4$ for $4 \leq d < 6$ and $D_{\textsc{f1}}=9/2$ for $d \geq 6$.}
\label{fig:main_evidence}
\vspace{-0.30cm}
\end{figure*}
In this Letter, we carry out extensive simulations
for the Ising model on periodic hypercubic lattice of linear size $L$
in dimensions from 4 to 7 and on CGs, as well as for bond percolation in 7D.
The simulation is up to be of more than $10^8$ lattice sites.
We observe a surprisingly rich variety of
finite-size and thermodynamic critical behaviors,
and, on this basis, argue that, in the RC representation,
the Ising model simultaneously exhibits two upper
critical dimensions at $d_c=4$ and $d_p=6$, respectively.
On the one hand, as long as for $d \geq 4$,
a bunch of geometric quantities
display finite-size scaling (FSS) behavior governed by a uniform set of mean-field exponents.
For instance, the $L$-dependent scaling exponent for the largest cluster is $D_{\textsc{l1}}=3d/4$ from the CG-Ising asymptotics,
while it is $D_{\textsc{l2}}=1+d/2$ for the second-largest cluster from the GFP in the RG framework.
On the other hand, critical clusters exhibit different geometric structures
for $4 \leq d < 6$ and $d \geq 6$.
Consider the thermodynamic fractal dimension $D_\textsc{F}$, as defined from the asymptotic
power-law dependence of the size of a cluster on its gyration radius.
For $ 4 \leq d < 6$, one has $D_{\textsc{f1}}=3d/4$ for the largest cluster
and $D_\textsc{f2}=1+d/2$ for all the remaining ones.
However, for $d \geq 6$, one has $D_{\textsc{f1}} =9/2$ and $D_\textsc{f2}=4$;
the latter is from high-$d$ percolation universality.
This is summarized in Table~\ref{tab:introduction}.
A variety of other critical behaviors are observed.
For instance, for $ d \geq 6$, the number of spanning clusters
and the winding number of the largest cluster
are both divergent as $L$ increases,
while they are of ${\cal O}(1)$ in lower dimensions.
Further, there exist two scaling windows:
the leading one is of CG-Ising type,
and the other is of Gaussian type for $4 \leq d < 6$ and
of percolation type for $d \geq 6$,
align with rigorous result for CGs.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|rlrl}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$4\le d < 6$\;\;\;\;} & & $d \geq 6$ \\
\hline
$D_{\textsc{l1}}$ & $3d/4$ & & \;\; $\Leftarrow$\;\; & same \\
\vspace{1mm}
$D_{\textsc{f1}}$ & $3d/4$ & (CG-Ising asy.) & & $9/2$ \\
$D_{\textsc{l2}}$ & $1\!+\!d/2$ & & $\Leftarrow$\;\; & same \\
$D_\textsc{f2}$ & $1\!+\!d/2$ & (Gaussian f.p.$\:$) & & $4$\; (percolation) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Conjectured exact fractal dimensions for $4\leq d <6$ and $d \geq 6$,
as inspired by CG-Ising asymptotics, Gaussian fixed point and results for high-$d$ percolation.}
\label{tab:introduction}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
{\it Models--} The Hamiltonian of the Ising model reads
\begin{equation}
{\cal H} = -K\sum_{i\sim j}S_iS_j \;, \hspace{5mm} (S_i= \pm 1)
\end{equation}
where $K \! > \! 0$ represents the ferromagnetic coupling and the summation is over all neighboring pairs.
By the FK transformation, it can be mapped onto the $Q$-state RC model with $Q=2$,
with the partition function
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z} = \sum_{A \subseteq G} p^{|A|}
(1-p)^{|E\backslash A|} Q^{c(A)}\;,
\end{equation}
where the lattice is denoted as $G \equiv (V,E)$, the summation is over all spanning subgraphs $A \subseteq G$,
$|A|$ and $c(A)$ respectively represent the number of occupied bonds and of clusters,
and the bond probability is $p = 1- e^{-2K}$.
We simulate the FK-Ising model on $d$-dimensional tori with $4\leq d\leq 7$
and on CGs, at and near the critical points as in Refs.~\cite{Lv2019Two,lundow2015discontinuity}.
A combination of the Wolff and Swendsen-Wang algorithms~\cite{swendsen1987nonuniversal,wolff1989collective}
is applied, and the latter is mainly used to generate FK-bond configurations.
The maximum system volume is $V=48^4,51^5,24^6,16^7,2^{22}$ for $d=4,5,6,7$ and CGs, respectively.
We also simulate bond percolation in 7D at criticality~\cite{MertensMoore2018}.
We sample the number $n(s,V)$ of clusters of size $s$ per site,
and the sizes of the largest- and the second-largest clusters as
$C_1 = \langle {\cal C}_1 \rangle$ and $C_2$, respectively,
with $\langle \cdot \rangle$ for ensemble average.
Further, to study geometric fractal structures,
we use the breadth-first search method to grow FK clusters and
measure their gyration radius in an \emph{unwrapped} way,
effectively taking into account periodic boundary effects \cite{FangGrimmZhouDeng2020}.
Given a cluster ${\cal C}$, we randomly choose a seed site
and assign it a $d$-dimensional {\it zero} coordinate (${{\bf x} \equiv 0}$),
and each newly included site $v$ is assigned an unwrapped coordinate as
${\bf x}_v = {\bf x}_u + \bf e_i \, (-{\bf e_i})$, if $v$ is grown from $u$ along (against)
the $i$th direction, with $\bf e_i$ the corresponding unit vector.
The unwrapped gyration radius is calculated as
${\mathcal R} \equiv \sqrt{ \langle |{\bf x}_u|^2 \rangle - \langle |{\bf x}_u| \rangle^2} $,
where the average is over all sites in cluster ${\cal C}$.
We also measure the unwrapped expansion distance $\mathcal{U}$ along the first-coordinate direction for each cluster.
{\it Evidence for $d_c=4$ from finite-size scaling--} In the spin representation,
$d_c=4$ is widely known for the Ising model.
Nevertheless, finite-size scaling behavior for $d \geq 4$
has been a long-standing debate \cite{wittmann2014finitesize,flores-sola2016role,grimm2017geometric,zhou2018randomlength,FangGrimmZhouDeng2020}.
It is now believed~\cite{FangGrimmZhouDeng2020,Lv2019Two,FangDengZhou2021}
that the critical free energy on high-$d$ tori contain two scaling terms,
having RG exponents $(y_t=2, y_h=1 \! +\!d/2)$ from the GFP
and $(y^*_t=d/2, y^*_h=3d/4)$ from the CG-Ising asymptotics.
An important consequence is that the critical two-point function
behaves as $G({\bf x}, L) \approx \|{\bf x}\|^{2-d} + L^{-d/2}$,
algebraically decaying with distance $\|{\bf x}\|$,
with exponent ${2-d}$ from GFP, and then saturating
to a plateau of height $L^{-d/2}$ from CG-Ising asymptotics \cite{Papathanakos2006,GrimmElciZhouGaroniDeng2017,ZhouGrimmFangDengGaroni2018}. This implies that the magnetic susceptibility, which is exactly the average cluster size in the FK representation, scales as $L^{d/2}$.
Figure~\ref{fig:main_evidence}(a) shows the critical magnetization
$M \equiv \langle | \sum_i S_i | \rangle $ versus volume $V$.
The good data collapsing for $d=4,5,6,7$ and on CGs, displaying $M \sim V^{3/4}$.
Moreover, the $C_1$ data collapse well onto those for $M$.
This confirms the conventional upper dimension $d_c=4$,
and demonstrates the uniform scaling $\sim V^{3/4}$ for $d \geq d_c$,
which can be proved for CGs~\cite{BollobasGrimmettJanson1996,LuczakLuczak2008}.
From extensive simulations and results in Ref.~\cite{FangGrimmZhouDeng2020},
we conjecture that, for $d > 4$, the FSS of $C_2$ behaves as
$C_2 \sim L^{1+d/2} = \sqrt{V} V^{1/d}$, corresponding to the GFP. This is seemingly consistent with the scaling $C_2 \sim \sqrt{V} \ln V$ for CGs~\cite{LuczakLuczak2008}, where $\ln V$ might relate to the term $V^{1/d}$ for finite-$d$. Rescaled quantities are then defined as $\tilde{C}_2 \equiv C_2/L$
for $d \geq 4$ and $\tilde{C}_2 \equiv C_2/\ln V$ for CGs.
Indeed, the $\tilde{C}_2$ data for $d=4,5,6,7$ and on CGs
collapse well on a line with slope $1/2$, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:main_evidence}(a).
At the upper critical dimensions, logarithmic corrections are usually expected. For the Ising model in the spin representation, field theory predicts the form of logarithmic corrections for many quantities at $d_c = 4$~\cite{kenna2013universal,kenna2004finite}, such as the magnetization $M \sim L^3 (\ln L)^{1/4}$, and the susceptibility $\chi \sim L^{2}(\ln L)^{1/2}$. We now examine the effect of logarithmic corrections to $C_1$ and $C_2$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:C12d4}, we plot in log-log scale $C_1$ and $C_2$, rescaled by their expected power-law scaling, versus $\ln L$. Our data suggest that $C_1 \sim L^3 (\ln L)^{1/4}$, consistent with the field-theory prediction for $M$, and $C_2 \sim L^{3} (\ln L)^{-1/4}$ which has no direct counterpart in the spin representation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Log-log plot of the rescaled sizes of the largest and second largest clusters at $d=4$ versus $\ln L$.}
\label{fig:C12d4}
\end{figure}
{\it Evidence for $d_p=6$ from geometric fractals--} In comparison with FSS,
intrinsic geometric properties of clusters
are better characterized by the power-law dependence of cluster size on
gyration radius as $ s \sim R^{D_\textsc{F}} $,
which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:main_evidence}(b) for
medium-size clusters--i.e., clusters with size $1\ll s \ll C_1$.
Distinct fractal structures are revealed: the fractal dimension $D_\textsc{f2}$ is $1+d/2$ for $4\leq d<6$,
and becomes constant $4$ for $d \geq 6$.
While the former is from the GFP,
the latter is consistent with percolation universality \cite{aharony1984scaling},
as well illustrated by the 7D-percolation data in Fig.~\ref{fig:main_evidence}(b).
Actually, the largest cluster also has different fractal dimensions below and above $d_p=6$.
The plot of the $C_1$ data against the gyration radius $R_1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:main_evidence}(c)
gives $D_{\textsc{f1}}=3d/4$ for $4\leq d<6$ and $9/2$ for $d \geq 6$,
with $9/2$ calculated from $3d/4$ with $d=6$.
Therefore, we conclude that $d_p=6$ is also an upper critical dimension for the FK-Ising model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Evidence for $d_p=6$ from topological properties.
(a), cluster-number density $n(s,L)$ versus $s$, where the Fisher exponent $\tau$
is clearly different for $d=4$ and 7.
The inset is for the number $N_s$ of spanning clusters.
(b) Winding number of the largest cluster as represented by $R_1/L$.
Both the winding number and the spanning-cluster number are of size
${\cal O}(1)$ for $d <6$ but diverge for $d>6$.
}
\label{fig:R1Ns2}
\end{figure}
{\it Evidence for $d_p=6$ from topological properties--}
The essential assumption of the standard FSS theory is that
the divergent correlation length--e.g., as characterized by $R_1$--is
cut off as ${\cal O}(L)$, resulting in that the number of percolating clusters is of ${\cal O}(1)$.
This has been widely used as a powerful tool in numerical study of critical phenomena.
We first look at the cluster-number density $n(s,L) \sim s^{-\tau}
\tilde{n} (s/L^{D_{\textsc{l1}}})$, where $\tau$ is the Fisher exponent,
$D_{\textsc{l1}}$ is the finite-size fractal dimension and $\tilde{n}$ is a universal function.
The hyperscaling relation, $\tau = 1+d/D_{\textsc{l1}}$, is further believed to hold,
giving $\tau=7/3$ for $d \geq 4$.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:R1Ns2}(a),
while being indeed true for 4D, the hyperscaling relation is broken for 7D, which has $\tau\approx 5/2$.
From the data collapsing for the FK-Ising and percolation models in 7D,
it can be restored by using $D_\textsc{lp}=2d/3$ for percolation universality.
To illustrate the emergence of clusters with nontrivial topology,
we measure the number $N_s$ of spanning clusters, of which the unwrapped expansion distance $\mathcal{U} \ge L$.
The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:R1Ns2}(a) shows that, while $N_s = {\cal O}(1)$ for $d <6$,
it diverges as $L$ increases for $d>6$.
From the scaling $s \sim R^4$ in Fig.~1(b),
it is suggested that the typical size of spanning clusters must be $ s > L^4$,
and, thus, $N_s$ can be calculated as $L^d \int_{L^4} n(s,L) \, {\rm d} s$.
With $\tau=5/2$ for $d > 6$, this gives $N_s \sim L^{d-6}$, consistent with the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:R1Ns2}(a).
Topological properties can be further illustrated by the winding number,
as characterized by ratio $R_1/L$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:R1Ns2}(b),
one has $R_1/L = {\cal O}(1)$ for $d <6$, consistent with the observation
of $D_{\textsc{l1}}=D_{\textsc{f1}}$--i.e., the finite-size and thermodynamic fractal dimensions are identical.
For $d > 6$, however, one has $C_1 \sim L^{3d/4} \sim R_1^{9/2}$ (Table~\ref{tab:introduction}),
and thus expects $R_1 \sim L^{d/6}$.
In other words, as $L$ increases, the largest cluster winds around the tori for more and more times.
This is well confirmed in Fig.~\ref{fig:R1Ns2}(b).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Percolation scaling window for $d \geq 6$.
Within window $t \sim {\cal O}(V^{-1/3})$,
the largest cluster scales percolation-like as $C_1 \sim V^{2/3}$.
The data points of various shapes are for different system sizes $V$,
and the colors are for 6D (blue), 7D (red) and CGs (green).
The inset demonstrates the CG-Ising scaling window of $ {\cal O}(V^{-1/2})$,
in which $C_1(t,V) \sim V^{3/4} \tilde{C}_1 (tV^{1/2})$.}
\label{fig:C1sw}
\end{figure}
{\it Percolation-like scaling for the largest cluster--}
The above scaling behaviors at criticality also hold within a scaling window of
size ${\cal O}(1/L^{y^*_t})$, with $y^*_t=d/2$ from the CG-Ising asymptotics.
As an example, the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:C1sw} shows the scaling
$C_1(t,V) \sim V^{3/4} \tilde{C}_1 (tV^{1/2})$ for the largest cluster of the Ising model with $d=6,7$ and CG,
where $t \equiv (K_c-K)/K_c$ and $t \geq 0$ is for the high-temperature phase. This also has been observed for 5D FK Ising model in Ref.~\cite{FangGrimmZhouDeng2020}.
Actually, in each dimension $d \geq 4$, there also exists another scaling window, which is less sharp and thus can survive slightly further away from $K_c$. For $4 \leq d < 6$, it is of size ${\cal O}(1/L^{y_t})$, with $y_t=2$ from the GFP, where all the clusters, including the largest one, would scale as $s \sim L^{y_h} \sim R^{y_h}$ with $y_h=1+d/2$.
For $d>6$, the second scaling window is of size ${\cal O}(1/L^{d/3})$, with exponent $d/3$ from high-$d$ percolation, where all the clusters, including the largest one, are expected to be percolation-like as $s \sim R^4 \sim L^{2d/3}$. This is illustrated by Fig.~\ref{fig:C1sw}, displaying $C_1(t,V) \sim V^{2/3} \tilde{C}_1 (tV^{1/3})$. Note that, unlike the CG-Ising scaling window, the percolation scaling window only occurs at the high temperature side. The scattering for small values of $tV^{1/3}$ is due to the CG-Ising scaling window. On CGs, the existence of the percolation scaling window has been rigorously proved~\cite{LuczakLuczak2008} and an RG-like argument has been provided~\cite{FangZhouDeng2021}.
The second-largest cluster scales as $C_2 \sim L^{1+d/2}$ in the CG-Ising scaling window (including $K_c$). It is therefore expected for $d>6$ that, the maximum of $C_2$ would occur in the percolation scaling window and diverge as $\sim L^{2d/3}$.
Other interesting phenomena emerge. For instance, as criticality is approached from the low-temperature side--i.e., $t \rightarrow 0^{-}$, one can expect that the second-largest cluster scales as $C_2(t,V) \sim L^{1+d/2} \tilde{C}_2(tL^{d/2})$. Suppose the relation $C_2 \sim R_2^{4}$ holds within the scaling window, then we have $R_2 \sim L^{(d+2)/8} \tilde{R}_2(tL^{d/2}) $ for $d\ge6$. To recover the thermodynamic critical behavior, one expects $\tilde{R}_2(x) \sim x^{-(d+2)/4d}$, such that $R_2 \sim |t|^{-\nu_2'}$ with $\nu_2'=(d+2)/4d$. Thus $\nu'_2 = 1/3$ for $d=6$ and converges to $1/4$
as $d \rightarrow \infty$. The exponent $1/4$ was also obtained on the Bethe lattice with fixed boundary conditions~\cite{chayes1999meanfield}. In addition, it was observed on CGs~\cite{FangZhouDeng2021} that a tiny sector emerges in the whole configuration space and slowly vanishes as $L$ increases. Conditioned on being in this sector, quantities are observed to exhibit CG-percolation behaviour. On lattices, our preliminary simulations suggest that there exists a tiny sector for all $d\geq 4$, which is of Gaussian and percolation types for $4 \leq d < 6$ and $d \geq 6$, respectively.
{\it Conclusion--} Based on a combination of extensive simulations
from $d=4$ to 7 and insights from RG theory,
and rigorous and numerical results for CG,
we propose that, in the FK random-cluster representation,
the Ising model simultaneously has
two upper critical dimensions at $(d_c=4, d_p=6)$.
Besides being an answer for the long-standing debate, dated back to 1970s, this picture provides
a counter-intuitive and advanced understanding
for the Ising model, which is probably the most fundamental
system in statistical and condensed-matter physics.
Note that the scenario of two upper critical dimensions was also proposed in the field-theoretical treatment of the $\rm{CP}^{1}$ model \cite{nahum2013phase}.
In FK-Ising clusters for $d \geq 4$, the thermodynamic and finite-size scaling behaviors are surprisingly rich,
partially summarized in Tables~\ref{tab:introduction} and~\ref{tab:summary}.
Two pronounced features can be seen: 1), as long as $d \geq 4$, there exist
two-scale properties, two scaling windows and two configuration sectors;
and 2), for $d>6$, the scaling behaviors of all clusters, except the largest one,
are in percolation universality, unexpected from the first sight.
Interestingly, while the geometric properties are very sophisticated,
critical behaviors in the spin representation are much simpler:
no percolation-like behaviors exist and the upper critical dimension $d_p=6$ cannot be seen.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{ $4\le d < 6$} & $d \geq 6$ \\
\hline
$\tau-1$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$d/(1+d/2)$} & $3/2$ \\
$R_1$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sim L$} & $\sim L^{d/6}$ \\
$N_{s}$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{${\cal O}(1)$} & $\sim L^{d-6}$ \\
scaling windows & \multicolumn{1}{c}{ CG-Isn.+ GFP} \;\;
& \;\; CG-Isn. + Perc. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Some scaling behaviors for $4 \leq d <6$ and $d \geq 6$,
including Fisher exponent $\tau$, finite-size scaling of the gyration radius $R_1$ and
the number $N_s$ of spanning clusters, and two scaling windows.}
\label{tab:summary}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
Several open questions arise.
First, what are the precise forms of logarithmic corrections
in critical FK clusters at $d_c=4$ and $d_p=6$? In this work, we study the logarithmic corrections of sizes of the largest two clusters, but it will be interesting to carry out a systematic study of the effect of logarithmic corrections to various geometric quantities, especially at $d_p = 6$.
Second, in the loop representation of the Ising model,
which is another geometric representation
and can be coupled to the RC model via the loop-cluster joint model~\cite{zhang2020loop},
what would be geometric effects for $d \geq 4$?
Finally, most of the exact exponents in Tables~\ref{tab:introduction} and~\ref{tab:summary}
are conjectured and rigorous proofs remain elusive.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements}
This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(under Grant No. 11625522), the Science and Technology Committee of Shanghai
(under grant No. 20DZ2210100), the National Key R\&D Program of China (under Grant No. 2018YFA0306501).
We thank Eren M. El\c{c}i, Jens Grimm, Timothy Garoni,
Martin Weigel and Jonathan Machta for valuable discussions, in particular for Jesper Jacobsen.
When finalizing the collection and analysis of our Monte Carlo data, we learned from private communications
that Jesper Jacobsen and Kay Wiese (ENS, Paris) are working on the same topic
using a field-theoretical approach and propose another scenario—i.e.,
for $ 4 \leq d < 6$, the scaling behavior of some geometric observables
could be described by non-trivial critical exponents other than those from the CG-Ising asymptotic
and from the GFP. Taking into account the logarithmic correction for the scaling of
the second-largest cluster, which is conjectured solely based on simulations,
this interesting scenario cannot be ruled out. \par
We dedicate this work to Professor Henk W.J. Bl\"ote, who passed away on June 10, 2022.
Bl\"ote was internationally renowned for his numerous contributions to statistical mechanics,
holding official positions at Delft University of Technology and Leiden University
until his retirement in 2008, as well as a lifetime service to physics.
Since his first paper on the specific heat singularities of Ising antiferromagnets in 1967,
Bl\"ote has maintained a particular passion for the Ising model among his research interests
in different physical topics.
As this work demonstrates, he has successfully conveyed his spirit to his students (Y.D)
and his second-generation students (S.F and Z.Z).
Bl\"ote has maintained a very close relationship with China over the past few decades, even learning to speak the Chinese language.
Bl\"ote gave enormous guidance to the students and researchers he supervised, treating them as his children.
His research fellows, especially his two Chinese PhD students (Youjin Deng and Xiaofeng Qian)
and his Chinese postdoc Wen'an Guo are so grateful for having had Bl\"ote as their supervisor.
Bl\"ote was very generous, kind, and always ready to provide us with support and love.
Bl\"ote was our physics mentor and remains our lifetime mentor.
The seed of physics he sowed in China has grown into academic trees of several generations;
the seed of love he planted in China has grown into a sea of sunflowers
that warms the hearts of countless people.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Let $K$ be a field and let $S = K[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be the
polynomial ring in $n$ variables with coefficients in $K$. Let $F = \oplus_{i=1}^r Se_i$ be a finitely generated graded free
$S$-module with basis $e_1, \dots, e_r$ in degrees $f_1, \dots,
f_r$, renumbered as necessary so that $f_1 \leq f_2 \leq \dots
\leq f_r$.
A \textit{monomial submodule} $M$ of $F$ is a submodule generated by
monomials, \textit{i.e.}, $M = \oplus_{i=1}^r I_i e_i$, where $I_i$
are the monomial ideals of $S$ generated by those monomials $m$
of $S$ such that $me_i \in M$. A monomial submodule $M = \oplus_{i=1}^r I_i e_i \subsetneq F$ is a \textit{squarefree monomial submodule} if every $I_i$ is a squarefree monomial ideal of $S$.
If $F=S$, then a squarefree monomial submodule of $F$ is a squarefree monomial ideal of $S$. The class of squarefree monomial ideals has been studied from viewpoint of commutative algebra and combinatorics (see, for example \cite{AHH2, AHH3}).
In this paper, we are interested in the study of some classes of squarefree monomial submodules: \textit{squarefree stable submodules}, \textit{squarefree strongly stable submodules} and \textit{squarefree lexicographic submodules}.
As in the theory of squarefree monomial ideals, we have the following hierarchy of squarefree monomial submodules: squarefree lexicographic submodule $\Rightarrow$ squarefree strongly stable submodule $\Rightarrow$ squarefree stable submodule.
In \cite{AHH2}, Aramova, Herzog and Hibi constructed the explicit minimal graded free resolution of a squarefree stable ideal, similar to the Eliahou-Kervaire resolution of a stable ideal \cite{EK}, and stated a formula for computing the
Betti numbers of such class of ideals. Such formula is a fundamental tool if one wants to study the Betti table of a squarefree stable submodule.
If $M$ is a finitely generated graded $S$-module, a Betti number $\beta_{k,k+\ell}(M) \neq 0$ is called
{\it extremal} if $\beta_{i, i+j}(M) = 0$ for all $i \geq k$, $j
\geq \ell$, $(i, j) \neq (k, \ell)$.
The extremal Betti numbers were
introduced by Bayer, Charalambous and Popescu in \cite{BCP} as a refinement of two invariants of the module $M$: the projective
dimension and the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity.
Indeed, if $\beta_{k_1,k_1+\ell_1}(M), \ldots,
\beta_{k_t,k_t+\ell_t}(M),\,\,\,k_1 > \cdots > k_t, \ell_1 <\cdots <
\ell_t$, are all extremal Betti numbers of $M$, then $k_1 =
\textrm{projdim}_S(M)$ and $\ell_t = \textrm{reg}_S(M)$.
The behavior of the extremal Betti numbers for some
classes of monomial ideals in polynomial rings in a finite
numbers of variables over a field was studied by Crupi and Utano in \cite{CU1,CU2}.
Subsequently, the same authors \cite{CU3} examined such special
graded Betti numbers for a lexicographic submodule $M$ of a
finitely generated graded free $S$-module.
In this paper we devote our attention on the extremal Betti numbers of a squarefree stable submodule. We characterize the extremal Betti numbers of such class of monomial submodules and give a criterion for determining their positions and their number.
The plan of the paper is the following. In Section \ref{pre}, some notions that will be used throughout the
paper are recalled. In Section \ref{classes}, the classes of squarefree stable submodules, squarefree strongly stable submodules and
squarefree lexicographicsubmodules are examined and some relevant properties discussed.
In Section \ref{extr}, the behavior of the extremal Betti numbers for the squarefree stable submodules is studied; the characterization of these invariants is the main result. In Section \ref{crit}, given a squarefree stable submodule $M$ of the free $S$-module $S^r$, $r\geq 1$, a criterion to recognize among all the graded Betti numbers of $M$ those extremal
ones is given.
Section \ref{appl} contains an application on the so called \textit{super extremal Betti numbers} of a squarefree lexicographic submodule.
\section{Preliminary and notation} \label{pre}
Throughout this paper, let $S = K[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be the polynomial ring in $n$ variables over a field
$K$ and $F = \oplus_{i=1}^r Se_i$ a finitely generated graded free
$S$-module with basis $e_1, \dots, e_r$ in degrees $f_1, \dots,
f_r$ such that $f_1 \leq f_2 \leq \dots
\leq f_r$. We consider $S$ as an ${\NZQ N}$-graded ring and each $\deg x_i$ =
$1$.
The elements of the form $x^ae_i$, where $x^a =
x_1^{a_1} x_2^{a_2} \dots x_n^{a_n}$ for $a= (a_1, \dots, a_n)\in
{\NZQ N}_0^n $, are called \textit{monomials} of $F$.
A monomial $me_i \in F$ is called a \textit{squarefree monomial} of $F$ if $m$ is a squarefree monomial of $S$, \textit{i.e.}, $m=x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\cdots x_{i_d}$
with $1\leq i_1<i_2< \cdots < i_d \leq n.$
For every monomial $me_i \in F$, we set
\[
\deg(m e_i) = \deg(m) + \deg(e_i).
\]
In particular if $F \simeq S^n$ and $e_i = (0, \dots, 0, 1,0,\dots, 0)$, where $1$ appears in the $i$-th place, one has
\[
\deg(m e_i) = \deg(m).
\]
A \textit{monomial submodule} $M$ of $F$ is a submodule generated by
monomials, \textit{i.e.}, $M = \oplus_{i=1}^r I_i e_i$, where $I_i$
are the monomial ideals of $S$ generated by those monomials $m$
of $S$ such that $me_i \in M$ \cite{Ei}.
A monomial submodule $M = \oplus_{i=1}^r I_i e_i \subsetneq F$ is a \textit{squarefree monomial submodule} if every $I_i$ is a squarefree monomial ideal of $S$, \textit{i.e.}, every $I_i$ is a monomial ideal of $S$ generated by squarefree monomials.
For every monomial ideal $I \varsubsetneq S$, we denote by $G(I)$ the
unique minimal set of monomial generators of $I$, by $G(I)_{\ell}$
the set of monomials $v$ of $G(I)$ such that $\deg v = \ell$ and by
$G(I)_{> \ell}$ the set of monomials $u$ of $G(I)$ such that $\deg u
> \ell$.
For every monomial submodule $M = \oplus_{i=1}^r I_i e_i$ of $F$ such that $I_i \subsetneq S$, for $i=1,\ldots,r$, we set
\begin{eqnarray*}
G(M) &=& \{ue_i \,:\, u \in G(I_i),i = 1, \dots, r\}, \\
G(M)_{\ell} &=& \{ue_i\, : \, u \in G(I_i)_{\ell - f_i }, \,i = 1,
\dots, r\}, \\
G(M)_{> \ell} &=& \{ue_i \in G(M)\,:\, u \in G(I_i)_{> \ell - f_i }, \,i = 1, \dots, r\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $M$ be a finitely generated graded $S$-module, then $M$ has a
minimal graded free $S$-resolution
\[
F. : 0 \rightarrow F_s \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow F_1
\rightarrow F_0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow 0,
\]
where $F_i = \oplus_{j \in {\NZQ Z}}S(-j)^{\beta_{i,j}}$. The
integers $\beta_{i,j} = \beta_{i,j}(M) = \textrm{dim}_K
\textrm{Tor}_i(K, M)_j $ are called the graded Betti numbers of
$M$.
\begin{Def} \label{def:extr} A Betti number $\beta_{k,k+\ell}(M) \neq 0$ is called {\it
extremal} if $\beta_{i,\, i+j}(M) = 0$ for all $i \geq k$, $j \geq
\ell$, $(i, j) \neq (k, \ell)$.
\end{Def}
The pair $(k, \ell)$ is called a corner.
\section{Squarefree monomial submodules}\label{classes}
In this Section, we analyze some classes of squarefree monomial submodules of the finitely generated graded free $S$-module $F =\oplus_{i=1}^r Se_i$.
If $I$ is a graded ideal of the polynomial ring $S$, we denote by
$\indeg I$ the \emph{initial degree} of $I$, \emph{i.e.}, the minimum $t$ such that $I_t \neq 0$.
For a monomial $1 \neq u \in S$, we set
\[\supp(u)=\{i: x_i\,\, \textrm{divides}\,\, u\},\]
and \[\m(u) = \max \{i:i\in \supp(u)\}.\]
Moreover, we set $\m(1) = 0$.
\begin{Def} Let $I\subsetneq S$ be a squarefree monomial ideal. $I$ is called a \textit{squarefree stable ideal} if for all $u \in G(I)$ one has
$(x_j u)/x_{\m(u)} \in I$ for all $j < \m(u), j \notin \supp(u)$.\\
$I$ is called a \textit{squarefree strongly stable ideal} if for all $u \in G(I)$ one has
$(x_j u)/x_i \in I$ for all $i \in \supp(u)$ and all $j < i$, $j \notin \supp(u)$.
\end{Def}
For every $1\leq d\leq n$, let $[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^d$ be the squarefree monomial ideal of $S$ whose minimal system of monomial generators is given by all the degree $d$ squarefree monomials in the variables $x_1, \ldots, x_n$.
For example, for $n=4$ and $d=3$,
\[[x_1, \ldots, x_4]^3 = (x_1x_2x_3, x_1x_2x_4,x_1x_3x_4,x_2x_3x_4).\]
Following \cite{KP}, we give the following definition.
\begin{Def}\label{def:squarestable} A submodule $M$ of $F$ is {\it a squarefree stable submodule} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $M = \oplus_{i=1}^rI_i e_i$ is a squarefree monomial submodule with
$I_i \subsetneq S$, for $i=1,\ldots,r$;
\item[(2)] for every squarefree monomial $ue_i \in M$, $u \in S$, then
$x_j\frac{u}{x_{\m(u)}}e_i \in M$, for all $j < \m(u)$, $j\notin \supp(u)$;
\item[(3)] $[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{f_j-f_i}I_j \subseteq I_i$ for every $j>i.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}
\begin{Prop} \label{newsquarestable} Let $M\subseteq F$ be a graded submodule.
Then $M$ is a squarefree stable submodule of $F$ if and
only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $M = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i$, with $I_i\varsubsetneq S$
squarefree stable ideal, for $i=1,\ldots,r$, and
\item[(ii)] $[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+1}-f_i}I_{i+1} \subseteq I_i$, for $i = 1, \dots, r-1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
In order to prove the assert it is sufficient to show that condition (3) in Definition \ref{def:squarestable} is equivalent to the following inclusion:
\begin{equation}\label{equa1}
[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+1}-f_i}I_{i+1} \subseteq I_i,
\end{equation}
for $i=1, \ldots, r-1$.
It is clear that statement (\ref{equa1}) follows from condition (3) for $j=i+1$.
Hence, in order to prove the required equivalence, it is sufficient to verify that
\[\mbox{$[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+t}-f_i}I_{i+t} \subseteq I_i$,\quad for $t\geq 1$}.\]
We proceed by induction on $t$.
For $t=1$ the assert follows from (\ref{equa1}).
Now take $t>1$ and suppose $[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+t}-f_i}I_{i+t} \subseteq I_i$.
Since
\[[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+t+1}-f_i}I_{i+t+1} = [x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+t+1}-f_{i+t}+f_{i+t}-f_i}I_{i+t+1},\]
from (\ref{equa1}), we have
\[[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+t+1}-f_i}I_{i+t+1} \subseteq [x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+t}-f_i}I_{i+t},\]
and from the inductive hypothesis we get the stated result.
\end{proof}
Furthermore, we give the following definition.
\begin{Def}\label{def:squarestrostable} A submodule $M$ of $F$ is a {\it squarefree strongly stable} submodule if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $M = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i$, with $I_i\varsubsetneq S$
squarefree strongly stable ideal, for $i=1,\ldots,r$;
\item[(2)] $[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+1}-f_i}I_{i+1} \subseteq I_i$, for $i=1, \ldots, r-1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem} \em If $M$ is a graded submodule of the
finitely generated graded free $S$-module $S^r$, then $M$ is a squarefree (strongly) stable submodule of $S^r$ if and only if $M = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i$, with $I_i\varsubsetneq S$
squarefree (strongly) stable ideal, for $i=1,\ldots,r$, and
$$I_r \subseteq I_{r-1} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq I_1.$$
\end{Rem}
For every $1\leq d\leq n$, let $\{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^d$ be the set of all squarefree monomials of degree $d$ in the variables $x_1, \ldots, x_n$. We can order $\{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^d$ with the \textit{squarefree lexicographic order} $\geq_{\textrm{slex}}$ \cite{AHH2}.
Precisely, let
\[u=x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\cdots x_{i_d}, \qquad v=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\cdots x_{j_d},\]
with $1\leq i_1< i_2< \cdots < i_d\leq n$, $1\leq j_1< j_2< \cdots < j_d\leq n$, be squarefree monomials of degree $d$ in $S$, then
\[\mbox{$u >_{\textrm{slex}} v$ \qquad if \qquad $i_1=j_1, \ldots, i_{s-1}=j_{s-1}$ \qquad and \qquad $i_s<j_s$}, \]
for some $1 \leq s \leq d$.
A nonempty set $L \subseteq \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^d$ is called a \textit{squarefree lexsegment set} of degree $d$ if for $u \in L$, $v \in \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^d$ such that $v >_{\textrm{slex}} u$, then $v \in L$.
\begin{Def} Let $I\subsetneq S$ be a graded ideal. $I$ is a \textit{squarefree lexsegment ideal of degree} $d$ if $I$ is generated by the squarefree monomials belonging to a
squarefree lexsegment set of degree $d$.\\
$I$ is a \textit{squarefree lexsegment ideal} if for all $1\leq d \leq n$, if $u, v \in \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^d$ with $u \in I$ and $v >_{\textrm{slex}} u$, then $v \in I$.
\end{Def}
For every $d\geq 1$, let $F_d$ be the part of degree $d$ of $F\oplus_{i=1}^r Se_i$. Denote by $M^s(F_d)$ the set of all squarefree monomials
of degree $d$ of $F$. We order such set using the ordering $>_{\textrm{slex}}$, above defined. We will denote the new ordering by $>_{\textrm{slex}_F}$.
It is defined as follows: if $u e_i$ and $v e_j$ are squarefree monomials of $F$ such that $\deg(u e_i)=\deg(v e_j)$, then
\[
u e_i >_{\textrm{slex}_F} v e_j \qquad \textrm{if} \qquad
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll} i < j \,\,\, \mbox{or} \\
i = j \,\, \mbox{and}\,\, u >_{\textrm{slex}} v.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\begin{Def} Let $\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i$ be a squarefree monomial submodule
of $F$ such that $I_i \varsubsetneq S$, for $i=1,\ldots,r$. We call $\mathcal{L}$ a \textit{squarefree lexicographic
submodule} if for each degree $d\geq 1$, if $u, v \in M^s(\mathcal{L}_d)$ with $u \in
\mathcal{L}$ and $v>_{\textrm{slex}_F}u$, then $v \in \mathcal{L}$.
\end{Def}
\begin{Prop} \label{lex} Let $\mathcal{L}\subsetneq S$ be a graded submodule.
Then $\mathcal{L}$ is a squarefree lexicographic submodule of $F$ if and
only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i$, with $I_i\varsubsetneq S$
squarefree lexsegment ideal, for $i=1,\ldots,r$, and
\item[(ii)] $[x_1,\dots, x_n]^{\rho_i + f_i - f_{i-1}}
\subseteq I_{i-1}$, for $i = 2, \dots, r$, with $\rho_i =
\indeg I_i$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof} Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a squarefree lexicographic submodule of $F$.
\par\noindent (i) Since $\mathcal{L}$ is a squarefree monomial submodule of
$F$, one has $\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i$, with $I_i$
squarefree monomial ideal of $S$, for every $i$. Let $u, v \in \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^d$ with $u \in I_i$ and $v>_{\textrm{slex}}u$. It follows
that $ve_i >_{\textrm{slex}_F}ue_i$. Since $ue_i\in I_ie_i$ and
$\mathcal{L}$ is a squarefree lexicographic submodule of $F$, $ve_i \in
I_ie_i$, and so $v \in I_i$, \textit{i.e.}, $I_i$ is a squarefree lexsegment ideal of
$S$ for every $i$.
\par\medskip\noindent
(ii) Since $I_i$ is a squarefree lexsegment ideal of $S$, then
$x_1x_2\cdots x_{\rho_i}\in I_i$, $\rho_i = \indeg I_i$, and consequently
$x_1x_2\cdots x_{\rho_i}e_i\in I_ie_i$. On the other hand, $\mathcal{L}$ is a squarefree
lexicographic submodule of $F$, then for all $u\in \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^{\rho_i + f_i - f_{i-1}}$, we have that $ue_{i-1} >_{\textrm{slex}_F}
x_1x_2\cdots x_{\rho_i}e_i$. Hence, $ue_{i-1} \in
I_{i-1}e_{i-1}$, \textit{i.e.}, $u \in I_{i-1}$.
Conversely, let $\mathcal{L}$ be a graded submodule of $F$
satisfying (i) and (ii).
\par\noindent
Since every ideal $I_i$ is a squarefree lexsegment ideal, we have only to
prove that for any pair $(i, j)$ of integers with $1 \leq i < j
\leq r$, if $ue_i, ve_j\in M^s(\mathcal{L}_d)$, then $ve_j \in \mathcal{L}$ implies $ue_i \in \mathcal{L}$, where $M^s(\mathcal{L}_d)$ is the set of
all squarefree monomials of degree $d$ of $\mathcal{L}$.
\medskip\par\noindent
(Case 1). $i = j-1$. Let $ue_{j-1}, ve_j\in M^s(\mathcal{L}_d)$ with $ve_j \in \mathcal{L}$.
Since $d = \deg ue_{j-1} = \deg ve_j$, it follows that
$\deg u = \deg v + f_j - f_{j-1} \geq \rho_j + f_j - f_{j-1}$ and
so $u \in [x_1,\dots, x_n]^{\rho_j + f_j - f_{j-1}} \subseteq
I_{j-1}$.
\medskip\par\noindent
(Case 2). $i \leq j-2$. Let $ue_i >_{\textrm{slex}_F} ve_j$ with $ue_i, ve_j \in M^s(\mathcal{L}_d)$ and
$ve_j \in \mathcal{L}$.
For $t = i+1, \ldots, j-1$, set $w_t = x_1x_2\cdots x_{d-f_t}$.
\par\noindent
It is
\[ue_i >_{\textrm{slex}_F} w_{i+1}e_{i+1} >_{\textrm{slex}_F} w_{i+2}e_{i+2} >_{\textrm{slex}_F} \cdots >_{\textrm{slex}_F}
w_{j-1}e_{j-1}>_{\textrm{slex}_F} ve_j.\]
Since $d = \deg ue_i = \deg w_te_t =\deg ve_j$, for $t =
i+1, \ldots, j-1$, then, from (Case 1), $ w_{j-1} \in I_{j-1}$, $
w_{j-2}\in I_{j-2}$, $\ldots$, $ w_{i+1} \in I_{i+1}$ and finally
$u \in I_i$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Expl} (1) Let $S = K[x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4]$ and $F \simeq S^2$, $e_1 = (1, 0)$
and $e_2 = (0, 1)$. The submodule of $F$
\[\mathcal{L} = (x_1x_2, x_1x_3)e_1 \oplus (x_1x_2x_3, x_1x_2x_4)e_2\] is not a squarefree
lexicographic submodule of $F$ even if the ideals $(x_1x_2, x_1x_3)$, $(x_1x_2x_3, x_1x_2x_4)$ are squarefree lexsegment ideals of $S$. In fact, $x_1x_2x_3e_2 \in
\mathcal{L}_3$ but $x_2x_3x_4e_1 >_{\textrm{slex}_F} x_1x_2x_3e_2$ and $x_2x_3x_4e_1 \notin
\mathcal{L}_3$. Observe that $[x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4]^3 \nsubseteq (x_1x_2, x_1x_3)$.
\medskip
\par\noindent (2) Let $S = K[x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5]$ and $F \simeq S^3$, $e_1 = (1, 0,0)$,
$e_2 = (0, 1,0)$ and $e_3 = (0,0,1)$. The submodule of $F$
\[
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = [x_1 ,x_2, x_3,x_4,x_5]^2 e_1 &\oplus (x_1x_2x_3, x_1x_2x_4, x_1x_2x_5, x_1x_3x_4, x_2x_3x_4x_5)e_2 \ \oplus \\
&\oplus (x_1x_2x_3x_4, x_1x_2x_3x_5, x_1x_2x_4x_5)e_3
\end{aligned}
\]
is a squarefree lexicographic submodule of $F$.
\end{Expl}
\begin{Cor} \label{degree} Let $\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i \subsetneq F$ be a squarefree lexicographic submodule.
Set
\[\mu_i = \max\{\deg ue_i\,:\, ue_i \in G(I_ie_i)\},\]
for $ i=1, \dots,r.$ Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] $\mu_i - f_i \leq \indeg I_{i+1} + f_{i+1} -f_i $, for $i=1, \dots, r-1$.
\item[2)] $\mu_1 \leq \mu_2 \leq \cdots \leq \mu_r $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof} It is a consequence of the fact that if
$\mathcal{L}$ is a squarefree lexicographic submodule then $[x_1,\dots,
x_n]^{\rho_i + f_i - f_{i-1}} \subseteq I_{i-1}$, for $i =
2, \dots, r$, with $\rho_i = \indeg (I_i)$.
\end{proof}
The next result shows the relation between the class of squarefree lexicographic submodules and the class of squarefree (strongly) stable submodule.
\begin{Prop} Let $\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i \subsetneq F$ be a squarefree lexicographic submodule, then $\mathcal{L}$ is a squarefree strongly stable submodule.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof} Since every squarefree lexsegment ideal is a squarefree strongly stable ideal \cite{AHH2}, from Proposition \ref{newsquarestable}, it is sufficient to show that
\begin{equation}\label{lex1}
[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+1}-f_i}I_{i+1} \subseteq I_i
\end{equation}
for $i=1, \ldots, r-1$.
Since
\[[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+1}-f_i}I_{i+1} \subseteq [x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{f_{i+1}-f_i+\indeg I_{i+1}},\]
the assert follows from Proposition \ref{lex}.
\end{proof}
Hence, we have the following hierarchy of submodules:\\
squarefree lexicographic submodule $\Rightarrow$ squarefree strongly stable submodule $\Rightarrow$ squarefree stable submodule.
\section{Extremal Betti numbers of squarefree stable submodules}\label{extr}
In this Section we examine the extremal Betti numbers of squarefree stable submodules.
If $I$ is a squarefree stable ideal, then \cite{AHH2}:
\begin{equation}\label{AHHeq}
\beta_{i, \, i+j}(I) =\sum_{u \in G(I)_j} \binom{\m(u)-j}{i}.
\end{equation}
Hence, since every squarefree stable submodule $M \subsetneq F$ is a squarefree
monomial submodule, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{betti2}
\beta_{k,\,k+j}(M) = \sum_{i=1}^r \beta_{k,\,{k+j - f_i} }(I_i)=\sum_{i=1}^{r}\left[\sum_{u \in G(I_i)_{j-f_i}}\binom{\m(u)-j+f_i}{k}\right].
\end{equation}
The next result shows that all linear strands of a squarefree stable submodule begin in homological degree $0$.
For a positive integer $t$, we set $[t] = \{1, \ldots, t\}$.
\begin{Lem} \label{0} Let $M = \oplus_{t=1}^rI_te_t \subsetneq F$ be a squarefree stable
submodule. If $\beta_{i, i+j}(M) \neq 0$, then $\beta_{k, k+j}(M)
\neq 0$ for $k=0,\ldots, i$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof} If $\beta_{i, i+j}(M)\neq 0$, by (\ref{betti2})
there exists $t \in [r] $ and $u \in G(I_t)_{j-f_t}$
such that $\m(u) \geq i+j-f_t$.
It follows that $\m(u) \geq k+j-f_t$,
for $k=0, \dots, i$. Hence, $\beta_{k, k+j-f_t}(I_t) \neq 0$ and
$\beta_{k, k+j}(M) \neq 0$, for $k=0,\dots, i$.
\end{proof}
From Definition \ref{def:extr}, it follows:
\begin{Cor}\label{cor:varie} Under the same hypotheses of Lemma \ref{0} for $M$. The
following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(a)}] $\beta_{k, k+\ell}(M)$ is extremal;
\item[\rm{(b)}] \begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(1)}] $\beta_{k, k+\ell}(M) \neq 0$;
\item[\rm{(2)}] $\beta_{k, k+j}(M) = 0$, for $j > \ell$;
\item[\rm{(3)}] $\beta_{i, i+\ell}(M) = 0$, for $i >k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Cor}
\begin{Thm}
\label{equiv} Let $M = \oplus_{i=1}^rI_ie_i \subsetneq F$ be a squarefree stable submodule.
\par The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(1)}] $\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M)$ is extremal;
\item[\rm{(2)}] $k + \ell = \max\{\m(u)+f_i \, :\, ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell},\,\,
i=1, \ldots, r\}$ and $\m(u)+f_i < k+j$, for all $j > \ell$ and
for all $ue_i \in G(M)_j$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof} (1)$\Rightarrow$ (2). By (\ref{betti2}) $\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M)\neq 0$ if and only if there exists a squarefree
monomial $ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}$ such
that $\m(u)+f_i \geq k+\ell$, for some $i\in [r]$. As a consequence, $\max\{\m(u)+f_i \, :\, ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}\,,
i=1, \ldots, r\}\geq k +\ell$.
Suppose $t+\ell :=\max\{\m(u)+f_i \, :\, ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}\,,
i=1, \ldots, r\}> k+\ell$. Hence, $\beta_{t, t +\ell}(M) \neq 0$, for $t>k$. This is a contradiction from Corollary \ref{cor:varie}, (b), whereupon
\[k + \ell = \max\{\m(u)+f_i \, :\, ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}\,,
i=1, \ldots, r\}.\]
Suppose there exists $j>\ell$ and a squarefree monomial $ue_i\in G(M)_j$, for some $i\in [r]$, such that $\m(u)+f_i \geq k+j$. From (\ref{betti2}), then $\beta_{k, \, k+ j}(M)\neq 0$. Again a contradiction from Corollary \ref{cor:varie}, (b).
(2)$\Rightarrow$ (1). Since $k + \ell = \max\{\m(u)+f_i \, :\, ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}\,,
i=1, \ldots, r\}$, then $\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M)\neq 0$ and $\beta_{i, \, i+ \ell}(M)= 0$, for all $i>k$. On the other hand, $\m(u)+f_i < k+j$, for all $j > \ell$ and for all $ue_i \in G(M)_j$, implies $\beta_{k, \, k+ j}(M)= 0$. Therefore, from Corollary \ref{cor:varie}, we get the assert.
\end{proof}
As consequences, we obtain the following corollaries.
\begin{Cor} \label{cor:uniq} Let $M = \oplus_{i=1}^rI_ie_i \subsetneq F$ be a squarefree stable
submodule and let $\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M)$ an extremal Betti
number of $M$. Then
\[\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M) = \vert\{ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}\,:\, \m(u) + f_i=
k+\ell,\, i=1, \ldots, r\}\vert.\]
\end{Cor}
\begin{Cor} \label{unique} Let $M = \oplus_{i=1}^rI_ie_i \subsetneq F$ be a squarefree stable
submodule.
Set $$\ell = \max\{j:G(M)_j \neq \emptyset\}$$ and
$$m = \max\{m(u)+f_i\,:\, ue_i \in G(M), i=1, \ldots, r\}.$$
Then $\beta_{m-\ell,\,m}$ is the unique extremal Betti number
of $M$ if and only if
\[m = \max\{m(u)+f_i\,:\, ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}, \,i=1, \ldots, r\},\]
and for every $w\in G(M)_j$, $j<\ell$, $\m(w) < m$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{Rem} \em \label{rem:free} Under the same hypotheses of Theorem \ref{equiv}, if $F\simeq S^r$, $\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M)$ is extremal if and only if
\[k + \ell = \max\{\m(u)\, :\, ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}\,,
i=1, \ldots, r\},
\]
and $\m(u) < k+j$, for all $j > \ell$ and for all $ue_i \in G(M)_j$.
Moreover,
\[\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M) = \vert\{ue_i \in G(M)_{\ell}\,:\, \m(u)=
k+\ell,\, i=1, \ldots, r\}\vert.\]
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}\em
If $I$ is a squarefree stable monomial ideal of $S$ and $\beta_{k, k+\ell}(I)$ is an extremal Betti number of $I$, then from (\ref{betti2}) and Remark \ref{rem:free}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{diseq1}
1\leq \beta_{k, k+\ell}(I) \leq \binom{k+\ell-1}{\ell-1}.
\end{equation}
In fact, there are exactly $\binom{k+\ell-1}{\ell-1}$ squarefree monomials of degree $\ell$ in $S$ with $\m(u) = k+\ell$.
If $M = \oplus_{i=1}^rI_ie_i \varsubsetneq F$ is a squarefree stable
submodule and $\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M)$ is an extremal Betti
number of $M$, then there exist some squarefree stable ideals $I_{j_1},
\ldots, I_{j_t}$, $\{j_1, \ldots, j_t\}\subseteq [n]$, $ 1 \leq j_1 < j_2 < \cdots < j_t \leq
r$, with $(k, \ell -f_{j_1}), \ldots, (k, \ell -f_{j_t})$ as corners.
Then
\begin{equation*}
\beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M) = \sum_{i=1}^t \beta_{k, \, k+
\ell}(I_{j_i}e_{j_i}) = \sum_{i=1}^t \beta_{k, \, k+ \ell-
f_{j_i} }(I_{j_i}),
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
1 \leq \beta_{k, \, k+ \ell}(M) \leq \sum_{i=1}^t \binom{k + \ell -
f_{j_i} -1}{\ell- f_{j_i} -1},
\end{equation*}
where $\binom{k + \ell - f_{j_i}
-1}{\ell - f_{j_i} -1}$ is the number of all squarefree monomials $u$ of $S$
of degree $\ell - f_{j_i}$ with $\m(u) =k+\ell$.
\end{Rem}
\section{A criterion for determing extremal Betti numbers} \label{crit}
In this Section, we describe a criterion for determining the extremal Betti numbers of a squarefree stable submodule of the graded free $S$-module $S^r$, $r\geq 1$.
Let $M=\oplus_{i=1}^rI_ie_i \subsetneq S^r $ be a squarefree stable submodule.
If $M$ is generated in one degree $d$, then $M$ has a unique extremal Betti number $\beta_{m-d,\,m}(M)$, where $m= \max\{ \m(u)\,:\, ue_i \in G(M)
, \, i=1, \ldots, r \}$.
Let $M$ be generated in degrees $1\leq d_1 < d_2 < \cdots < d_t \leq n$.
Set
\[m_{d_j} = \max\{\m(u)\,:\, ue_i \in G(M)_{d_j}, \, i=1, \ldots, r\},\]
for $j=1, \ldots, t$.
Consider the following sequence of non negative integers associated to $M$:
\begin{equation}\label{degseq1}
\bd(M) =(m_{d_1}-d_1, m_{d_2}-d_2, \ldots, m_{d_t}-d_t).
\end{equation}
We call it the \textit{degree-sequence} of $M$.
\begin{Rem} \em Assume that for some $j \in [t]$, $G(M)_{d_j} = \{x_1\cdots x_{d_j}\}$. Then $m_{d_j}-d_j=0$.
If $F=S$, and consequently $M$ is a squarefree monomial ideal in $S$, then
$m_{d_i}-d_i>0$, for $i=2, \ldots, t$. Moreover, if $G(M)_{d_1}=G(M)_{\indeg(M)} = \{x_1\cdots x_{\indeg(M)}\}$, then $m_{d_1}-d_1=0$.
\end{Rem}
We can observe that, if
\begin{equation}\label{disdegree}
m_{d_1}-d_1 > m_{d_2}-d_2> \cdots > m_{d_t}-d_t,
\end{equation}
then, from Theorem \ref{equiv}, for $i=1, \ldots, t$, $\beta_{m_{d_i}-d_i,\,m_{d_i}}(M)$ is an extremal Betti number of $M$.
Suppose that (\ref{disdegree}) does not hold.
We construct a suitable subsequence of the \textit{degree-sequence} $\bd(M)$:
\begin{equation}\label{subseq}
\widehat{\bd(M)}=(m_{d_{i_1}}-d_{i_1}, m_{d_{i_2}}-d_{i_2}, \ldots, m_{d_{i_q}}-d_{i_q}),
\end{equation}
with $d_1\leq d_{i_1} < d_{i_2}< \cdots <d_{i_q}= d_t$ and such that, for $j=1, \ldots, q$, $\beta_{m_{d_{i_j}}-d_{i_j},\,m_{d_{i_j}}}(M)$ is an extremal Betti number of $M$.
\begin{Constr} \label{sequence} The admissible subsequence $\widehat{\bd(M)}$ is obtained as follows:
\begin{enumerate
\item[] $d_{i_1}$ is the smallest degree of a monomial generator of $M$ such that
\[\mbox{$m_{d_{i_1}}-d_{i_1} > m_{d_j}-d_j$, for all $j>i_1$};\]
\item[] $d_{i_2}>d_{i_1}$ is the smallest degree of a monomial generator of $M$ such that
\[\mbox{$m_{d_{i_2}}-d_{i_2} > m_{d_j}-d_j$, for all $j>i_2 >i_1$};\]
\item[] $\ldots \ldots$\\
\item[] $d_{i_{q-1}}>d_{i_{q-2}}$ is the smallest degree of a monomial generator of $M$ such that
\[\mbox{$m_{d_{i_{q-1}}}-d_{i_{q-1}} > m_{d_j}-d_j$, for all $j>i_{q-1}> \cdots >i_1$};\]
\item[] $d_{i_q} = d_t$.
\end{enumerate}
\medskip
It is $m_{d_{i_1}}-d_{i_1} > m_{d_{i_2}}-d_{i_2} > \cdots > m_{d_{i_q}}-d_{i_q}$, and Theorem \ref{equiv} guarantees that
\[\beta_{m_{d_{i_1}}-d_{i_1},\,m_{d_{i_1}}}(M), \beta_{m_{d_{i_2}}-d_{i_2},\,m_{d_{i_2}}}(M),\ldots, \beta_{m_{d_{i_q}}-d_{i_q},\,m_{d_{i_q}}}(M)\]
are extremal Betti numbers of $M$.
The integer $q$ is called the \textit{degree-length} of $M$ and
gives the number of the extremal Betti numbers of the squarefree stable submodule $M$. We will denote such integer by $\bl(M)$.
\end{Constr}
\begin{Expls} (1) Let $S= K[x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4,x_5, x_6, x_7]$ and let
\[I = (x_1x_2, x_1x_3,x_1x_4,x_1x_5,x_1x_6,x_2x_3x_4, x_2x_3x_5,x_2x_4x_5, x_2x_3x_6x_7, x_3x_4x_5x_6x_7)\]
be a squarefree strongly stable ideal of $S$.
The \textit{degree-sequence} of $I$ is
\begin{equation*}
\bd(I)=(m_2-2,m_3-3,m_4-4,m_5-5)=(4,2,3,2).
\end{equation*}
Following Construction \ref{sequence}, the admissible subsequence $\widehat{\bd(I)}$ is $(4,3,2)$ and $\bl(I)=3$. The extremal Betti numbers of $I$ are
\[\beta_{6-2,6}(I), \beta_{7-4,7}(I),\beta_{7-5,7}(I),\] as the Betti table of $I$ shows:
\[
\begin{array}{lllllll}
& & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
\hline
2 & : & 5 & 10 & 10 & 5 & 1 \\
3 & : & 3 & 5 & 2 & - & - \\
4 & : & 1 & 3 & 3 & 1 & - \\
5 & : & 1 & 2 & 1 & - & -
\end{array}
\]
\par\noindent
(2) Let $S = K[x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6]$ and $F \simeq S^4$, $e_1 = (1, 0, 0, 0)$,
$e_2 = (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $e_3 = (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $e_4 = (0, 0, 0, 1)$. Let
\[M = I_1e_1 \oplus I_2e_2 \oplus I_3e_3 \oplus I_4e_4\]
with
\[I_1 = (x_1x_2,x_1x_3,x_1x_4, x_2x_3), \]
\[I_2 = (x_1x_2x_3, x_1x_2x_4, x_1x_3x_4, x_1x_3x_5, x_1x_3x_6, x_2x_3x_4, x_2x_3x_5,x_2x_3x_6),\]
\[I_3 = (x_1x_2x_3x_4, x_1x_2x_3x_5, x_1x_2x_4x_5, x_1x_2x_4x_6, x_2x_3x_4x_5), I_4 = (x_1x_2x_3x_4x_5),\]
be a squarefree stable submodule of $F$.
The \textit{degree-sequence} of $M$ is
\begin{equation*}\label{es2}
\bd(M)= (m_2-2,m_3-3,m_4-4, m_5-5)=(2,3,2,0).
\end{equation*}
Following Construction \ref{sequence}, the admissible subsequence $\widehat{\bd(M)}$ is $(3,2,0)$ and $\bl(M)=3$. Indeed, the extremal Betti numbers of $M$ are
\[\beta_{6-3,6}(M), \beta_{6-4,6}(M), \beta_{5-5,5}(M),\] as one can read on its Betti table:
\[\begin{array}{llllll}
& & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
2 & : & 4 &4 & 1 & - \\
3 & : & 8 & 13 & 8 & 2 \\
4 & : & 5 & 5 & 1 & - \\
5 & : & 1 & -& -& -
\end{array}\]
\end{Expls}
\section{An application}\label{appl}
In this Section, we consider some special extremal Betti numbers of squarefree lexicographic submodules.
If $M$ is a finitely generated graded $S=K[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$-module, then $\beta_{i,\,j}(M)=0$, for all $i$ and $j>n$. Therefore, $\beta_{i,\,n}(M)$ is an extremal Betti number if
$\beta_{i,\,n}(M)\neq 0$. Such extremal Betti numbers are called \textit{super extremal} \cite{AHH3}.
The pair $(i, n-i)$ is called a \textit{super corner}.
Let $M = \oplus_{i = 1}^r I_i e_i\subsetneq
S^r$, $r\geq 1$, be a squarefree stable submodule and $G(M)$ its minimal system of monomial generators.
Set
\[b_i=\vert \{ue_j \in G(M)_{n-i}\,:\,\m(u)=n, \, j=1, \ldots, r\}\vert,\]
then $\beta_{i,\,n}(M)=b_i$, for $i=1, \ldots, n-1$. We call
\[\bb(M) = (b_0, b_1, \ldots, b_{n-1})\]
the $\bb$-vector of $M$.
For $\bb(I) = (b_0, b_1, \ldots, b_{n-1})$, we define the \textit{support} of $\bb(M)$ to be the following set:
\[\supp(\bb(M))=\{i \in \{0, 1, \ldots,n-1\}\,:\,b_i\neq 0\}.\]
For every $u\in \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^d$, we denote by $\langle u \rangle$ the squarefree lexsegment ideal of degree $d$ in $S$ defined as follows:
\[\langle u \rangle= (w\in \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}^d\,:\, w \geq_{\textrm{slex}} u).\]
\begin{Lem} \label{char} Let $n\geq 3$ and $X$ a non-empty subset of $\{0, 1, \ldots,n-1\}$.
For every integer $r \geq \vert X\vert$ there exists a squarefree lexicographic submodule $\mathcal{L}\subsetneq S^r$ with $\supp(\bb(\mathcal{L}))=X$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof} Set $X = \{k_1, k_2, \ldots, k_t\}$ with $k_1 < k_2 < \cdots < k_t$ and $r \geq t$.
By Proposition \ref{lex}, an admissible squarefree lexicographic submodule $\mathcal{L}\subsetneq S^r$ such that $\supp(\bb(\mathcal{L}))=X$ is:
\[\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{j=0}^{t-2}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{n-k_{t-j}}e_{j+1} \oplus\left(\oplus_{i=t}^{r-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{n-k_1}e_i\right)\oplus \langle x_1x_2\cdots x_{n-k_1-1}x_n \rangle e_r.\]
Note that $\bb(\mathcal{L}) = (b_0, \ldots, b_{n-1})$, where $b_i = 0$, for $i\in \{0, 1, \ldots,n-1\} \setminus X$, $b_{k_j} = \binom{n-1}{n-k_j-1}$, for $j=2, \ldots, t$ and $b_{k_1} = 1+(r-t)\binom{n-1}{n-k_1-1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Prop} Given three integers $n$, $t$, $r$ such that $n\geq 3$, $1\leq t\leq n-1$, $r\geq t$,
$t$ pairs of integers $(k_1, \ell_1), (k_2, \ell_2), \ldots, (k_t, \ell_t)$,
with
\[0\leq k_t < k_{t-1} < \cdots < k_1\leq n-1,\qquad 1 \leq \ell_1 < \ell_2 < \cdots < \ell_t\leq n \]
and such that, for $i=1,\ldots,t$, $k_i+\ell_i=n$.
Then there exists a squarefree lexicographic submodule $\mathcal{L}\subsetneq S^r$, generated in degrees $\ell_1, \ell_2, \ldots, \ell_t$ with
$(k_1, \ell_1), (k_2, \ell_2),\ldots,(k_t, \ell_t)$ as super corners.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof} Set $X = \{n-{\ell_t}, n-{\ell_{t-1}},\ldots, n-{\ell_1}\} = \{k_t, k_{t-1}, \ldots, k_1\}$. One has that $X$ is a non-empty subset of $\{0, 1, \ldots,n-1\}$ and from
Lemma \ref{char} the squarefree monomial submodule of $S^r$:
\[
\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{i=1}^{t-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{\ell_i}e_i \oplus\left(\oplus_{i=t+1}^{r-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{\ell_t}e_i\right)
\oplus \langle x_1x_2\cdots x_{\ell_t-1}x_n \rangle e_r
\]
is a squarefree lexicographic submodule generated in degrees $\ell_1, \ell_2, \ldots, \ell_t$ and such that $\supp(\bb(\mathcal{L})) = X$.
Thus, $b_{k_i} = \beta_{k_i, n}$ are super extremal Betti numbers of $\mathcal{L}$, and the assert follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}\em Let $n=2$. If one considers the pair $(k, \ell) = (0,2)$, then there exists the squarefree lexicographic submodule $\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{i=1}^r(x_1x_2)e_i$ with $\bb(\mathcal{L})=(r,0)$.
If one considers $(k, \ell) = (1,1)$, then there exists the squarefree lexicographic submodule $\mathcal{L} = \oplus_{i=1}^r(x_1,x_2)e_i$ with $\bb(\mathcal{L})=(0, r)$.
\end{Rem}
|
\subsection{Electrode pattern creating the carousel for indirect excitons}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7in]{SuppFig1.pdf}
\caption{Layers that form the stirring potential for indirect excitons. (a) Ti--Pt--Au carousel electrode layer. (b) SiO$_{2}$ insulating layer. (c) ITO connecting electrode layer. (d) The three layers overlaid. The holes in the insulating layer provide the contacts between the connecting electrodes and carousel electrodes.}
\end{figure}
The top electrodes are fabricated as follows. Mesas are etched to the conducting $n^+$-GaAs layer in order to connect to this homogeneous bottom electrode. Then the stirring potential is created with the carousel electrode layer, insulating layer, and connecting electrode layer (Fig.~S1). The carousel electrode layer [Fig.~S1(a)] is created by depositing 2~nm Ti -- 7~nm Pt -- 2~nm Au on the sample surface. This layer consists of a central electrode and separate 300~nm wide lines that form outer electrodes [Fig.~S1(a),~S2]. Static voltages $V_{\rm c}$ and $V_{\rm o}$ are applied to the central and outer electrodes, respectively, and, in addition, AC voltages $V_{\rm AC}$ are applied to the outer electrodes as described in the main text.
The outer electrode lines broaden out away from the center in the contact region [Fig.~S1(a)]. The insulating layer [Fig.~S1(b)] is made by depositing 200~nm insulating SiO$_{2}$, leaving a $3 \times 3$~$\mu$m hole over each of the outer electrode line and over the central electrode [Fig.~S1(b)]. The layer of connecting electrodes is made by depositing 200~nm thick indium tin oxide (ITO) on the top [Fig.~S1(c)]. The connecting electrodes provide separate contacts to the central electrode and each of the outer electrodes through the openings in the insulating layer. This allows applying DC voltage to the central and outer electrodes and applying AC voltage to the periodically connected set of outer electrodes (the connection period is seven outer electrodes)~[Fig. S1(d)]. 700~nm wire-bondable Au pads with an ITO underlayer are connected to both the ITO electrodes and the etched area of the sample, creating connections to the carousel electrodes and the ground plane.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{SuppFig2.pdf}
\caption{Magnified view of the central part of the carousel electrodes and insulating layer. A hole in the center of the insulating layer is for the contact to the central electrode.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Circuit schematic of the carousel electronic system}
Figure S3 shows the circuit diagram for the electronic system used to deliver the AC and DC voltages to the carousel electrodes at cryogenic temperatures. AC voltages to the carousel electrodes on the sample are delivered via seven $\sim 1$~m-long broadband transmission lines with impedance-matching termination at the sample. We used coaxial cables UT-141B-SS with silver-plated beryllium copper inner conductor, PTFE Teflon dielectric, and stainless-steel outer shell with diameter 3.6 mm, having a room-temperature attenuation of 3~dB/m at 10~GHz. The cable bandwidth complies with the frequency used in the experiments, while the cable composition reduces heat conductance to the sample. The transmission lines are capacitively terminated to block DC heating at the termination resistors. The DC biases to the central and outer electrodes are supplied separately via regular wires.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7in]{SuppFig3.pdf}
\caption{Circuit schematic for the carousel. Seven electrode lines apply AC voltages to seven sets of the outer carousel electrodes. In addition, DC voltages $V_{\rm c}$ and $V_{\rm o}$ are applied to the central and outer electrodes, respectively.}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Let $G$ be a finite simple graph on the vertex set $V(G)=[n]=\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$ with the edge set $E(G)$.
For two subsets $A$ and $B$ of $[n]$ such that $A \cap B = \emptyset$ and $A \cup B = [n]$, the $(0,1)$-vector $\delta_{A|B} (G) \in \zz^{|E(G)|}$ is defined as
$$
\delta_{A|B} (G)_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if~$ |A \cap \{ i , j \} | =1$,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
$$
where $ij$ is an edge of $G$.
Let
$$
X_G = \left\{
\binom{\delta_{A_1 | B_1}(G)}{1} , \ldots ,
\binom{\delta_{A_N | B_N}(G)}{1}
\right\}
\subset \zz^{|E(G)|+1}
\quad (N=2^{n-1}).
$$
As necessary, we consider $X_G$ as the collection of vectors or as the matrix.
Let $K$ be a field and
\begin{eqnarray*}
K[q] &=& K[q_{A_1|B_1} , \ldots , q_{A_N|B_N}], \\
K[s,T] &=& K[s,t_{ij}~|~ ij \in E(G)]
\end{eqnarray*}
be two polynomial rings over $K$.
Then the ring homomorphism is defined as follows:
$$
\pi_G ~:~ K[q] \rightarrow K[s,T],
\quad
q_{A_l|B_l} \mapsto s \cdot \prod_{\substack{|A_l \cap \{ i,j \}| =1 \\ ij \in E(G)}} t_{ij}
$$
for $1 \le l \le N$.
The {\it cut ideal} $I_G$ of $G$ is the kernel of $\pi_G$ and the {\it toric ring} $R_G$ of $X_G$ is the image of $\pi_G$.
We put $u_{A|B} = \pi_G (q_{A|B})$.
In \cite{StuSull}, Sturmfels and Sullivant introduced a cut ideal and posed the problem of relating properties of cut ideals to the class of graphs.
Let $R$ be a semigroup ring and $I$ be the defining ideal of $R$.
We say that $R$ is {\it compressed} if the initial ideal of $I$ is squarefree with respect to any reverse lexicographic order.
For the toric ring $R_G$ and the cut ideal $I_G$, the following results are known:
\begin{theorem}
[\cite{StuSull}]
The toric ring $R_G$ is compressed if and only if $G$ has no $K_5$-minor and every induced cycle in $G$ has length $3$ or $4$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
[\cite{Engstrom}]
The cut ideal $I_G$ is generated by quadratic binomials if and only if $G$ has no $K_4$-minor.
\end{theorem}
Nagel and Petrovi\'c showed that the cut ideal $I_G$ associated with ring graphs has a quadratic Gr\"obner basis \cite{NaPe}.
However we do not know generally when the cut ideal $I_G$ has a quadratic Gr\"obner basis and when $R_G$ is Koszul except for trivial cases.
On the other hand, the notion of strongly Koszul algebras was introduced by Herzog, Hibi and Restuccia \cite{HHR}.
A strongly Koszul algebra is a stronger notion of Koszulness.
In general, it is known that, for a semigroup ring $R$,
$$
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The~defining~ideal~of~$R$~has~a~quadratic~Gr\"obner~basis,~or~$R$~is~strongly~Koszul} \\
\Downarrow \\
\text{$R$~is~Koszul} \\
\Downarrow \\
\text{The~defining~ideal~of~$R$~is~generated~by~quadratic~binomials.}
\end{array}
$$
We do not know whether the defining ideal of a strongly Koszul semigroup ring has a quadratic Gr\"obner basis.
In \cite{ReRi}, Restuccia and Rinaldo gave a sufficient condition for toric rings to be strongly Koszul.
In \cite{MatsudaOhsugi}, Matsuda and Ohsugi proved that any squarefree strongly Koszul toric ring is compressed.
In this paper, we give a sufficient condition for cut ideals to have a quadratic Gr\"obner basis and we characterize the class of graphs such that $R_G$ is strongly Koszul.
The outline of this paper is as follows.
In Section 1, we show that the set of graphs such that $R_G$ is strongly Koszul is closed under contracting edges, induced subgraphs and $0$-sums.
In Section 2, we compute Gr\"obner basis for the cut ideal without $(K_4,C_5)$-minor.
In Section 3, by using results of Section 1 and Section 2, we prove that the toric ring $R_G$ is strongly Koszul if and only if $G$ has no $(K_4,C_5)$-minor.
\section{Clique sums and strongly Koszul algebras}
In this paper, we introduce the equivalent condition as the definition of the strongly Koszul algebra.
Let $R$ be a semigroup ring generated by $u_1, \ldots , u_n$.
We say that a semigroup ring $R$ is {\it strongly Koszul} if the ideals $(u_i) \cap (u_j)$ are generated in degree $2$ for all $i \ne j$ \cite[Proposition 1.4]{HHR}.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Proposition 2.3]{HHR}}]
\proplab{tensor}
Let $R$ and $P$ be semigroup rings over same field, and $Q$ be the tensor product or the Segre product of $R$ and $P$.
Then $Q$ is strongly Koszul if and only if both $R$ and $P$ are strongly Koszul.
\end{proposition}
Recall that a graph $H$ is a {\it minor} of a graph $G$ if $H$ can be obtained by deleting and contracting edges of $G$.
We say that a subgraph $H$ is an {\it induced subgraph} of a graph $G$ if $H$ contains all the edges $ij \in E(G)$ with $i,j \in V(H)$.
\begin{proposition}
\proplab{contraction}
Let $G$ be a finite simple connected graph.
Assume that $R_G$ is strongly Koszul.
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] If $H_1$ is an induced subgraph of $G$, then $R_{H_1}$ is strongly Koszul.
\item[(2)] If $H_2$ is obtained by contracting an edge of $G$, then $R_{H_2}$ is strongly Koszul.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By \cite{Ohsugi} and \cite{StuSull},
$R_{H_1}$ and $R_{H_2}$ are combinatorial pure subrings of $R_G$.
Therefore, by \cite[Corollary 1.6]{OHH}, $R_{H_1}$ and $R_{H_2}$ are strongly Koszul.
\end{proof}
Let $G_1=(V_1 , E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$ be simple graphs such that $V_1 \cap V_2$ is a clique of both graphs.
The new graph $G= G_1 \# G_2$ with the vertex set $V_1 \cup V_2$ and the edge set $E_1 \cup E_2$ is called the {\it clique sum} of $G_1$ and $G_2$ along $V_1 \cap V_2$.
If the cardinality of $V_1 \cap V_2$ is $k+1$,
then this operation is called a $k$-{\it sum} of the graphs.
It is clear that if $R_{G_1 \# G_2}$ is strongly Koszul, then both $R_{G_1}$ and $R_{G_2}$ are strongly Koszul because $G_1$ and $G_2$ are induced subgraphs of $G_1 \# G_2$.
\begin{proposition}
\proplab{0-sum}
The set of graphs $G$ such that $R_G$ is strongly Koszul is closed under the $0$-sum.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be finite simple connected graphs and assume that $R_{G_1}$ and $R_{G_2}$ are strongly Koszul.
Then the toric ring $R_{G_1 \# G_2}$, where $G_1 \# G_2$ is the $0$-sum of $G_1$ and $G_2$,
is the usual Segre product of $R_{G_1}$ and $R_{G_2}$.
Thus it follows by \propref{tensor}.
\end{proof}
However the set of graphs $G$ such that $R_G$ is strongly Kosuzl is not always closed under the $1$-sum.
Let $K_{n}$ denote the complete graph on $n$ vertices, $C_n$ denote the cycle of length $n$ and $K_{l_1,\ldots,l_m}$ denote the complete $m$-partite graph on the vertex set $V_{1} \cup \cdots \cup V_{m}$, where $|V_i| = l_i$ for $1 \le i \le m$ and $V_{i} \cap V_{j} = \emptyset$ for $i \ne j$.
\begin{example}
\exlab{exam}
{\rm Let $G_1=C_3 \# C_3(=K_4 \setminus e)$, $G_2=C_4 \# C_3$ and $G_3 =(K_4 \setminus e) \# C_3$ be graphs shown in Figures 1-3.}
{\rm All of $R_{C_3}$, $R_{C_4}$ and $R_{G_1}$ are strongly Koszul because $R_{C_3}$ is isomorphic to the polynomial ring and $I_{C_4}$ and $I_{G_1}$ have quadratic Gr\"obner bases with respect to any reverse lexicographic order, respectively (see \cite{ReRi,StuSull}).}
{\rm However neither $R_{G_2}$ nor $R_{G_3}$ is strongly Koszul since $(u_{\emptyset|[5]}) \cap (u_{\{ 1,3,4 \} | \{ 2,5 \}})$ is not generated in degree 2.}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 90 100 90 0 , scale=.09, clip]{k4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{$C_3 \# C_3$}
\label{fig:one}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 90 90 90 0 , scale=.09, clip]{house.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{$C_4 \# C_3$}
\label{fig:two}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.4\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 90 90 90 0 , scale=.09, clip]{pic4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{$(K_4 \setminus e) \# C_3$}
\label{fig:three}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\end{example}
\section{A Gr\"obner basis for the cut ideal}
In this section,
we compute a Gr\"obner basis of $I_G$ such that $G$ has no $(K_4,C_5)$-minor.
\begin{lemma}
\lemlab{key}
Let $G$ be a simple 2-connected graph on the vertex set $V(G)$.
Then $G$ has no $(K_4,C_5)$-minor if and only if $G$ is $K_3$, $K_{2,n-2}$ or $K_{1,1,n-2}$ for $n \ge 4$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $G$ is $2$-connected,
$G$ contains a cycle.
Let $C$ be the longest cycle in $G$.
It follows that $|V(C)| \le 4$ because $G$ has no $C_5$-minor.
If $|V(C)|=3$, then $G=K_3$ since $G$ is $2$-connected.
Suppose that $|V(C)| = 4$.
If $|V(G)| = |V(C)|$, then $G$ is either $K_{2,2}$ or $K_{1,1,2}$.
Next, we assume that $|V(G)| > |V(C)|=4$.
Consider $v \in V(G) \setminus V(C)$.
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two paths each with one end in $v$ and another end in $V(C)$, disjoint except for their common end in $v$ and having no internal vertices in $C$.
Such paths exist since $G$ is 2-connected.
If $|V(P)| > 2$, or $|V(Q)| > 2$, or the ends of $P$ and $Q$ in $C$ are consecutive in $C$, then $P \cup Q$ together with a subpath of $C$ form a cycle of length longer than $C$.
Hence every vertex $v \notin V(C)$ has exactly two neighbors in $V(C)$, which are not consecutive.
Moreover, if some two vertices $v_1, v_2 \in V(G) \setminus V(C)$ are adjacent to different pairs of vertices in $C$, then a cycle of length six is induced in $G$ by $\{ v_1, v_2 \} \cup V(C)$.
Therefore there exist $u_1 , u_2 \in V(C)$, which are both adjacent to all vertices in $V(G) \setminus \{ u_1 , u_2 \}$.
If two vertices in $V(G) \setminus \{ u_1, u_2 \}$ are adjacent,
then together with $\{ u_1 , u_2 \}$ and any other vertex they induce a cycle in $G$ of length five.
Therefore $G$ is either $K_{2,n-2}$ or $K_{1,1,n-2}$.
It is easy to see that all of $K_3$, $K_{2,n-2}$ and $K_{1,1,n-2}$ have no $(K_4,C_5)$-minor.
\end{proof}
It is already known that the cut ideal $I_{K_{1,n-2}}$ for $n \ge 4$ has a quadratic Gr\"obner basis since $K_{1,n-2}$ is $0$-sums of $K_2$ and $I_{K_2}=\langle 0 \rangle$ \cite[Theorem 2.1]{StuSull}.
In this paper, to prove \thmref{main1}, we compute the reduced Gr\"obner basis of $I_{K_{1,n-2}}$.
Let $<$ be a reverse lexicographic order on $K[q]$ which satisfies $q_{A|B} < q_{C|D}$ with $\min \{ |A|,|B| \} < \min \{ |C| , |D|\}$.
\begin{lemma}
\lemlab{GB1}
Let $G=K_{1,n-2}$ be the complete bipartite graph on the vertex set $V_1 \cup V_2$, where $V_1 = \{ 1 \} $ and $V_2 = \{ 3,\ldots , n \}$ for $n \ge 4$.
Then the reduced Gr\"obner basis of $I_G$ with respect to $<$ consists of
\begin{eqnarray*}
q_{A|B} q_{C|D} - q_{A \cap C | B \cup D} q_{A \cup C | B \cap D}
&
(1 \in A \cap C,A \not\subset C,~C \not\subset A).
\end{eqnarray*}
The initial monomial of each binomial is the first monomial.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\calg$ be the set of all binomials above.
It is easy to see that $\calg \subset I_G$.
Let ${\rm in}(\calg)=\langle {\rm in}_{<} (g) ~|~ g \in \calg \rangle$.
Let $u$ and $v$ be monomials that do not belong to ${\rm in}(\calg)$:
$$
u =
\prod_{l=1}^{m}
(q_{\{ 1 \} \cup A_l | B_l})^{p_{l}}, \quad
v =
\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}}
(q_{\{ 1 \} \cup C_l | D_l})^{p^{'}_{l}},
$$
where $0<p_l$, $p^{'}_l \in \zz$ for any $l$.
Since neither $u$ nor $v$ is divided by $q_{A|B} q_{C| D}$,
it follows that
$$
A_1 \subset A_2 \subset \cdots \subset A_{m}, \quad
C_1 \subset C_2 \subset \cdots \subset C_{m^{'}}.
$$
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_l = A_{l-1} \cup \{ b^{l-1}_1 , \ldots , b^{l-1}_{\beta_{l-1}} \}, & B_k = \bigcup_{i=k}^{m} \{ b^{i}_1 , \ldots , b^{i}_{\beta_{i}} \} \\
C_l = C_{l-1} \cup \{ d^{l-1}_1 , \ldots , d^{l-1}_{\delta_{l-1}} \}, & D_k = \bigcup_{i=k}^{m^{'}} \{ d^{i}_1 , \ldots , d^{i}_{\delta_{i}} \} \\
\end{eqnarray*}
for $k \ge 1$ and $l \ge 2$, where $A_1 = V_2 \setminus B_1$, $C_1 = V_2 \setminus D_1$.
We suppose that $\pi_G (u) = \pi_G(v)$:
$$
\pi_G(u) = s^{p} \prod_{l=1}^{m} (t_{1 b^{l}_{1}} \cdots t_{1 b^{l}_{\beta_l}})^{\sum_{k=1}^{l} p_k}, \quad
\pi_G(v) = s^{p^{'}} \prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}} (t_{1 d^{l}_{1}} \cdots t_{1 d^{l}_{\delta_l}})^{\sum_{k=1}^{l} p^{'}_k}.
$$
Here we set $p = \sum_{l=1}^{m} p_l$ and $p^{'} = \sum_{l=1}^{m^{'}} p^{'}_l$.
Assume that $A_1 \ne C_1$.
Then there exists $a \in A_1$ such that $a \notin C_1$.
Hence, for some $l_1 \in [m^{'}]$, $a \in \{ d^{l_1}_{1} , \ldots , d^{l_1}_{\delta_{l_1}} \}$.
However, for any $l \in [m]$, $a \notin \{ b^{l}_{1} ,\ldots , b^{l}_{\beta_l} \}$.
This contradicts that $\pi_G (u) = \pi_G (v)$.
Thus $A_1 = C_1$ and $p_1 = p^{'}_1$.
By performing this operation repeatedly,
it follows that $A_l = C_l$, $B_l = D_l$ and $p_l = p^{'}_{l}$ for any $l$.
Since $u=v$,
$\calg$ is a Gr\"obner basis of $I_G$.
It is trivial that $\calg$ is reduced.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\thmlab{main1}
Let $G=K_{2,n-2}$ be the complete bipartite graph on the vertex set $V_1 \cup V_2$, where $V_1 = \{ 1,2 \}$ and $V_2 = \{ 3,\ldots , n\}$ for $n \ge 4$.
Then a Gr\"obner basis of $I_G$ consists of
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{A|B} q_{E|F} - q_{\emptyset | [n]} q_{\{ 1,2 \} | \{ 3,\ldots , n \}} &
(1 \in A , 2 \in B), \\
q_{A|B} q_{C|D} - q_{A \cap C | B \cup D} q_{A \cup C | B \cap D} &
(1 \in A \cap C, 2 \in B \cap D , A \not\subset C , C \not\subset A), \\
q_{A|B} q_{C|D} - q_{A \cap C | B \cup D} q_{A \cup C | B \cap D} &
(1,2 \in A \cap C, A \not\subset C , C \not\subset A),
\end{eqnarray}
where $E=(B \cup \{ 1 \}) \setminus \{ 2 \}$ and $F = (A \cup \{ 2 \}) \setminus \{ 1 \}$.
The initial monomial of each binomials is the first binomial.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\calg$ be the set of all binomials above.
It is easy to see that $\calg \subset I_G$.
Let $u$ and $v$ be monomials which do not belong to ${\rm in}(\calg)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
u &=&
\prod_{l=1}^{m_1} (q_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B_l})^{p_l}
\prod_{l=1}^{m_2} (q_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup C_l | D_l})^{r_l}, \\
v &=&
\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1} (q_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A^{'}_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B^{'}_l})^{p^{'}_l}
\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_2} (q_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup C^{'}_l | D^{'}_l})^{r^{'}_l},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $0 < p_l , r_l,p^{'}_l , r^{'}_l \in \zz$ for any $l$.
Since neither $u$ nor $v$ is divided by initial monomials of (ii) and (iii),
it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_1 \subset \cdots \subset A_{m_1}, \quad
C_1 \subset \cdots \subset C_{m_2} ,\\
A^{'}_1 \subset \cdots \subset A^{'}_{m^{'}_1}, \quad
C^{'}_1 \subset \cdots \subset C^{'}_{m^{'}_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Suppose that $\pi_G (u) = \pi_G (v)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pi_G (u) &=&
\prod_{l=1}^{m_1} (u_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B_l})^{p_l}
\prod_{l=1}^{m_2} (u_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup C_l | D_l})^{r_l}, \\
\pi_G (v) &=&
\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1} (u_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A^{'}_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B^{'}_l})^{p^{'}_l}
\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_2} (u_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup C^{'}_l | D^{'}_l})^{r^{'}_l}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $Y$ be the matrix consisting of the first $n-2$ rows of $X_{K_{1,n-2}}$.
Then $X_{G}$ is the following matrix:
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
Y & Y \\
Y & {\bf 1}_{n-2,2^{n-2}} -Y \\
{\bf 1} & {\bf 1}
\end{pmatrix},
$$
where ${\bf 1}_{n-2,2^{n-2}}$ is the $(n-2) \times 2^{n-2}$ matrix such that each entry is all ones.
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{pmatrix}
Y \\
Y
\end{pmatrix}
&=&
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta_{P_1|Q_1} (K_{2,n-2}) \cdots \delta_{P_{2^{n-2}}|Q_{2^{n-2}}} (K_{2,n-2})
\end{pmatrix} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
Y \\
{\bf 1}_{n-2,2^{n-2}} -Y
\end{pmatrix}
&=&
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta_{R_1|S_1} (K_{2,n-2}) \cdots \delta_{R_{2^{n-2}}|S_{2^{n-2}}} (K_{2,n-2})
\end{pmatrix}
,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $1,2 \in P_l$, $1 \in R_l$ and $2 \in S_l$ for $1 \le l \le 2^{n-2}$.
By elementary row operations of $X_G$,
we have
$$
X^{'}_{G} =
\begin{pmatrix}
2Y -{\bf 1}_{n-2,2^{n-2}} & O \\
O & 2Y - {\bf 1}_{n-2,2^{n-2}} \\
{\bf 1} & {\bf 1}
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Each column vector of $2Y-{\bf 1}_{n-2,2^{n-2}}$ is the form ${}^t (\varepsilon_1,\ldots,\varepsilon_{n-2})$, where $\varepsilon_i \in \{ 1,-1\}$ for $1 \le i \le n-2$.
Let $I_{X^{'}_{G}}$ denote the toric ideal of $X^{'}_{G}$ (see \cite{Sturmfels}).
Then $u-v \in I_G$ if and only if $u-v \in I_{X^{'}_{G}}$.
Let $\bfa_{P|Q}$ denote the column vector of $2Y-{\bf 1}_{n-2,2^{n-2}}$ in $X^{'}_{G}$ corresponding to the column vector $\delta_{P|Q}(G)$ of $X_G$.
Then
$$
\sum_{l=1}^{m_1}
p_l
\begin{pmatrix}
{\bf 0} \\
\bfa_{\{1 \} \cup A_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B_l } \\
1
\end{pmatrix}
+
\sum_{l=1}^{m_2}
r_l
\begin{pmatrix}
\bfa_{\{1,2 \} \cup C_l | D_l } \\
{\bf 0} \\
1
\end{pmatrix}
=
\sum_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1}
p^{'}_l
\begin{pmatrix}
{\bf 0} \\
\bfa_{\{1 \} \cup A^{'}_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B^{'}_l } \\
1
\end{pmatrix}
+
\sum_{l=1}^{m^{'}_2}
r^{'}_l
\begin{pmatrix}
\bfa_{\{1,2 \} \cup C^{'}_l |D^{'}_l } \\
{\bf 0} \\
1
\end{pmatrix}
.
$$
In particular,
$$
\sum_{l=1}^{m_1}
p_l
\bfa_{\{1 \} \cup A_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B_l }
=
\sum_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1}
p^{'}_l
\bfa_{\{1 \} \cup A^{'}_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B^{'}_l },
\quad
\sum_{l=1}^{m_2}
r_l
\bfa_{\{1,2 \} \cup C_l | D_l }
=
\sum_{l=1}^{m^{'}_2}
r^{'}_l
\bfa_{\{1,2 \} \cup C^{'}_l |D^{'}_l }
$$
hold.
Let $p=\sum_{l=1}^{m_1} p_l$, $r=\sum_{l=1}^{m_2} r_l$, $p^{'}=\sum_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1} p^{'}_l$ and $r^{'} = \sum_{l=1}^{m^{'}_2} r^{'}_l$.
Since neither $u$ nor $v$ is divided by initial monomials of (i), it follows that either $A_1 \ne \emptyset$ or $A_{m_1} \ne [n] \setminus \{ 1,2 \}$ (resp. $A^{'}_1 \ne \emptyset$ or $A^{'}_{m^{'}_2} \ne [n] \setminus \{ 1,2 \}$).
If $A_1 \ne \emptyset$, then there exists $i \in [n] \setminus \{ 1,2 \}$ such that $i \in A_l$ for any $l \in [m_1]$.
If $A_{m_1} \ne [n] \setminus \{ 1,2\}$, that is, $B_{m_1} \ne \emptyset$, then there exists $i \in [n] \setminus \{ 1,2 \}$ such that $i \in B_{m_1}$, and $i \notin A_l$ for any $l \in [m_1]$.
Thus either $p$ or $-p$ appears in the entry of $\sum_{l=1}^{m_1} p_l \bfa_{\{ 1 \} \cup A_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B_l}$.
Similarly, either $p^{'}$ or $-p^{'}$ appears in the entry of $\sum_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1} p^{'}_l \bfa_{\{ 1 \} \cup A^{'}_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B^{'}_l}$.
Therefore $p=p^{'}$.
Hence
$$
\prod_{l=1}^{m_1} (u_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B_l})^{p_l}
=\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1} (u_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A^{'}_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B^{'}_l})^{p^{'}_l},
\quad
\prod_{l=1}^{m_2} (u_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup C_l | D_l})^{r_l}=
\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_2} (u_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup C^{'}_l | D^{'}_l})^{r^{'}_l}
$$
hold.
Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\prod_{l=1}^{m_1} (q_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B_l})^{p_l}
-\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1} (q_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A^{'}_l | \{ 2 \} \cup B^{'}_l})^{p^{'}_l} \in I_{Z_1},
\\
\prod_{l=1}^{m_2} (q_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup C_l | D_l})^{r_l}-
\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_2} (q_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup C^{'}_l | D^{'}_l})^{r^{'}_l}
\in I_{Z_2},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $Z_1$ (resp. $Z_2$) is the matrix consisting of the first (resp. last) $2^{n-2}$ columns of $X^{'}_{G}$.
Here $I_{Z_1}$ and $I_{Z_2}$ are toric ideals of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$.
By elementary row operations of $Z_1$ (resp. $Z_2$),
we have
$$
\prod_{l=1}^{m_1} (q_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A_l | B_l})^{p_l}
-\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_1} (q_{ \{ 1 \} \cup A^{'}_l | B^{'}_l})^{p^{'}_l},
\quad
\prod_{l=1}^{m_2} (q_{ \{ 1 \} \cup C_l | D_l})^{r_l}-
\prod_{l=1}^{m^{'}_2} (q_{ \{ 1 \} \cup C^{'}_l | D^{'}_l})^{r^{'}_l}
\in I_{K_{1,n-2}}.
$$
By \lemref{GB1}, $u=v$ holds.
Therefore $\calg$ is a Gr\"obner basis of $I_G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\corlab{cor1}
If $G$ has no $(K_4,C_5)$-minor,
then $I_G$ has a quadratic Gr\"obner basis.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ is not 2-connected,
then there exist 2-connected components $G_1, \ldots , G_s$ of $G$ such that $G$ is $0$-sums of $G_1,\ldots,G_s$.
By \cite{StuSull} and \lemref{key},
it is enough to show that, $I_{K_2}$, $I_{K_3}$, $I_{K_{2,n-2}}$ and $I_{K_{1,1,n-2}}$ have a quadratic Gr\"obner basis.
It is trivial that $I_{K_2}$ and $I_{K_3}$ have a quadratic Gr\"obner basis because $I_{K_2}=\langle 0 \rangle$ and $I_{K_3} = \langle 0 \rangle$.
Since $K_{1,1,n-2}$ is obtained by $1$-sums of $C_3$,
$I_{K_{1,1,n-2}}$ has a quadratic Gr\"obner basis.
Therefore, by \thmref{main1}, $I_G$ has a quadratic Gr\"obner basis.
\end{proof}
\section{Strongly Koszul toric rings of cut ideals}
In this section, we characterize the class of graphs whose toric rings associated to cut ideals are strongly Koszul.
\begin{proposition}
\proplab{str}
Let $G_1 = K_{1,1,n-2}$ and $G_2=K_{2,n-2}$ for $n \ge 4$.
Then $R_{G_1}$ and $R_{G_2}$ are strongly Koszul.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By elementary row operations of $X_{G_1}$,
we have
$$
X_{G_1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\bf 0} & {\bf 1} \\
Y & Y \\
Y & {\bf 1}_{n-2,2^{n-2}} - Y \\
{\bf 1} & {\bf 1} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\rightarrow
\begin{pmatrix}
{\bf 0} & {\bf 1} \\
Y & Y \\
Y & - Y \\
{\bf 1} & {\bf 1} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\rightarrow
\begin{pmatrix}
{\bf 0} & {\bf 1} \\
Y & Y \\
Y & O \\
{\bf 1} & {\bf 1} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\rightarrow
\begin{pmatrix}
{\bf 0} & {\bf 1} \\
O & Y \\
Y & O \\
{\bf 1} & {\bf 0} \\
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Hence $R_{G_1} \cong R_{K_{1,n-2}} \otimes_K R_{K_{1,n-2}}$.
Since $R_{K_{1,n-2}}$ is Segre products of $R_{K_2}$, $R_{G_1}$ is strongly Koszul.
Next, by the symmetry of $X_{G^{'}}$ in the proof of \thmref{main1}, it is enough to consider the following two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $( u_{\emptyset | [n]}) \cap (u_{ \{ 1 \} | \{ 2,\ldots , n \} })$,
\item[(2)]
$( u_{\emptyset | [n]}) \cap (u_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup A | B })$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Since $q_{\emptyset|[n]}$ is the smallest variable and $q_{\{ 1 \}|\{ 2,\ldots , n\}}$ is the second smallest variable with respect to the reverse lexicographic order $<$,
by \cite{MatsudaOhsugi} and \thmref{main1}, $( u_{\emptyset | [n]}) \cap (u_{ \{ 1 \} | \{ 2,\ldots , n \} })$ is generated in degree 2.
Assume that $(u_{\emptyset |[n]}) \cap (u_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup A|B})$ is not generated in degree 2.
Then there exists a monomial $u_{E_1|F_1} \cdots u_{E_s|F_s}$ belonging to a minimal generating set of $(u_{\emptyset |[n]}) \cap (u_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup A|B})$ such that $s \ge 3$.
Since $u_{E_1|F_1} \cdots u_{E_s|F_s}$ is in $(u_{\emptyset |[n]}) \cap (u_{ \{ 1,2 \} \cup A|B})$,
it follows that
$$
q_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup A|B}
\prod_{l=1}^{\alpha}
q_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup A_l|B_l}
\prod_{l=1}^{\beta}
q_{\{ 1 \} \cup C_l| \{ 2 \} \cup D_l}
-
q_{\emptyset | [n]}
\prod_{l=1}^{\gamma}
q_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup P_l|Q_l}
\prod_{l=1}^{\delta}
q_{\{ 1 \} \cup R_l|\{ 2 \} \cup S_l}
\in I_{G_2}.
$$
If one of the monomials appearing in the above binomial is divided by initial monomials of (i) in \thmref{main1},
then $u_{E_1|F_1}\cdots u_{E_s | F_s}$ is divided by $u_{\emptyset | [n]} u_{\{1,2\}|\{ 3,\ldots , n\}}$.
This contradicts that $u_{E_1|F_1}\cdots u_{E_s | F_s}$ belongs to a minimal generating set of $(u_{\emptyset | [n]}) \cap (u_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup A|B})$ since, for any $u_{A|B}$ and $u_{C|D}$ with $u_{A|B} \ne u_{C|D}$, $u_{\emptyset | [n]}u_{\{ 1,2 \}|\{ 3,\ldots , n\}}$ belongs to a minimal generating set of $(u_{A|B}) \cap (u_{C|D})$.
If one of $\prod_{l=1}^{\beta} q_{\{ 1 \} \cup C_l| \{ 2 \} \cup D_l}$ and $\prod_{l=1}^{\delta} q_{\{ 1 \} \cup R_l| \{ 2 \} \cup S_l}$ is divided by initial monomials of (ii) in \thmref{main1},
the monomial is reduced to the monomial which is not divided by initial monomials of (ii) with respect to $\calg$, where $\calg$ is a Gr\"obner basis of $I_{G_2}$.
Thus we may assume that
$$
C_1 \subset \cdots \subset C_{\beta}, \quad
R_1 \subset \cdots \subset R_{\delta}.
$$
Similar to what did in the proof of \thmref{main1}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup A|B}
\prod_{l=1}^{\alpha}
u_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup A_l|B_l}
&=&
u_{\emptyset | [n]}
\prod_{l=1}^{\gamma}
u_{\{ 1,2 \} \cup P_l|Q_l}
, \\
\prod_{l=1}^{\beta}
u_{\{ 1 \} \cup C_l|\{ 2 \} \cup D_l}
&=&
\prod_{l=1}^{\delta}
u_{\{ 1 \} \cup R_l|\{ 2 \} \cup S_l}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that $\alpha = \gamma$, $\beta=\delta$, $C_l = R_l$, $D_l=S_l$ for any $l$, and
$$
q_{\{ 1 \} \cup A|B}
\prod_{l=1}^{\alpha}
q_{\{ 1 \} \cup A_l|B_l}
-
q_{\emptyset | [n] \setminus \{ 2 \}}
\prod_{l=1}^{\alpha}
q_{\{ 1 \} \cup P_l|Q_l}
\in I_{K_{1,n-2}}.
$$
Hence the ideal $(u_{\{ 1 \} \cup A|B}) \cap (u_{\emptyset | [n] \setminus \{ 2 \}})$ of $R_{K_{1,n-2}}$ is not generated in degree $2$.
However this contradicts that $R_{K_{1,n-2}}$ is strongly Koszul.
Therefore $R_{G_2}$ is strongly Koszul.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\lemlab{lem2}
Let $G$ be a finite simple 2-connected graph with no $K_4$-minor.
If $G$ has $C_5$-minor,
then by only contracting edges of $G$, we obtain one of $C_5$, the 1-sum of $C_4$ and $C_3$, and the 1-sum of $K_4 \setminus e$ and $C_3$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a graph with $C_5$-minor and $C$ be a longest cycle in $G$.
It follows that $|V(C)| \ge 5$.
Then, by contracting edges of $G$, we obtain a graph $G^{'}$ of five vertices such that $C_5$ is a subgraph of $G^{'}$.
Assume that $G^{'} \ne C_5$.
Then there exist $u,v \in V(C_5)$ with $uv \notin E(C_5)$ such that $uv \in E(G^{'})$.
Since $G$ has no $K_4$-minor,
there do not exist $\alpha, \beta \in V(C_5) \setminus \{ u,v \}$ such that $\alpha \beta \in E(G^{'}) \setminus E(C_5)$.
Therefore we obtain one of the $1$-sum of $C_4$ and $C_3$, and the $1$-sum of $K_4 \setminus e$ and $C_3$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be a finite simple connected graph.
Then $R_{G}$ is strongly Koszul if and only if $G$ has no ($K_4$, $C_5$)-minor.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a graph with no $(K_4,C_5)$-minor.
If $G$ is not $2$-connected,
then there exist $2$-connected components $G_1, \ldots, G_s$ of $G$ such that $G$ is $0$-sums of $G_1,\ldots, G_s$.
By \lemref{key},
it is enough to show that $R_{K_2}$, $R_{K_3}$, $R_{K_{2,n-2}}$ and $R_{K_{1,1,n-2}}$ are strongly Koszul.
It is clear that $R_{K_2}$ and $R_{K_3}$ are strongly Koszul.
By \propref{str},
$R_{K_{2,n-2}}$ and $R_{K_{1,1,n-2}}$ are strongly Koszul.
Next, we suppose that $G$ has $K_4$-minor.
Then the cut ideal $I_G$ is not generated by quadratic binomials \cite{Engstrom}.
In particular, $R_G$ is not strongly Koszul.
Assume that $G$ has no $K_4$-minor.
If $G$ has $C_5$-minor,
then, by \lemref{lem2}, we obtain one of $C_5$, $C_4 \# C_3$ and $(K_4 \setminus e) \# C_3$ by contracting edges of $G$.
By \exref{exam}, neither $R_{C_4 \# C_3}$ nor $R_{(K_4 \setminus e) \# C_3}$ is strongly Koszul.
By \cite[Theorem 1.3]{StuSull}, since $R_{C_5}$ is not compressed, $R_{C_5}$ is not strongly Koszul \cite[Theorem 2.1]{MatsudaOhsugi}.
Therefore, by \propref{contraction}, $R_G$ is not strongly Koszul.
\end{proof}
By using above results,
we have
\begin{corollary}
The set of graphs $G$ such that $R_G$ is strongly Koszul is minor closed.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
If $R_G$ is strongly Koszul,
then $I_G$ has a quadratic Gr\"obner basis.
\end{corollary}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The author would like to thank Hidefumi Ohsugi for useful comments and suggestions.
\input{references}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
The goal of studying relativistic heavy ion collisions is to investigate the fundamental properties of matter at extreme densities \cite{Lisa:2005dd}. In such collisions, a new type of matter, called the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), is produced in which hadrons dissolve into colored degrees of freedom \cite{Heinz:2013th}. The QGP behaves as an almost perfect fluid, and this stage of the collision is typically modeled with relativistic viscous hydrodynamics \cite{Heinz:2013th, Muller:2012zq}. Eventually hadronization occurs, during which the quarks and gluons are once again confined to colorless hadrons, and the system may be described as a hadronic resonance gas \cite{Muller:2012zq}.
One method of probing the system is to study the numerous hadrons produced in such a collision. However, the connection between these observables and the early stages of the collision is complicated by random final-state rescatterings. We attempt to unfold these effects by performing a hadronic rescattering calculation, thereby moving one step closer to the initial state.
The general strategy in building the hadronic rescattering model is to first devise a simple model for hadronization, and then propagate these initial hadrons via rescattering to freeze-out. As in \cite{Humanic:2010su}, a short hadronization proper time is assumed. We are then able to extract a parameter set from the model describing the state of the collision before rescattering, and to compare our calculations with experimental data. The observables studied include spectra (pseudorapidity and transverse momentum distributions), anisotropic flow ($v_{2}$, $v_{2}/n_{q}$, and $v_{3}$ as a function of $p_{T}$), and two-pion femtoscopy (HBT interferometry). The model includes only hadronic degrees of freedom, and thus should be treated as a limiting case scenario.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly describes the model, Section 3 contains our model results, comparisons to experimental data and discussions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV $Pb+Pb$ collisions, and Section 4 presents our summary and conclusions.
\section{Description of the Model}
The model consists of five main steps, each to be detailed in the following subsections: A) generate hadrons in $p+p$ collisions from PYTHIA, B) superpose $p+p$ collisions in the overlap volume of the collision, C) assume a common hadronization proper time ($\tau$), and obtain the position and momentum 4-vectors of the PYTHIA-generated hadrons at hadronization, D) calculate the effects of final-state rescattering among the hadrons, and E) calculate the desired observables. In this section, we also introduce the new ``squeeze procedure'' (Section 2.6).
\subsection{Generation of the $p+p$ collisions with PYTHIA}
The $p+p$ collisions are modeled with the PYTHIA code \cite{Sjostrand:2006za}, version 6.409, using the internal parton distribution functions ``CTEQ 5L'' (leading order). The events were generated in ``minimum bias'' mode by setting the low-$p_{T}$ cutoff for the parton-parton collisions to zero, and by excluding elastic and diffractive collisions. The collisions are run at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV to simulate current LHC data. The data saved from a PYTHIA event to be input into the next step of the model include the momenta and identities of the ``direct'' (i.e. redundancies removed) hadrons (all charged states) $\pi$, K, p, n, $\Delta, \Lambda, \rho, \omega, \eta$, $\eta$', $\phi$ and K*. The particles chosen are the most common hadrons produced, and thus should have the greatest effect in our calculations. Figure \ref{fig0} compares the transverse momentum distribution of identified hadrons from the PYTHIA $p+p$ run (used to generate the $Pb+Pb$ collisions in the present model) to $2.76$ TeV $p+p$ collision data from CMS \cite{Chatrchyan:2012qb}. As shown, the PYTHIA distribution agrees with the data quite well for pions, but the kaon and proton production are overestimated at low-$p_{T}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{JPhysG_f0.eps}
\caption{Transverse momentum distributions of identified hadrons (pions, kaon, and protons) at mid-rapidity ($|y|<1$) from PYTHIA compared to CMS data \cite{Chatrchyan:2012qb}.}
\label{fig0}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Superposition of $p+p$ events to simulate heavy ion collisions}
An assumption of the model is that an adequate job of describing a heavy-ion collision may be achieved by superposing PYTHIA-generated $p+p$ collisions (at the relevant beam $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$) within the collision geometry. The collision geometry is the typical smooth ``almond shape'' produced by the overlap volume of the two (Lorentz contracted) disk-like nuclei. For a collision of impact parameter $b$, the overlap volume (normalized to unity for complete overlap) is described by $f(b)$, such that $f(b=0)=1$ and $f(b=2R)=0$, where $R=1.2A^{1/3}$ and $A$ is the mass number of the nuclei. The number of $p+p$ collisions to be superposed is then given by $N_{pp}=f(b)A$. Once the collision geometry is determined, the positions of the superposed $p+p$ pairs are randomly distributed throughout the overlap volume. The positions are then projected onto the transverse (x-y) plane, requiring all PYTHIA events to occur on the $z_{pp}=$ 0 plane; the coordinates for a particular $p+p$ pair are defined as $x_{pp}, y_{pp}$ and $z_{pp}=$ 0. The positions of the hadrons produced in a given $p+p$ collision are defined with respect to the position of the superposed $p+p$ collision center (see Section 2.3).
In calculations performed with a similar model for RHIC collisions \cite{Humanic:2008nt}, better agreement with experimental pseudorapidity distributions ($dN_{ch}/d\eta$) was achieved by imposing a multiplicity cut rejecting the lowest 26\% of $p+p$ collisions. The justification for this cut was to partially compensate for the fact that primary nucleons from the projectile-target system are not allowed to reinteract in the model. In the current model, to achieve the same effect, we instead include more $p+p$ collisions for a given geometry, and impose no multiplicity cut. The scale factor dictating the increase of $N_{pp}$ is determined by matching the model $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ distribution at midrapidity in most central events to that of the experimental data. For $Pb+Pb$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV, this scale factor is 1.35.
Our procedure for generating initial conditions most closely resembles a simplified Glauber Monte Carlo (GMC) approach. There are, of course, some important differences. In a typical GMC approach, the nucleons in each of the colliding nuclei are assembled by sampling from a nuclear density distribution. The two nuclei are aligned according to a random impact parameter (drawn from $\frac{d\sigma}{db} = 2\pi b$), and the collision is then treated as a sequence of independent binary nucleon-nucleon collisions (assuming straight-line trajectories for the nucleons) \cite{Miller:2007ri}. Both the number of participating nucleons ($N_{part}$) and the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions ($N_{coll}$) are then used to determine the initial conditions. In our model, by randomly distributing the the superposed $p+p$ collisions within the collision geometry, we essentially use a uniform nuclear density distribution. Since we use only superposed $p+p$ collisions, we track only the binary nucleon-nucleon collisions, and not the individual participants. Thus, we see that without the rescaling of $N_{pp}$ described above, our initial conditions would be similar to those from a GMC approach in which participants are allowed to undergo only one binary nucleon-nucleon collision. As such, we scale up the number of $p+p$ collisions to mimic the participants undergoing multiple binary collisions.
\subsection{The space-time geometry picture for hadronization}
The current model only considers hadronic degrees of freedom; however, in the early stages of the collision, partonic degrees of freedom are believed to be more appropriate. Thus, our calculations must be considered as a limiting case scenario for which a short hadronization proper time is assumed. However, we do include some effects of the dynamics prior to hadronization by assuming a PYTHIA particle is emitted within a region surrounding the specific $p+p$ collision center, and the particle (``pre-hadron'') travels freely until hadronizing after a proper time $\tau$. This procedure is explained more clearly in the following.
Consider one superposed $p+p$ collision center (as outlined in Section 2.2) located at a position $(x_{pp},y_{pp},z_{pp}=0)$. We assume that the PYTHIA particles (from this specific $p+p$ collision) are emitted from a thin uniform disk of radius 1 fm in the $x-y$-plane centered on the collision center (which accounts for the non-vanishing size of the nucleons). In other words, the emission point $(x_{0},y_{0})$ for a given particle is randomly chosen from a 1 fm disk surrounding the $p+p$ collision center. Furthermore, we assume that a PYTHIA particle travels freely (as a ``pre-hadron'') until hadronization, which occurs after a time $\tau$ in the particle's rest frame. We find the model is insensitive to 10\% variations in the radius of the emitting disk. Similarly, using a Glauber Monte Carlo (GMC) approach, Reference \cite{Alver:2008zza} finds that smearing the produced matter distribution around the GMC interaction points does not significantly influence the observed value of the initial eccentricity (except for extremely small systems).
The space-time coordinates at hadronization in the lab frame $(x_{h},y_{h},z_{h},t_{h})$ for a particle of momentum $(p_{x},p_{y},p_{z})$, energy $E$, rest mass $m_{0}$, $p+p$ collision center $(x_{pp},y_{pp},z_{pp}=0)$, and transverse disk coordinates $(x_{0},y_{0})$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{r}
\vspace{1mm}
x_{h}=x_{pp}+x_{0}+\tau\frac{p_{x}}{m_{0}} \\
\vspace{1mm}
y_{h}=y_{pp}+y_{0}+\tau\frac{p_{y}}{m_{0}} \\
\vspace{1mm}
z_{h}=\tau\frac{p_{z}}{m_{0}} \\
\vspace{1mm}
t_{h}=\tau\frac{E}{m_{0}}
\end{array}
\label{eqn1}
\end{equation}
\noindent
Note that the model includes initial expansion in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. A similar hadronization picture (with an initial point source) has been applied to $e^{+}-e^{-}$ collisions \cite{Csorgo:1990up}. For the majority of our results, we set $\tau=0.1$ fm/c, as was done in applying a similar model to calculate predictions for RHIC $Au+Au$ collisions \cite{Humanic:2008nt}, Tevatron $p+\overline{p}$ collisions \cite{Humanic:2006ib}, and LHC $Pb+Pb$ collisions \cite{Humanic:2010su}. Additionally, we study the effects of varying the hadronization proper time by setting $\tau=$ 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 fm/c.
\subsection{Final-state hadronic rescattering}
The method for calculating the hadronic rescattering is similar to that used in previous studies \cite{Humanic:2010su, Humanic:2008nt, Humanic:2006ib, Humanic:2005ye, PhysRevC.57.866}. Rescattering is simulated with a semi-classical Monte Carlo calculation which assumes strong binary collisions. Relativistic kinematics is used throughout. The hadrons considered in the calculation include pions, kaons, nucleons, and lambdas ($\pi$, K, N, and $\Lambda$), as well as the $\rho, \omega, \eta$, $\eta$', $\phi, \Delta$, and K* resonances. For simplicity, the calculation is isospin averaged (e.g. no distinction is made among $\pi^{+}, \pi^{0}$ and $\pi^{-}$).
The rescattering simulation proceeds as follows. Starting from the initial stage ($t=0$ fm/c), the positions of all particles in a given event are allowed to evolve in time in small steps ($\Delta t = 0.5$ fm/c) according to their initial momenta. At each step, the particle is checked to see if a) it has hadronized, and is therefore able to begin rescattering ($t > t_{h}$, where $t_{h}$ is defined in Eq. \ref{eqn1}), b) it decays, and c) it is sufficiently close to another hadron to scatter. It is assumed that the two hadrons, $i$ and $j$, scatter when the following criteria are satisfied \cite{PhysRevC.73.054902}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{r}
\vspace{2mm}
|\Delta \boldsymbol{r}_{c.m.}|_{ij} \leq \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{\pi}} \\
|\Delta t_{c.m.}|_{ij} \leq t_{0}
\end{array}
\label{eqn2}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $|\Delta \boldsymbol{r}_{c.m.}|_{ij}$ and $|\Delta t_{c.m.}|_{ij}$ are the separation distance and time difference between the particles in the $i-j$ center of mass frame, $\sigma_{ij}$ is the total scattering cross section for $i$ and $j$, and $t_{0}$ is set to 1 fm/c. Although a particle may undergo many scatterings, two specific particles are permitted to scatter only once with each other. Isospin-averaged s-wave and p-wave cross sections for meson scattering are obtained from Prakash et al. \cite{1993PhR...227..321P}, and other cross sections are estimated from fits to hadronic scattering data in the Review of Particle Physics \cite{PDBook}. Both elastic and inelastic collisions are included. The rescattering calculation finishes with the freeze-out and decay of all particles. In practice, the calculation is carried out to 400 fm/c, which allows enough time for all rescatterings to finish. To test this conclusion, calculations were carried out for longer times, and no changes were found. Note, after this time is reached, any un-decayed resonances are allowed to decay with their natural lifetimes, and their projected decay positions and times are recorded.
The final-state hadronic rescattering code used in the model resembles a simplified UrQMD model in cascade mode. The main differences are as follows. The UrQMD model utilizes a much larger sample of particle species (more than 55 baryon species and 32 meson species \cite{Bass:1998ca}). In addition, our model is isospin averaged. Finally, UrQMD includes string fragmentation and excitation \cite{Petersen:2008kb}, which is not explicitly included in our model, resulting in a more string related initial state in the UrQMD model.
\subsection{Calculation of the hadronic observables}
Model runs for $Pb+Pb$ collisions are made to be ``minimum bias'' by having the impact parameters of collisions follow the distribution $\frac{d\sigma}{db} \propto b$, where $0<b<2R$. The model observables are calculated in a manner typical to experiment by binning the data in centrality through multiplicity cuts. Note, although we have access to the impact parameter in each event, utilizing multiplicity cuts to determine centrality facilitates our comparison with the experimental data. In addition, we employ kinematic cuts on pseudorapidity ($\eta$), transverse momentum ($p_{T}$), and pair transverse momentum ($k_{T} = |\vec{p}_{T,a}+\vec{p}_{T,b}|/2$) to duplicate those made in ALICE measurements. Our analysis focuses on particles emitted near midrapidity ($|\eta| \leq 0.8$). For the present study, 183,594 minimum bias events were generated from the model for $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76$ TeV $Pb+Pb$ collisions.
\subsection{The squeeze procedure}
We do not expect the early stages of a nucleus-nucleus collision to behave exactly like the superposition of simple $p+p$ collisions. For instance, nucleons can scatter multiple times in each nucleus, producing greater ``stopping'', particularly for more central collisions. In order to approximately account for this effect, and to better represent the experimental pseudorapidity distribution, we use an ad hoc procedure (the ``squeeze procedure'') to modify the pseudorapidity distribution of the particles in our model. We find that this adjustment does not significantly alter our results for other studied hadronic observables. The squeeze procedure adjusts the pseudorapidity of a given particle (before input to the rescattering calculation) by implementing the following ad hoc transformation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{2mm}
\eta' = \eta(1-a \cdot exp[-(\eta-\eta_{0})^{2}/2W^{2}]) \\
a = a_{0}(b_{max}-b)/b_{max}
\end{array}
\label{eqn3}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $a_{0} =$ 0.2, $\eta_{0} =$ 4.0, $W =$ 2.0 and $b_{max} =$ 12.10. The impact parameter ($b$) dependence of the $a$-parameter accounts for the expectation of less stopping for more peripheral collisions (i.e. for larger $b$).
The effects of the squeeze procedure can be seen in Figure \ref{fig1}, which compares the pseudorapidity distribution of experimental ALICE data \cite{Abbas:2013bpa} to the model calculations with (left panel) and without (right panel) implementation of the squeeze procedure. Shown in the right panel, without the squeeze procedure the model qualitatively describes the trends of the data near midrapidity, but the model is unable to properly describe the shape of the experimental distributions. In particular, the un-squeezed model is seen to underestimate the data for $|\eta| \lesssim 3.5$ for all multiplicity bins shown. Additionally, the relative peak in the experimental distribution around $|\eta| \approx 2$ occurs at smaller absolute rapidity in the un-squeezed model. Finally, rescattering in the un-squeezed model develops additional ``bumps'' in the pseudorapidity distribution around $|\eta| \approx 4.25$ not present in the data.
As shown in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig1}, once the squeeze procedure is implemented, the model matches the ALICE data very well. The squeeze procedure shifts all particles toward midrapidity, with the magnitude of the shift determined by the Gaussian term in Eq. \ref{eqn3}. This Gaussian is centered around $\eta_{0} =$ 4.0, the position for which the $\eta$ shift is maximal. The squeeze procedure rids our pseudorapidity distribution of the ``bumps'' around $|\eta| \approx 4.25$ and much better approximates the ALICE data. Figure \ref{fig2} shows how the squeeze procedure modifies the PYTHIA $dN/d\eta$ distribution, prior to the rescattering calculation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=135mm]{JPhysG_f1.eps}
\caption{Model charged-hadron pseudorapidity distributions (open markers) for $Pb+Pb$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV for the centrality bins 0-5\%, 5-10\%, 10-20\%, and 20-30\%. Also shown are measurements from ALICE \cite{Abbas:2013bpa} for this energy (closed markers). Model results in the left panel implement the squeeze procedure, while those in right do not.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\section{Model Results and Comparisons to ALICE for $Pb+Pb$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV}
Results from the model for hadronic observables including spectra, anisotropic flow, and two-boson femtoscopy for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV $Pb+Pb$ collisions are presented separately in the following. Unless otherwise stated, the squeeze procedure has been implemented and the hadronization proper time taken to be $\tau=0.1$ fm/c.
\subsection{Spectra}
As previously introduced, Figure \ref{fig1} shows model results with the squeeze procedure implemented for the charged-hadron pseudorapidity distributions for various centrality bins. Also presented are ALICE data for comparison \cite{Abbas:2013bpa}. The model agreement with the data using the ad hoc transformation in Eq. \ref{eqn3} is seen to be good; however, the model is slightly too high near midrapidity ($|\eta| \lesssim 1$) in the most central collisions, as well as away from midrapidity ($|\eta| \gtrsim 4$) for all studied centralities. Note, since the model is isospin averaged, the model distributions are multiplied by 2/3 to approximate all charged particles.
Figure \ref{fig2} shows the effect of the squeeze transformation on the PYTHIA $dN/d\eta$ distribution. The ``squeezed distribution'' shown is averaged over all impact parameters. Even though the transformation in Eq.\ \ref{eqn3} is ad hoc to agree with experiment, it shows qualitatively on average how the $p+p$ pseudorapidity distribution is modified in a $Pb+Pb$ collision.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{JPhysG_f2.eps}
\caption{PYTHIA vs. squeezed hadron pseudorapidity distributions before rescattering for $Pb+Pb$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV for minimum bias events.}
\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig3:subfig} shows model comparisons with ALICE data \cite{Abelev:2012hxa} for charged-hadron $p_{T}$ distributions at midrapidity ($|\eta| < 0.8$) for collision centralities 0-5\% and 70-80\%. Since the model calculations do not distinguish isospin, to approximate all charged hadrons, the model distributions are multiplied by 2/3. As seen in Figure \ref{fig3:subfig:a}, the model describes the trends of the data, underestimating it in the range $p_{T} \sim$ 1-6 GeV/c for central collisions, and describing the data well throughout the entire $p_{T}$ range for peripheral collisions. Figure \ref{fig3:subfig:b} shows a magnification of Figure \ref{fig3:subfig:a} in the $p_{T}$ range 0-1 GeV/c where the majority of particles are found.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\subfloat[Large $p_{T}$ range]{
\label{fig3:subfig:a}
\includegraphics[width=115mm]{JPhysG_f3a.eps}}\\
\subfloat[Small $p_{T}$ range]{
\label{fig3:subfig:b}
\includegraphics[width=115mm]{JPhysG_f3b.eps}}
\caption{Model charged-hadron $p_{T}$ distributions compared with ALICE measurements \cite{Abelev:2012hxa} for $|\eta| < 0.8$ and centrality bins 0-5\% and 70-80\%.}
\label{fig3:subfig}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{JPhysG_f4_y.eps}
\caption{Model transverse momentum distributions of pions, kaons, and protons compared with ALICE measurements \cite{Abelev:2013vea} for $|y|<0.5$ and 0-5\% centrality.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig4} shows model comparisons with ALICE data \cite{Abelev:2013vea} for the $p_{T}$ distributions of identified pions, kaons, and protons at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in central collisions (0-5\%). As the model is isospin averaged, to approximate $(h^{+}+h^{-})/2$ the model distributions are multiplied by 1/3 for pions and kaons, and by 1/4 for protons. The ALICE data has been averaged over positive and negative particles for each species. As shown, the model reproduces qualitatively the trends of the $p_{T}$ distributions for these identified particles. However, the pion spectra is much steeper than in the data, and the kaon and proton production are overestimated.
\subsection{Anisotropic flow ($v_{n}$)}
An azimuthal anisotropic flow indicates a collective behavior among emitted particles in a relativistic heavy ion collision, and is observed as an overall pattern which correlates the momenta of final state particles \cite{Muller:2012zq}. The observed anisotropic flow pattern is typically quantified through a Fourier expansion of the azimuthal distribution of final state hadrons with respect to the collision symmetry planes \cite{Voloshin:1994mz, Poskanzer:1998yz},
\begin{equation}
E\frac{d^{3}N}{d^{3}p}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d^{2}N}{p_{T}dp_{T}dy}\left[ 1+2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}v_{n}cos[n(\phi-\Psi_{n})]\right]
\label{eqn4}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $E$ is the energy of the particle, $p$ the momentum, $p_{T}$ the transverse momentum, $\phi$ the azimuthal angle, $y$ the rapidity, and $\Psi_{n}$ the $n^{th}$ harmonic symmetry plane angle. The symmetry planes were introduced to account for event-by-event fluctuations of the initial density profile \cite{Abelev:2014pua}. These symmetry planes are not known experimentally, therefore the anisotropic flow coefficients must be extracted from azimuthal angular correlations between observed particles \cite{Collaboration:2011yba}.
The study of azimuthally anisotropic flow serves as a sensitive probe of the early evolution of the system, and is typically explained in the language of hydrodynamics as a response of the system to the pressure gradients resulting from initial spatial anisotropies \cite{Heinz:2013th}. Studying the anisotropy in the final momentum spectrum gains us insights to pressure gradients and density profiles at earlier times. The evolution of the initial spatial anisotropies to final state momentum anisotropies contains information regarding the equation of state and transport properties controlling the produced matter.
Due to the limited number of particles produced in a given event, one typically averages over events to obtain statistically significant results for the anisotropic flow \cite{Heinz:2013th}. Fluctuating initial conditions cause the extracted harmonic flow coefficients ($v_{n}$) to fluctuate from event-to-event, even within a fixed and narrow multiplicity bin (or at fixed impact parameter). In addition, not all azimuthal correlations are collective in origin; these correlations, commonly referred to as ``non-flow'', may result from short-range correlations (like Bose-Einstein effects), resonance decays, Coulomb interactions, and jet correlations \cite{Voloshin:2008dg}. Therefore, for a correct interpretation of anisotropic flow measurements, one must understand the impact of event-by-event fluctuations and disentangle contributions from non-flow correlations. Various methods are available for the experimental estimate of the $v_{n}$ coefficients, which depend differently on both flow fluctuations and non-flow correlations \cite{Voloshin:2008dg}. Utilizing different correlation functions allows one to probe different moments of the $v_{n}$ distributions \cite{Heinz:2013th}. Two common methods for measuring the anisotropic flow are the event plane method and the cumulant method.
In the event plane method ($v_{n}$\{EP\}) \cite{Poskanzer:1998yz}, the flow is studied by first reconstructing a symmetry plane ($\Psi_{n}$) for the $n^{th}$ harmonic, which, for the second harmonic, is correlated with the (experimentally inaccessible) reaction plane ($\Psi_{RP}$, defined by the beam direction and impact parameter) \cite{Chatrchyan:2012ta}. The direction of the symmetry planes ($\Psi_{n}$) are determined using the $\phi$-asymmetry generated by the flow itself \cite{Muller:2012zq, Poskanzer:1998yz}. After a symmetry plane is determined, particle correlations may be formed with respect to it. Finite multiplicity in each event limits the estimation of the symmetry plane, therefore the flow coefficients ($v_{n}$) must be correctly scaled up by a resolution factor \cite{Poskanzer:1998yz, Voloshin:2008dg}. Short-range non-flow correlations can be highly suppressed by reconstructing the symmetry plane with particles separated by a large pseudorapidity gap from the particles of interest ($v_{n}$\{EP,$|\Delta\eta|>$2.0\}) \cite{Poskanzer:1998yz, Voloshin:2008dg, Chatrchyan:2012ta, Abelev:2012di}.
The cumulant method ($v_{n}$\{k\}) measures flow by utilizing a cumulant expansion of multiparticle azimuthal correlations \cite{Borghini:2000sa, PhysRevC.64.054901}. If particles are correlated with the symmetry plane orientation, there should exist correlations between them \cite{Chatrchyan:2012ta}. Anisotropic flow is a correlation among all particles in an event, whereas non-flow effects arise primarily from few-particle correlations \cite{Voloshin:2002wa}. Thus, non-flow effects may be suppressed by utilizing a cumulant expansion of multiparticle azimuthal correlations \cite{Borghini:2000sa, PhysRevC.64.054901}. In practice, measurements utilizing 4-particle correlations ($v_{n}$\{4\}) are shown to suppress non-flow contributions to a negligible level \cite{Collaboration:2011yba, Voloshin:2002wa}. We utilize the ``direct cumulants'' method outlined in \cite{Bilandzic:2010jr}. When using two-particle azimuthal correlations, the non-flow effects from short-range correlations can be suppressed by requiring a minimum pseudorapidity separation between correlated particles ($v_{n}$\{k,$|\Delta\eta|>\eta_{sep}$\}) \cite{Voloshin:2008dg}.
\subsubsection{Elliptic flow ($v_{2}$)}
The second anisotropic flow harmonic ($v_{2}$) is known as the elliptic flow, as this component describes a deviation from isotropic emission similar to an ellipse deviating from a circle. Our analysis differs from experiment in that we have direct access to the reaction plane ($\Psi_{RP}$), defined by the beam direction (z-axis) and impact parameter ($\vec{b}$). In our model, the coordinates are chosen such that the impact parameter always aligns with the x-axis. Therefore, the elliptic flow coefficient can also be measured with respect to the reaction plane ($v_{2}$\{RP\}) in the model as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{r}
\vspace{2mm}
v_{2} = \langle cos(2\phi) \rangle \\
\phi = tan^{-1}(\frac{p_{y}}{p_{x}})
\end{array}
\label{eqn5}
\end{equation}
where ``$\langle \rangle$'' implies a sum over particles in an event and a sum over events, $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ are the $x$ and $y$ components of the particle momentum, and the $x$-axis is in the direction of the impact parameter. Although this reaction plane method is simpler, we make a more direct comparison to ALICE data by utilizing the event plane and cumulants methods. Unless otherwise stated, anisotropic flow results are obtained using the event plane method with a minimum pseudorapidity gap of $\eta>$2.0 implemented.
Figure \ref{fig5} shows the model (with and without implementation of the squeeze procedure) $v_{2}$ vs. $p_{T}$ results for all hadrons at midrapidity for various centrality bins. For comparison, ALICE data \cite{Abelev:2012di} are shown for $v_{2}$ calculated using the event plane method with a pseudorapidity gap of $|\Delta\eta| >$ 2.0 implemented between particles used in the event plane reconstruction and those of interest. First, it is interesting to note that the squeeze procedure does not seem to affect the observed $v_{2}$ for $p_{T} \lesssim 1$ GeV/c. Additionally, the model generates too much elliptic flow at low $p_{T}$, when compared to the ALICE data. Furthermore, it is remarkable that the model describes the $p_{T}$ behavior of the experiment in which $v_{2}$ increases for low-$p_{T}$, flattens out, and decreases for $p_{T} >$ 3.0 GeV/c.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{JPhysG_f5All.eps}
\caption{Model $v_{2}$ vs. $p_{T}$ plots for all hadrons with $|\eta| < 0.8$ for various centrality bins. Shown are model results with (open circles) and without (open squares) the squeeze procedure implemented, along with ALICE measurements \cite{Abelev:2012di} performed with the event-plane method (closed circles).}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
Large values of elliptic flow are typically considered signatures of the hydrodynamic behavior of the system. However, the present model, which does not utilize a hydrodynamical description of the system, generates a large amount of flow. Furthermore, it was found \cite{Humanic:2010su} that the $v_{2}$ signal disappears when the rescattering is turned off in the model, indicating the model flow is due entirely to the hadronic rescattering.
It is interesting that this model, utilizing a purely hadronic picture, is able to generate such reasonable results. In our current understanding, we believe the system evolves from an initial hydrodynamic state composed of partons into the hadronic state with possible rescattering and finally freeze-out. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the collective effects imprinted in the observables are due to a combination of the hydrodynamic evolution and final-state hadronic rescattering. Furthermore, the transition from partonic to hadronic degrees of freedom is likely gradual in time, as opposed to a sudden hadronization scenario in a first-order phase transition. This implies a mixed-phase transition period, during which our simple hadronic rescattering picture could have some degree of validity. Even at the earliest times, when the degrees of freedom may be purely partonic, hadronic rescattering is possibly able to mimic to some degree the early hydrodynamic evolution of the system. Thus, the purely hadronic rescattering model might be thought of as mimicking a `viscous' hydrodynamic evolution of the system at these early times. Nonetheless, the current study must be considered as a limiting case picture.
We used a number of different methods to study the elliptic flow. A comparison of the results from these various methods is shown in Figure \ref{fig6}. We find, as expected, $v_{2}\{EP\} > v_{2}\{RP\}$ and $v_{2}\{EP\} > v_{2}\{4\}$. As the four-particle cumulant method reduces non-flow effects, the discrepancy between $v_{2}\{2\}$ and $v_{2}\{4\}$ is typically used to estimate the non-flow contributions in $v_{2}$ measurements. The difference between $v_{2}\{2\}$ and $v_{2}\{4\}$ in the model is not as large as that in the experimental data, demonstrating a smaller non-flow effect in the model than in experiment. This is not surprising, as there are no interactions in the model between boson pairs after freeze-out, and Bose-Einstein effects were not introduced here. Nonetheless, we still have a non-flow contribution from, for example, resonance decays and jet correlations.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{JPhysG_f6.eps}
\caption{Model $v_{2}$ vs. $p_{T}$ results obtained utilizing various methods for all hadrons with $|\eta| < 0.8$ in the centrality bin 30-40\%. Shown for comparison are ALICE data \cite{Abelev:2012di} measured with the four-particle cumulant method (closed circles) and with the event plane method (closed triangles).}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig7} demonstrates the effect on the elliptic flow of varying the model hadronization proper time. The figure shows $v_{2}$ vs. $p_{T}$ at midrapidity in a centrality window of 30-50\% for the three hadronization proper times $\tau=$ 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 fm/c. The variation of the short hadronization time does not much affect the $v_{2}$ signal at low-$p_{T}$ ($\lesssim 1$ GeV/c). At slightly higher values of $p_{T}$ ($\gtrsim 1$ GeV/c), the curves separate as expected, with the shortest hadronization proper time corresponding to the largest flow signal. Recall, in the model, a particle (``pre-hadron'') does not scatter until it has hadronized. Thus, increasing the hadronization proper time increases the average separation between hadrons at the initiation of rescattering, which decreases the amount of rescattering. As rescattering is responsible for the model $v_{2}$, this leads to a smaller signal.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{JPhysG_f7.eps}
\caption{Model $v_{2}$ vs. $p_{T}$ plots for all hadrons with $|\eta| < 0.8$ in the centrality bin 30-50\%. Shown are model results with three different hadronization proper times assumed: $\tau=$ 0.1 fm/c (circles), 0.2 fm/c (squares), and 0.3 fm/c (triangles).}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig8} compares the model to ALICE $v_{2}$ vs. $p_{T}$ for identified pions, kaons, and protons (nucleons in the model) at midrapidity for a centrality window of 30-40\%. For $p_{T} \lesssim 1.5$ GeV/c, the typical mass ordering of the particles is observed, with lower mass corresponding to a higher $v_{2}$ value at a given $p_{T}$. The model represents the data reasonably well, although at low-$p_{T}$ it slightly overestimates the $v_{2}$ signal for all particle species considered (which is not surprising, when considering Figure \ref{fig5}). More specifically, the low $p_{T}$ behavior is described well and quantitatively, while the high $p_{T}$ behavior is only described qualitatively. For all three species of particle, the model $v_{2}$ begins to flatten out at lower $p_{T}$ values than in experiment. The model pion $v_{2}$ matches the data well. Both the kaon and proton $v_{2}$ at high-$p_{T}$ are underestimated by the model. The model kaon $v_{2}$ appears more consistent with the experimental $K^{0}_{s}$ data than with the $K^{\pm}$ data.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=145mm]{JPhysG_f8bSP_K0Short.eps
\caption{Model $v_{2}$ vs. $p_{T}$ (open markers) for identified (a) pions, (b) kaons, and (c) protons (nucleons in the model) with $|\eta| \leq 0.8$ in the centrality bin 30-40\%. Shown for comparison are ALICE results \cite{Abelev:2014pua} (closed markers).}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig9} shows the data in Figure \ref{fig8} rescaled by the number of valence quarks in the identified particle ($n_{q}$), as $v_{2}/n_{q}$ vs. $p_{T}/n_{q}$. This is the so-called ``NCQ scaling'' of $v_{2}$ \cite{Molnar:2003ff}. If hadronization occurs via coalescence of constituent quarks, there should exist a region in $p_{T}$-space where NCQ scaling approximately holds \cite{Voloshin:2002wa, Molnar:2003ff}. Such a scaling is typically interpreted as reflecting a collectivity at the quark level, and suggests the system evolves through a phase of deconfined quarks and gluons \cite{Abelev:2014pua}. The model (without implementation of the squeeze procedure) has been shown to reproduce the apparent scaling observed at RHIC \cite{Humanic:2008nt}. The current study, with the model scaled to LHC energies, demonstrates a breaking of this apparent scaling, as observed in ALICE data (it appears the apparent scaling observed at RHIC is a coincidence \cite{Muller:2012zq}). The model is seen to follow the experimental data quantitatively for $p_{T}/n_{q} < 1$GeV/c, and qualitatively at a lower value for $p_{T}/n_{q} > 1$GeV/c.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{JPhysG_f9SPColor.eps} \caption{NCQ scaling of $v_{2}$, i.e. $v_{2}/n_{q}$ vs. $p_{T}/n_{q}$ for identified pions (circles), kaons (squares), and protons (nucleons in the model) (triangles) with $|\eta| \leq 0.8$ in the centrality bin 30-40\%. Shown for comparison are ALICE results \cite{Abelev:2014pua} (closed markers).}
\label{fig9}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Triangular Flow ($v_{3}$)}
The realization of the importance of initial state inhomogeneities and fluctuations has focused much of the recent attention on higher order (and specifically odd) anisotropic flow harmonics. The third harmonic, triangular flow ($v_{3}$), is driven entirely by fluctuations and lumpiness of the initial density profile. In general, higher order harmonics are more sensitive to a non-zero viscosity of the expanding system \cite{Muller:2012zq}. Higher order harmonics are difficult to study due to mode mixing between different order flow harmonics \cite{Heinz:2013th}; however, the triangular flow coefficient is largely free of this effect \cite{ALICE:2011ab}, and therefore serves as an ideal tool for studying both fluctuations and the shear viscosity of the produced system.
Our model produces inhomogeneous and fluctuating initial conditions, so it is natural for us to study the triangular flow. The model results compared to ALICE data \cite{ALICE:2011ab} for $v_{3}$ are shown in Figure \ref{fig10}. The triangular flow is analyzed using the scalar products method, which is similar to the event plane method. The purpose of using this method for $v_{3}$ is to match the method used in \cite{ALICE:2011ab}. The model reproduces the experimental data well for low-$p_{T}$, and appears to qualitatively describe the flattening $v_{3}$ signal at higher $p_{T}$. In summary, the past few figures have shown the model to overestimate the elliptic flow ($v_{2}$) and underestimate the triangular flow ($v_{3}$) at low $p_{T}$. This may be a consequence of our simple initial conditions.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{JPhysG_f10.eps} \caption{Model $v_{3}$ vs. $p_{T}$ for all hadrons with $|\eta| \leq 0.8$ in the centrality bin 30-40\%. Shown for comparison are ALICE data \cite{ALICE:2011ab}.}
\label{fig10}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-pion femtoscopy}
Due to the small size and short lifetime of the system produced in relativistic heavy ion collisions, direct measurements of times and positions is not possible. Instead, femtoscopy exploits two-particle correlations to help determine spatio-temporal characteristics of such collisions \cite{Lisa:2005dd}. To perform an experimental femtoscopic measurement, one must measure the two-particle coincident countrate along with the single-particle countrate for reference.
Figures \ref{fig11} and \ref{fig12:subfig} show results from the model for two-pion femtoscopy for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV $Pb+Pb$ collisions in the 0-5\% centrality range. To perform the calculation, first the three-dimensional two-boson correlation function is formed from the model data. Boson statistics are introduced into the model after the rescattering has finished using the standard method of pair-wise symmetrization of the bosons in a plane-wave approximation \cite{PhysRevC.34.191}. The experimental two-boson correlation function for bosons binned in momenta $\mathbf{k_{1}}$ and $\mathbf{k_{2}}$, $C(\mathbf{k_{1}},\mathbf{k_{2}})$, is constructed from the coincident countrate, $N_{2}(\mathbf{k_{1}},\mathbf{k_{2}})$ and the one-boson contrate, $N_{1}(\mathbf{k})$. However, it is convenient to express the six-dimensional $C(\mathbf{k_{1}},\mathbf{k_{2}})$ in terms of the three-vector momentum difference, $\mathbf{Q} = |\mathbf{k_{1}}-\mathbf{k_{2}}|$ by summing over momentum difference,
\begin{equation}
C(\mathbf{Q}) = \sum_{\mathbf{k_{1}},\mathbf{k_{2}}(\mathbf{Q})} \alpha(\mathbf{k_{1}},\mathbf{k_{2}})\frac{N_{2}(\mathbf{k_{1}},\mathbf{k_{2}})}{N_{1}(\mathbf{k_{1}})N_{1}(\mathbf{k_{2}})} = \epsilon(\mathbf{Q}) \frac{A(\mathbf{Q})}{B(\mathbf{Q})}
\label{eqn6}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\alpha(\mathbf{k_{1}},\mathbf{k_{2}})$ is a correction factor for non-HBT effects, $A(\mathbf{Q})$ represents the ``real'' coincident two-boson countrate, $B(\mathbf{Q})$ the ``background'' two-boson countrate composed of products of the one-boson countrates, and $\epsilon(\mathbf{Q})$ is the correction factor for non-HBT effects expressed in terms of $\mathbf{Q}$ \cite{Lisa:2005dd, Heinz:1999rw}. In practice, $B(\mathbf{Q})$ is the mixed event distribution, which is computed by taking single bosons from separate events \cite{Lisa:2005dd}. We utilize this procedure to match the experimental analyses. The pair-wise symmetrization of the pions to account for boson statistics is achieved by weighting the pairs in the coincident countrate by $|\Psi_{ij}|^{2} = b^{2}[1+cos(\Delta k^{\mu} \cdot \Delta r_{\mu})]$, where $\Psi$ is the symmetrized two-pion wave function, $\Delta k^{\mu}$ is the difference in the pair four-momenta ($\Delta k^{\mu} = k_{i}^{\mu}-k_{j}^{\mu}$), and $\Delta r^{\mu}$ is the difference in the pair space-time ($\Delta r^{\mu} = r_{i}^{\mu}-r_{j}^{\mu}$) \cite{Lisa:2005dd, PhysRevC.34.191}.
Since there are no interactions in the model between boson pairs after freeze-out (such as Coulomb or strong interactions), a simple Gaussian function in momentum-difference variables is fitted to Eq.(\ref{eqn6}), allowing the extraction of the boson source parameters which are compared with experiment \cite{Lisa:2005dd},
\begin{equation}
C(Q_{side},Q_{out},Q_{long}) = G[1+\lambda \cdot exp(-Q^{2}_{side}R^{2}_{side}-Q^{2}_{out}R^{2}_{out}-Q^{2}_{long}R^{2}_{long})]
\label{eqn7}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{Q}$ has been broken up into two transverse and one longitudinal components, the $R$-parameters (radius parameters) are associated with each momentum-difference variable, G is a normalization constant, and $\lambda$ is the usual empirical parameter added to help in the fitting of Eq.(\ref{eqn7}) (for a more complete discussion of the $\lambda$ parameter please see Reference \cite{Lisa:2005dd}). More specifically, $R_{out}$ points in the direction of the sum of the two boson momenta in the transverse plane, $R_{side}$ points perpendicular to $R_{out}$ in the transverse plane, and $R_{long}$ points in the longitudinal direction along the beam axis. Note, in the ``ideal HBT case'', $\lambda=1$. The fit is carried out in the conventional LCMS (longitudinally comoving system) in which the longitudinal boson pair momentum vanishes \cite{Lisa:2005dd}. Figure \ref{fig11} shows projections of the three-dimensional $\pi$-$\pi$ correlation functions for pairs satisfying $0.2<k_{T}<0.3$ GeV/c (corresponding to the first $k_{T}$ bin in Figure \ref{fig12:subfig}), where $k_{T}$ is the average pair transverse momentum ($k_{T} = |\vec{p}_{T,i}+\vec{p}_{T,j}|/2$).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=135mm]{JPhysG_f11.eps}
\caption{Sample three-dimensional $\pi$-$\pi$ correlation function from the model (points) with Gaussian fit (lines) projected onto the $Q_{out}$, $Q_{side}$, and $Q_{long}$ axes. The collision centrality is 0-5\% with (single-particle) cuts on the pions $|\eta| \leq 0.8$ and $0.1 < p_{T} < 1.0$ GeV/c, and a pair-cut $0.2<k_{T}<0.3$ GeV/c. This sample correlation function corresponds to the first $k_{T}$ bin in Figure \ref{fig12:subfig}. When projecting on one axis, the other two components were required to be less than or equal to 0.03 GeV/c.}
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$R_{out}$]{
\label{fig12:subfig:a}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{JPhysG_f12a.eps}}
\subfloat[$R_{side}$]{
\label{fig12:subfig:b}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{JPhysG_f12b.eps}}\\
\subfloat[$R_{long}$]{
\label{fig12:subfig:c}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{JPhysG_f12c.eps}}
\subfloat[$\lambda$]{
\label{fig12:subfig:d}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{JPhysG_f12d.eps}}
\caption{Model pion source parameters vs. $k_{T}$ for pions at midrapidity ($|\eta| \leq 0.8$) in the top 0-5\% central events. Shown are model results with three different hadronization proper times assumed: $\tau=$ 0.1 fm/c (open circles), 0.2 fm/c (open boxes), and 0.3 fm/c (open triangles). ALICE data \cite{Aamodt:2011mr} (closed circles) are shown for comparison. In the ALICE data, the error bars represent statistical errors while the error brackets represent the systematic errors. The horizontal lines in (d) represent the bounds for the $\lambda$-parameters found in \cite{Aamodt:2011mr}.}
\label{fig12:subfig}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig12:subfig}, ALICE data \cite{Aamodt:2011mr} are compared to model results assuming three different hadronization proper times: $\tau=$ 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 fm/c. In all cases, the model is shown to follow the general trend of the experiment of decreasing radius parameters for increasing $k_{T}$. We find that the squeeze procedure does not substantially affect any of our results. The model is seen to qualitatively fit the data well, although it overestimates $R_{out}$ while underestimating both $R_{side}$ and $R_{long}$. Note that the $\lambda$ parameters mostly all fall within the range $0.5<\lambda<0.7$ found in \cite{Aamodt:2011mr}. There are two main effects causing $\lambda<1$ in the model. The first is the presence of long-lived resonances such as $\eta$ and $\eta$' which decay into pions late in the collision, thus suppressing the correlation function. The second is due to the source deviating from a perfect Gaussian shape. Note, it was found \cite{Humanic:2010su} that turning off the rescattering in the model, or, similarly setting $\tau >>$ 0.3 fm/c, significantly reduces the HBT radius parameters and mostly eliminates their $k_{T}$ dependences. Therefore, rescattering also has a strong influence on the HBT parameters in this model. Additionally, as shown in Figure \ref{fig12:subfig}, the variation of the short hadronization times shown do not have a large effect on our results.
Figure \ref{fig13:subfig} shows the radii and $\lambda$ parameters for pion pairs satisfying $0.2 < k_{T} < 0.3$ GeV/c plotted as a function of the system size. To compare with the ALICE data \cite{Graczykowski:2014hoa}, we plot the parameters as functions of $<dN_{ch}/d\eta>$ instead of multiplicity or centrality. The model data, with decreasing $<dN_{ch}/d\eta>$, correspond to the centralities 0-5\%, 5-10\%, 10-20\%, 20-30\%, 30-40\%, 40-60\%, and 60-80\%, respectively. The model $<dN_{ch}/d\eta>$ has been approximated using the pseudorapidity distributions (see Figure \ref{fig1}). As shown in Figure \ref{fig13:subfig}, the model reproduces the expected increase in the radius parameters with increasing multiplicity, i.e. a strong, positive correlation with system size \cite{Lisa:2005dd}. Similar to Figure \ref{fig12:subfig}, the model describes the data well qualitatively. Furthermore, the model matches the $R_{out}$ data quantitatively, while it underestimates both $R_{side}$ and $R_{long}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfloat[$R_{out}$]{
\label{fig13:subfig:a}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{JPhysG_f13a_ALpre.eps}}
\subfloat[$R_{side}$]{
\label{fig13:subfig:b}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{JPhysG_f13b_ALpre.eps}}\\
\subfloat[$R_{long}$]{
\label{fig13:subfig:c}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{JPhysG_f13c_ALpre.eps}}
\subfloat[$\lambda$]{
\label{fig13:subfig:d}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{JPhysG_f13d_ALpre.eps}}
\caption{Model pion source parameters vs. $<dN_{ch}/d\eta>$ for pions satisfying $|\eta| \leq 0.8$ and $0.14<p_{T}<2.0$ GeV/c, and pairs satisfying $0.2 < k_{T} < 0.3$ GeV/c (to match the ALICE data \cite{Graczykowski:2014hoa}). Shown are model results with three different hadronization proper times assumed: $\tau=$ 0.1 fm/c (open circles), 0.2 fm/c (open boxes), and 0.3 fm/c (open triangles). Preliminary ALICE data points \cite{Graczykowski:2014hoa} (closed circles) are shown for comparison.}
\label{fig13:subfig}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
We employ a simple kinematic model based on the superposition of $p+p$ collisions, relativistic geometry, and final-state hadronic rescattering to calculate a number of hadronic observables in $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV $Pb+Pb$ collisions. The model calculations were compared with experimental data from several studies from the LHC. With the assumption of a short hadronization proper time ($\tau=0.1$ fm/c) in the model, we find that the model describes the trends of the experimental data surprisingly well, when considering its simplicity. More specifically, we find reasonable agreement with experimental data for spectra (pseudorapidity and transverse momentum distributions), anisotropic flow ($v_{2}$, $v_{2}/n_{q}$, and $v_{3}$), and two-pion femtoscopy.
We find much better agreement with experimental $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ data when implementing our new ``squeeze procedure''. The squeeze procedure shifts all particles (in a pseudorapidity dependent fashion) toward midrapidity, producing more stopping than in $p+p$ collisions, and aims to partially compensate for multiple interactions of primary nucleons before rescattering. While greatly enhancing the model agreement with experimental $dN_{ch}/d\eta$, we find that the squeeze procedure does not significantly affect the other studied observables. However, we focus our study on particles around midrapidity, and a study of the effects of the squeeze procedure away from midrapidity would be interesting.
The main strength of the present model is not a precise agreement for individual observables in a specific kinematic region, but rather its ability to give an overall qualitative description of a range of observables in a wide kinematic region. Another strength is the simplicity of the model. The superposed PYTHIA $p+p$ collisions provide all of the information about the initial kinematic state of the hadrons, and the only remaining ``active ingredient'' driving the kinematics underlying the hadronic observables shown is the final-state hadronic rescattering. Furthermore, the model may be easily scaled to various energies, and has been shown to reasonably reproduce hadronic observables for both $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV $Pb+Pb$ and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions. However, the cost of this simplicity is that we assume that either hadrons or ``hadron-like'' objects can exist in the earliest stage of the heavy-ion collision just after the two nuclei pass through each other. In other words, the hadronization proper time is assumed short and is insensitive to the environment from which a particle originates. We do not necessarily believe that hadrons exist at such an early stage, but it is interesting to study this limiting case scenario. It is interesting to ask why our model gives such reasonable results. The results presented suggest that our simple hadronic rescattering model is able mimic, to some degree, a 'viscous' hydrodynamic evolution of the system.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors wish to acknowledge financial support from the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant PHY-1307188, and to acknowledge computing support from the Ohio Supercomputing Center.
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{jphysg2}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
A special place among
few-body systems is reserved for the three-nucleon (3N) system, for which
a mathematically sound theoretical formulation in the form of Faddeev
equations exists, both for bound and scattering states.
Over the past few decades algorithms have been developed
to solve numerically three-nucleon Faddeev equations
for any dynamical input which, in addition to nucleon-nucleon (NN)
interactions, also involves
three-nucleon forces (3NFs) \cite{wit88,glo96,hub97}.
Using these algorithms and standard, (semi)phenomenological
nucleon-nucleon interactions alone or supplemented by three-nucleon
force model, numerous investigations of 3N bound states and reactions in
the 3N continuum have been carried out.
High precision nucleon-nucleon potentials such as the AV18~\cite{AV18},
CD~Bonn~\cite{CDBOnucleon-nucleon}, Nijm I and II~\cite{NIJMI} NN forces,
which provide a very good description of the nucleon-nucleon data up to
about 350 MeV, have been used.
They have also been combined with model 3N forces such as the $2\pi$-exchange
Tucson-Melbourne (TM99) 3NF \cite{TM99} or the Urbana IX model \cite{uIX}.
When realistic NN forces are used to predict binding energies
of three-nucleon systems they typically underestimate the experimental bindings
of $^3$H and $^3$He by about 0.5-1
MeV~\cite{Friar1993,Nogga1997}. This missing binding energy can be
corrected for by introducing a three-nucleon force into the nuclear
Hamiltonian~\cite{Nogga1997}.
Also the study of elastic nucleon-deuteron (Nd) scattering and nucleon
induced deuteron breakup revealed a number of cases where the
nonrelativistic description using only pairwise forces is insufficient
to explain the data. The best studied case at low energies is the
vector analyzing power in elastic Nd scattering for
which a large discrepancy exists in the region of its maximum around
c.m. angles $\theta_{c.m.} \sim 125^o$ and for incoming nucleon
energies below $\sim 20$~MeV \cite{glo96,wit01,kie_2001}.
For the elastic scattering angular
distribution at such energies, negligible effects of 3NF's have been
found and theory based on realistic NN forces agrees well
with the data \cite{glo96,wit01}.
That picture changes with increasing energy of the
Nd system.
Generally, the studied discrepancies between experiment and
theory using only NN potentials become
larger and adding a
three-nucleon force to the pairwise interactions leads in some cases
to a better description of the data. The elastic Nd
angular distribution in the region of its minimum and at backward
angles is the best known example~\cite{wit98,sek02}. The clear
discrepancy in these angular regions at energies up to
$E_{\rm lab, \, N}\sim 100$~MeV between a theory using only
NN potentials and the cross section data can be removed
by adding standard models of three-nucleon forces to the nuclear
Hamiltonian. Such 3NFs are adjusted for a given
NN potential to reproduce the experimentally observed binding energy of
$^3$H and $^3$He~\cite{wit98,wit01,sek02}. At energies higher than
$\sim 100$~MeV current 3NFs only partially improve
the description of cross section data and the remaining discrepancies,
which increase with energy, indicate the possibility of relativistic
effects. The need for a relativistic description of three-nucleon
scattering was realized when precise measurements of the total
cross section for neutron-deuteron (nd) scattering~\cite{abf98} were
analyzed within the framework of nonrelativistic Faddeev
calculations~\cite{wit99}. NN forces alone were
insufficient to describe the data above $\sim 100$~MeV. The
effects due to the relativistic kinematics considered in \cite{wit99}
at higher energies were comparable in magnitude
to the effects due to 3NFs.
These results provided further motivation to study
relativistic effects in the three nucleon continuum in a systematic way.
Subsequent studies of relativistic effects in the three-nucleon continuum
\cite{witrel1,witrel2,rel3nf,erratarel3nf} revealed,
that when the non-relativistic form of the kinetic energy is replaced
by the relativistic form and a proper treatment of the relativistic dynamics is
introduced, the elastic scattering cross section is only slightly
increased at backward angles and higher energies
while spin observables are practically unchanged.
These results led to the conclusion that
discrepancies between data and theory at higher energies
must reflect the action of 3NF's
which have to be included in the nuclear Hamiltonian.
The main drawback of all those studies was
inconsistency between
applied NN interactions and 3NFs.
With the advent of effective field theoretical methods in the form of
chiral perturbation theory, it became possible to construct consistent
two- and many-nucleon forces.
In this way an exciting possibility
to study few-nucleon
systems and their reactions with consistent two- and
many-nucleon interactions has emerged.
In \cite{epel2002}, the above mentioned inconsistency
was removed and low-energy 3N continuum were investigated
with chiral next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^2$LO)
NN and 3N forces. The NN interaction in that
order, however, does not describe the NN experimental phase-shifts in
a sufficiently wide energy range to allow application of those forces
at higher energies.
In \cite{epel_nn_n3lo,epel_mod,epel_ham_meis} and
\cite{mach_nn_n3lo,mach_phydrep},
precise two-nucleon potentials have been
developed at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^3$LO) of the chiral
expansion. They reproduce experimental NN phase-shifts
\cite{nijm_phase1,nijm_phase2} in a wide
energy range and practically with the same high precision as realistic
(semi)phenomenological NN potentials. The necessary work to derive the
consistent chiral 3NF's at N$^3$LO has been
accomplished in \cite{3nf_n3lo_long,3nf_n3lo_short}
and \cite{rob_ishi}. At that
order, six different topologies contribute to the 3NF. Three of them
are of a long- and intermediate-range \cite{3nf_n3lo_long}
and are given by two-pion (2$\pi$)
exchange, two-pion-one-pion (2$\pi$-1$\pi$) exchange
and the so-called ring diagrams. They are
supplemented by the shorter-range
$1\pi$-contact and three-nucleon-contact components, which appear
first at N$^2$LO, by the two-pion-exchange-contact (2$\pi$-contact)
term as well as by the leading relativistic corrections to the
three-nucleon force \cite{3nf_n3lo_short}.
The results of
Refs.~\cite{mach_nn_n3lo,epel_nn_n3lo,epel_mod,3nf_n3lo_long,3nf_n3lo_short}
enable one to perform, for the first time, consistent
calculations of three-nucleon reactions at N$^3$LO order of chiral
expansion. The 3NF at this
order does not involve any new unknown low-energy constants (LECs)
and depends only on two free parameters, $c_D$ and $c_E$, which parametrize the
strengths of the leading $1\pi$-contact and the
three-nucleon-contact terms.
Their values need to be fixed (at given order)
from a fit to a
few-nucleon data. Among the few possible observables that have been
used in this connection one can mention the triton binding energy, the
nd doublet scattering length $^2a_{nd}$ \cite{epel2002}, the
$^4$He binding energy \cite{kie_2010,navra_2007} along with the point
proton rms radius \cite{navr2007b}, the properties
of light nuclei, or the triton $\beta$ decay
rate~\cite{marcucci_beta}.
Notice that the
first three observables are known to be strongly correlated and
therefore might not be the best choice for the determination of
$c_D$ and $c_E$.
Application of N$^3$LO 3NF in few-body calculations is challenging due
to its very rich and complicated operator structure. The large number of
terms in the 3NF at N$^3$LO \cite{3nf_n3lo_long,3nf_n3lo_short}
requires an efficient method of
performing partial-wave decomposition. Recently such a method, which
runs under the name of automatized partial-wave decomposition (aPWD), was
proposed in \cite{apwd,apwd_a,apwd_a32a}. In that approach,
the matrix elements in the 3N momentum-space
partial wave basis for different terms
contributing to N$^3$LO 3NF are obtained in two consecutive steps.
First, the spin-momentum and isospin parts of three-nucleon
interactions are computed using symbolic algebra systems.
The resulting momentum-dependent functions are then
integrated numerically in five dimensions over angular variables. The
major advantage of this method is its generality since it can be applied
to any momentum-spin-isospin operator. Application of that method for
higher angular momenta requires large computer
resources. Therefore, in this first study of the 3N continuum with full
N$^3$LO chiral force, we restrict ourselves to low energies only. In
that region of incoming neutron laboratory (lab.) energies below $\sim 30$~MeV,
the most challenging observables are the nd elastic scattering
analyzing power and cross
sections in symmetric space star and neutron-neutron
quasi-free-scattering configurations of the nd breakup reaction. The
discrepancies between data and theory for these observables could not
be removed with standard NN and 3NFs \cite{din1}.
Our paper is organized as follows.
In Sec. \ref{nucl_ham} we describe our method to determine the
nuclear Hamiltonian by fixing the two parameters $c_D$ and $c_E$ in the
chiral N$^3$LO 3NF. This is achieved by first requiring
reproduction of the $^3$H binding energy which leads to pairs of
allowed ($c_D$, $c_E$)
values. Using the experimental data for an additional 3N observable,
which
in our case
is taken to be the doublet nd scattering length $^2a_{nd}$, fixes
completely the nuclear Hamiltonian at N$^3$LO.
Based on the resulting Hamiltonian, we discuss in Sec.~\ref{nd_elas}
some results for low-energy elastic
nd scattering observables while in Sec. \ref{nd_breakup}
the results for selected low-energy nd breakup configurations are presented.
We summarize and conclude in Sec. \ref{summary}.
\section{Determination of nuclear Hamiltonian at N$^3$LO}
\label{nucl_ham}
Neutron-deuteron scattering with neutrons and proton interacting
through a NN interaction $v_{NN}$ and a 3NF $V_{123}=V^{(1)}(1+P)$, is
described in terms of a breakup operator $T$ satisfying the
Faddeev-type integral equation~\cite{wit88,glo96,hub97}
\begin{eqnarray}
T\vert \phi \rangle &=& t P \vert \phi \rangle +
(1+tG_0)V^{(1)}(1+P)\vert \phi \rangle + t P G_0 T \vert \phi \rangle +
(1+tG_0)V^{(1)}(1+P)G_0T \vert \phi \rangle .
\label{eq1a}
\end{eqnarray}
The two-nucleon $t$-matrix $t$ is the solution of the
Lippmann-Schwinger equation with the interaction
$v_{NN}$. $V^{(1)}$ is the part of a 3NF which is
symmetric under the interchange of nucleons $2$ and $3$.
The permutation operator $P=P_{12}P_{23} +
P_{13}P_{23}$ is given in terms of the transposition operators,
$P_{ij}$, which interchange nucleons $i$ and $j$. The incoming state $
\vert \phi \rangle = \vert \mathbf{q}_0 \rangle \vert \phi_d \rangle $
describes the free nd motion with relative momentum
$\mathbf{q}_0$ and the deuteron state $\vert \phi_d \rangle$.
Finally, $G_0$ is the resolvent of the three-body center of mass kinetic
energy.
The amplitude for elastic scattering leading to the corresponding
two-body final state $\vert \phi ' \rangle$ is then given by~\cite{glo96,hub97}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \phi' \vert U \vert \phi \rangle &=& \langle \phi'
\vert PG_0^{-1} \vert
\phi \rangle +
\langle \phi' \vert PT \vert \phi \rangle + \langle
\phi'\vert V^{(1)}(1+P)\vert \phi \rangle
+ \langle \phi' \vert V^{(1)}(1+P)G_0T\vert \phi \rangle,
\label{eq3}
\end{eqnarray}
while for the breakup reaction one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \phi_0'\vert U_0 \vert \phi \rangle &=&\langle
\phi_0'\vert (1 + P)T\vert
\phi \rangle ,
\label{eq3_br}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vert \phi_0' \rangle$ is the free three-body breakup channel state.
The nuclear Hamiltonian at N$^3$LO of the chiral expansion is fixed
by specifying the
values of LECs $c_D$ and $c_E$ which parametrize the strengths of
the leading $1\pi$-contact and the three-nucleon-contact terms.
To determine them we follow the approach of Ref.~\cite{epel2002}
and use the experimental triton binding energy $E({^3H})$ and the
nd doublet scattering length $^2a_{nd}$ as two observables from which
$c_D$ and $c_E$ can be obtained. The procedure can be divided into two
steps. First, the dependence of $E({^3H})$ on $c_E$ for a given
value of $c_D$ is determined. The requirement to reproduce the
experimental value of the triton binding energy yields a set of
pairs $c_D$ and $c_E$. This set is then used in the
calculations of $^2a_{nd}$, which allows us to find the values of
$c_D$ and $c_E$ describing both observables simultaneously.
As already emphasized above, using the triton binding energy and the
nd doublet scattering length is probably not the optimal way to
fix the parameters in the 3NF due the strong correlation between these
two observables. We will discuss this issue in the next two sections
and present results obtained by relaxing the condition to reproduce
$^2a_{nd}$.
We compute the $^3$H wave function using the method described in
\cite{Nogga1997}, where the full triton wave function
$\vert \Psi \rangle = (1+P) \vert \psi \rangle$ is
given in terms of its Faddeev component $\psi$, which fulfills the Faddeev
equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\vert \psi \rangle = G_0tP\vert \psi \rangle
+ (1+G_0t)G_0V^{(1)}(1+P) \vert \psi \rangle .
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
The doublet scattering length $^2a_{nd}$ is calculated using
($c_D$,$c_E$) pairs, which reproduce the correct value of
$E({^3H})$. To this end, we solve the Faddeev equation (\ref{eq1a})
for the auxiliary state $ T \vert \phi \rangle $
at zero incoming energy \cite{zeroenergy}.
We refer to \cite{glo96,hub97,book} for a general overview of
3N scattering and for more details on the practical implementation of
the Faddeev equations.
In this first study, where the full N$^3$LO 3NF is applied,
we restrict ourselves to nd reactions at low energies,
$E_{\rm lab, \, n} < 20$ MeV.
At such low energies it is sufficient to include
NN force components with a total two-nucleon angular momenta $j \le 3$
in 3N partial-wave states with the total 3N system angular momentum
below $J \le 25/2$. For the 3NF it is sufficient
to incorporate its matrix elements with $j \le 3$ and $J \le 5/2$.
Here and in what follows, we employ the N$^3$LO chiral NN potential of
Ref.~\cite{epel_nn_n3lo,epel_mod}. From among five versions
corresponding to different sets of
cut-off parameters used to regularize the Lippmann-Schwinger equation
and in spectral function regularization, namely $(450,500)$~MeV,
$(450,700)$~MeV, $(550,600)$~MeV, $(600,500)$~MeV, and
$(600,700)$~MeV, we applied for the present study two N$^3$LO chiral
NN potentials with cut-off
sets $(450,500)$~MeV and $(450,700)$~MeV, denoted in the following by 201
and 204, respectively. Only for these two sets of cut-offs were we able to
determine the LECs $c_D$ and
$c_E$ using our procedure.
In Figs.~\ref{fig1}a and \ref{fig1}b, the sets of $(c_D,c_E)$ values
which reproduce the experimental binding energy of $^3$H are shown, while
in Figs.~\ref{fig1}c and \ref{fig1}d the resulting values of the
doublet nd scattering length $^2a_{nd}$ obtained with such
combinations of $(c_D,c_E)$ are visualized. In the case of the 201
N$^3$LO NN chiral potential a wide range of $c_D$ values have been
checked and the existence of a pole in the scattering length for
$c_D \approx -8$ found (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}c).
That pole-like behavior reflects the emergence of an excited state
for that particular 3N Hamiltonian.
The requirement to reproduce, in addition
to the binding energy of $^3$H, also the nd doublet
scattering length leads to the values $(c_D=13.78,c_E=0.372)$ for 201 and
to $(c_D=9.095,c_E=-0.0845)$ for 204 chiral N$^3$LO NN potential. In
the following section we discuss the ambiguities of such a determination of
$(c_D,c_E)$. The resulting $c_D$ values are unnaturally large. The
corresponding N$^2$LO values are natural and amount to
$(c_D=-0.14,c_E=-0.319)$ and $(c_D=2.43,c_E=0.113)$ for
$(450,500)$~MeV and $(450,700)$~MeV
cut-off sets, respectively.
It seems that such unnaturally large values of $c_D$
are not restricted only to the two cut-off sets used in the present study.
Namely in \cite{wit_jpg}
an application of N$^3$LO 3NF, however with relativistic $1/m$
corrections and short-range $2\pi$-contact term omitted, also led to
unnaturally large $c_D$ values for all five cut-off combinations.
We hope that new generations of chiral forces with
other regularization schemes will cure this
problem \cite{epelbaum_newchiral}. We also plan to use other 3N
observables, for example triton $\beta$-decay rate instead of
$^2a_{nd}$, to fix values of LECs $c_D$ and $c_E$.
\section{Low-energy elastic nd scattering}
\label{nd_elas}
At low energies of the incoming neutron,
the most interesting observable is the analyzing
power $A_y$ for nd elastic scattering with polarized neutrons.
Theoretical predictions of standard high-precision NN
potentials fail to explain the experimental data for $A_y$. The data are
underestimated
by $\sim 30 \%$ in the region of the $A_y$ maximum which occurs
at c.m. angles $\Theta_{c.m.} \sim 125 ^o$. Combining standard NN
potentials
with commonly used models of a 3NF, such as e.g.~the TM99 or Urbana IX models,
removes approximately only half of the discrepancy with respect to the
data (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}).
When instead of standard forces chiral NN interactions are used, the
predictions for $A_y$ vary with the order of chiral expansion
\cite{epel_nn_n3lo,epel_mod}. In particular, as reported in
Ref.~\cite{epel2002}, the NLO results overestimate the $A_y$ data
while N$^2$LO NN forces seem to provide quite a good
description of them (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}). Only when N$^3$LO NN chiral
forces are used,
a clear discrepancy between theory and data emerge in the region of $A_y$
maximum, which is similar to the one for standard forces. This is
visualized in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, where bands of predictions for
five versions of
the Bochum NLO, N$^2$LO and N$^3$LO potentials with different
cut-off parameters used for the Lippmann-Schwinger equation
and the spectral function
regularizations are shown \cite{epel_mod}).
Such behaviour of $A_y$ predictions at different orders in the chiral
expansion can be traced back to a high sensitivity
of $A_y$ to $^3P_j$ NN force components and to the fact, that only at N$^3$LO
of chiral expansion the experimental $^3P_j$ phases
\cite{nijm_phase1,nijm_phase2},
especially the $^3P_2$-$^3F_2$ ones, are properly
reproduced \cite{wit_jpg}.
It is interesting to study whether the consistent chiral N$^3$LO 3NF's
can explain the low-energy $A_y$-puzzle. In the present
investigation, we, for the first time
include \emph{all} contributions to N$^3$LO 3NF: long-range
contributions comprising $2\pi$-exchange, $2\pi-1\pi$-exchange, ring components
and relativistic 1/m corrections together with short range
$1\pi$-contact, three-nucleon-contact and
$2\pi$-contact terms.
In Fig.~\ref{fig3} we show by dashed-dotted (blue) line
the results for $A_y$ based on the values of the $c_E$ and $c_D$
parameters which reproduce the triton binding energy
and $^2a_{nd}$ scattering length.
It turns out that adding the full N$^3$LO 3NF does not improve
the description of $A_y$. On the contrary, adding the chiral N$^3$LO 3NF
lowers the maximum
of $A_y$ with respect to the chiral N$^3$LO NN prediction, shown by the solid
(red) line, thus,
increasing the discrepancy between the theory and the data.
In order to check the restrictiveness of the requirement to reproduce,
in addition to the $^3$H binding energy, also the
experimental value of $^2a_{nd}$, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig3} also a band
of predictions for ($c_E$, $c_D$) pairs from Fig.~\ref{fig1}a and \ref{fig1}b.
Even after relaxing the requirement to reproduce $^2a_{nd}$,
the $A_y$-puzzle cannot be explained by the N$^3$LO NN and 3NF.
It is interesting to see how different components of the N$^3$LO 3NF
contribute to $A_y$. Taking in addition to the NN N$^3$LO chiral force
only the $2\pi$-exchange term with leading $1\pi$-contact
and three-nucleon-contact terms (these three topologies appear for the
first time
at N$^2$LO) lowers the maximum of $A_y$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig4}, solid
(cyan) line). When, in addition, the short-range $2\pi$-contact component is
included, the value of $A_y$ practically remains unchanged (dashed-dotted
(magenta) line in Fig.~\ref{fig4}).
This shows that contributions of the $2\pi$-contact term are
negligible at those energies.
The long-range $2\pi-1\pi$-exchange and ring
terms lower significantly the maximum of $A_y$ (in Fig.~\ref{fig4} dotted
(maroon) and dashed (green) lines, respectively). Finally, inclusion
of the relativistic $1/m$ contribution leaves the maximum of $A_y$
practically unchanged (dashed-double-dotted (blue) line in Fig.~\ref{fig4}).
It should be pointed out that when taking into account the $1/m$
corrections to the N$^3$LO 3NF, one should also include the
corresponding relativistic corrections in the NN force and, in
addition, also relativistic corrections to the kinetic energy, which
are formally of the same importance. This would considerably
complicate the calculation. In our present work, we do not take into
account such corrections and employ the standard nonrelativistic
framework. This seems to be justified in view
of the low energies considered in this paper and the very small effects
caused by relativistic $1/m$ corrections to the 3NFs found in this
study. Last but not least, we emphasize that the contributions of the
individual 3NF topologies to the $A_y$ puzzle are not observable and
depend, in particular, on the regularization scheme and employed NN
forces.
It is important to address the question of uniqueness of our approach
to determine the constants $c_D$ and $c_E$. To this aim, we checked
how taking instead of $^2a_{nd}$
a different nd observable
would influence determination of
$c_D$ and $c_E$. The low-energy elastic nd scattering cross section
is an observable which seems to be reasonably well described by
standard theory \cite{calvin_nd}. In Fig.~\ref{fig5} we show (orange) bands of
predictions for the nd elastic scattering cross section at
$E_{\rm lab, \, n}=6.5$~MeV and $10$~MeV obtained with full N$^3$LO chiral force
with ($c_D$, $c_E$) values from Figs.~\ref{fig1}a and \ref{fig1}b which
reproduce only the experimental binding energy of $^3$H. These
bands are relatively narrow for version 204 and
angles ${\Theta}_{c.m.}> 130^{\circ}$
and start to become broader at smaller angles. At forward angles the
requirement that only the binding energy of $^3$H is reproduced leads to
a wide range of predictions for the cross section. The solid (red) lines
in Fig.~\ref{fig5} are predictions of the N$^3$LO chiral NN potential and the
dotted (maroon) lines show cross sections for the full N$^3$LO chiral
force with constants $c_D$ and $c_E$ fixed by requirement
that the doublet nd $^2a_{nd}$ scattering length is also reproduced.
For comparison to standard potential cross sections in
Fig.~\ref{fig5} also the CD~Bonn potential results are shown by
solid (blue) lines.
The backward angle nd elastic scattering cross section data are
properly described by standard, high precision NN potentials \cite{calvin_nd}.
To fix values of $c_D$ and $c_E$ it would be desirable to have
forward angle cross section data. Assuming that in
this angular region the data will be properly described by our
theory indicates that replacing $^2a_{nd}$ by cross section
would lead to
consistent $c_D$ and $c_E$ values in both approaches.
\section{Low-energy nd breakup}
\label{nd_breakup}
Among numerous kinematically complete configurations of the nd breakup
reaction the SST and QFS configurations have attracted special
attention.
The cross sections for these geometries
are very stable with respect to the underlying dynamics.
Different potentials, alone or combined
with standard 3NFs, lead to very similar results for the
cross sections \cite{din1} which deviate significantly from available
SST and neutron-neutron (nn) QFS data.
At low energies, the cross sections in the SST and QFS configurations are
dominated by the S-waves. For the SST configuration, the largest
contribution to the cross section comes from the $^3S_1$ partial
wave, while for the nn QFS
the $^1S_0$ partial wave dominates.
Neglecting rescattering, the QFS configuration resembles free NN
scattering. For free, low-energy neutron-proton (np) scattering one expects
contributions from $^1S_0$ np and $^3S_1$ force components. For free nn
scattering, only the $^1S_0$ nn channel is allowed. This suggests that
the nn QFS
is a powerful tool to study the nn interaction.
The measurement of np QFS cross sections have revealed good agreement
between the data and theory \cite{exqfs}, thus confirming the knowledge of
the np force.
For the nn QFS it was found that the theory underestimates the data by
$\sim 20\%$ \cite{exqfs}. The large
stability of the QFS cross sections
with respect to the underlying dynamics means that, assuming
correctness of the nn QFS data, the present day
$^1S_0$ nn interaction is probably incorrect \cite{din1,din2,din3}.
Also the chiral
N$^3$LO forces with all components of the 3NF included
are not an exception and cannot explain the discrepancy
between the theory
and data found for the SST configuration \cite{sst} (Fig.~\ref{fig6}).
The solid (black) line shows the cross section when only NN
chiral N$^3$LO force is active. Adding the full N$^3$LO 3NF with $c_D$ and
$c_E$ pairs reproducing the experimental binding energy of
$^3$H and nd doublet scattering length leads to
dashed-double-dotted (blue) line. At $13$~MeV, it lies only slightly
below the NN potential prediction indicating only small 3NF effects at
this energy.
It is interesting to see how the SST cross section depends on the
choice of parameters ($c_D$,$c_E$) which enter the N$^3$LO nuclear
Hamiltonian.
In Fig.~\ref{fig6}, the SST
cross sections at $E_{\rm lab, \, n}=13$~MeV are shown for a number
of $c_D$ and $c_E$ pairs which reproduce only the experimental binding
energy of $^3$H (taken from Fig.~\ref{fig1}a and \ref{fig1}b).
For the 201 N$^3$LO nuclear Hamiltonian (see Fig.~\ref{fig6}a)
decreasing the value of $c_D$
leads to big changes of
the SST cross section.
Starting from $c_D=13.78$, which reproduce also $^2a_{nd}$, and
decreasing it to $c_D=9$ leads to only small changes of the SST cross
sections. Further lowering of $c_D$ down to $c_D=-3$ reduces the
cross section
and the discrepancy to nd data at $13$~MeV is drastically
increased. If we continue to reduce the $c_D$ value the SST cross
section rises, however, it remains always below the pure NN prediction. For the
204 N$^3$LO nuclear Hamiltonian the changes of the SST cross section
are not so drastic and decrease of the $c_D$ reduces the cross
section (see Fig.~\ref{fig6}b).
Thus, in spite of the strong sensitivity of the SST cross sections to
values of $c_D$ and $c_E$, it is not possible to describe the
available experimental
data for the SST nd cross sections at $13$~MeV even allowing for
pairs of ($c_D$,$c_E$) which do not reproduce $^2a_{nd}$.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig7} the behaviour of the QFS cross section
is different from SST. This configuration also appears to be
sensitive to changes of
$c_D$ and $c_E$ values. Here, decreasing $c_D$ for the 201 N$^3$LO
nuclear Hamiltonian leads first to the increase
of the QFS cross section up to $c_D \sim -1.0$. Further lowering
the value
of $c_D$ reduces the QFS cross section (see Fig.~\ref{fig7}a).
For the 204 N$^3$LO
nuclear Hamiltonian decreasing $c_D$ leads to the increase
of the QFS cross section (see Fig.~\ref{fig7}b).
The values of $c_D$ and $c_E$
which reproduce the $^3$H binding energy and $^2a_{nd}$
lead only to a slight increase of the QFS cross
section with respect to the N$^3$LO
NN prediction and thus to small 3NF effects.
\section{Summary and outlook}
\label{summary}
Recent efforts towards the derivation and implementation of the
N$^3$LO 3NF allowed us, for the first time, to apply the full chiral
N$^3$LO Hamiltonian
to the low-energy nd elastic scattering
and breakup reactions. The nuclear Hamiltonian at that order of the chiral
expansion is unambiguously given after fixing the two constants $c_D$ and $c_E$
which determine the strengths of the $1\pi$-contact and
three-nucleon-contact components of the N$^3$LO chiral 3NF.
We determined these low-energy constants by requiring reproduction of
the binding energy of
$^3$H and the doublet nd scattering length $^2a_{nd}$.
We found indications that using low-energy
nd elastic scattering cross section instead of $^2a_{nd}$ would
probably lead to similar values of these parameters.
It turns out that applying the full N$^3$LO 3NF with specific cut-off
parameters used in this study cannot explain
the low-energy $A_y$-puzzle. Contrary to the 3NF effects found for $A_y$
with standard NN potentials combined with 3NF models such as TM99 or
Urbana IX, where the inclusion of the 3NF decreased the
discrepancy to data by about $\sim 50 \%$, the chiral N$^3$LO 3NF
combined with the NN potential of
Ref.~\cite{epel_nn_n3lo} lowers the maximum of $A_y$
increasing the discrepancy.
It should, however, be emphasized that the low-energy 3N $A_y$ is a fine-tuned
observable which is very sensitive to changes in $^3P_j$ NN force
components as well as to P-waves in the Nd system
\cite{hub1995,tor1998}. Thus, the disagreement with the data must be
interpreted with considerable caution.
Our result suggests the lack of some spin-isospin-momenta structures
in the N$^3$LO 3NF. However, possible inaccuracies in low-energy $^3P_j$ NN
phase-shifts cannot be excluded.
The 3NF derived in the standard formulation of
chiral perturbation theory
based on pions and nucleons as the only explicit degrees of freedom is
known to miss certain significant intermediate-range
contributions of the $\Delta$(1232) resonance at N$^3$LO,
which, to some extent, are accounted for only at N$^4$LO and higher
orders \cite{krebs1,krebs2}.
It would therefore be interesting, to apply the recently
derived N$^4$LO 3NF \cite{krebs1,krebs2} in calculations of nd
reactions together with subleading contributions to the
three-nucleon contact interactions \cite{girl_2011}. The
short-range 3N forces at N$^4$LO which contribute to Nd P-waves
may solve the $A_y$-puzzle in a trivial way.
We found that cross sections in kinematically complete SST and QFS nd
breakup configurations at low energies are quite sensitive to the
values of $c_D$ and $c_E$. For
their values fixed by the experimental
binding energy of $^3$H and $^2a_{nd}$
only small 3NF effects were found in these
configurations. Large discrepancies with the data remain in these
configurations.
For the SST geometry at $13$~MeV, there is a serious discrepancy
between theory and two independent nd data sets of
Refs.~\cite{sst,erlangen13b} as well as between theory and
proton-deuteron (pd) data of
Ref.~\cite{koln13}. While the nd data lie $\sim 20 \%$ above the
theory, the pd data lie $\sim 10 \%$ below theory and
$\sim 30 \%$ below nd data. Recent pd calculations with Coulomb
force included show practically negligible effects of the
proton-proton Coulomb force for this configuration \cite{deltuva}. The
observed large splitting between the nd and pd data indicates either
that there are large isospin-breaking effects or that the data are not
consistent.
Higher-energy nd reactions, in which clear evidence of large 3NF effects
was found, call for applications of the full N$^3$LO force.
Studies of the cut-off dependence of
N$^3$LO NN chiral interaction in higher-energy nd elastic scattering
revealed preference for larger cut-off values \cite{wit_jpg}. The use of
lower cut-offs would
preclude applications of N$^3$LO chiral dynamics in that interesting region
of energies.
It is important to address the issue of reducing finite-cutoff
artifacts and increasing the
accuracy of chiral nuclear forces prior to
applying the chiral N$^3$LO Hamiltonian
at higher energies.
In addition, one needs to explore different possibilities to
determine the
LECs entering the 3NF in view of the known strong correlations
between e.g.
the $^3$H and $^4$He binding energies and the nd doublet scattering
lengths, see
\cite{Gazit:2008ma} for a related discussion. Last but not least, more effort
should be invested into providing a reliable estimation of the
theoretical uncertainty
at a given order in the chiral expansion.
Work along these lines is in progress.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This study has been performed within Low Energy Nuclear Physics
International Collaboration (LENPIC) project and
was supported by the Polish National Science Center
under Grant No.DEC-2013/10/M/ST2/00420.
It was also supported in part
by the European Community-Research Infrastructure
Integrating Activity
``Exciting Physics Of Strong Interactions'' (acronym WP4 EPOS)
under the
Seventh Framework Programme of EU, the ERC project 259218
NUCLEAREFT, by the Foundation for Polish Science MPD program,
cofinanced by the European Union within the
Regional Development Fund, by the US Department of Energy under
Grant Nos. DESC0008485 (SciDAC/NUCLEI) and DE-FG02-87ER40371, by the
US National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHYS-0904782, and by
the ERC Grant No. 307986 STRONGINT.
The numerical calculations have been performed on the supercomputer
clusters of the JSC, J¨ulich, Germany, the Ohio Supercomputer Centre,
USA (Project PAS0680) and the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
(ALCF) at Argonne National Laboratory
(Resource Project: NucStructReact), where an award of computer time
was provided by the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on
Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program. This research used
resources of the ALCF, which is supported by the Office of Science of
the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357.
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figmay_newhi.eps}
\caption{Distribution of the selected fields, numbered as in Table \ref{tabfields}. The distribution is superimposed on the HI 21 cm brightness temperature map (\cite{kal05}) in the radial velocity interval -100 km/s $\leq v_{LSR} \leq$ 100 km/s. The map is in galactic coordinates, centered on $l=-60^{\circ}$.}
\label{stardistribution}%
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{star1wide.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{star1narrow.eps
\caption{Illustration of the NaI doublet/6614 \AA\ DIB global, multi-component analysis, here for the GES star 12574905-6458511 (field 3). The NaI region is shown at top panel and the DIB region at lower panel. The entire fitted spectral interval is shown at left, while the right figure displays enlarged the NaI-D2 region (top) and the DIB region (lower).
In each figure the red line shows the stellar spectrum (lower plot) and the fitting residuals (upper plot). The dotted lines are the models: stellar (orange), telluric (green), and interstellar components (blue) respectively. The thick blue line is the final adjustment. The radial velocities of the NaI and DIBs components are kept linked (see the black vertical line). Velocities are heliocentric.}
\label{globalanalysis}%
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Selected Fields with FLAMES Observations. Fields 1 to 5 are from GES. Fields 6 and 7 are part of the ESO program 079.B-0662.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tiny}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Field & GIR. & UVES & $l_c$ & $b_c$ & D$_{min}$ & D$_{max}$ & A0$_{min}$ & A0$_{max}$ & Ang. & Setting(s) & Studied \\
& targ. & targ. & ($^\circ$) & ($^\circ$) & (kpc) & (kpc) & mag & mag & size ($^\circ$) & & DIBs \\
\hline
1 COROT-ANTICENTER & 57 & 7 & 212.9 & -2.0 & 0.1 & 8.6 & 0.0 & 2.5 & 0.4 & UVES5800,HR15N,HR21 & 6283,6614,8620 \\
2 COROT CENTER & 105 & 5 & 37.5 & -7.0 & 0.1 & 16.1 & 0.0 & 2.1 & 0.3 & UVES5800,HR15N,HR21 & 6283,6614 \\
3 NGC4815 & & 13 & 303.6 & -2.1 & 0.9 & 5.0 & 1.0 & 2.5 & 0.1 & UVES5800 & 6283,6614 \\
4 $\gamma$ Vel & & 25 & 262.8 & -7.7 & 0.7 & 2.3 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.9 & UVES5800 & 6283,6614 \\
5 OGLE BUL\_SC45 & & 12 & 1.0 & -4.0 & 1.3 & 2.8 & 0.8 & 1.2 & 0.3 & UVES5800 & 6283,6614 \\ \hline
6 OGLE BUL\_SC24(O) & 99 & & 357.3 & -3.6 & 0.5 & 10.0 & 1.6 & 3.1 & 0.4 & HR13 & 6283 \\
7 OGLE BUL\_SC3,4(W) & 106 & & 0.1 & -2.1 & 0.7 & 9.6 & 0.7 & 2.7 & 0.4 & HR13 & 6283 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{tiny}
\end{center}
\label{tabfields}
\end{table*}
About 500 diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) have been detected in the optical domain between 4400 and 8600 {\AA} \citep{hobbs2008,2009ApJ...705...32H,mccall2013}, and their number in the infrared and ultra-violet windows is still growing \citep{joblin90,geballe11}. Identifying the carriers of those irregular features that appear in absorption in stellar spectra is a subject of active research for many years \citep[see reviews by][and references therein]{1995ARA&A..33...19H,sarre2006,2011ApJ...727...33F,camicoxiau}. A lot of effort has been put to extract the most precise information on the DIBs from high resolution, high signal stellar spectra and derive their various properties, in particular their fine structure and the way they react to the radiation field (see e.g. \citealt{JD94,krelo95,gala00,tuairisg00,cox2005,welty06,2009ApJ...705...32H,vos11}).
In those spectral studies, DIBs were extracted from hot (early-type) stars because of their smooth, easily fitted continuum. This introduces a limitation on the number of potential target stars that can be used to study DIBs. In the case of nearby stars, it favors highly variable conditions in irradiation and in subsequent DIB carrier destruction or ionization state changes (e.g. \citealt{vos11}).
Recently, progresses were shown on the extraction of DIBs from cool (late-type) star spectra, in particular a method using synthetic stellar model devised by \citet{chen13}. Such a technique has the advantage of enormously increasing the number of potential targets, probing average conditions in the interstellar medium (ISM) far away from the strong radiation field of UV stars, and simultaneously providing some feedback to improve both the synthetic stellar spectrum and the DIB detection (Monreal-ibero et al., in preparation). Other methods have been applied to cool stars, i.e., using comparisons with unreddened star spectra \citep{2013ApJ...778...86K}, or statistical methods based on principal component analysis (PCA) \citep{zasowski14}.
Independently of the search for their carriers, our goal here is to study how they can be used to trace the ISM at the Galactic scale, both its distribution and its kinematics (see previous works in this direction by \citealt{vanloon,vanloon14,zasowski14}). In particular, DIBs used as an interstellar (IS) tracer may potentially help to build 3D ISM maps by means of inversion methods, similar to the inversion of neutral sodium or extinction data \citep{vergely01,vergely010,2014A&A...561A..91L}. Thanks to the Gaia mission, launched 19 December 2013, parallax distances should become available for a huge number of Milky Way stars, allowing to build more accurate maps. One of the observational advantages of DIBs over gaseous lines is their spreading over a wide wavelength interval (from optical to IR), and, more important, the absence of saturation for distant or particularly opaque sight-lines.
Another strong advantage over the use of photometric extinction is the derivation of the kinematic information, i.e., the radial velocities of the IS clouds.
All of the individual IS clouds that are present along a line-of-sight (LOS) imprint a specific DIB absorption whose strength and Doppler shift reflect the IS matter content and cloud radial velocity, respectively. This is why measuring DIB equivalent widths in a single-component approach becomes inappropriate when the radial velocity interval that is spanned by all cloud projected motions is not negligible with respect to the DIB spectral width, i.e., it is not a valid technique for narrow DIB and/or distant sight-lines. However, the extraction of multi-component DIBs together with their kinematics has been rarely attempted. \cite{cox2005} used the convolution of a template DIB profile and the multi-component KI absorption profile, while \cite{cordiner08} (resp. \citealt{cordiner11}) fitted separately the Milky Way and M31 (resp. M33) DIBs using Gaussian profiles. Here, we present improved fitting methods allowing for multi-component of DIBs. The methods are fully automated. Automated here means that no intervention by the user is needed during the series of fitting that are launched in a unique run for a large number of spectra. More precisely, no spectral interval selection for continuum fitting is needed, and there is a total absence of manual "guesses" (most profile-fitting methods are only partly automated and require those "manual" steps). Each component has a pre-determined shape derived from high resolution spectra of hot nearby stars. The methods are suitable for any type of stars as long as their stellar parameters have been determined and their synthetic spectra can be computed.
We have applied these new fitting techniques to a series of spectra of cool target stars for which stellar atmospheric parameters and estimated distances have been determined spectroscopically.
Part of the data are from the Gaia-ESO Spectroscopic survey (GES) \citep{2012Msngr.147...25G}, a public spectroscopic survey that started in 2011 and that aims at recording VLT/FLAMES spectra of $\sim$ 100000 stars in our Galaxy down to magnitude 19, systematically covering all the major
components of the Milky Way and the selected open clusters. This survey will provide
a wealth of precise radial velocity and abundance determinations. The other data is part of an earlier program devoted to the study of the inner disk \citep{hill12,hill14}. Deducing properties of the ISM is a \textit{by-product} of these stellar-oriented programs.
Seven FLAMES fields were selected for being widely distributed in galactic longitudes, to probe very different interstellar cloud complexes, and close to the Plane, to ensure significant absorptions. They were chosen totally independently of the primary objectives (i.e. open cluster studies, bulge star properties, etc.., and of the target star properties themselves). We also gave priority to fields with targets widely distributed in distance.
Our goal is (i) to test our interstellar absorption fitting methods, (ii) to study the variation of the DIBs as a function of the distance along the LOS and show the potentiality of the DIBs for 3D mapping purposes, and (iii) to study the DIB-extinction relationship in different regions of the Milky Way (MW) disk.
Section 2 presents the data and some general properties of the selected DIBs. Section 3 describes the spectral analysis method for multi-component DIB extraction and illustrates its application. Section 4 describes the results and the observed DIB properties. In this section we compare the DIB equivalent widths with the estimated extinctions and draw LOS profiles of DIBs in the various directions. Section 5 discusses future improvements and the mapping potentialities.
\section{Data and choice of DIBs}
Of the seven fields, five fields are GES data.
We complemented the GES data with previously recorded spectra from two fields towards the bulge.
Along with one of the GES LOS, this allows comparisons between DIBs in directions that differ by a few degrees. Overall we tried to probe
a variety of cases to test our methods. All of the selected spectra are characterized by a good signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio, S/N $\gtrsim$ 50, which ensures good results.
Figure \ref{stardistribution} shows the distribution of the fields in the sky, superimposed on a HI 21cm emission map. The projections to the Plane are also shown in Fig \ref{gxmap}. All targets were observed with the FLAMES multi-object spectrograph at the VLT-UT2. We used both GIRAFFE ($R \simeq 17000$) and UVES ($R \simeq 47000$) observations \citep[see][for UVES]{2000SPIE.4008..534D}. The UVES spectra cover the 5822 to 6831 \AA\ spectral range which contains the \textit{classical} NaI (D2-D1 5889.9-5895.9 \AA) IS lines as well as some rather strong DIBs, such as the 6283.8 (hereafter called 6283) and 6613.6 (6614) \AA\ bands. Depending on the observed field, the GIRAFFE observations were made with the H665 (HR15N) setting (spectral range 6444-6816 \AA) which allows study of the 6614 \AA\ DIB at a lower resolution than UVES, and with the H875 (HR21) setting (spectral range 8475-8982 \AA) which includes the 8620.4 (8620) \AA\ DIB (informally known as the \textit{Gaia} DIB, since it is contained in the spectral interval of the Radial Velocity Spectrometer (RVS) on board the satellite). The additional inner disk bulge data was observed with GIRAFFE H13 setting (spectral range 6170-6309 \AA).
The GES UVES and GIRAFFE reduced spectra are issued from the dedicated pipeline \citep{sacco}, while the two OGLE field spectra were reduced by means of using our dedicated GIRAFFE tool based on the ESO pipeline.
Table \ref{tabfields} lists the selected fields, the number of targets in each field, the field center coordinates, the observing modes, and the whole range of estimated stellar distances and extinctions (see the next section). The full list of target stars along with their coordinates, estimated extinction and distances can be found in the online Appendix. There are 429 target stars, from which about half (224) have been observed as part of GES. A majority of those GES target stars are within the GES-CoRoT (COnvection ROtation et Transits plan\'etaires) fields (172 stars).
We focus on the 6614 and 6283 \AA\ DIBs that are strong enough to ensure a detection in most targets. When recorded, we also analyzed the shallower 8620 \AA\ DIB.
The 6614 \AA\ DIB
is a widely studied, strong and narrow DIB and has a good correlation with E(B-V) \citep[see][etc]{sonnentrucker97,2011ApJ...727...33F,vos11,2013A&A...555A..25P,2013ApJ...774...72K}.
The broader 6283 \AA\ DIB is
is a strong, broad DIB that was also widely studied and is known for being significantly influenced by the radiation field (\citealt{vos11}). The 8620 \AA\ DIB
is rather weak band that has been recently studied as part of the RAVE spectroscopic Survey \citep[see][]{2008A&A...488..969M, 2013ApJ...778...86K} and is of particular interest in the frame of Gaia. It seems to be quite well correlated with the reddening, although the number of studies is still limited.
\section{Data analysis}
\subsection{Description of the fitting method}
The principles of the fitting method are essentially the same as in \cite{chen13},
the main difference being that we allow here for multi-component DIBs, and subsequently extract kinematic information.
As the length of LOS increases, differences in cloud radial velocities may become comparable or larger than the DIB width, making the use of a multi-component fit necessary.
We model the observed spectrum as the product of a synthetic stellar spectrum ($S_{\lambda}$), a synthetic telluric transmission ($T_{\lambda}$), and a DIB model that is itself the product of several DIB profiles, each one representing one absorbing cloud complex. When the telluric absorption is very weak or negligible, $T_\lambda \simeq 1$. Finally, to take into account the local slope of the unnormalized spectrum, we allow for a continuum that is simply represented by a linear polynomial with A and B as the coefficients. This appears to be sufficient for our limited wavelength interval around each DIB. The model spectrum ($M$) can be therefore written as,
\begin{eqnarray}
M(_{\lambda})= S_{\lambda} [V_{star}] \hspace{0.2cm}\times\hspace{0.2cm} T_{\lambda} [V_{tell}]^{\alpha_{tell}} \hspace{0.1cm}\times\nonumber \\
\hspace{0.4cm} \Pi^{i}(DIB^{i}_{\lambda} \hspace{0.05cm}[vel^{i}]^{\hspace{0.05cm}\alpha^{i}})
\hspace{0.2cm} \times\hspace{0.2cm} ([A]+[B]\times\lambda) \hspace{0.2cm}.
\end{eqnarray}
$V_{star}$ is the stellar radial velocity, $V_{tell}$ is the Earth's motion, and $vel^i$ is the interstellar cloud radial velocity. These various terms are detailed below, as well as the coefficients $\alpha_{tell}$ and $\alpha_{i}$.
The computation of the stellar model $S_{\lambda}$ requires the preliminary knowledge of the stellar parameters. For each of our target stars, the effective temperature, gravity, metallicity, and micro-turbulence have been previously determined: (i) for the GES targets we use the
stellar parameters jointly determined by the GES team members \citep{smiljanic14,recioblanco14,Lanz2014}; (ii) for the additional archival data, see \citet{hill12}. Based on the stellar parameters, a synthetic stellar model was computed for each target star using an ATLAS 9 model atmosphere and the SYNTHE suite \citep{2005MSAIS...8...14K,sbo2004,sbo2005}. In the case of GES targets, this may yield a synthetic spectrum which is not exactly the same as the one of the synthetic spectral library used in GES. Similarly, inner disk spectra may be slightly different from those used in the first analysis.
However, in both cases the differences should be too small to influence the determinations of the DIBs, see section 5.
The synthetic telluric transmissions $T_{\lambda}$ were computed by means of the LBLRTM code (Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model, \citealt{lblrtm05}), using the molecular database HITRAN (HIgh-resolution TRANsmission molecular absorption \citep{hitran2008}. This telluric transmission model is available online in TAPAS web-based service \citep{tapas}. Telluric lines are strong in the 6283 \AA\ spectral region and negligible for the 6614 \AA\ band. We make use of the same telluric models for the derivation of the fitting of neutral sodium lines. The coefficient $\alpha_{tell}$ is proportional to the optical depth of the telluric lines.
The models for the 6614 and 6283 \AA\ bands are empirical profiles that have been previously determined from high signal to noise spectra of nearby stars \citep{2013A&A...555A..25P}.
Since the laboratory wavelengths for the DIBs are currently unknown and their profiles are irregular, the choice of rest wavelengths that correspond to a null Doppler shift of the absorbing matter is somewhat arbitrary. Throughout this work, we use, for these first two DIBs, the wavelength values derived by \cite{hobbs2008} who cross-calibrated the DIB profiles and interstellar KI absorption lines. We assumed that the rest wavelength corresponds to the deepest point in the profile. Because our model profiles may slightly differ from the \cite{hobbs2008} profiles, a small offset may exist between the rest wavelengths, of the order of few km/s, that we neglect here. On the other hand, it is well established that the 6614 \AA\ DIB has substructures, and that these substructures may slightly vary from one LOS to the other \citep{2002A&A...384..215G}. This results in small changes of the overall profile. In our case, the GIRAFFE and UVES spectral resolutions do not allow these subtle changes to be distinguished. We ignore the profile variability to simplify the modeling. For at least the 6614 \AA\ DIB, it has been shown that in very rare, extreme conditions for the radiation field, the DIB profile may evolve and be characterized by a redward wing \citep{oka13}. We neglect this possibility here, a reasonable assumption since our LOS do not target
particular strong infrared sources.
The model for the 8620 \AA\ DIB is also an empirical model, obtained by averaging DIB profiles from several spectra based on the \cite{chen13} data analysis. For this band the rest wavelength is chosen to be the one defined by \cite{2008A&A...488..969M}.
The three empirical DIB profiles are defined over the $\lambda\lambda$ 6609-6619 \AA, 6263-6303 \AA, and 8612-8628 \AA\ intervals respectively. Finally, $\alpha_{i}$ is an adjustable coefficient that is the ratio between the optical depth of the absorber that produces the DIB and the optical depth of reference.
The fitting procedure adjusts to the data the convolution of the above product by the instrumental function, here represented by a Gaussian ($G$). During the adjustment of the composite stellar-DIB-telluric model, we allow Doppler shifting of the stellar model by a free quantity $V_{star}$ to take into account the stellar radial velocity, of the telluric transmission model by a free quantity $V_{tell}$ to take into account the Earth's motion, and of the DIB profile $i$ by a radial velocity $vel^{i}$ to take into account the ISM kinematics. We could evidently use the star radial velocity that comes out from the stellar spectrum analysis and is derived over a much wider wavelength range, and we could also make use of the telluric information linked to the observing conditions. However,
a cross-correlation operation has been actually integrated in our code to make a first estimate of these offset values which is convenient for handling any spectroscopic dat
, and allow for their fine tuning during the adjustment.
Our derived values actually conform to the expected ones. We allow for changes of the $\alpha_{tell}$ parameter and $\alpha^{i}$ to adjust the telluric lines and DIB strength, respectively.
The DIB equivalent width (EW) is derived in two different ways:
(i) by using the best fit DIB strength $\alpha^{i}$ and the equivalent width of the DIB model, which provides a first result we refer to as the fitted EW ($EW_f$), or (ii) by measuring the true area of the absorption band with respect to the continuum, which provides a second result that is independent of the DIB model and we name the continuum-integrated EW (EW$_{ci})$. The $EW_{ci}$ is obtained after subtraction of the other components (stellar and telluric lines) in the normalized spectrum.
In the multiple component case, the EW for each absorbing cloud can be independently derived using the $EW_f$ method. The total of intervening matter corresponds to the sum of the fitted EWs from each DIB component. In contrast, the $EW_{ci}$ method does not detect the individual components, but only measure the total absorption.
The spectral interval used for the computation of the DIB EW is the same as the one of \cite{2011ApJ...727...33F}, or in the case of 8620 \AA\ DIB is taken from - 7 to +7 \AA\ from the DIB center.
In principle, sky emission lines disappear after background subtraction, however there are potential residuals. The spectral ranges we consider here for the DIB extraction are free of
strong sky emission lines, e.g. OI at 6300 \AA\ does not overlap with the 6283 \AA\ DIB. There is an exception in the case of the red wing of the 8620 \AA\ DIB where emission line residuals may influence the DIB fitting (see next sections). Similarly, there may be a presence of features within strong stellar lines which are not accounted-for by stellar atmosphere models, e.g. circum-stellar H alpha
emissions or interstellar permitted and forbidden emissions, but they do not overlap with our selected DIBs.
\subsection{Fitting strategies and examples of adjustments}
For all multi-component adjustments, it is necessary to start with initial parameters that are as close as possible to the actual solutions, in order to avoid secondary minima and in order to converge more rapidly toward the final solution. Here, the initial guesses for the number of required velocity components, their radial velocities and strengths come either from interstellar NaI lines as in the case of UVES spectra, or, in the absence of any absorption line, from a simplified decomposition of the HI emission spectrum, taken from the spectral HI cube in the direction of the target star as in the case of GIRAFFE spectra. Prior to the use of those guesses we performed profile-fitting tests without any such initial parameters, and compared with the subsequent results. We did not find any negative influence of the guesses such as biases towards a non realistic solution, instead we always found the expected positive effects of fast convergence towards the primary minimum.
\subsubsection{Use of the NaI absorption lines}
In the case of the NaI lines, they are not only used as sources of the first \textit{guesses} of the cloud parameters, but they also enter in the global analysis of lines and DIBs, which means that they are simultaneously measured together with the DIB components. Their radial velocities are linked to remain identical throughout the adjustment, component by component. Such a method is justified by the fact that any NaI line must have a (strong or weak) DIB counterpart. From the previous observations, we know that all of the detected DIBs were found to be associated with strong neutral sodium lines. There may be a small Doppler shift between the DIB and interstellar NaI line center due to the preferential presence of the DIBs carriers in a particular phase, e.g. at the cloud periphery or in the core. However, those shifts remain small compared with the DIB widths and we will neglect this effect. On the other hand, such a global fitting method is particularly tractable here because the determination of the initial guesses for the parameters can be quite precise, especially if the interstellar lines used are not saturated.
The automated global analysis procedure is developed in the frame of the \cite{igor} software and environment which allows to fit multiple data sets simultaneously while linking some of their parameters. Initial guess values for the radial velocities of the interstellar NaI components are preliminarily determined from the observed spectrum on the basis of the main absorption peaks.
The sodium lines are modeled by Voigt profiles with three free parameters: opacity, radial velocity, and apparent temperature. In normal, realistic profile fitting of NaI lines, the apparent temperature (combination of thermal broadening and turbulence) is constrained to be $T < 10000$K, since NaI is negligible in warmer gas. However, here we are interested only in the first order kinematics, and neither the actual number of clouds nor the NaI columns need to be known in details.
This is why, in order to avoid having too many interstellar components, we extend the line broadening and allow for a significantly higher apparent temperature ($T < 100000$K). In turn, we list EWs only, and omit NaI column densities that are too imprecise. Figure \ref{globalanalysis} shows an illustration of the global analysis of the NaI- D2/D1 lines and the 6614 \AA\ DIB. In all cases the fitting results reveal a good agreement between the DIB/NaI radial velocities and the main HI 21 cm velocities. Figure \ref{globalanalysis2} is a similar illustration for the 6283 \AA\ DIB.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip=true,width=0.9\linewidth]{star12574905_1e+05_smooth8_maskspectra16283.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{globalanalysis} (except for the enlarged figure) for the 6283 \AA\ DIB.}
\label{globalanalysis2}%
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Use of the HI 21 cm emission profiles}
In the second case, i.e. when no NaI lines are available and instead HI emission spectra \citep{kal05} are used, the fitting scheme is different. Since the HI emission spectrum represents the totality of the IS clouds, both in front of and beyond the target star, a global analysis based on all main HI components is inappropriate.
The HI emission spectrum is therefore used to construct a table of velocity guesses
($v_{r_{HI}}$)
and provide upper and lower limits to the velocity range. Then, the DIBs are fitted independently of the actual HI measurement, using a hierarchical sequence of velocity prior values described below. Another significant difference in this second case is that the initial values of the cloud Doppler shifts are much less precise than in the case of sodium lines, and the cloud velocity profiles strongly overlap (for the same gas temperature the Doppler width is about 5 times wider than for sodium). Finally, the HI map has a spatial resolution of $\sim 0.6^\circ$, larger than the FLAMES field-of-view.
Still,
the emission spectra give an appropriate starting point for the fitting and initial parameters of the interstellar cloud components.
However, the 6614 and 8620 \AA\ DIBs have very different widths and only the 6614 \AA\ DIB is narrow enough that multi-components with velocity differences on the order of 10 km/s or more can be distinguished in an automated way. Figure \ref{multiDIB} shows an example of such a fitting of this DIB based on the HI initial guesses. The first adjustment involves a single component $v_{r_{HI}}$ and uses as a guess the smallest absolute value of the HI velocities, that in all cases corresponds to local gas. When the single-component velocity derived from the fit is significantly different from $v_{r_{HI}}$, the second velocity component from the $v_{r_{HI}}$ table is included and a fit with those two prior
values is performed, and so on. Using two components gives a significantly better fit, see the red part of the DIB.
The very broad 8620 \AA\ band does not react with enough sensitivity to changes on the order of 10-20 km/s for guiding the fit to multi-velocity solutions, at least for our present dataset. Moreover, many spectra are contaminated
by sky emission residuals which make the fitting even more difficult. For those reasons and after several negative tests we have chosen to keep the mono-cloud procedur
, i.e. we consider only the first step (see Fig. \ref{multiDIB8620}) and the prior is the velocity that corresponds to the smallest absolute value (the local value). Still, the derivation of the DIB EW is made with a rather good precision, as tests made with one or more components have shown, again due to the large width of this absorption band. Exceptionally, we use the velocity results from the 6614 \AA\ DIB fitting as the initial guesses of the 8620 \AA\ DIB fitting to avoid the artificial effects of the sky emission contamination.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{initialguessHI.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{star2583_665syntstar2583_v0range655666_665nomaskonediffcons}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{star2583_665syntstar2583_v0range655666_665nomaskmultidiffcons}
\caption{Illustration of the multi-component 6614 \AA\ DIB fitting: GIRAFFE field 1, GES target 06441034-0048254. The red line shows the stellar spectrum. The dotted lines are the models: stellar (orange), telluric (green), empirical DIBs (grey). The thick blue line is the optimal model adjustment. The initial guesses for the DIB velocity centroids are 24, 40, 50 km/s and based on the HI spectrum in the same direction (see top plot).
\textit{Middle:} an example of a preliminary adjustment with a unique DIB component. The DIB velocity is found to be $\sim$ 33 km/s. The large difference from the initial guess (24 km/s) demonstrates the need for the introduction of a second cloud component. \textit{Bottom:} an example of a subsequent adjustment with two DIB components. The two fitted velocities are now close to the first two HI emission peaks.}
\label{multiDIB}%
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth
{star2583_875syntstar2583_v0range857867_875_300414.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{multiDIB} (middle), but for 8620 \AA\ (GES target 06441034-0048254). We remark sky residuals in the red wing of DIB. For this broad DIB a single velocity component is used (see text).}
\label{multiDIB8620}%
\end{figure}
\subsection{Derivation of the DIB equivalent width and error estimate}
As previously discussed, the DIB EW can be derived using two different ways: the EW$_f$ and the EW$_{ci}$. The
results and figures that are presented in this article all correspond to the first method. As already said it allows for the distribution into separate components, but it has also the additional advantage of being less influenced by the potential errors in the computed stellar lines.
The reason why both EWs are computed in each case is that their comparisons acts as a flag for the quality of the fit and reveals bad quality spectra. For all data we present the two EWs are found to agree within the observational and model uncertainties.
The errors on the EW have three distinct sources: errors on the stellar continuum determination, statistical noise, and errors on the stellar model:
$\sigma^2=\sigma_{cont}^2+\sigma_{S/N}^2+\sigma_{stellar}^2$.
The error on the stellar continuum placement is mainly linked to the statistical noise and both errors are estimated in a joined manner. In order to obtain a first, global estimate of those combined errors, we performed a preliminary study
that is a series of simulations with varying random noise.
For each simulation, we fitted the DIB and then compared all resulting EWs. For a random noise representative of the typical S/N of the spectra (S/N$\simeq$100),
we obtained a typical relative error of about 5\% on the EW (more specifically a deviation of $\sim$ 5 m\AA\ when the EW is 100 m\AA). This gives an
estimate of the contribution of the first two errors.
Regarding the third error linked to the stellar model, we already know that
the data-model residuals are larger than average for some specific stellar lines and depend mainly on the stellar effective temperature and metallicity \citep[see][]{chen13}.
Figures \ref{residual} and Fig. \ref{residual2} in the Appendix show the stacked residual of the DIB fitting for the 6614 \AA\ and 8620 \AA\ bands for $\sim 160$ GIRAFFE stars, and examples of dependence on the star effective temperature. To study the order of magnitude of the contribution of the stellar model to the error, we extracted %
all of the residuals, and estimated their maximum level at the center of the DIB. This corresponds to the most contaminated cases for which the stellar line falls close to the DIB center. Then we performed again a random noise simulation with this new variance instead of the measurement noise, and we obtained a new error estimation on the order of 13 \% and 15\% respectively for the two DIBs. We estimate that this gives us a realistic estimate of the maximum total error from the three sources.
Although our final estimate for individual spectra will be based on another method, described below,
this range for the errors linked to the signal and the model illustrates the gain in precision we can expect in future by improving the stellar model.
Applying the above method to each of individual targets would be too time consuming. Instead, we use a different approximation. For the first two errors, we use the following formulation, $\sigma_{S/N+cont}=\sigma_{S/N} \times \frac{\Delta\lambda}{\sqrt(N)}$; $\Delta \lambda$ is width of DIB and $N$ is number of points/pixels covering this width. The signal to noise ratio is estimated for each spectrum based on a linear fit in a clean area. Secondly, to obtain the third error, $\sigma_{stellar}$, we performed two consecutive fits without, then with
masking of the strong stellar lines that fall in the DIB interval. The number of masked lines depends on the DIB and on the stellar radial velocity (it varies between one and three lines).
The difference between the two calculated EWs (when stellar lines are not masked and when they are masked) gives us an estimate of $\sigma_{stellar}$, $\sigma_{stellar}=\Delta EW_f = EW_f - EW_{f masked}$. Finally the total error is
$\sigma^2 = \sigma_{S/N+cont}^2 + \sigma_{stellar}^2 $. This method gives errors that are in agreement with those from the preliminary study described above.
For the 8620 \AA\ DIB, we have an additional complication because the right wing of the DIB region is sometime contaminated by sky emission residual $\sigma_{sky}$. Correcting for this emission is beyond the scope of this work, and estimating its effects can not be done in the same way as for the two other DIBs
because the contamination results in a "bumpy" feature which changes the absorption shape and produces a non realistic runaway shift from the true DIB radial velocity.
Instead, we calculated the error as the sum of four terms: $\sigma^2=\sigma_{cont}^2+\sigma_{S/N}^2+\sigma_{stellar}^2+\sigma_{sky}^2$. The term $\sigma_{sky}$ is obtained by calculating the variance in the region of sky contamination and multiplying by the full width half maximum (FWHM) of the DIB profile. We plan to incorporate in future the pixel-by-pixel estimated uncertainties provided by the pipeline.
\subsection{Distance and reddening estimates}
To estimate the distance and extinction of the GES data, we used the 2D Bayesian method described in \cite{Babusiaux14} \citep[see also][]{2010MNRAS.407..339B}. All our targets have 2MASS NIR photometry \citep{Cutri03} as well as V magnitude from different sources: OGLE-II photometry \citet{Udalski02} for the bulge directions, \citet{Deleuil09} for the CoRoT fields, and \citet{Bragaglia14} for the open clusters. We will use here the V-K colour which is more sensitive to the extinction than the J-K colour used in \citet{Babusiaux14}.
We used the \cite{Bressan12} isochrones (Parsec 1.1) with a step of 0.05 in log(Age) between [6.6, 10.13] and a step of 0.05 dex in [M/H] between [$-2.15$, 0.5]. Each isochrone point $i$, corresponding to a metallicity [M/H]$_i$, age $\tau_i$ and mass $\mathcal{M}_i$, has a weight associated to it $P(i)$ according to the Initial Mass Function (IMF) $\xi(\mathcal{M})$ and Star Formation Rate (SFR) $\psi (\tau)$. We used here the \cite{Chabrier01} lognormal IMF (integrated over the mass interval between isochrone points) and a constant SFR (considering that we have a grid sampled in logAge this means that the SFR associated weight is proportional to the age), and we did not introduce any age-metallicity correlation.
We computed the probability of a star with the observed parameters $\tilde{O}$ ($\widetilde{{\mathrm{T_{eff}}}}$,$\widetilde{\log g}$,$\widetilde{{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}$,$\tilde{V}$,$\tilde{K}$) to have the physical parameters of the isochrone point $i$ (${\mathrm{T_{eff}}}_i$,$\log g_i$,${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}_i$, $\tau_i$, $\mathcal{M}_i$, $V_i^0$, $K_i^0$),
\begin{equation}
P(i|\tilde{O}) \propto P(\tilde{O}|i) P(i).
\end{equation}
To compute $P(\tilde{O}|i)$, we assume Gaussian ($\mathcal{N}$) observational errors $\epsilon_O$ on the atmospheric parameters and the magnitudes.
Assuming a distance $d$ and an extinction $A_{0}$ for the isochrone point $i$, we have
\begin{equation}
P(\tilde{O}|i,d,A_{0}) \propto \prod_O \mathcal{N}(\widetilde{O}-O_i,\epsilon_O).
\end{equation}
However the atmospheric parameters derived from spectroscopy ($\widetilde{{\mathrm{T_{eff}}}}$,$\widetilde{\log g}$,$\widetilde{{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}$) are not independent. For the inner disc fields we derived correlation coefficients that we applied in the above equation using a multivariate normal distribution. For the GES UVES parameters, the GES Consortium provides the individual node values, so instead of using only the recommended value we use all nodes individual values (in general around 5 nodes provides parameters for the same star), which mimick the correlation we want to introduce on a star by star basis. For the GES GIRAFFE parameters we have no information about the correlations available.
The apparent magnitude $m_i$ derived from the isochrone $i$ is a function of the absolute magnitude $M_i^0$, the extinction $A_m$, and the distance $d$:
\begin{equation}
m_i = M_i^0 + 5 \log d -5 + A_m.
\label{eq:Pogson}
\end{equation}
We therefore derived $P(\tilde{O}|i,d,A_{0})$ for a very thin 2-D grid of distances $d$ and extinction $A_{0}$. $A_{0}$ is the absorption at 5500 \AA\, and is roughly equivalent to $A_V$ (e.g. \citealt{CBJ11}).
To derive the extinction in the different photometric bands $A_m$, we used the extinction law $E_\lambda = 10^{-0.4 k_\lambda}$ of \cite{FitzpatrickMassa07}. We used a typical red clump SED $F_\lambda^0$ from \cite{CastelliKurucz03} ATLAS9 models.
With $T_\lambda$ the photometric total instrumental transmission we have
\begin{equation}
A_m = -2.5 \log_{10}\left({\int F_\lambda T_\lambda E_\lambda^{A_{0}} d\lambda \over \int F_\lambda T_\lambda d\lambda}\right).
\end{equation}
To take the non-linearity of the above equation into account, we used a discrete table of $A_m$ as a function of $A_{0}$. No prior on the distance nor extinction is added.
What we seek is the distance probability $P(d,A_{0}|\tilde{O})$, which we obtain by marginalization over the isochrone points:
\begin{equation}
P(d,A_{0}|\tilde{O}) \propto \sum_i P(\tilde{O}|i,d,A_{0}) P(i).
\end{equation}
Marginalization over the extinction leads to $P(d|\tilde{O})$ and marginalization over the distance leads to $P(A_0|\tilde{O})$. The resulting distance and extinction estimates used hereafter corresponds to the mode of the distribution and the errors corresponds to the 68\% highest Bayesian confidence interval (or highest density interval, HDI).
\section{Results}
The first subsection discusses the measurements of the two CoRoT fields, whereas the second subsection discusses the measurements of the five other fields that have less targets.
\subsection{CoRoT Fields}
DIBs in these sight-lines were derived following the fitting strategy described above.
All of the measured EWs, uncertainties and NaI/DIB velocities are listed in the Appendix.
For the CoRoT anti center field, the target stars are located about the Galactic Plane, and are widely distributed in distances (from 0 to 7 kpc from the Sun). This allows us to probe not only the
local arm, but we also expect the crossing of external Galactic arms.
As the distance of the target star increases, the LOS intersects more ISM and therefore the EW of the DIB is expected to increase, with abrupt increases corresponding to dense cloud crossings and \textit{plateaus} to interclouds/interarms.
Figure \ref{acgraphs} shows the 6614 and 8620 bands DIB strength as well as the estimated extinction $A_0$ as a function of the target distance. We do not show the 6283 band profile due to the very limited distance range of the measurements. We remark that the DIBs and $A_0$ profiles, i.e. three quantities that are totally independently derived, are in good agreement. All of the three show a clear increasing trend, which is expected for a field of view as narrow as the one of FLAMES,
also show the same global pattern. There is an increase between distances 0 and 1 kpc, and a second increase beyond 2.5 kpc, up to 6 kpc. These two \textit{ramps} correspond to two distinct interstellar cloud complexes, that we identify as the local and Perseus arms. The \textit{plateau} from 1 to 2.5 kpc likely corresponds to the gap between the two Galactic arms. In this distance range there are two groups of stars with EWs that differ by about 30\%.
They seem to correspond to two different regions within the field of view, i.e. likely the two groups do not intersect the same parts of the densest clouds, which is not surprising, the targets being distributed over $\sim$ 30 arcmin. Better precisions on distances and extinctions, which will be provided by Gaia, may help refine this point.
We note a very discrepant point in the $A_0$-distance curve (marked by a red star in Fig \ref{acgraphs}, lower panel), with no corresponding anomalously small DIBs. Interestingly, this target star has sismologic parameters that are in marked disagreement with the spectrophotometric determinations (R. A. Peralta, private communication), and for this reason its distance/extinction determination may be wrong. It is encouraging that our most discrepant result points to such a contradiction.
At large distance, it is not clear whether the strong increase beyond 4 kpc corresponds to the Outer Arm. Its location is in good agreement with a crossing of the Outer Arm internal part as it appears in the schematic Galactic map of \cite{2009PASP..121..213C} (see Fig. \ref{gxmap}). Also,
the total reddening E(B-V) from the Planck map \citep{planck13} varies between 0.5 and 0.9 over the field covered by the targets ($\sim$20 x 25 arcmin wide), and the spectrophotometric extinction (or the similar DIB-based extinction) for the most distant stars is found to reach the Planck integrated value (the maximum value is even slightly above the Planck value in the direction of the corresponding target). However, we do not detect clearly a corresponding distinct and strong shift in radial velocity (see below the discussion about the kinematics).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ncorotac_ewvsdist.eps
\caption{Results for target stars in field 1 (CoRoT anticenter). \textbf{6614 \AA\ DIB EW (top), 8620 \AA\ DIB EW (middle) and extinction $A_0$ (bottom) vs. the estimated distance}. Circles show GIRAFFE observations. Triangles show UVES observations. Colors in top panel correspond to the number of IS components used to fit the IS line or band. All nearby targets (D $\leq$ 1kpc) have only single IS component, or, for three targets, a very weak, negligible second component. Distant targets have more than one velocity component, in agreement with the crossing of at least one external arm (see the text). The outlier star 06441428-0057447 marked by (*) has stellar spectroscopic parameters in strong disagreement with stellar seismology information, which suggests they distance and extinction are inaccurate for this target.}
\label{acgraphs}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{diba0corotac} displays, for the three DIBs, their variations with the estimated extinction $A_0$ based on all of the target stars in the field. It can be clearly seen from the figure that the three DIBs appear to be linearly correlated with the extinction.
Our three selected DIBs are among those that are reasonably well correlated with extinction in average conditions. However, previous studies based on early-type stars have revealed a strong dispersion about the mean relationship and in particular many \textit{outliers} that correspond to the bright UV stars. Here we note that there are no equivalent \textit{outliers}, which is probably due to our cool target stars and our integrations over large distances. This corresponds to a less severely modulated character of the sight-line, or the ISM varies in a less extreme way (see the combined results in section 4.3)
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{corotac_ewvsa0.eps
\caption{6283, 6614, and 8620 \AA\ DIB EWs as a function of the extinction for CoRoT ANTI CENTER field targets.}%
\label{diba0corotac}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth,height=7cm]{dib_vs_dist_AC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.57\linewidth]{Layout0.eps
\caption{\textbf{Evolution of the DIB profile with target distance. }Left: The 6614\AA\ DIB absorption \textbf{spectral profile} up to stars at increasing distances along the CoRoT Anti-Centre direction (l,b= 213$^{\circ}$,-2$^{\circ}$). \textbf{Shown is the average of stacked extracted, normalized absorption spectra sorted by stellar distances (an offset of 0.5 in y-axis separates two spectra}. The continuum on the blue side of the DIB is affected by the presence of strong stellar lines insufficiently corrected for. The first (top) spectrum corresponds to the first kpc, the last (bottom) spectrum to distances between 4 and 6 kpc. Right: Comparisons between single- and two-DIBs components adjustments for close and distant stars. Distant star require at least two DIBs separated by more than 20 km.s$^{-1}$ (see text).}
\label{dibevolution}%
\end{figure}
The need for a multi-component analysis in the case of the CoRoT AC field and the narrow 6614\AA\ band is illustrated in the Fig. \ref{dibevolution}. For each star we derived the full absorption attributable to the DIB in the following manner: the full profile-fitting (whose results are described below) is performed first. The fitted continuum and the adjusted stellar spectrum are used to subtract from the normalized spectrum the modeled stellar lines, leaving solely the DIB. Within stellar line residuals, this provides the full DIB absorption independently of its assumed intrinsic shape and the number of components. After having sorted the targets by increasing distance, we averaged the absorption profiles over groups of eight stars each. The resulting profiles for each distance bin are displayed in Fig. \ref{dibevolution} as a function of the heliocentric velocity. It can be seen from the figure that the DIB depth increase with distance is accompanied with a significant velocity shift towards higher positive values, as expected from the rotation curves in this direction. The value of the maximum shift, on the order of 20 km/s, is not negligible w.r.t. the DIB width for a single cloud and calls for a multi-cloud fitting procedure. We show how this need for at least two shifted DIBs is a function of the line-of-sight extent by fitting with one then two components the mean profiles obtained from stars located between 1 and 1.3 kpc on one hand, and from stars located beyond 5 kpc on the other hand. For the most distant stars there is a strong, highly visible discrepancy between the observed profile and the adjustment with a single DIB, while the adjustment with two DIBs separated by about 30 km.s$^{-1}$ is acceptable. For the closer stars the differences between the two adjusted models are smaller and not easily detected by-eye. We have performed several statistical tests to derive the reliability of the two-DIBs model, using standard deviations derived from the continuum outside the DIB, for both narrow or broad spectral intervals. As a matter of fact, as we already noticed, the standard deviation varies according to the inclusion or exclusion of the spectral regions that are the most contaminated by stellar line residuals (see the blue part of the spectrum in Fig 8). We also caution that due to those stellar lines residuals, errors on the continuum are not regularly distributed and such statistical tests are approximate, however they provide some first-order useful indications. For the distant stars the reduced chi-square increases by more than a factor of 2 when restricting to one component, i.e. this second component is statistically extremely probable, confirming the discrepancy between the observed profile and the single-DIB shape. A second test based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) is similarly showing that the existence of a second, shifted DIB is also extremely likely ($\Delta$BIC is always largely above 10). For the stars located between 1 and 1.3 kpc (middle curve in Fig \ref{dibevolution}) the reduced chi-square increase is by at least 20\%, showing that the measured profile is also very likely broadened, which is also confirmed by the BIC test. This is not so surprising as within the Local Arm the velocity dispersion may reach 20 km.s$^{-1}$. For the closest stars (top curve in Fig \ref{dibevolution}), stellar residuals in the DIB area become half of the DIB itself and a better correction of those residuals is necessary to get a firm conclusion, as confirmed by all tests.
We have represented in Fig. \ref{vel6613} the velocities of the detected components that come out from the automated fitting following the strategy
described in the previous section. For all individual stars standard deviations including both the measurement uncertainties and the stellar line residuals were estimated from the best adjustments, and new adjustments were performed using these standard deviations. The errors on the free parameters were estimated using the full covariance matrix and take into account all correlations between the parameters. Resulting errors are displayed in Fig \ref{vel6613}. It can be seen that the resulting DIB velocities belong to two groups centered on: $v_{hel} \simeq 15-32$ and $v_{hel} \simeq 40-55$ km/s (or, $v_{LSR} \simeq -2-15$ and $v_{LSR} \simeq23-38 $, respectively). Velocity results for those targets for which DIB velocities were determined through global fitting and are consequently linked to the strong sodium absorptions are marked by triangles. They are in agreement with the main groups of radial velocities, showing a global agreement between the main HI, NaI and DIB structures. The first velocity group is tightly associated with the first HI peak, that corresponds to the local arm. The second group corresponds to the second or blended second and third HI components at $\sim$ 35-45 km/s,
that corresponds
to Perseus. Interestingly, none of our target requires absorption at around + 65 km/s, the heliocentric radial velocity of the reddest, strong HI emission peak (see Fig. \ref{vel6613}). It is not clear whether this highest velocity component seen in HI corresponds to the Perseus or a more distant Arm, i.e. the Outer (or Cygnus) Arm. In their synthetic Figure 3, \cite{dame01} are attributing to the Perseus Arm a heliocentric velocity interval $v_{hel} =37-67$ km/s ($v_{lsr} = 20-50$ km/s) in the direction of the CoRoT anti-center field, while lower velocities are predicted by \cite{vallee08}. If the higher HI velocity corresponds to the Outer Arm, then apparently none of our targets is beyond a significant column of gas/dust belonging to this Arm and all the detected IS matter is from Perseus, albeit (i) the target estimated distances are reaching at least 4.8 kpc (6.8 kpc is the most probable distance), (ii) there is a strong and coherent increase of DIBs and extinction with distance found from the 6 most distant targets, and, (iii) as discussed above the Planck integrated reddening is on the same order than the reddening towards our most distant targets. In this case the fastest HI arises beyond 5-6 kpc, and is too poor in dust to produce a significant additional reddening. Conversely, if the faster gas belongs to Perseus, a potential explanation is that the ensemble of distant targets may miss those clouds. HI maps have a lower resolution compared to Planck, the Perseus Arm is highly fragmented and the distant targets are distributed over $\sim$ 15 arcmin. If there is a strong inhomogeneity within the field the path to the distant targets may not cross the higher velocity matter. More data are needed and more accurate distances should help answering this question.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{allcompHInewn.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the fitted DIB radial velocities and EWs and the HI 21 cm emission spectra.
Black (respectively red) markers and lines are GIRAFFE results and HI spectra from field 1 (respectively field 2). Error bars on the velocities are based on the full covariance matrix for the various parameters. In the case of the narrow 6614 \AA\ DIB (GIRAFFE observations) a significant number of spectra require two velocity components, that very likely correspond to the Local and Perseus arms. Small EWs and large error bars on velocities correspond to marginal results in low signal to noise spectra. UVES target results are displayed with triangles \textbf{(yellow and blue for fields 1 and 2 resp.)}. At variance with GIRAFFE, UVES velocities are linked to the strong sodium lines through global fitting. Their agreement with the velocity structure derived from the GIRAFFE targets shows the link between NaI and DIB velocities
}
\label{vel6613}%
\end{figure}
For the CoRoT center field, target stars also widely distributed in distance, however,
its higher latitude ($b=-7^\circ$) has a strong impact on the results. For this field, the 8620 \AA\ DIB is not extracted due to significant sky emission line residuals.
Figure \ref{COROTC} displays the DIBs and the extinctions as a function of the target distance. Although distributed over large distance
, we do not detect any EW increase (\textit{ramp}) in addition to the one associated with the local arm.
Instead, the DIB strength appears to form a \textit{plateau}.
This shows that the LOS do not intersect inner arms
because the distant target stars are significantly below the Plane. The measured profile implies that most of the absorbing matter is closer than 1.5 kpc.
The relationships between the DIB strength and the extinction is shown in Fig. \ref{COROTC}. Due to the quite small DIB and extinction interval covered by the targets in this field, all of the data points are clustered. Still, an increasing trend is clearly observed. For this field,
the kinematics is also rather simple (Fig. \ref{vel6613}).
There was no need for more than one IS component, all velocities fall close to each other in agreement with the peak of the HI emission spectrum at $v_{hel} \simeq -14$ km/s.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ncorotc_ewvsdist.eps
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ncorotc_ewvsa0.eps}
\caption{CoRoT CENTER FIELD field. Left: DIB/$A_0$ vs. distance profile. Right: DIB vs $A_0$: 6283 and 6614
\label{COROTC}%
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fields 3 to 7}
For the field3/NGC\,4815 direction \citep[see][]{Friel,Magrini},
we analysed 14 red clump stars that were observed with UVES. Only six are open cluster members.
We performed the simultaneous fitting of the NaI lines and the 6283 \AA\ DIB (respectively the 6614 \AA\ DIB).
The NaI absorption is characterized by two velocity components, at $v_{hel} \simeq$ -25 and -5 km/s (see Fig. \ref{velcompcluster}), that are well separated and was useful to test our multi-component technique.
The results are displayed in Fig. \ref{dibdistcluster}.
The extinctions and DIB strengths are on the same order for most stars,
showing that at their distances on the order of 2 kpc, they are located beyond the main, nearby absorber, in agreement with the 3D ISM map \citep{2014A&A...561A..91L}.
The two stars with lower extinction are not cluster members and
must be foreground stars. Their most probable distances are 1.7 and 1.9 kpc, which shows that not all the absorption is local
and pinpoints another absorber
between 1.9 kpc and 2.5 kpc (cluster distance).
From the results of the most distant target,
there is no significant additional IS absorption between 2 and 4 kpc.
The comparison between the DIBs and the estimated extinctions shows they are well correlated (Fig. \ref{dibdistcluster} right).
Radial velocities of the NaI lines and DIBs correspond to two strong peaks in the HI spectrum. Those cloud complexes also appear in the CO survey of \citet{1987ApJ...322..706D} and probably correspond to the Coalsack complex and another dense cloud. In none of the spectra do we detect velocities
above +10 km/s, which implies that
those HI structures at higher velocity are located beyond 4 kpc.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{ncluster_ewvsdist.eps
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{ncluster_ewvsa0.eps
\caption{NGC 4815 field: (left) DIB and $A_0$ distance profiles. Stars identified by \cite{Friel} as cluster members correspond to blue markers, non-members to red. Right: 6283 (top) and 6614 (lower panel) \AA\ DIB EW vs the estimated extinction A0. The black "0" sign indicates the unique star with a single DIB velocity, for all other targets adjustment to data requires two velocity components.}
\label{dibdistcluster}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{velcompCLUSTER6283.eps}\\%{velcomp6283cluster.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{velcompcluster6614.eps
\caption{NGC 4815 field: kinematics. Top: the 6283 \AA\ DIB. Bottom: the 6614 \AA\ DIB. The black line represents the HI 21 cm emission spectrum (LAB Survey). The dashed blue lines are an example of the fitted IS NaI lines (here from star cname 12581939-6453533) and triangles are the velocities of the DIB components derived from the global fit for all targets.}
\label{velcompcluster}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the $\gamma$ Vel direction (field 4) \citep[see][]{jef09,jef14,spina},
the most significant difference from the other directions is the distribution of targets over a much wider area ($1^{\circ} \times 1^{\circ}$).
As we will see (in Figure \ref{dibdistgam}) this has a strong impact on the star to star variability, especially for this region that is well known for having a complex interstellar density and ionization structure, partly under the strong influence from the Wolf-Rayet (WR) star.
For the 6614 \AA\ DIB, unfortunately, the profile is significantly scattered due to the relatively strong influence of the stellar residuals and the resulting large relative errors.
The HI spectrum presents a strong peak at $v_{hel}$ 35 km/s, a velocity that is in good agreement with the NaI and DIB absorptions (see Fig. \ref{velcompgam2vel}).
The second component in the HI spectrum at $v_{hel}$ 50 km/s is found to be very weak or null. Whereas, the HI component at $\simeq$ 100 km/s is not detected in any of the spectra and corresponds to more distant clouds.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ngamvel_ewvsa0.eps
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ngamvel_ewvsdist.eps
\caption{The $\gamma$ Vel field. Left: DIB EW and estimated extinction as a function of target distance. Two groups of stars are present that probe different regions of the foreground cloud. Right: The relation between EWs and extinction. There is a significant scatter, the largest from the 7 fields. Several \textit{outliers} have stronger DIBs compared to the averaged relation. These departures from linearity are very likely linked to the influence of the Wolf-rayet star environment.}
\label{dibdistgam}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{velcompGAMVEL6283n.eps}\\%{velcomp6283GAMVEL.eps}\\%{velcomp6284_gamvel.eps}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{velcompgamvel6614new.eps
\caption{$\gamma$ Vel field: kinematics. Top: the 6283 \AA\ DIB. Bottom: the 6614 \AA\ DIB. Line and markers are the same as the one in Fig. \ref{velcompcluster}.}
\label{velcompgam2vel}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The last three fields point to the Galactic bulge. This first field corresponds to the commonly used, low extinction direction at $(l,b)\simeq(1^\circ,-4^\circ)$, the Baade's window (BW).
Figure \ref{dibdistbulge} (left) shows the extinction, and the 6283 and 6614 EWs
along this LOS.
As for the previous field, the 6614 \AA\ profile is consistent with the two others, however much less precisely defined because the absorption is weaker and the stellar line residual have a stronger impact.
Figure \ref{velcompbulge} shows the HI emission spectrum in this Bulge direction, a spectrum characterized by a dominant emission peak at -5 km/s (heliocentric frame). Here again, the comparison with the DIB velocity that comes out from the automated fitting shows a good agreement with HI, with a dispersion of a few km/s around the central velocity.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{nbulge_ewvsdist.eps
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{nbulge_ewvsa0.eps
\caption{Baade Window direction: DIB vs. distance and $A_0$ vs. distance}
\label{dibdistbulge}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=4.cm]{velcompbulge6614new.eps}\\%{velcomp6614_bulge.eps}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=4.cm]{velcompbulge6283new.eps
\caption{Baade Window direction: kinematics. All DIB velocities are found to be consistent with the local HI, around 5 km/s. The second velocity component allowed by the fitting procedure is found to be unnecessary or negligible. Note that the discrepant data point at +15 km/s for the 6283 \AA\ DIB (lower panel) is due to the effect of a strongly discrepant stellar line and disappears when the fitting is repeated after masking of the corresponding region (the total EW is found to be unchanged).}
\label{velcompbulge}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the next two fields
(INNERDISK O and W resp.),
IS absorptions are expected to be confined within a narrow interstellar radial velocity range, which is confirmed by the HI emission spectra, and the DIBs could be analyzed by means of the single component method. We have checked for several stars that the allowance for more than one component results in EW values that are fully compatible with those from the single component method, within our estimated uncertainties.
Figure \ref{dibdistinnerdisko} and \ref{dibdistinnerdiskw} show the radial profiles of the DIB strength and the estimated extinction. They both show a gradual increase.
The profiles are in agreement with the profiles derived by \cite{marshall06} from 2MASS and the Besançon model in adjacent directions. We used A$_{Ks}$/A$_{0}$=0.11 for the conversion. The DIB-extinction correlation is shown in lower panel, and is compatible with a linear relationship within the measurements and the model uncertainties. The Pearson coefficients are found to be 0.55 and 0.76 for INNERDISK O and W resp.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ninnerdisk_0.eps}
\caption{6283 DIB EW and estimated extinction as a function of distance (top) and DIB extinction relationship (lower panel) for the OGLE BUL\_SC24 (INNERDISK O) field. We compare our estimated extinction with the profiles from \cite{marshall06} (see text) for \textbf{the closest} directions.}
\label{dibdistinnerdisko}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{innerdisk_W_all.eps
\caption{INNERDISK W field: DIB vs. distance, $A_0$ vs. distance, and DIB vs $A_0$. \textbf{The EW vs $A_0$ linear relationship (lower panel) has a slope of 567 $\pm$ 7 mA per magnitude (forcing the intercept to be 0). The Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.76.} }
\label{dibdistinnerdiskw}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{All fields: Correlation with the Extinction}
As discussed in Section 1, a large number of studies were devoted to the correlation between the DIBs and the extinction. Our results provide an opportunity to study further this relation, with for the first time a large selection of DIBs in very different regions of the Galaxy.
Figure \ref{allfields} shows the whole set of 6283 and 6614 \AA\ DIB EWs as a function of extinction.
We also display the DIB-extinction relations obtained from previous studies using early-type star data \citep{2013A&A...555A..25P,vos11}. To convert the color excess values E(B-V) listed in the previous works into extinction values A$_{0}$, we have assumed that $A_{0}/E(B-V)= 3.2882 + 0.04397 \times E(B-V) $ in all directions. We have fitted the DIB-extinction relationship independently of the error bars, and also using both errors (in extinction and EW) using the orthogonal distance regression method (ODR) \citep{Boggs}.
We have compared our correlation coefficients with those obtained from previous studies based on early-type target stars, characterized by well known extinctions and excellent spectra. It is remarkable that despite the complexity of the global adjustment and the presence of the stellar lines, the correlation between the 6283 \AA\ DIB and the reddening is found to be tighter, as shown by the error-independent Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.91. Such a value is above most previous determinations, e.g. the Friedman et al (2011) coefficient of 0.82. We believe that our use of late-type stars is the dominant reason for a globally decreased dispersion,
because we avoid the radiation field effects on the DIB carriers that arise around hot stars. Instead, our LOS cross mainly clouds that are far from those radiation sources. Such a conclusion is in agreement with the results of \citet{chen13}.
In the case of the weaker and narrower 6614 DIB, our correlation coefficient is 0.83, i.e. on the same order than the Friedman et al (2011) coefficient. We believe that here the absence of a correlation increase is due to the strong impact of the residual stellar features. This impact is much stronger than on the 6283 DIB due to the smaller DIB width, closer to the stellar line width. Better synthetic stellar models should help to reduce this source of uncertainty.
From Fig. \ref{allfields}, we remark that our measured EWs are globally higher than what
has generally been
derived from early type stars. This is especially clear for the inner disk and CoRoT anti-center fields and may be explained by the fact that we avoid some of the strong DIB suppressions that arise in the environment of UV-bright stars. For other sight-lines like the one towards NGC4815 there are no significant differences from the DIB-color excess relations based on early type stars. Finally, we note that more dispersion seems to be present for the local clouds, which may be explained by averaging effects along large distances.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DIB6283VSA0_newconversion.eps}\\%{DIB6283VSA0odr.eps}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DIB6614VSA0_newconversion.eps
\caption{DIB vs A0, all fields.}
\label{allfields}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spatial distribution}
Figure \ref{gxmap} shows the projections of the target stars onto the Galactic plane, superimposed on a face-on map of the Milky Way. The color represents the 6283 DIB EW when it is measured, and a "6283-equivalent" value deduced by simply scaling the 6614 or 8620 DIBs based on the mean 6614/6283 and 8620/6283 ratios. When LOS are about the Plane, the EW reflects the spiral arm crossings. This is no longer the case when the latitude is increasing, as can be seen in the figure where the latitudes are indicated for each LOS.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{GraphMW_6284.eps}
\caption{Projections of the target stars onto the face on map of the Galaxy (image from Churchwell et al. 2009). Units are parsecs, counted from the Sun, with d$_{Sun}$ $\simeq$ 8kpc. The color coding corresponds to the equivalent of the 6283 \AA\ DIB, either directly measured, or, when not measured, estimated from the other DIB measurements using the average EW(6283)/EW(8620) or EW(6283)/EW(6614) ratios computed from the whole dataset. The black asterisk and small arrow mark the Bulge field 5 (Baade Window direction) for which the X coordinate has been multiplied by 4 to avoid confusion with the other directions. The galactic latitude of each field is indicated at the extremity of the sightline.}
\label{gxmap}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and perspectives}
We have developed and applied automated methods of extraction of multi-component DIBs from stellar spectra. These methods can be applied to any kind of stellar spectrum, as long as the stellar parameters are known. In particular it can handle cool star spectra despite their complex continua.
Here we have presented the results of our automated adjustments when they are applied to ESO/FLAMES high resolution spectra of red giants and F, G, K dwarfs that are part of the GES first data release and about the same number of FLAMES spectra from a previous program about the inner disk. We have extracted three DIBs and studied their strengths and velocity shifts.
The comparison between the DIB strengths and spectro-photometric estimated extinctions reveals a significant correlation and demonstrates that we successfully extract the DIB EWs despite the stellar and telluric absorptions. This correlation suggests that the link between the DIB strength and the extinction does not vary in a large extent among regions of the Galaxy that span galactocentric radii from 2.5 to 13 kpc. From this dataset we find broad consistency between the DIB distance profiles and the estimated locations/extents of the Local, Perseus
arms. We also find agreement between the line-of-sight velocity structure deduced from the HI 21 cm emission spectra and the DIBs velocities. This shows that on the large scales DIBs may be a kinematical tool in the same way IS gaseous lines are commonly used. This opens perspectives for the study of the most external arms for which very few measurements of the DIB abundance do exist.
Altogether these results show how DIBs can be used to reconstruct the large-scale distribution of the interstellar medium in the Galaxy, and may be especially useful for distant clouds because in this case they are strong enough but not saturated. In addition, DIBs in more distant clouds (like Perseus) are found more tightly correlated with the extinction and less spatially/ angularly variable than in the local clouds, which we interpret as an effect of distance-averaging. It also confirms that when using cool (respectively, both cool and distant) stars the effects of a strong radiation field on the DIB abundance and/or ionization are minimized (respectively, both minimized and averaged out), and DIBs follow more closely the extinction. This latter aspect is quantitatively confirmed by the correlation coefficients we obtain when assembling all measurements. In the case of the broad 6283 \AA\ DIB, the Pearson coefficient is 0.91, significantly above previous determinations based on early-type stars despite the extremely large distances between the probed areas and the presence of the stellar lines. This implies that DIBs can be used as a first prior for the extinction in the absence of any other information. However, we note that for one field, the $\gamma$ Vel cluster direction, there is a more complex relationship between DIBs and extinction estimates. The proximity of the absorber and the presence of bright UV stars is probably responsible for this complexity and the departures from the average conditions. Finally, we note that for two sight-lines the measured DIBs are slightly stronger than previous relationships based on early-type targets have predicted. We believe that this is also due to the absence of strong environmental effects. This deserves further
study, as the data presented here are still too limited to permit to draw definitive conclusions.
There is still room for a number of improvements of the synthetic stellar spectrum computations, and subsequent DIB measurements. Here we have used the most probable values of the stellar parameters, and did not allow for any uncertainty. Moreover we did not make any use of individual abundances, although in the case of the GES spectra most of them are determined. One reason is our choice of a homogenous treatment of both GES spectra and other data for which the individual abundance measurements were not available. The second reason is our findings, already developed by \cite{chen13} that the main source of bad quality adjustments of the stellar synthetic spectra to the data is clearly linked to specific spectral lines that are systematically under- or over-estimated, or simply missing (see Fig. \ref{residual}, \ref{residual2}), and allowing for small changes of the parameters would not solve for those discrepancies. Work is in progress to correct for those systematics that must be done before fine tuning of the parameters within the GES error bars or use of individual abundances is done. This should result in a better accuracy of the DIB strength and allow to go further in the kinematical analysis, here still limited to the detection of velocity shifts above 5 to 10 km.s$^{-1}$ depending on DIBs and the signal. Improvements of the fitting strategy are also in progress, in particular the simultaneous adjustment of NaI lines and all measurable DIBs is expected to provide more reliable results. There is also room for an improved strategy regarding the choice of the number of velocity components. We have explored criteria based on the DIB velocity shift, however other methods should also be elaborated and tested. This will be the subject of further studies based on larger datasets. Finally, residuals from sky emission removal are still limiting significantly the DIB extraction in some cases, and special attention must be devoted to this problem.
Globally these results pave the way to three-dimensional mapping of the Galactic ISM based on DIB absorption measurements from current or future stellar spectroscopic surveys. Like all three-dimensional maps, future DIB-based maps are expected to gain in accuracy in a considerable way when Gaia parallax measurements will be available. Finally, as illustrated by the CoRoT anti-center line-of-sight, a very promising aspect that is specific to these DIB spectroscopic measurements is the potential detailed comparison, sightline by sightline, between the distance-limited absorption measurements and emission spectra that trace the gas at all distances. This comparison by means of the radial velocities should bring interesting information on the location of the poorly known dust-poor distant gas in outer parts of the spiral arms.
\begin{acknowledgements}
R.L, L.P., and C.B. acknowledge support from the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the STILISM project.
L. S. and S. D. acknowledge the support of Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 881 "The Milky Way system " (subprojects A4 and A5) of the German Research Foundation (DFG), and of Project IC120009 "Millennium Institute of Astrophysics (MAS)" of Iniciativa Científica Milenio del Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo de Chile
This work was partly supported by the European Union FP7 programme through ERC grant number 320360 and by the Leverhulme Trust through grant RPG-2012-541. We acknowledge the support from INAF and Ministero dell' Istruzione, dell' Universit\`a' e della Ricerca (MIUR) in the form of the grant "Premiale VLT 2012". The results presented here benefit from discussions held during the Gaia-ESO workshops and conferences supported by the ESF (European Science Foundation) through the GREAT Research Network Programme.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec.Introduction}
Permanent magnet assemblies that produce a strong homogenous magnetic field in a sample volume are becoming of general interest to the scientific community as these have an increasing number of applications. Of special interest is the Halbach cylinder (also known as a hole cylinder permanent magnet array (HCPMA)) which is a hollow permanent magnet cylinder with a remanent flux density at any point that varies continuously as
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{\mathrm{rem},r} &=& B_{\mathrm{rem}}\; \textrm{cos}(p\phi) \nonumber\\
B_{\mathrm{rem},\phi} &=& B_{\mathrm{rem}}\; \textrm{sin}(p\phi)\;,\label{Eq.Halbach_magnetization}
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_{\mathrm{rem}}$ is the magnitude of the remanent flux density and $p$ is an integer \citep{Mallinson_1973,Halbach_1980}. Subscript $r$ denotes the radial component of the remanence and subscript $\phi$ the tangential component. A positive value of $p$ produces a field that is directed into the cylinder bore and a negative value produces a field that is directed outwards from the cylinder.
Often, as is also the case here, the Halbach cylinder with $p=1$ is considered and will here simply be referred to as the Halbach cylinder. This design generates a completely homogenous magnetic field in the cylinder bore with a flux density that for an infinitely long cylinder is given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Eq.Halbach_flux_density}
B = B_\n{rem}\n{ln}\left(\frac{r_\n{o}}{r_\n{i}}\right)~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $r_\n{o}$ and $r_\n{i}$ are the outer and inner radii of the cylinder, respectively. Thus the Halbach cylinder is able to generate a homogeneous flux density that is larger than the remanence of the permanent magnet used in the design. Also, the Halbach cylinder can, because it is well defined geometrically, easily be adapted to an experimental setup.
The Halbach cylinder has previously been used in a number of applications such as magnetic refrigeration devices \cite{Tura_2007,Bjoerk_2010b}, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) apparatus \citep{Moresi_2003,Appelt_2006} and accelerator magnets \citep{Sullivan_1998,Lim_2005}.
The magnetic field distribution for a Halbach cylinder of infinite length have previously been investigated in detail \citep{Zhu_1993,Atallah_1997,Peng_2003,Xia_2004,Bjoerk_2010a}, but Halbach cylinders of a finite length have not been considered in detail. The reduction in flux density due to a finite length Halbach cylinder have been considered mostly for cylinders with a single fixed length \cite{Mhiochain_1999,Xu_2004}. The ideal outer radius and length for a Halbach cylinder with a fixed inner radius has also been presented \cite{Bjoerk_2008}, but here the flux density in the complete cylinder bore and not a specific sample volume was considered. Finally, an analytical formula for the magnetic flux density of a Halbach cylinder of any given length has been derived, however this formula is extremely complicated, making it impractical for direct application \cite{Mhiochain_1999}.
Here, a Halbach cylinder of a finite length, $L_\n{Halbach}$, is considered and the optimal dimensions for this design are investigated using numerical modeling and parameter variation of the dimensions of the Halbach cylinder. The optimal dimensions are those where the volume of the magnet is the smallest possible for a desired flux density and sample volume. A desired sample volume, centered in and shaped as the Halbach cylinder bore but with a possible shorter length, $L_\n{sample}$, is considered. The aim is to determine the external radius and the length of the Halbach cylinder with the smallest possible dimensions given a desired internal radius, length of the sample volume and mean flux density in this volume. The most efficient Halbach cylinder of a finite length, defined using a figure of merit, is also considered. An illustration of the Halbach cylinder and the sample volume is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig.Halbach_illustration_fixed_bore}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Halbach_illustration_fixed_bore}
\caption{An illustration of the Halbach cylinder. On the front view the direction of the magnetization is shown as arrows. On the side view the cylinder has been made transparent so that the sample volume can be seen. The sample volume has been hashed.}
\label{Fig.Halbach_illustration_fixed_bore}
\end{figure}
For most applications a flux density of $0.5-2.5$ T is needed and thus this range will be considered here. Creating a flux density higher than 2.5 T requires that one carefully consider the intrinsic coercivity of the permanent magnets used, as the reverse component of the magnetic field can exceed the intrinsic coercivity in parts of the Halbach cylinder near the cylinder bore which will lead to a reversal of the direction of magnetization of parts of the magnet \cite{Bjoerk_2008,Bloch_1998}.
A Halbach cylinder where the direction of the remanence is given by Eq. (\ref{Eq.Halbach_magnetization}) is considered. In real world assemblies the Halbach cylinder is often segmented into blocks each with their own constant direction of magnetization. The effect of this segmentation has been considered elsewhere \cite{Halbach_1980,Mhiochain_1999,Bjoerk_2008} and will not be considered here. For a sixteen segmented Halbach cylinder of infinite length the flux density is reduced to 97.5\% of the value of a Halbach cylinder with a continuously rotating remanence.
In order to determine the flux density of a given Halbach cylinder the system is modeled numerically. This is done using the commercially available finite element multiphysics program \emph{Comsol Multiphysics}, version 3.5a. The Comsol Multiphysics code has previously been validated through a number of NAFEMS (National Agency for Finite Element Methods and Standards) benchmark studies \citep{Comsol_2005}. The resolution of the mesh used for the simulations presented in this paper are chosen such that the result do not depend on the mesh size. To ensure this the mesh is refined in the sample volume to increase the number of mesh elements there. An illustration of the mesh used is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig.Halbach_mesh_3D}. As the size of the computational volume as well as the size of the Halbach cylinder changes for the different dimensions of the sample volume and Halbach cylinder the number of mesh elements changes as well.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Halbach_mesh_3D}
\caption{A 3D illustration of a transparent Halbach cylinder where the internal radius, external radius and the length of the Halbach cylinder and the sample volume has been indicated. For this illustration these have the values $r_\n{i} = 10$ mm, $r_\n{o} = 40$ mm, $L_\n{Halbach} = 70$ mm and $L_\n{sample} = 50$ mm. The particular finite element mesh used in the sample volume is also shown.}
\label{Fig.Halbach_mesh_3D}
\end{figure}
The system modeled is a static problem in magnetism, i.e. magnetostatics. The equation solved is the magnetic scalar potential equation, which is a Poisson equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
-\nabla{}\cdot{}(\mu{}_{0}\mu{}_{r}\nabla{}V_\mathrm{m}-\mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{rem}})=0~,\label{Eq.Numerical_Magnetism}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu{}_{0}$ is the permeability of free space, $\mu{}_{r}$ is the relative permeability, which in all cases is assumed to be isotropic, and $V_\mathrm{m}$ is the magnetic scalar potential from which the magnetic field can be found as $-\nabla{}V_\mathrm{m} = \mathbf{H}$. The remanent flux density, $\mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{rem}}$, is known as a function of position and can be used as an initial condition to solve the system.
The above equation is solved on a finite element mesh and the solver used is \emph{Pardiso} which is a parallel sparse direct linear solver \citep{Schenk_2001,Schenk_2002}. Boundary conditions are chosen such that the boundaries of the computational volume, which is many times larger than the simulated magnetic structure, are magnetically insulating, i.e. $\hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot{}\mathbf{B}=0$, where $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ is the surface normal, while for all other (internal) boundaries the magnetic boundary conditions apply, i.e. the perpendicular component of $\mathbf{B}$ and the parallel components of $\mathbf{H}$ are continuous across boundaries. The computational volume is always chosen large enough that the insulating boundaries do not affect the calculations.
The Halbach cylinder is modeled with a relative constant isotropic permeability of $\mu_r = 1$. The direction of the remanence in each point is fixed, which is only valid if the anisotropy field is very large and if the component of $\mathbf{H}$ that is parallel and opposite to $\mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{rem}}$ is less than the intrinsic coercivity. For an NdFeB magnet, which is typically used for construction of a Halbach cylinder, the relative permeability is 1.05, the intrinsic coercivity can be as high as 3.2 T and the anisotropy field has a value of 8 T \citep{Zimmermann_1993}, thus this modeling approach is justified.
\section{Optimal dimensions of a Halbach cylinder}
As previously mentioned the aim is to determine the optimal dimensions of a Halbach cylinder, i.e. the external radius and the length of the smallest Halbach cylinder, given a desired internal radius, length of the sample volume and mean flux density in this volume. This is done through a numerical modeling of the Halbach cylinder design where the dimensions of the cylinder has been varied. For this variation the inner radius was fixed at 10 mm. The outer radius was varied from 11 mm to 120 mm in steps of 1 mm, the length of the sample volume was varied from 10 mm to 80 mm in steps of 1 mm and the length of the Halbach cylinder was varied from the length of the sample volume to 120 mm in steps of 1 mm. This corresponds to a change in the ratio between the outer and inner radius of 1.1 to 12 and a ratio between the length of the Halbach cylinder and the inner radius from a minimum value of 1 to 12. Note that the sample volume can be smaller than the Halbach cylinder bore. The total number of parameter variations is 593561. Such a large parameter space requires a substantial calculation time, especially considering that a single simulation typically takes of the order of 30 seconds to compute. Therefore the simulations have been calculated on a number of powerful computers, each running multiple simulations at once. For all configurations the mean flux density in the sample volume, denoted $\langle B \rangle$, was calculated. The flux density in the center of the bore can be calculated analytically \cite{Zijlstra_1985}, but no analytical expression exist for the mean value of the flux density in the sample volume.
It is very important to note that a magnetostatic problem is scale invariant, i.e. if all dimensions are scaled by the same factor the magnetic flux density in a given point will be the same if the coordinates of this point is scaled as well. This means that quantities such as the average value of the magnetic flux density in the sample volume will be the same, as long as the magnet design is scaled appropriately. Therefore all results here are presented in dimensionless quantities that can be scaled to obtain the dimensions for a desired inner radius and length of the sample volume.
The remanence was fixed at 1.4 T. However, it is remarked that because the modeled Halbach cylinder permanent magnet has a relative permeability of one, the magnetostatic problem of calculating the flux density is linear in the remanence. This means that all magnetic flux densities reported here can simply be scaled by the desired remanence, and therefore all results are reported as function of the flux density divided by the remanence.
\section{Results}
For each value of $L_\n{sample}$ the optimal configurations, i.e. the configurations with the smallest volume of the magnet at a given mean flux density, has been found, similarly to the procedure described in Ref. \cite{Bjoerk_2008}. The optimal configurations have been found from 0.8 T to 2.8 T in steps of 0.05 T, and for the two specific cases of $L_\n{sample} = 20$ and 80 mm these are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig.V_mag_B_optimal_points}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{V_mag_B_optimal_points}
\caption{The volume of the magnet as a function of the mean flux density for a length of the sample volume of $L_\n{sample} = 20$ mm and 80 mm. The optimal configurations, i.e. those with the lowest value of $V_\n{mag}$ for a given value of $\langle B \rangle$, for both cases have been indicated.}
\label{Fig.V_mag_B_optimal_points}
\end{figure}
The dimensions of these optimal configurations i.e. the outer radius and the length of the Halbach cylinder can thus be investigated as function of $L_\n{sample}$ and $\langle B \rangle$. In Figs. \ref{Fig.r_o_over_r_i_surface_image} and \ref{Fig.L_halbach_over_r_i_surface_image} the outer radius and the length, respectively, both in units of the inner radius, is shown for the optimal configurations as a function of the flux density and the length of the sample volume, each normalized with the remanence and the inner radius, respectively. Thus the optimal dimensions of a Halbach cylinder with a desired inner radius, length of the sample volume and mean flux density can be found directly from these figures.
As an example consider a desired sample volume with a radius of 20 mm, a length of 80 mm and a mean flux density of 1 T. For the construction of the Halbach cylinder magnets with a remanence of 1.2 T are considered. Based on Fig. \ref{Fig.r_o_over_r_i_surface_image} the outer radius of the cylinder must be $\sim 54$ mm and based on Fig. \ref{Fig.L_halbach_over_r_i_surface_image} the length of the Halbach cylinder must be $\sim 90$ mm.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{r_o_over_r_i_surface_image}
\caption{A contour and surface map of the ratio between the outer and inner radius as a function of the ratio between the mean flux density and the remanence and the ratio between the length of the sample volume and the inner radius for the optimal configurations, i.e. those that generate the desired flux density using the least amount of magnet material.}
\label{Fig.r_o_over_r_i_surface_image}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{L_halbach_over_r_i_surface_image}
\caption{A contour and surface map of the ratio between the length of the Halbach cylinder and the inner radius as a function of the ratio between the mean flux density and the remanence and the ratio between the length of the sample volume and the inner radius for the optimal configurations, i.e. those that generate the desired flux density using the least amount of magnet material.}
\label{Fig.L_halbach_over_r_i_surface_image}
\end{figure}
From Fig. \ref{Fig.r_o_over_r_i_surface_image} it is seen that the ratio between the outer and inner radius does not depend on the length of the sample volume. This allows for easy dimensioning of the optimal Halbach cylinder as the ratio $r_\n{o}/r_\n{i}$ can thus be chosen directly from the desired flux density.
In Fig. \ref{Fig.L_halbach_over_r_i_surface_image} the length of the Halbach cylinder is seen to depend on both the desired flux density and the length of the sample volume. For small values of the flux density the length of the Halbach cylinder is close to the length of the sample volume, while for larger flux densities it is advantageous to make the Halbach cylinder longer then the desired length of the sample volume. The unevenness of the contour lines in Fig. \ref{Fig.L_halbach_over_r_i_surface_image} are due to the finite steps of the parameter variation as well as the way the optimal configurations are determined, i.e. by searching a finite data set for an absolute minimum value.
As discussed the ratio between the outer and inner radius does not depend on the length of the sample volume. This can also be seen in Fig. \ref{Fig.r_o_function_of_B}, which is a collapse of Fig. \ref{Fig.r_o_over_r_i_surface_image} along the $L_\n{sample}/r_\n{i}$ axis. For a Halbach cylinder of infinite length the ratio between the outer and the inner radius can be calculated as a function of the ratio between the flux density and the remanence as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{r_\mathrm{o}}{r_\mathrm{i}} = e^{B/B_\mathrm{rem}}~.
\end{eqnarray}
This is also shown in Fig. \ref{Fig.r_o_function_of_B}. As can be seen from the figure the optimal ratio between the outer and inner radius deviate from the case of a cylinder of infinite length, especially for large values of $\langle B \rangle/B_\mathrm{rem}$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{r_o_function_of_B}
\caption{The ratio between the outer and the inner radius as a function of the ratio between the flux density and the remanence for the optimal configurations, i.e. the configuration with the smallest volume of the magnets for a given mean flux density for all values of $L_\mathrm{sample}/r_\mathrm{i}$. The ratio for a infinite cylinder, given by $e^{B/B_\n{rem}}$, is also shown.}
\label{Fig.r_o_function_of_B}
\end{figure}
It is also of importance to consider the homogeneity of the flux density in the cylinder bore. This can be characterized by the standard deviation, $\sqrt{\langle B^2 \rangle - \langle B \rangle ^2}$, which is shown for the optimal configurations in Fig. \ref{Fig.Homogeneity_surface_image} as a function of the flux density and the length of the sample volume, each normalized with respect to the remanence and the inner radius, respectively. By comparing with Fig. \ref{Fig.L_halbach_over_r_i_surface_image} it can be seen that the flux density in the sample volume is the most homogeneous, i.e. smallest, when $L_\n{Halbach}$ is much larger than $L_\n{sample}$. The inhomogeneous cases occur where $L_\n{Halbach}\simeq{}L_\n{sample}$ as is also expected as here flux density will ``leak'' out of the ends of the cylinder bore and thus the sample volume which will lower the homogeneity.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Homogeneity_surface_image}
\caption{The standard deviation $\sqrt{\langle B^2 \rangle - \langle B \rangle ^2}$ for the optimal Halbach cylinders as a function of the ratio between the mean flux density and the remanence and the ratio between the length of the sample volume and the inner radius for the optimal configurations.}
\label{Fig.Homogeneity_surface_image}
\end{figure}
The optimal dimensions of a Halbach cylinder with a desired inner radius, length of the sample volume and mean flux density has thus been found and can be read directly of Figs. \ref{Fig.r_o_over_r_i_surface_image} and \ref{Fig.L_halbach_over_r_i_surface_image}. However, the Halbach cylinder magnet is not an equally efficient magnet design at all values of $B/B_\n{rem}$. This is discussed in the next section.
\section{The efficiency for a finite length Halbach cylinder}
A general figure of merit, $M^{*}$, used to characterize the efficiency of a magnet design is defined in Ref. \cite{Jensen_1996} as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq.Mstar_definition}
M^{*}=\frac{\int_{V_\n{field}}||\mathbf{B}||^2dV}{\int_{V_\n{mag}}||\mathbf{B_\n{rem}}||^2dV}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_\n{field}$ is the volume of the region where the magnetic field is created and $V_\n{mag}$ is the volume of the magnets. It can be shown that the maximum value of $M^{*}$ is 0.25, and a structure is considered reasonable efficient if it has $M^{*} \geq 0.1$ \cite{Jensen_1996}.
For a structure of infinite length with completely uniform remanence and magnetic flux density Eq. (\ref{Eq.Mstar_definition}) is reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
M^{*}=\left(\frac{B}{B_\n{rem}}\right)^2\frac{V_\n{field}}{V_\n{mag}}~.
\end{eqnarray}
For a Halbach cylinder the figure of merit parameter can be found analytically for a cylinder of infinite length, through the relation for the flux density in the cylinder bore, Eq. (\ref{Eq.Halbach_flux_density}). Using this relation one gets \citep{Coey_2003}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq.Mstar_Halbach}
M^{*} = \frac{\left(\frac{B}{B_\n{rem}}\right)^2}{e^{2B/B_\n{rem}}-1}~.
\end{eqnarray}
As shown in Ref. \cite{Abele_1990} for a Halbach cylinder of infinite length the maximum value of the figure of merit is $M^{*} \approx 0.162$ for a value of $B/B_\n{rem} \approx 0.797$, as can also be seen in Fig. \ref{Fig.Mstar_for_Halbach}. This means that the ideal ratio between the outer and the inner radius is given as $r_\n{o}/r_\n{i} = e^{B/B_\n{rem}} \approx 2.219$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Mstar_for_Halbach}
\caption{The $M^{*}$ parameter as a function of the ratio between the flux density and the remanence for a Halbach cylinder of infinite length.}
\label{Fig.Mstar_for_Halbach}
\end{figure}
However, for a cylinder of finite length the maximum value of $M^*$ will depend on the ratio between the length of the Halbach cylinder and the inner radius. The maximum value of $M^*$ has been found using the parameter variation simulations described above. Here, only the configurations where the length of the sample volume is equal to the length of the Halbach cylinder, i.e. $L_\n{Halbach} = L_\n{sample}$, are considered. The maximum value of $M^*$, found using spline interpolation, as a function of the ratio between $L_\n{Halbach}$ and the inner radius is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig.Mstarmax_function_of_L}. Also shown is the value for a cylinder of infinite length. It can be seen that even using a cylinder where the length is significantly greater than the inner radius the value of $M^*$ is far from the theoretical value.
Finally, the maximum value of $M^*$ for a finite length Halbach cylinder where only the field in the center of the Halbach cylinder is considered are shown. The field in the center of the Halbach has been calculated using the formula given in Ref. \cite{Zijlstra_1985}. Note that the value of $M^{*}$ calculated using the value of $B$ in the center of the Halbach cylinder assumes that this value of $B$ is present in all of the cylinder bore, which is not the case. Thus this calculation can significantly overestimate $<B>$ and hence $M^{*}$. The reason it has been included here is to shown that the proper mean value of the flux density in the cylinder bore must be calculated for a proper estimation of $M^{*}$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Mstarmax_function_of_L}
\caption{The maximum value of $M^*$ as a function of the ratio between $L_\n{Halbach}$ and the inner radius. The value in the case of a cylinder of infinite length is also shown.}
\label{Fig.Mstarmax_function_of_L}
\end{figure}
The value of $B/B_\n{rem}$ and the value of the ratio between the outer and inner radius for the maximum values of $M^*$ are shown as functions of the ratio between $L$ and the inner radius in Figs. \ref{Fig.Kmax_function_of_L} and \ref{Fig.r_o_function_of_L_for_Mstarmax}. In both figures are also shown the theoretical value for a cylinder of infinite length as well as the expression for the flux density in the center of the sample volume, as given in Ref. \cite{Zijlstra_1985}. As was the case in Fig. \ref{Fig.Mstarmax_function_of_L} even a very long cylinder is far from the theoretical value.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Kmax_function_of_L}
\caption{The value of $B/B_\n{rem}$ as a function of the ratio between $L_\n{Halbach}$ and the inner radius for the maximum values of $M^*$ shown in Fig. \ref{Fig.Mstarmax_function_of_L}. The value in the case of a cylinder of infinite length is also shown.}
\label{Fig.Kmax_function_of_L}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{r_o_function_of_L_for_Mstarmax}
\caption{The ratio between the outer and inner radius as a function of the ratio between $L_\n{Halbach}$ and the inner radius for the maximum values of $M^*$ shown in Fig. \ref{Fig.Mstarmax_function_of_L}. The ratio in the case of a cylinder of infinite length is also shown.}
\label{Fig.r_o_function_of_L_for_Mstarmax}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
The ideal, i.e. smallest, dimensions of a finite length Halbach cylinder that produces a given mean flux density in a specified sample volume has been found based on a numerical simulation using parameter variation. The dimensions have been reported in dimensionless units allowing for determination of the ideal dimensions for any given desired sample volume. Finally a general figure of merit efficiency parameter was calculated for the finite length Halbach cylinder as a function of the length of the cylinder. The dimensions of the most efficient Halbach cylinder were shown to only slowly approach the values for the case of a cylinder of infinite length as the length of the cylinder is increased.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Programme Commission on Energy and Environment (EnMi) (Contract No. 2104-06-0032) which is part of the Danish Council for Strategic Research.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction and summary}
Stochastic processes play a major role in any fields of science. Whether it is physics, biology, chemistry, finance, etc..., the effective dynamics of macro-variables are derived from a couplings to some random observables.
Consider a process $(X_j)_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ of which $X_1$, $X_2$, ..., $X_n$ could represent observations sampled randomly
from the same population at time points i = 1, 2, .... When constructing models some underlying assumption of the mechanics has to be made.
The most famous example are the Autoregressive-Moving-Average model $ARMA(p,q)$ processes ,
$$X_k = c+\sum_{j_1=1}^p \alpha_{j_1} X_{k-j_1}+\sum_{j_2=1}^q \theta_{j_2}W_{k-j_2}$$
with $W_k$ are independently normally distributed $N(0,1)$. Notice that the transition probabilities only depend on finite variables. Hence,
these processes provide a useful method to describe the statistics of short-memory processes. However, as it is well known, there exists processes with long memory. Some of those have been described by Beno\^it Mandelbrot and are known as fractional Brownian motion.
Clearly, for all these processes an analytically approachable form had to be chosen in order to model the statistical properties desired.
In the end, given some data $(X_j)_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$, we wish to find the model with the right correlations and higher momenta. These are fully described by the characteristic function of the process,
$$f(u_1,u_2...)=E(\exp(iu_1 X_1+iu_2 X_2+...))$$
Therefore the underlying mechanics of should not be described on the level of the observations, but rather on the level of the characteristic function or the measure of the process.
In \cite{sMPSTemme}, Stochastic Matrix product States (sMPS) were introduced as ansatz for studying non-equilibrium states in statistical mechanics.
As shown further on, similarly to Matrix Product States (MPS) being fixed points of the Density Renormalization Group, sMPS should be seen as fixed points of Metropolis Monte-Carlo Sampling. Hence, these states represent the joint distribution of a statistical (non-Markovian) process.
The paper is ordered as follows. In the first section, we present an introduction to Matrix Product States (MPS), their continuum version (cMPS), Quantum Measurements, and Radon-Nikodym derivatives. In the second section, we show the connection with the so-called sMPS and how it can be used to described the non-Markovian processes and their Master equations with some examples.
In the last, section some miscellaneous applications can be found
\subsection{Matrix Product States and their Continuum versions}
Matrix Product States form a class of finitely correlated states used to study the low energy spectrum of local Hamiltonians in quantum spin chain.
For a chain $\otimes_{j=1}^N\mathbb{C}^d$ of size $N$, they are given as follows,
$$|\psi \{A^{(j)}[k]\}\rangle =\sum_{i_1,...,i_N}\operatorname{Tr}\left(A^{(i_1)}[1]...A^{(i_N)}[N] \right)(\sigma^+[1])^{i_1}...(\sigma^+[N])^{i_N} |0...0\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}_V(Z_N)|0...0\rangle$$
with matrix $A^{(j)}[k]\in \mathcal{M}_D$ of bound dimension $D$. The partial trace in the last term is in the virtual space. The following normalization condition can be chosen,
$$\sum_{j}A^j[k]A^j[k]^\dagger =\mathbb{1}$$
For the case $d=2$, the operator $Z_N$ can be rewritten as a solution of the recursion equation,
$$Z_N=Z_{N-1}+ Z_{N-1} \left(A_0[N]-\mathbb{1}\right)+Z_{N-1}A^1[N]\otimes \sigma^+$$
Using notation $\Delta n =1$, $\Delta Z_n = Z_{n}-Z_{n-1}$, $\Delta B^\dagger_n =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta n}}\sigma^+[n]$, this equation is equivalent to,
$$Z_N=\mathbb{1}+\sum_{j=1}^N \Delta Z_n,~~~\Delta Z_n = Z_{N-1} Q[n]\Delta n+Z_{N-1}R[n]\otimes \Delta B^\dagger_n,~ Q[n]=\frac{\mathbb{1}-A_0[N]}{\Delta_n},~~R[n]=\sqrt{\Delta_n}A^1[n]$$
This is a discrete quantum stochastic differential equation (QSDE). Clearly by identifying $\Delta n \leftrightarrow dt$ and $\Delta B^\dagger[n]\leftrightarrow dB^\dagger(t) $, the continuum version of matrix product states can be
Its continuum version is ,
$$|\psi \{Q[x], R[x]\}\rangle =\operatorname{Tr}\left(\exp\left(\int_0^L Q(x) ds + R(x)\otimes dB^\dagger(x)\right)\right) |\Omega\rangle =\operatorname{Tr}_V(Z_N)|0...0\rangle$$
which satisfies again the QSDE,
$$Z_t=\mathbb{1}+\int_0^t dZ_s,~~~dZ_t = Z_t Q[t]dt+Z_{t}R[t]\otimes dB^\dagger[t]$$
A wider variety of solutions of QSDE have been studied by Hudson and Parthasarathy \cite{HUDSON}. We do not continue on this topic.
\subsection{Quantum Measurement Theory}
Denote $(Y,\mathcal{B}(Y))$ a Borel space representing the output events of some quantum measurement. Define a random variable $X:Y\to \mathbb{R}$ which represent the value of the outputs. Measurements are described by operators $A^{(y)}$ labeled by $y\in Y$. It is then postulated in quantum statistics that the probability of an event in $E\in \mathcal{B}(Y)$ is given,
$$P(X(y), y\in E)=\int_{y\in E}\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho A^{(y)}A^{(y)\dagger}\right)$$
The conditional state $\rho$ resulting from the measurement is then given by,
$$\rho_E =\int_{y\in E}\frac{A^{(y)\dagger}\rho A^{(y)}}{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho A^{(y)}A^{(y)\dagger}\right)}$$
From this we can consider a sequence of measurement at different times $t_1,\dots,t_N$ with output values given by $X_{t_1},\dots,X_{t_n}$. The probability of a certain chain of outcomes $x_1,\dots,x_N$ at times $t_1,\dots,t_N$ is therefore given by,
\begin{align*}
P(X_{t_1}=x_1,\dots,X_{t_n}=x_n)=&P(X_{t_n}=x_n|X_{t_{n-1}}=x_{t_{n-1}},\dots,X_{t_{1}}=x_{t_{1}})\dots\\
& P(X_{t_2}=x_2|X_{t_{1}}=x_{t_{1}})P(X_{t_1}=x_{t_1})\\
&=\langle\rho| \left(A^{(x_1)}\otimes \overline{A}^{(x_1)}\right)\dots \left(A^{(x_N)}\otimes \overline{A}^{(x_N)}\right)|I\rangle
\end{align*}
From another perspective, this measurement process can be seen as the evolution of a state in a cavity interacting with an electromagnetic field. The outputs are the values given by the detector in contact with the field. An introduction of to this topic can be found in \cite{HANDEL}.
In \cite{HOLEVO}, Holevo studied the representation of continuous measurement. Clearly not any arbitrary operator can be considered when considering a continuum limit.
In order to derive the representation, Holevo studied the characteristic function of the joint probability distribution of the sequence of output.
The idea is that similarly to infinitely divisible processes in statistics, also known as Levy processes, to look at the characteristic function.
\begin{align*}
\sum_{x_1,...,x_N}\exp(i\lambda(x_1+...+x_n))P(X_{t_1}=x_1,\dots,X_{t_n}=x_n)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho\phi(\lambda)^n[\mathbb{1}]\right)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho\exp\left(n\mathcal{L}(\lambda)\right)[\mathbb{1}]\right)\\
\phi(\lambda)[.]= \sum_{x}\exp(i\lambda x)A^{(y)}[.]A^{(y)\dagger},~~\mathcal{L}(\lambda)[.]=\operatorname{Id}-\frac{1}{n}\left(\Phi(n)-n\operatorname{Id}\right)[.]
\end{align*}
Clearly the limit $n\to \infty$ does not always exists, however when it does, the resulting generator $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is given by a non-commutative version of the Levy-Khintchin representation theorem. One set of representations, we are interested in are of the form,
$$\mathcal{L}(\lambda)=\mathcal{L}_0[.]+\mathcal{L}_1(\lambda)[.] $$
with,
\begin{equation}
\label{Lindblad}
\mathcal{L}_0[.]=Q[.]+[.]Q^\dagger+\sum_j R_j[.]R^{\dagger}_j,~~Q=iH+\frac{1}{2}\sum_j R_jR_j^{\dagger}
\end{equation}
and,
$$\mathcal{L}_1(\lambda)[.]=im\lambda[.] +\sigma^2\left(R[.]R^\dagger-\frac{1}{2}\{RR^\dagger,.\}+ i\lambda (R[.]+[.]R^\dagger)-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2[.]\right)$$
Consider the following two examples,
\begin{example}
For,
$$dZ^{(1)}(t)=Z^{(1)}(t)\left(\mathcal{L}_0[.]dt+ \sigma\frac{R[.]+[.]R^\dagger}{2} dB^x_t-i\sigma\frac{R[.]-[.]R^\dagger}{2}dB^y_t +\frac{1}{2}\sigma m(dB^x_t+idB^y_t)\right)$$
with solution
\begin{align*}
Z^{(1)}_t=&\exp\left(t\mathcal{L}_0[.]dt -\frac{1}{2}\sigma^ t\left( \left(\frac{R[.]+[.]R^\dagger}{2}+m\right)^2 -\left(\frac{R[.]-[.]R^\dagger}{2}-m\right)^2 \right)+\right.\\
&\left. \sigma\frac{R[.]+[.]R^\dagger}{2} B^x_t-i\sigma\frac{R[.]-[.]R^\dagger}{2}B^y_t +\sigma m(B^x_t+iB^y_t)\right)
\end{align*}
where $(B^x_t,B^y_t)$ is a two-dimensional Brownian motion
We can verify using Ito-calculus,
\begin{align*}
E(\operatorname{Tr}_V(\rho Z^{(1)}_t)\exp(i\lambda (B^x_t+i B^y_t)))=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho \exp(t\mathcal{L}_0+t\mathcal{L}_1(\lambda))[\mathbb{1}]\right),\\
\end{align*}
\end{example}
We find a similar construction using 1-dimensional Brownian motion,
\begin{example}
For,
\begin{equation}
\label{mainSDE}
dZ^{(2)}_t=Z^{(2)}_t\left(\mathcal{L}_0[.]dt +\sigma\left(R[.]+[.]R^\dagger\right) dB_t+ m dB_t\right)
\end{equation}
$$Z^{(2)}_t=\exp\left(t\mathcal{L}_0[.]t-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2t\left(R[.]+[.]R^\dagger+m\right)^2+ \sigma\left(R[.]+[.]R^\dagger+m\right)B_t \right)$$
where $(B^x_t,B^y_t)$ is a two-dimensional Brownian motion
We can verify using Ito-calculus,
\begin{align*}
E(\operatorname{Tr}_V(\rho Z^{(2)}_t)\exp(i\lambda B_t))=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho \exp(t\mathcal{L}_0+t\mathcal{L}_1(\lambda))[\mathbb{1}]\right),\\
\end{align*}
\end{example}
As we see in the next section, stochastic matrix product states represent as explained here a sequential measurement of a cavity coupled to an electromagnetic field. The examples provided here are the continuum limits of such states.
\subsection{Radon-Nikodym derivatives and Girsanov's theorem}
Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ be a probability space, let $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ be another probability measure on $(\Omega,\mathcal{F})$, that is equivalent to $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$. Then there exist an almost surely positive random variable $Z$ be which satisfies $\mathbb{E} Z=1$ and for $A\in \mathcal{F}$,
$$\tilde{\mathbb{P}}(A)=\int_A Z(\omega)d\mathbb{P}(\omega)$$
The statement described above is the Radon-Nikodym theorem. The random variable $Z$, called the Radon-Nikodym derivative, and allow us to change a measure.
Suppose we have a filtration $\mathcal{F}(t)$, define for $0\leq t\leq T$, where T is a fixed final time. Then we can define the so-called Radon-Nikodym derivative process,
$$Z(t)=\mathbb{E}[Z|\mathcal{F}(t)]$$
The main application of the change of measure, is that it allows to map a Brownian motion onto another one with a drift. This is procedure is known under the name Girsanov's theorem.
\begin{theorem}[Girsanov]
Let $B(t)$, $0\leq t \leq T$, be a Brownian motion on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$, let $\mathcal{F}(t)$, be the filtration generated by this Brownian motion. Let $\Theta(t)$, $0\leq t \leq T$, be an adapted process, define,
\begin{align*}
Z(t)&=\exp\left(-\int_0^t \theta(u)dB(u)-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t \Theta^2(u)du\right)\\
\tilde{B}(t)=B(t)+\int_0^t \Theta(u)du
\end{align*}
Assume that $E\int_0^T \Theta^2(u)Z^2(u)du<\infty$. Let $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ be the probability measure generated by the Radon-Nikodm derivative $Z(T)$. The the process $\tilde{B}(t)$ is a Brownian motion under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$
\end{theorem}
As we will see further on, continuous stochastic matrix product states allow us to map a Wiener process onto another, not necessarily Gaussian, process with correlated increment
\section{Stochastic Matrix Product states}
We finally introduce Stochastic Matrix Product States (sMPS) and a few of its continuum counterparts (csMPS).
Stochastic Product States were first introduced in (REF) as possible tool for studying the partition function of spin models in statistical mechanics.
The stochastic product state was of the form,
\begin{equation}
\label{sMPSTemme}
|p_D\rangle =\sum_{i_1,...,i_N}\langle L|B_{(i_1)}^1...B_{(i_N)}^N|R\rangle|i_1...i_N\rangle
\end{equation}
with the matrices $B_{i_k}$ and vectors $\langle L|$, $\langle R|$ element-wise positive. Additionally the transfer matrices of this form $T[k]=\sum_j B_{(j)}[k]$ is a stochastic matrix.
We argue that this form is incomplete. In the last paragraph of this section, we show that for these type of states can be mapped onto a Markovian process. On the other hand, the construction proposed breaks down for the more general form, we give below.
Similarly to Matrix Product Operators (MPO), we derive Stochastic Matrix Product States from a purification method.
Consider a process $(X_j)_{j=1}^N$, $X_j\in \{y_1,...,y_d|y_j\in\mathbb{R}\}$, with joint probability $P(X_1=x_1,\dots,P_N=x_N)=p(x_1,\dots,x_n)$
Define the pure state $|\psi\rangle$,
$$|\psi\rangle =\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_N}\sqrt{p(x_1,\dots,x_N)}|i_1,\dots\rangle_A |i_1,\dots\rangle_B $$
The MPS-representation $\{B^{(i_j)}\}$ of this state can be derived. By tracing out the ancillary $B$, we derive the form,
\begin{equation}
\label{sMPSQM}
P(X_1=x_1,\dots,X_N=x_N)=C^N\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_N}\langle L|B_{(i_1)}^1 \circ ...\circ B_{(i_N)}^N|R\rangle \delta(x_1,i_1)\dots\delta(x_N,i_N)
\end{equation}
where $B_{(i_k)}^1$ is completely positive.
For some normalization constant $C$. In this case for the boundary operators, $|L\rangle =\hat{L} \otimes \mathbb{1}|I\rangle$, $|R\rangle =\hat{R}\otimes \mathbb{1}|I\rangle$, it should be taken that $\hat{L},\hat{R}\geq 0$. In contrast to the previous form the transfer matrix is a trace preserving completely positive operator $\Gamma[k][.]=\sum_j B_{(i_k)}^k [.]$.
\paragraph{continuous-time sMPS}
Setting the boundaries first aside see that this form is exactly equivalent to the Quantum Measurements described earlier. We can make this more explicit with the gauge transformation $A^{(i)}\to \tilde{A}^{(i)}=X^{-1/2}\tilde{A}^{(i)} X^{1/2}$, $\rho \to \tilde{\rho}=X^{1/2}\rho X^{1/2}$.
Additionally, when rewriting,
$$P(X_1=x_1,\dots,P_N=x_N)=Z_N(x_1,...,x_N) \left(\frac{1}{d}\right)^N$$
We see that the sMPS functions behave as a change of measure.
Let us keep this in mind and rewrite $Z_N$ as a solution of a discrete stochastic differential equation for the case $d=2$ and $X_j=\pm1$. So $Z_N=\mathbb{1}+\sum_{j=1}^N \Delta Z_n$ and,
$$\Delta Z_n = Z_{n-1} \frac{\left(\Gamma[n]-\mathbb{1}\right)}{\Delta n}\Delta n+Z_{n-1}\sqrt{\Delta_n}\left(A^{(-1)}[n]\otimes \overline{A}^{(-1)}[n]-A^{(1)}[n]\otimes \overline{A}^{(1)}[n]\right) \Delta B_n$$
where $\Delta B_n=\delta(x_n,+1)-\delta(x_n,-1)$. By taking the renormalization,
$$A^{(-1)}=\mathbb{1}+\Delta_n Q+\sqrt{\Delta_n}R,~~ A^{(+1)}=\mathbb{1}+\Delta_n Q-\sqrt{\Delta_n}R$$
with $Q=iH+\frac{1}{2}R^\dagger R$, and taking limit $\Delta_n \to 0$, this leads to the form,
\begin{equation}
\label{csMPS}
Z(t)=Z(t)\mathcal{L}_0[.]dt +Z(t)\left(R[.]+[.]R^\dagger\right) dB_t
\end{equation}
derived in the Quantum Measurement section. Hence, the Radon-Nikodym satisfying is a continu version the sMPS.
Clearly other time-continuous versions are possible by considering a different product measure. Let $X_j\in\{0,1\}$ and $p(X_j=0)=\exp(-\lambda \epsilon)$, $p(X_j=1)=\exp(-\lambda \epsilon)\epsilon \lambda$.
Then let us write,
$$\Delta Z_n = Z_{n-1} \frac{A^{(0)}[n]\otimes \overline{A}^{(0)}[n]-\mathbb{1}}{\epsilon}\Delta n+Z_{n-1}\left(A^{(1)}[n]\otimes \overline{A}^{(1)}[n]-\mathbb{1}\right) \Delta N(n)$$
Here, we chose $\Delta n=\epsilon\delta(x_n=0)$and $\Delta N(n)=\delta(x_j=1)$. By taking $A^{(0)}=\mathbb{1}+i\epsilon H-\epsilon \frac{1}{2}\mu $ and $A^{(1)}=\sqrt{\mu} U$, for some unitary $U$, $U^\dagger U=\mathbb{1}$ and $\mu>0$.
Computing the generator $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ of the characteristic function yield,
$$\mathcal{L}(\lambda)=i[H,.]+\mu\left(\exp(i\lambda)U[.]U^\dagger-[.]\right)$$
In the bound dimension one case, this is nothing but a Poisson process. For higher dimension, this corresponds to a photon-counting process from the quantum measurement point of view.
We do not continue on this.
\paragraph{sMPS as fixed points of Metropolis sampling}
Let us rephrase the original Metropolis Monte Carlo Algorithm in a quantum measurement based language in a some state manifold $\mathcal{M}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize states}}}$. This allows us a larger variety of input states, besides product state, and operations, thus extending the markovian character of the algorithm to non-markovianity.
The whole procedure can be resumed as follows,
starting from some input state $\rho (0)$
\begin{enumerate}
\item at step $t$, pick a (local) operation $O_j[.]$
\item accept the measurement with probability $\operatorname{Tr}\left(O_j^*[\mathbb{1}]\rho (t-1)\right)$
\item if accepted, change the state to
$$\rho(t-1)\to \rho(t) =\min\limits_{\sigma \in \mathcal{M}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize states}}}}\left\|\sigma -\frac{O_j[\rho (t-1) ]}{\operatorname{Tr}\left(O_j^*[\mathbb{1}]\rho (t-1)\right) }\right\|_2$$
if necessary, project the state back onto the manifold.
\item go back to step 1
\end{enumerate}
Given some observable $M$, for large enough time $T$, the expectation $E(M)(T)$,
$$E(M)(T)= \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \operatorname{Tr} \left(|\psi (t)\rangle \langle \psi(t)| M \right)$$
converges to the equilibrium expectation, $\lim_{T\to \infty} E(M)(T)=\operatorname{Tr} \left(\rho_{\infty} M \right)$, with,
$$\rho_{\infty}=\sum_i\lim_{T\to \infty} \operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho_0 \Gamma^T [A^{i}A^{i\dagger}]\right)|i\rangle \langle i|,~~\Gamma[.]=\sum_j A_j [.] A_j^\dagger $$
As an example, consider a classical 1-dimensional spin chain, described by the Hamiltonian,
$$H=\sum_j s_i s_{i+1}$$
Choose $\mathcal{M}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize states}}}$ first to be the manifold of product states,
$$\mathcal{M}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize states}}}=\left\{|s_1,...,s_N\rangle | s_i=\pm 1 \right\}$$
By taking the measurements $O(s_j)=\frac{\exp(\beta H) |s_j\rangle \langle -s_j| \exp(-\beta H)|}{\sum_{s_j}\exp(\beta H)}$, and defining the operations,
and operations,
$$\tilde{O}(s_j)[.]=\sum_s\langle s_{j-1},s_j,s_{j+1}|O|s_{j-1},s_j,s_{j+1}\rangle \langle s_{j-1},s_j,s_{j+1}| [.] |s_{j-1},s_j,s_{j+1}\rangle | s_{j-1},s_j,s_{j+1}\rangle \langle s_{j-1},s_j,s_{j+1}|$$
the algorithm describes precisely a Glauber dynamics \cite{Metropolis}, which converges to the equilibrium state,
$$\rho_{\beta}=\sum_{s_1,...,s_N}\langle L| B(s_1)...B(s_N)|R\rangle |s_1,...,s_N\rangle\langle s_1,...,s_N|,~~B(s_j)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\exp(2\beta s_j)& 0\\
0 & \exp(-2\beta s_j)
\end{array}\right)$$
Let us now extend $\mathcal{M}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize states}}}$, to the mpo-manifold of bound dimension 2,
$$\mathcal{M}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize states}}}=\left\{\rho \left\{M[s_j]\right\}\rangle | \operatorname{dim}M[s_j]=2 \right\},~~\rho\left\{M[s_j]\right\}=\sum_{s_1,...,s_N}\langle L| M(s_1)...M(s_N)|R\rangle |s_1,...,s_N\rangle\langle s_1,...,s_N|$$
Clearly $\rho_{\beta}$ is a fixed point, in the sense that,
$$\rho_{\infty}=\sum_j\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho_\beta \Gamma^T [O^{j*}[\mathbb{1}]]\right)|i\rangle \langle i|,~~\forall T$$
\paragraph{Difference between the representations}
Equation (\ref{sMPSTemme}) can be mapped to (\ref{sMPSQM}), by taking, $$A^{(i)}_{y,z}[k]=\sqrt{B^{(i)}_{y,z}}[k]|y\rangle\langle z|$$
Even more, in the following construction we show that we can find a Markov process that is equivalent to the ones described by (\ref{sMPSTemme}) on the level of the MPS.
As noted before the transfer matrix of (\ref{sMPSTemme}) is a stochastic matrix. Consequently, this corresponds to the completely positive operator $\Gamma[]=\sum_{xy}T_{x,y}|x\rangle\langle y|$ which is the transfer matrix in (\ref{sMPSQM}).
Consider first a Markov process $(Y_j)$ with transfer matrix $T$. The joint probability distribution is easily written in smps-notation by taking $A^{(x_j)}[k]=T|j\rangle \langle j|$.
Take now the process $(X_j)$ with smps of the form (\ref{sMPSTemme}). Consider its purification to MPS. Next block the sites over a length $L$ so that the number matrices $M^{(i_1,\dots,i_L)}=A^{(i_1)}\dots A^{(i_L)}$ exceeds the Kraus-rank of the completely positive operator (CP). Next apply a change of basis in the virtual. As it is known, for any CP-map Kraus-operators are equivalent by some unitary $U$,
$$\Gamma[.]=\sum_j A^j[.]A^{j\dagger}=\sum_j B^j[.]B^{j\dagger}\leftrightarrow A^j=\sum_i U_{ji}B_j$$
Since we have blocked to full rank, and since the transfer matrix over this length is of the form $\Gamma[L][.]=\sum_{x,y}(T^L)_{x,y}|x\rangle\langle y|.|y\rangle\langle x|$. Take the unitary so that $M^{(i_1,\dots,i_L)}\to \lambda(x) \tilde{A}^{(x)}=(T^L)|x\rangle\langle x|$. Consider the equivalent class $[x]=\{[i_1,...,i_L]|M^{(i_1,\dots,i_L)}\propto \tilde{A}^{(x)}\}$. The new process $Y_j=\{[x]\}$ is thus a Markovian process over a rescaled time.
In some sense the MPS describes the time evolution of a cavity couple an electromagnetic field. At each time, some detection procedure is applied, for example Homodyne detection, fixing the real basis of the MPS, i.e. photon basis at each time slice of the e.m.-field. The change of processes is therefore nothing but a change to another commutant of the *-algebra of observables.
\subsection{Master Equation for memory processes}
Let $(X_j)_{j\geq 0}$, be a process whose joint probability distribution is described by $\mathbb{P}$.
A topic of broad interest is the time evolution the marginal discribution of $X_N$. For any distribution, this time evolution of $P(X_N=x_N)$ with initial condition $P(X_0=x_0)$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{memory}
P(X_N=x_N)=\sum_{x_1,...,x_{N-1}} P(X_N=x_n|X_{N-1}=x_{n-1},...,X_0=x_0)...P(X_1=x_1|x_0)
\end{equation}
For a Markov process with transition matrix $P(X_j=x_j|X_{j-1}=x_{j-1})=T_{x_j,x_{j-1}}$, this evolution can be reduced severely to the different forms,
$$P(X_N=x_N)=\sum_{x_{N-1}}T_{x_N,x_{N-1}}P(X_{N-1}=x_{N-1})$$
For $T=\mathbb{1}+\epsilon G$, with $G$ understood as a generator of a time-continuous stochastic matrix, we can rewrite in a differential form,
$$\frac{dP(k)}{dt}=\sum_l \delta(k,l)\frac{P(X_N=k)-P(X_{N-1}=l)}{\epsilon}=\sum_{l\not=k}\left[G_{k,l}P(X_{N-1}=l)-G_{l,k}P(X_{N-1}=k)\right]$$
This is known as the Master equation.
As we can see, the number of parameters of equation (\ref{memory}) scales exponential as we try to find the time-evolution of a marginal $P(X_N=x_N)$. In a first approach, as it is done in practice, we the transition probability can be bounded up to some fixed time $k$. However, similarly to the Markovian case, this can be written in a simple sMPS form of bound dimension $2k$.
\begin{example}
Let $k<\infty$ and $\forall n$,
\begin{align*}
P(X_n=i_n|X_{n-1}=i_{n_1},&\dots,X_{n-k}=i_{n-k},X_{n-k-1}=x_{n-k-1},\dots,X_{}=x_{1},X_0=x_0)\\
&=P(X_n=i_n|X_{n-1}=j_{n_1},\dots,X_{n-k}=x_k)=T_{i_{n-k},...,i_{n-1},i_n}
\end{align*}
Then, the sMPS representation is given by,
$$A^{i_n}_{y_1,\dots,y_{k},z_1,\dots,z_{k}}=T_{y_1,\dots,y_k,z_{k}}\delta_{i_n=z_k}\delta_{y_{2}=z_1}\dots \delta_{y_{k}=z_{k-1}}$$
and with boundaries,
$$|X\rangle =|I\rangle,~~\langle \rho|_x=P(X_0=x)$$
\end{example}
As understand from the point of view of Quantum Measurement theory, the sMPS-formalism, describes smoother conditional probability. From the condensed matter point of view, similarly to matrix product states. Such states describe processes whose almost, but not quite joint probability factorizes and vice-versa \cite{BRANDAO},
$$\|p(X_1,...,X_k, X_{k+N},...,X_{k+l+N})-p(X_{k+N},...,X_{k+l+N})\|_1 \leq C_2 \exp(-C_1 N )$$
Thus, we can write for a compationally efficient parametrzation for such memory processes.
So given a process $(X_j)_{j\geq 0}$, described by the smps,
$$P(X_1=x_1,\dots,X_N=x_N)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho \hat{Z}_N{x_1,...,x_N}\right)$$
with $Z_0=\mathbb{1}$ and,
$$\Delta Z_N(x_1,...,x_N) =\sum_j \hat{Z}_{n-1}(x_1,...,x_{N-1})\left(A^{j}\otimes \overline{A}^j-\mathbb{1}\right) \delta(j,x_N)$$
Then,
$$P(X_N=k)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_{l}\hat{T}_{k,l}\hat{P}_l\rho\right) $$
for which,
$$\sum_l\hat{T}_{k,l}\hat{P}_l=\sum_l(\overline{A}^{(k)}\overline\otimes {A}^{(k)})(\overline{A}^{(l)}\overline\otimes {A}^{(l)})\Gamma^{*N-2}$$
In the time-continuous limit this corresponds to,
$$\frac{d}{dt}P(X_t=k)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_{l}\hat{G}_{k,l}\hat{P}_l\rho\right) $$
and again,
$$\sum_l\hat{G}_{k,l}\hat{P}_l=\sum_l S^k\exp(tL)$$
with $S^{(k)}[.]=Q^{(k)}[.]+[.]Q^{(k)\dagger}$, $S^{(k)}[.]=R^{(k)\dagger}[.]R^{(k)}$ or sum of both
\begin{example}[Non-Markovian Birth-Death processes]
Let $X_j\in \mathbb{N}$, and
$$Q^{(n)}=-\frac{1}{2}\hat{G}_{n,n}\otimes|n\rangle \langle n|,~~R_{+1}^{(n)}=\hat{G}_{n,n+1}|n\rangle \langle n+1|,~~R_{-1}^{(n)}=\hat{G}_{n,n-1}|n\rangle \langle n-1|$$
with $0=\hat{G}_{n,n}+\hat{G}_{n,n}^\dagger +\hat{G}_{n+1,n}\hat{G}_{n+1,n}^\dagger+\hat{G}_{n+1,n} \hat{G}_{n+1,n}^\dagger$.
Let $S^{(n)}$ be,
$$S^{(n)}=Q^{(n)}[.]+[.]Q^{(n)\dagger}+ R_{+1}^{(n)\dagger}[.]R_{+1}^{(n)}+ R_{-1}^{(n)\dagger}[.]R_{-1}^{(n)}$$
For choice of boundary $\rho=\sum_n \lambda_n |n\rangle \rangle n|$ and $\operatorname{dim}(\hat{G}_{n,m})=1$, this reduces to the birth-and-death process.
\end{example}
\subsection{Description of Non-Markovian Quantum Dynamics}
Consider some two level system, representing the two lowest energy states of a larger n-level system weakly couple to an infinite environment. For low temperatures and weak-coupling, the density matrix $\rho(t)o$ evolves under some Markovian dynamics, $\Gamma_t =\exp(tL)$,
$$\rho_0 \to \rho(t)=\exp(tL)[\rho_0]$$
Let us now increase the temperature $T>0$, but keep a weak coupling with environment, while observing the evolution of the two level system as being part of the initial Gibbs-state $\rho_T$. This two level system, is a part of some subspace of the evolving state $\rho_T(t)$.
Define the super-operator $M_{ij}[.]:\mathcal{M}_n\to \mathcal{M}_n$.
\begin{definition}
\label{defMij}
Let $M_{ij}[.]:\mathcal{M}_n\to \mathcal{M}_n$, so that
so that $\forall x_{i}\overline{x}_j$, $\sum_{i,j}x_i \overline{x}_j M_{ij}[.]$ is completely positive and $\sum_j M_{jj}[\mathbb{1}]=\mathbb{1}$.
\end{definition}
Notice then that $\forall \sigma \in \mathbb{M}_n$, the matrix $\rho=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sigma M_{ij}[\mathbb{1}]\right)|i\rangle \langle j|$ is a density matrix. On the other hand, any projection of a higher-level system to a lower level subsystem, has to satisfy these condition. Therefore, the definition (\ref{defMij}), should be seen as the necessary and sufficient condition for any projector of a density matrix onto a lower dimensional density.
With this operator, we can thus extract the density matrix of the two-level system at each time t,
\begin{equation}
\label{MasterQ}
\rho_T(0)\to \rho(t)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\exp(t L)[\rho_T] M_{ij}[\mathbb{1}] \right)|i\rangle \langle j|
\end{equation}
We can see that the canonical form of $M_{ij}[.]$ is of the form,
$$M_{ij}[.]=\sum_k A^{i,k}[.]A^{j,k \dagger},~~\sum_{j,k} A^{j,k}[\mathbb{1}]A^{j,k \dagger}=\mathbb{1}$$
Indeed, the idea is similar to the Choi-Jamiolkowski Isomorphism for deriving the Kraus-representation of completely positve operators.
Define the matrix,
$$=\sum_{i,j,\alpha,\beta} |i\rangle \langle j|\otimes M_{ij}[|\alpha\rangle\langle \beta|]\otimes |\alpha\rangle\langle \beta|$$
By definition of $M_{ij}$, $\mathcal{C}(M)\geq 0$, whence it can be decomposed as,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}(M)&=\sum_k |X_k\rangle \langle X_k|=\sum_k |i\rangle \langle j|\otimes X_{i,k}|I\rangle \langle I| X_{j,k}^\dagger
\end{align*}
where we have written, $|I\rangle =\sum_j |jj\rangle$.
From this the proof follows.
We see that starting from a quantum Markovian dynamics, the effective evolution of the two-level system given in equation (\ref{MasterQ}) is non-Markovian.
Let us derive this evolution from a Matrix Product State approach. Once this is done, we can conclude using the area law result that any non-Markovian dynamics, for which,
$$\|\rho(X_1,...,X_k, X_{k+N},...,X_{k+l+N})-\rho(X_{k+N},...,X_{k+l+N})\|_2 \leq C_2 \exp(-C_1 N )$$
can be efficiently approximated using equation using MPO and the time-continuous dynamics is given by equation (\ref{MasterQ}).
Denote $\rho(X_1,\dots, X_N,\dots)$ the joint density matrix of process describing the evolution of some sub-level system, in the course of our example a 2-level system.
Consider the purification of the process,
$$|\psi\rangle =\sum_{i_1,\dots, i_N,\dots}\sqrt{\rho(X_1,\dots, X_N,\dots)}|i_1,\dots, i_N,\dots\rangle |i_1,\dots, i_N,\dots\rangle$$
Again, considering the MPS-representation of the state, and tracing out the ancillary, we acquire the Matrix Product Operator representation of the process,
$$\rho(X_1,\dots, X_N,\dots)=\sum_{i_1,j_1,\dots, i_N,j_N,\dots}\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho M_{i_1,j_1}[.]\circ \dots \circ M_{i_N,j_N}[.]\circ \dots \mathbb{1} \right)$$
with,
$$M_{i_k,j_k}[.]=\sum_{l}A^{il}[.]A^{il\dagger}$$
This yields us the evolution of the marginals,
Then,
$$\rho(N)=\sum_{i,j}\operatorname{Tr}\left(\hat{\Gamma}[\hat{\rho}(N-1)_{ij}]\rho\right)|i\rangle\langle j| $$
for which,
$$\hat{\Gamma}[\rho(N-1)]=M_{ij}^*\circ \Gamma^{*N-1})$$
In the time-continuous limit this corresponds to,
$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho(t)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\hat{G}[\hat{\rho}(t)_{ij}]\rho\right)|i\rangle\langle j|$$
and again,
$$\hat{G}[\rho(t)]=S_{ij}^*\circ \exp(tL)$$
with $S^{(ij)}[.]=Q^{(i)}[.]+[.]Q^{(j)\dagger}$ or $S^{(ij)}[.]=R^{(i)\dagger}[.]R^{(j)}$, and,
$$L[.]=\sum_j Q^{(j)}[.]+[.]Q^{(j)}+R^{(j)}[.]R^{(j)},~~\sum_{j} Q^{(j)}+Q^{(j)\dagger}+R^{(j)\dagger}R^{(j)}=0$$
\section{Miscellaneous}
\subsection*{A Complete Market with Finitely Correlated Increments of the Logarithm of the Stocks}
As we can see, from the form of the Radon-Nikodym derivatives described in this paper, there is for all increments some correlation with future and past increments. One of the goals of Financial Mathematics is to study the pricing of contracts so that both clients and agents cannot take advantage of each other. This theory is also known as arbitrage-pricing theory. Interestingly, our formalism allow us to define a market with a certain bias in the evolution of stocks. Yet, we see that among these markets, fairness, in the sense of "no-arbitrage", can still be found.
Idea, consider the projector onto the identity. With a
\subsubsection{A Fast Introduction to Neutral-Pricing}
This introduction is meant as a presentation of the ideas of arbitrage pricing and contains many holes. For a full introduction we refer to \cite{SHREVEI}, \cite{SHREVEII}.
Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ be a probability and $B_t$ a brownian motion. Denote $\mathcal{F}(t)$ the filtration wrt to the Brownian motion.
In the most simple market model to different actions are possible at each time $t$. We can either purchase some stock $S(t)$ or invest at some interest rate $r(t)$ in the money market. An option is a contract with a payoff at some later time $T$ that depends on the stock $S(t)$ at different values $0<t\leq T$.
The idea of arbitrage pricing approach is to find a portofolio $X(t)$ that replicate the options by only using the two actions described above.
Assume the stock whose price at time $t$ is given by $S(t)$ satisfies the stochastic differential equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{Stock}
dS(t)=\alpha S(t)dt+\sigma S(t)dB_t
\end{equation}
Define the discount process $D(t)$,
$$D(t)=\exp\left(-\int_0^t r(s)ds\right)$$
The randomness of the stock is described by some measure $\mathbb{P}$. However, as we will see there is a nice trick that allow us to find the replicating strategy by changing to a new measure, called the risk-neutral measure.
\begin{definition}
A probability measure is said to be risk-neutral if,
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\mathbb{P}$ and $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ are equivalent, and
\item under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$, the discounted stock price $D(t)S(t)$ is a martingale
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The existence of the risk neutral measure plays a central in risk-neutral pricing as it allows to find a strategy to hedge any derivative security.
Denote $X(t)$ the value of the portofolio. The idea is to hedge the derivative security by investing at each time in $\Delta(t)$ stocks $S(t)$ and the difference in the money market with interest rate $r$.
The differential of $X(t)$ is therefore given by,
$$dX(t)=\Delta(t)dS(t)+r(X(t)-\Delta(t) S(t))dt=rX(t)dt+\Delta(t)d(D(t)S(t))$$
We see then that the differential of the discounted portofolio,
$$d(D(t)X(t))=\Delta(t)d(D(t)S(t))$$
The martingale representation theorem allows us the write any martingale defined on a filtration of a Brownian motion as a stochastic integral. In the case of $D(t)S(t)$, we have $D(t)S(t)=\int_0^t \sigma D(s)S(s)dW_s$.
The first fundamental theorem of asset pricing asserts that if a market model has a risk-neutral-pricing formula, then it does not admit arbitrage. Arbitrage is a trading strategy that begins with nothing, has probability of losing money, and a strictly positive probability of making money.
Let $V(T)$ be the payoff of the option at time $T$. The payoffs at a time $t<T$ are called derivative securities.
Therefore, we see that our model
So given some contract given by the derivative security $V(T)$. Then since $D(T)S(T)$ is a martingale under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$,then so is $D(t)V(t)$.
We can then use the martingale representation theorem to write,
$$D(t)V(t)=V(0)+\int_0^t \Gamma dB_s$$
Our portofolio will replicate the price of the derivative security, if $\Delta(t)=\frac{\Gamma(t)}{\sigma D(t)S(t)}$ and $X(0)=V(0)$.
Such a market wherein every derivative security can be hedged is called a complete market.
\subsubsection{The Correlated Model}
Clearly the form of the SDE (\ref{mainSDE}) of the stochastic matrix product state reminds a lot of geometric brownian motion. So why not define a model, where the stocks $S(t)$ are described by such SDE.
According to the arbitrage pricing, our market model is then complete if $D(t)S(t)$ is a martingale under some measure $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ whose Radon-Nikodym derivative is also of the form (\ref{mainSDE}). Unfortunately, it turns out that we cannot consider both $S(t)$ and $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ of the form (\ref{mainSDE}) at the same time.
We discuss both cases separately and derive the condition for the completeness of the market.
\subsubsection{Case 1: Change in Evolution Stock}
The idea of model is then to redefine the time evolution of the stock $S(t)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho \hat{S}(t) X\right)$, with,
\begin{equation}
\label{Stock}
d\hat{S}(t)=\hat{S}(t)\left(\mathcal{L}_0[.]dt +\alpha dt +\sigma\left(R[.]+[.]R^\dagger\right) dB_t \right)
\end{equation}
The discounted process $D_t S_t$ will have a drift terms $\alpha-r$. This drift term can be taken care of using Girsanov's theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Let,
\begin{equation}
\label{martingalecond1}
\mathcal{L}_0[X]dt +(\alpha -r) \left(R[X]+[X]R^\dagger\right)=0
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{L}_0[.]$ of the form (\ref{Lindblad}).
Let $S(t)$ be a process satisfying equation (\ref{Stock}). For the Radon-Nikodym derivative $Z_T$,
$$Z(T)=\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha -r }{\sigma}B(T)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha -r }{\sigma}\right)^2T\right)$$
Let $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ be the measure generated by $Z_T$ is a risk-neutral measure. Then if,
$$E\left(Z_T\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho \hat{S}(t)\left(R[X]+[X]R^\dagger \right)\right)^2\right)<\infty$$
$\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ is the risk-neutral measure
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, we use Girsanov's theorem to shift the drift of $D(t)S(t)$ by going over to the Brownian process under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$,
$$d\tilde{B}(t)=dB(t)+\frac{(\alpha-r)}{\sigma}dt$$
Under the new measure $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$, $D(t)S(t)$ is of the form,
$$dD(t)S(t)=D(t)\operatorname{Tr}\left[\rho \hat{S}(t)\left(\mathcal{L}_0[.]dt+(\alpha -r) \left(R[.]+[.]R^\dagger\right)dt+ \sigma\left(R[.]+[.]R^\dagger\right) d\tilde{B}_t\right)X\right]$$
Under the condition of the theorem, the $dt$ term disappears and $D(t)S(t)$ is a martingale under $\mathbb{\tilde{P}}$.
\end{proof}
By the theorem, proven above our market model is therefore a complete market.
In condensed matter, the thermodynamic limit is often of interest. In this case, this corresponds to the limit $T\to \infty$. Something interesting happens in this case. Indeed for any finite $T<\infty$, we see that the boundaries have to correspond with the left and right zero-eigenvector of $\mathcal{L}_0$. In the case, the condition derived in previous theorem reduces to,
$$\left(R[X]+[X]R^\dagger \right)=0$$
Hence the boundary is an eigenvector of both $R[.]+[.]R^\dagger$ and $\mathcal{L}_0$. This means that the bound dimension of $R$ reduces to $1$, and $Z_t=1$. So if we consider some option that has a payoff at a finite time, then we get the usual stock again.
$$\lim_{T\to \infty}\tilde{S}(t)=S(t)$$
with,
$$dS(t)=\alpha dt + \sigma dB(t)$$
We do not continue further on this case.
\subsubsection{Case 2: Change of Measure}
The model here considers the new measure $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ generated by the Radon-Nikodym derivative $Z_T=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho \hat{Z}_T X\right)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{Radon Mod2}
d\hat{Z}(t)=\hat{Z}(t)\left(\mathcal{L}_0[.]dt +\left(R[.]+[.]R^\dagger\right) dB_t + m dB_t\right)
\end{equation}
And the stocks $S(t)$ satisfy the usual evolution,
$$dS(t)=\alpha dt + \sigma dB(t)$$
The increments $\Delta B_n$ are now possibly correlated under this measure.
First, let us make sure that the discounted stock $D(t)S(t)$ is a martingale again.
Assume further on that $Z(T)>0$.
\begin{theorem}
For,
\begin{equation}
\label{martingalecond}
\mathcal{L}_0[X]+(\alpha-r+\sigma m)X+ \sigma\left(R[X]+[X]R^\dagger \right)=0
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{L}_0[.]$ of the form (\ref{Lindblad}).
The measure $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ defined under the Radon-Nikodym derivative (\ref{Radon Mod2}), then,
$$d(D(t)S(t)Z_t)=\sigma D(t)S(t)\mathcal{Z}_t dB_t$$
with,
$$\mathcal{Z}(t)=\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho \hat{Z}(t) \left(R[X]+[X]R^\dagger+(m+\sigma)X\right)\right)$$
If,
$$E(S(t)^2\mathcal{Z}(t)^2)<\infty$$
then $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ is a risk neutral measure
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The computation is similar as the one above.
Using ito calculus, we can see that,
$$E(Z_T D(t)S(t)|\mathcal{F}_s)=Z(s)D(s)S(s)$$
where $Z(s)=E(Z_T |\mathcal{F}_s)$ is the Radon-Nikodym process.
From this we indeed see that $D(s)S(s)$ is a martingale under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$.
\end{proof}
Additionally, we need to show that for this model every derivative security can be hedged. Indeed, in the introduction the martingale representation theorem was used. However, $B(t)$ is not a Brownian motion anymore and not even a martingale under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$. Yet, we need to define a method.
Notice first the following,
\begin{Lemma}
If $M_t$ is a martingale under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$, then $Z_t M_t$ is a martingale under $\mathbb{P}$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $M(t)$ is $\mathcal{F}_t$-measurable then,
$$M_s=\tilde{E}(M_t|\mathcal{F}_s)=\frac{1}{Z_s}E(Z_t M_t |\mathcal{F}_s)$$
from which the claim follows.
\end{proof}
We can then show using the theorem that for the portofolio process $X(t)$,
$$d(Z(t)S(t)X(t))=\sigma \Delta(t)S(t)\mathcal{Z}(t) X(t) dB_t$$
Defining the martingale process for the derivative security, $D(t)V(t)=\tilde{E}(D(T)V(T)|\mathcal{F}_s)$, the process $Z(t)D(t)V(t)$ is a martingale under $\mathbb{P}$. The martingale representation theorem can be used again,
$$Z(T)D(T)V(T)=V(0)+\int_0^t \Gamma(s) dB_s$$
And we can set $\Delta(t)=\frac{\Gamma_t}{\sigma S(t)\mathcal{Z}_t}$.
Since the portofolio can only replicated by a unique strategy, this market model is complete.
The thermodynamic limit $T\to \infty$ can be discussed again. Indeed, again, we need the additional condition $\mathcal{L}_0[X]=0$. the Radon-Nikodym process then reduces to,
$$\lim_{T\to \infty}Z(t)=\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha -r }{\sigma}B_t-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha -r }{\sigma}\right)^2t\right)$$
We summarize this in the corollary,
\begin{corollary}
In the limit $T\to \infty$, a complete market model will always have in time uncorrelated increments of the logarithm of the stock.
\end{corollary}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we discuss how Stochastic Matrix Product states can be used as a representation of the Radon-Nikodym derivative of processes defined on a filtration of another process. With this representation, we derive a simple equation for the time-evolution of the marginal distribution of the process. We showed how classical non-Markovian, classical and quantum processes can be embedded in a quantum Markovian dynamics. The properties of non-Markovian processes, such as ergodicity and mixing are therefore determined by the quantum dynamics.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Distance oracles}
Given a graph $G = (V,E)$ with edge weights, an {\em approximate distance oracle} for $G$ is a data structure that can report approximate distance queries between vertex
pairs efficiently. For any vertices $u,v\in V$, if $d_G(u,v)$ denotes the shortest path distance from $u$ to $v$ in $G$ and if
$\tilde{d}(u,v)$ denotes the approximate distance output by the oracle, we require that $d_G(u,v)\leq \tilde{d}(u,v)\leq\delta d_G(u,v)$, where $\delta\geq 1$
is the approximation (called also the (multiplicative) {\em stretch} parameter) of the oracle. The goal is to give an approximate distance oracle with small space, query time, stretch, and
(perhaps to a lesser extent) preprocessing time.
Our focus is on undirected graphs as it can be shown that no non-trivial oracles exist for directed graphs \cite{TZ01}. A seminal result in this area is that of Thorup and
Zwick \cite{TZ01}. For any positive integer $k$ and a graph with non-negative edge weights and with $m$ edges and $n$ vertices, they gave an approximate distance oracle with
space $O(kn^{1+1/k})$, stretch $2k-1$, query time $O(k)$, and preprocessing time $O(kmn^{1/k})$. For constant $k$, the trade-off between the first three parameters
is optimal, assuming a widely believed and partially proved girth conjecture of Erd\H{o}s \cite{E63}. For super-constant $k$, small improvements exist. In \cite{W13}, it was shown
how to improve the query time to $O(\log k)$ while keeping the same space, stretch, and preprocessing. More recently, Chechik \cite{C14} further improved this to $O(1)$ query time.
Mendel and Naor \cite{MN06} gave an oracle with $O(n^{1+1/k})$ space and $O(1)$ query time at the cost of a constant-factor increase in stretch.
So far, we have only discussed queries for approximate \emph{distances} but it is natural to require the data structure to also be able to report corresponding
\emph{paths}.
We say that an oracle is {\em path-reporting} if it can report those paths in time proportional to their lengths (in addition to the query time needed for distances), and we say that it is a not path-reporting oracle otherwise.
The oracle of \cite{TZ01} and the $O(\log k)$ query time oracle of \cite{W13} are path-reporting, but this is not the case for the oracle of Mendel and Naor \cite{MN06}
nor for the oracle of Chechik which uses their oracle as a black box. Note that a space requirement of order $kn^{1+1/k}$ is
$\Omega(n\log n)$ for any choice of $k$. In this paper, we focus on path-reporting distance oracles
that use $o(n \log n)$ space, albeit at the price of increased stretch.
\subsection{Distance Labeling}
A natural variant of distance oracles arises when we start to distribute the data structure among all vertices.
Consider a graph problem involving queries for pairs of vertices. In a \emph{labeling scheme} for this problem, the goal is to assign as short labels as possible to
each vertex of the input graph so that a query for any pair $(u,v)$ of vertices can be answered (preferably efficiently) exclusively from the labels assigned to $u$
and $v$. We are interested in a {\em distance labeling} scheme where given labels of two vertices $u$ and $v$, a distance estimate $\tilde{d}(u,v)$ that satisfies
$d_G(u,v) \le \tilde{d}(u,v) \le \delta \cdot d_G(u,v)$ can be efficiently computed.
Distance labeling was introduced in a pioneering work by Peleg \cite{P00a}.
The distance oracles of Thorup and Zwick \cite{TZ01} and their refinements \cite{W13,C14} can serve as distance labeling schemes as well. (The maximum label size becomes $O(n^{1/k}\cdot\log^{1-1/k}n)$ words, and other parameters stay intact.) This is, however, not the case for Mendel-Naor's oracle \cite{MN06}.
To summarize, {\em all} existing distance labeling schemes use $\Omega(\log n)$ words per label in the worst case. The labeling scheme that we devise in the current paper uses $o(\log n)$ words per label, for graphs with polynomially bounded diameter. On the other hand, its stretch guarantee is much larger than that of \cite{TZ01,W13,C14}.
\subsection{Labeled Routing}
In a closely related {\em labeled routing} problem we want to precompute two pieces of information for every vertex $u$ of the input graph. These are the {\em label} of $u$ and the {\em routing table} of $u$. Given a label of another vertex $v$, the vertex $u$ should decide to which neighbor $w$ of $u$ to forward a message intended for $v$ based on its local routing table and on the label of $v$. Given this forwarded message with the label of $v$, the neighbor $w$ selects one of its own neighbors, and forwards it the message, and so forth. The {\em routing path} is the $u$-$v$-path which will eventually be taken by a message originated in $u$ and intended for $v$. (Assuming that the routing scheme is correct, the path will indeed end in $v$.) The {\em stretch} of a routing scheme is the maximum ratio between a length of a routing $u$-$v$ path and the distance $d_G(u,v)$ between $u$ and $v$, taken over all (ordered) pairs $(u,v)$ of vertices.
Labeled routing problem was introduced in a seminal paper by Peleg and Upfal \cite{PU88}, and it was studied in \cite{C99,EGP98,AP92,ANLP90}.
The state-of-the-art labeled routing scheme was devised by Thorup and Zwick \cite{TZ01a}. It provides stretch $4k-5$ and uses routing tables of size $O(\mathit{polylog}(n) \cdot n^{1/k})$ and labels of size $O(k \cdot {{\log^2 n} \over {\log\log n}})$.
The space usage by current routing schemes is at least logarithmic in $n$ (counted in words; each word is $O(\log n)$ bits). In many settings such space requirement is prohibitively large. In this paper we show a labeled routing scheme in which the space requirement per vertex (both labels and routing tables) can be as small as one wishes, for graphs with diameter at most some polynomial in $n$. On the other hand, similarly to the situation with distance labeling schemes, the stretch guarantee of our scheme is much larger than that of \cite{TZ01a}.
\subsection{Our Results}
We introduce two new data structures that report paths in undirected graphs. All have query time proportional to the length of the returned path.
The first applies to weighted graphs with diameter polynomially bounded
in $n$. For any $t\geq 1$, it reports paths of stretch $O(\sqrt tn^{2/\sqrt t})$ using space $O(tn)$. It may be distributed as a labeling scheme using $O(t)$ space per vertex (or $O(t\log n)$ bits), and the preprocessing time is $O(tm)$. See \theoremref{thm:soc} for the formal statement. \footnote{For arbitrary diameter $\Delta$, the space and preprocessing time increase by a factor of $O(\log_n\Delta)$.}
This data structure can also be modified to provide labeled routing. Specifically, using tables of size $O(t)$ and labels of size $O(\sqrt{t})$ our routing scheme provides stretch $O(\sqrt{t} \cdot n^{2/\sqrt{t}} \cdot \log n)$.
The second data structure is a distance oracle that applies only to unweighted graphs. In one of the possible settings, it can provide for any parameters $k\ge 1$ and $\epsilon>0$, a path-reporting distance oracle with stretch $O(kn^{1/k}\cdot(k+n^{\epsilon/k}))$, using space $O(kn/\epsilon)$ and preprocessing time $O(kmn^{1/k})$. See \theoremref{thm:multi}, and also \theoremref{thm:oracle} for more possible tradeoffs.
To our knowledge, our distance labeling and labeled routing schemes are the first that use $o(\log n)$ words per vertex. Our distance oracles are the first path-reporting oracles for general graphs that use space $o(n \log n)$.
\subsection{Overview of Techniques.}
Our first oracle is based on a collection of sparse covers. Roughly speaking, a sparse cover for radius $\rho$ has two parameters: $\beta$ is the {\em radius blow-up}, and $s$ the {\em overlap}. The cover is a collection of clusters, each of diameter at most $\beta\rho$, such that every ball of radius $\rho$ is fully contained in at least one cluster, and every vertex is contained in at most $s$ clusters (see \defref{def:cover} below for a formal definition). Sparse covers were introduced
by \cite{AP90}, and found numerous applications in distributed algorithms and routing (see, e.g. \cite{PU88,AP90a,P93,AP95,AGMNT08}). For the application to distance oracles and labeling schemes,
the radius blow-up corresponds to stretch and the overlap to space. The standard construction of \cite{AP90} for parameter $k\ge 1$ has radius blow-up $k$ and overlap $O(kn^{1/k})$. This overlap is at least $\Omega(\log n)$, and translates to such space usage per vertex. Here we show that one can obtain the inverse parameters: radius blow-up $O(kn^{1/k})$ with overlap $2k$ (in fact we can obtain overlap $(1+\epsilon)k$ for any fixed $\epsilon>0$).
Our first construction of a distance labeling scheme is very simple: it uses a collection of such sparse covers for all distance scales, and maintains a shortest-path tree for each cluster. In order to answer a path query, one needs to find an appropriate cluster in the right scale, and return a path from the corresponding tree.
Our second data structure combines sparse covers with a variation on the Thorup-Zwick (TZ) distance oracle. In order to save space, the "bunches" of the TZ oracle are kept only for a small set of carefully selected vertices. Furthermore, the TZ trees (from which the path is obtained) are pruned to contain only few important vertices. Given a path query, our pruned TZ oracle can only report a "skeleton" of the approximate shortest
path in the original graph. This skeleton contains few vertices (roughly one vertex per $p$ steps, for some parameter $p$). We then use a sparse cover to "fill in" the gaps in the path, which induces additional stretch.
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Additional Results - Minor Free Graphs}
Strong-diameter neighborhood covers for graphs that exclude minor $K_r$, for a parameter $r$, were given in \cite{AGMW} and \cite{Busch}.
The covers of Abraham et al. \cite{AGMW} have stretch $O(r^2)$ and overlap $2^{O(r)} \cdot r!$.
The covers by Busch et al. \cite{Busch} have stretch 4 and overlap $f(r) \log n$, where $f()$ is a very fastly-growing function originated from Robertson-Seymour's structure theorem.
We devise a construction of covers with stretch $k \ge r^2$, for a parameter $k$, and overlap $O(\log n/\log (k/r^2))$.
Our covers are better than those due to \cite{AGMW} for $r \ge \log\log n/\log\log\log n$. Similarly, they compare favorably to the covers of \cite{Busch} when $r$ is sufficiently large.
As a corollary of our construction of covers for minor-free graphs we also obtained new distance labeling and labeled routing schemes.
There are known constructions of distance oracles for such graphs, due to Abraham and Gavoille \cite{AG06}, and due to Kawabarayashi, Klein and Sommer \cite{KKS}. The latter schemes produce distance estimates with stretch guarantee $1+ \epsilon$, for an arbotrarily small $\epsilon > 0$, but their query time is $O(f(r) \cdot \log n )$ and $O(f(r) \cdot \log^2 n)$, respectively.
We get a distance labeling scheme with stretch $O(1)$, space per label $O(\log^2 n \cdot 2^{O(r)})$ and query time $O(\log (k\log_n \Delta))$, where $\Delta$ is the weighted diameter of the graph.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Related Work}
There has been a large body of work on distance oracles, labeling and routing for certain graph families (planar, excluded-minor, etc.) and bounded doubling dimension metrics \cite{T01,HM06,AG06,KKS11}. In these settings the stretch factor is usually $1+\epsilon$, which cannot be obtained with $o(n^2)$ space for general graphs.
For sparse graphs, very compact distance oracles were recently devised by Agarwal et al. \cite{AGH11,AGH12}.
They devise two types of distance oracles. One of them has small stretch but requires large space. This distance oracle is indeed path-reporting, but due to their large space requirement they are irrelevant to the current discussion. The other type of distance oracles in \cite{AGH11} has stretch at least 3. These latter distance oracles are very sparse, but they are not path-reporting. \footnote{The paper erroneously claims that they are \cite{AGH-p}.}
\subsection{Organization of the Paper}
After some basic definitions in \sectionref{sec:pre}, we introduce sparse covers with small overlap in \sectionref{sec:cover}. Our first data structure for weighted graphs with diameter polynomially bounded
in $n$, is presented in \sectionref{sec:simple}, and its adaptation for compact routing in
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN have discovered a
new boson with a mass around
$125.6 \,\, \mathrm{GeV}$~\cite{ATLASdiscovery,CMSdiscovery}.
Despite its seemingly Standard Model-like behavior within the present
experimental uncertainties, the newly discovered
particle can also be interpreted as the Higgs-boson of extended models.
The Higgs-boson sector of the Minimal Supersymmetric
Standard Model (MSSM)~\cite{mssm} with two scalar doublets
accommodates five physical Higgs-bosons,
the light and heavy $CP$-even bosons $h^0$
and $H^0$, the $CP$-odd boson $A^0$, and the charged Higgs-bosons $H^\pm$.
The light $CP$-even Higgs-boson $h^0$ can be identified with the newly
discovered scalar particle. Scenarios where the latter is associated with
the heavy $CP$-even Higgs-boson $H^0$ is not considered in these proceedings.
In the MSSM, the mass of $h^0$, $M_h$, can directly be predicted from
the other parameters of the model. The accuracy of this prediction
should at least match the one of the experimentally measured mass value for the
new boson.
The status of higher-order corrections to the masses and mixing angles
in the neutral Higgs-boson sector of the MSSM with real parameters is quite advanced.
The complete one-loop
result within the MSSM is known~\cite{ERZ,mhiggsf1lA,mhiggsf1lB,mhiggsf1lC}.
The dominant one-loop contributions are the ones of order $\alpha_t$ originating from
top and stop loops ($\alpha_t \equiv y_t^2 / (4 \pi)$ and $y_t$ being the
top-quark Yukawa coupling). The range of available two-loop corrections
meanwhile also covers most of the contributions which are believed to
be significant~\cite{mhiggsletter,mhiggslong,mhiggslle,mhiggsFD2,
bse,mhiggsEP0,mhiggsEP1,mhiggsEP1b,mhiggsEP2,mhiggsEP3,
mhiggsEP3b,mhiggsEP4,mhiggsEP4b,mhiggsRG1,mhiggsRG1a}.
In particular, the \order{\alpha_t\alpha_s} contributions to the self-energies -- evaluated in the
Feynman-diagrammatic (FD) as well as in the effective potential (EP)
approach -- as well as the \order{\alpha_t^2}, \order{\alpha_b\alpha_s},
\order{\alpha_t\alpha_b} and \order{\alpha_b^2} contributions -- evaluated in the EP
approach --
are known for vanishing external momenta.
The obtained results are publicly available in the code
{\sc FeynHiggs}~\cite{feynhiggs,mhiggslong,mhiggsAEC,mhcMSSMlong,Mh-logresum}.
An evaluation of the momentum dependence at the two-loop level in a calculation
employing the \ensuremath{\overline{\mathrm{DR}}}\ scheme was presented in \citere{mhiggs2lp2}.
A (nearly) full two-loop EP calculation,
including even the leading three-loop corrections, has also been
published~\cite{mhiggsEP5}. However, within the EP method
all contributions are evaluated at zero external momentum for the corresponding self-energies,
in contrast to the FD method, which in principle allows non-vanishing
external momentum. Further, the calculation presented in Ref.~\cite{mhiggsEP5}
is not publicly available as a computer code
for Higgs-boson mass calculations.
Subsequently, another leading three-loop
calculation of \order{\alpha_t\alpha_s^2} has been performed~\cite{mhiggsFD3l},
using assumptions on the various {\small SUSY} mass hierarchies,
resulting in the code {\sc H3m} (which
adds the three-loop corrections to the {\sc FeynHiggs}~result).
Most recently, a combination of the full one-loop result, supplemented
with leading and sub-leading two-loop corrections evaluated in the
Feynman-diagrammatic/effective potential approach and a resummation of the
leading and sub-leading logarithmic contributions from the scalar-top
sector has been published~\cite{Mh-logresum} and included in the latest version of
the code~{\sc FeynHiggs}~\cite{feynhiggs,mhiggslong,mhiggsAEC,mhcMSSMlong,Mh-logresum}.
In these proceedings, the calculation of mass shifts resulting from
the inclusion of the leading momentum-dependent
\order{\alpha_t\alpha_s} corrections to the neutral $CP$-even
Higgs-boson masses is described for one representative scenario.
Further scenarios and more details are found in Ref.~\cite{Borowka:2014wla}.
\section{Outline of the calculation}
\label{sec:calculation}
The MSSM requires two doublets ${\cal H}_1$ and ${\cal H}_2$ of complex scalar fields
which read
\begin{align}
{\cal H}_1 = \left( \begin{array}{c} {\cal H}_1^0 \\[0.5ex] {\cal H}_1^- \end{array} \right) \; = \; \left( \begin{array}{c} v_1
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt2}(\phi_1^0 - i\chi_1^0) \\[0.5ex] -\phi_1^- \end{array} \right)\,,\hspace{3pt}
{\cal H}_2 = \left( \begin{array}{c} {\cal H}_2^+ \\[0.5ex] {\cal H}_2^0 \end{array} \right) \; = \; \left( \begin{array}{c} \phi_2^+ \\[0.5ex]
v_2 + \frac{1}{\sqrt2}(\phi_2^0 + i\chi_2^0) \end{array} \right)\,.
\label{higgsfeldunrot}
\end{align}
The vacuum expectation values $v_1$ and $v_2$ define the angle $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$.
At tree level, the mass matrix of the neutral CP-even Higgs-bosons in the $(\phi_1^0,\phi_2^0)$ basis can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nondiag}
M_{\text{Higgs}}^{2,\text{tree}}=\left( \begin{matrix} m_{A^0}^2\text{sin}^2\, \beta + m_Z^2\text{cos}^2\, \beta &
-(m_{A^0}^2 + m_Z^2)\,\text{sin}\, \beta \text{cos}\, \beta \\
-(m_{A^0}^2 + m_Z^2)\,\text{sin}\, \beta \text{cos}\, \beta &
m_{A^0}^2\text{cos}^2\, \beta + m_Z^2\text{sin}^2\, \beta \end{matrix} \right)\;,
\end{align}
where $m_{A^0}$ is the mass of the CP-odd neutral Higgs-boson $A^0$.
The rotation to the basis formed by the mass eigenstates $H^0,h^0$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:physbasis}
\left( \begin{matrix} H^0 \\ h^0 \end{matrix} \right) = \left( \begin{matrix} \textrm{cos} \,\alpha &
\textrm{sin} \,\alpha \\
-\textrm{sin} \,\alpha &
\textrm{cos} \, \alpha \end{matrix} \right) \left( \begin{matrix} \phi_1^0 \\
\phi_2^0 \end{matrix} \right)\;.
\end{align}
\subsection{Computational set-up}
\label{subsec:howselfenergies}
The higher-order corrected $CP$-even Higgs-boson masses in the
MSSM are obtained from the corresponding propagators
dressed by their self-energies.
The inverse propagator matrix in the $(\phi_1^0, \phi_2^0)$ basis is given
by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:prop}
(\Delta_{\text{Higgs}})^{-1} = -\text{i}
\left( \begin{matrix}
p^2 - m_{\phi_1}^2 + \hat{\Sigma}_{\phi_1}(p^2) & -m_{\phi_1\phi_2}^2 +\hat{\Sigma}_{\phi_1\phi_2}(p^2)\\
-m_{\phi_1\phi_2}^2 +\hat{\Sigma}_{\phi_1\phi_2}(p^2) & p^2 - m_{\phi_2}^2 + \hat{\Sigma}_{\phi_2}(p^2)
\end{matrix} \right) \text{ ,}
\end{align}
where the $\hat{\Sigma}(p^2)$ denote the renormalized Higgs-boson
self-energies, $p$ being the external momentum.
The calculation is performed in the Feynman-diagrammatic (FD) approach. To
obtain expressions for the unrenormalized self-energies at \order{\alpha_t\alpha_s}, the
evaluation of genuine two-loop diagrams
and one-loop graphs with counter-term insertions is required.
Example diagrams for the neutral Higgs-boson self-energies are shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:fd_hHA}.
For the counter-term insertions,
one-loop diagrams with external top quarks/squarks have
to be evaluated. In addition, two-loop tadpole
diagrams enter the two-loop counter terms.
The complete set of contributing Feynman diagrams
has been generated with the
program {\sc FeynArts}~\cite{feynarts} (using the model file including
counter terms from \citere{mssmct}).
A tensor reduction and evaluation of traces was performed with
the programs~{\sc FormCalc}~\cite{formcalc} and
{\sc TwoCalc}~\cite{twocalc},
yielding algebraic expressions in terms of
the scalar one- and two-point one-loop functions,
massive two-loop vacuum functions~\cite{Davydychev:1992mt},
and two-loop integrals which depend on the external momentum.
The latter have been evaluated with the program
{\sc SecDec}~\cite{Borowka:2012yc,Borowka:2013cma}.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{plots/se_top4}} }
\subfigure[]{\raisebox{1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{plots/se_top7}} }
\subfigure[]{\raisebox{1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{plots/se_top11}} }
\subfigure[]{\raisebox{-1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{plots/se_top5}} }\\
\hspace{-10pt}\subfigure[]{\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{plots/se_top8}} }
\subfigure[]{\raisebox{-1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{plots/se_top9}} }
\subfigure[]{\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{plots/se_top10}} }
\hspace{9pt}
\subfigure[]{\raisebox{0pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{plots/se_top6}} }
\end{center} \vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Examples of two-loop\ diagrams enetring the Higgs-boson self-energies
($\phi = h^0, H^0, A^0$). }
\label{fig:fd_hHA}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Computation of mass shifts}
\label{subsec:howmassshifts}
The calculation of the self-energies is performed in the $(\phi_1^0,\phi_2^0)$ basis.
To be consistent with the higher-order contributions to the
Higgs-boson masses incorporated in the program {\sc FeynHiggs},
the renormalized self-energies in the $(\phi_1^0,\phi_2^0)$ basis are
rotated into the physical $(h^0,H^0)$ basis,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\ser{H^0H^0}^{(2)}&=&
\cos^2\!\alpha \,\ser{\phi_1^0\Pe}^{(2)} +
\sin^2\!\alpha \,\ser{\phi_2^0\Pz}^{(2)} +
\sin (2 \alpha) \, \ser{\phi_1^0\phi_2^0}^{(2)} \text{ ,}\\
\ser{h^0h^0}^{(2)} &=&
\sin^2\!\alpha \,\ser{\phi_1^0\Pe}^{(2)} +
\cos^2\!\alpha \,\ser{\phi_2^0\Pz}^{(2)} -
\sin (2 \alpha) \, \ser{\phi_1^0\phi_2^0}^{(2)} \text{ ,} \\
\ser{h^0H^0}^{(2)} &=&
\sin \alpha \cos\alpha \,(\ser{\phi_2^0\Pz}^{(2)} - \ser{\phi_1^0\Pe}^{(2)}) +
\cos (2 \alpha) \, \,\ser{\phi_1^0\phi_2^0}^{(2)} \text{ ,}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{eq:transformationphi12tohH}%
\end{subequations}%
where the tree-level
propagator matrix is diagonal and $\alpha$ the tree-level mixing angle,
see Eqs.~(\ref{eq:nondiag})-(\ref{eq:physbasis}).
The resulting new contributions to the neutral $CP$-even Higgs-boson
self-energies, containing all momentum-dependent and additional constant
terms, are assigned to the differences
\begin{equation}
\Delta\ser{ab}^{(2)}(p^2) = \ser{ab}^{(2)}(p^2) - \tilde\Sigma_{ab}^{(2)}(0)\,,
\qquad
ab = \{H^0H^0,h^0H^0,h^0h^0\}\,.
\label{eq:DeltaSE}
\end{equation}
Note the tilde (not hat) on $\tilde\Sigma^{(2)}(0)$, which signifies that
not only the self-energies are evaluated at zero external momentum but
also the corresponding counter terms,
following Refs.~\cite{Heinemeyer:1998jw,Heinemeyer:1998kz,
Heinemeyer:1998np}.
A finite shift $\Delta\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)} (0)$
therefore remains in the limit $p^2\to 0$
due to $\delta m_{A^0}^{2(2)} = \mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\se{A^0A^0}^{(2)}(m_{A^0}^2)$ being computed
at $p^2=m_{A^0}^2$
in $\hat\Sigma^{(2)}$, but at $p^2=0$ in $\tilde\Sigma^{(2)}$.
Several checks have been performed on the calculation.
Subtracting the finite shift of $\delta m_{A^0}^{2(2)}$, the finite
shift $\Delta\ser{ab}^{(2)}(0)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:DeltaSE}) must cancel
in the limit of vanishing external momentum.
This could be confirmed numerically.
Moreover, agreement with previous calculations performed
in the zero momentum limit \cite{Heinemeyer:1998jw,Heinemeyer:1998np}
was found analytically.
All integrals which were deduced analytically from known
expressions~\cite{Davydychev:1992mt,Berends:1994sa}
were checked with {\sc SecDec}.
For more details about the calculational set-up the reader is
referred to \cite{Borowka:2014wla,Borowka:2013uea}.
\medskip
According to Eq.~(\ref{eq:prop}),
the $CP$-even Higgs-boson masses are determined from the
poles of the $h^0$-$H^0$-propagator matrix.
This is equivalent to solving the equation
\begin{equation}
\left[p^2 - m_{h^0}^2 + \hat{\Sigma}_{h^0h^0}(p^2) \right]
\left[p^2 - m_{H^0}^2 + \hat{\Sigma}_{H^0H^0}(p^2) \right] -
\left[\hat{\Sigma}_{h^0H^0}(p^2)\right]^2 = 0\,~,
\label{eq:proppole}
\end{equation}
yielding the loop-corrected pole masses, $M_h$ and $M_H$.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:numericalresults}
The following parameter values are adopted for the numerical studies shown below
\begin{align}
m_t &= 173.2\,\, \mathrm{GeV},\; M_{\rm SUSY}=1\,\, \mathrm{TeV},\; X_t =2\,M_{\rm SUSY}\, ,\; \mu = 200\,\, \mathrm{GeV}~,\nonumber \\
m_{\tilde{g}} &= 1500\,\, \mathrm{GeV}, \;
m_{\tilde{t}_1} = 826.8\,\, \mathrm{GeV},\; m_{\tilde{t}_2}= 1173.2\,\, \mathrm{GeV}\, .
\end{align}
They are oriented at the $\mh^{\rm max}$\ scenario described
in~\citere{Carena:2013qia}.
Results for other scenarios and more details can be found in Ref.~\cite{Borowka:2014wla}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:shiftswithma}, $\DeM_h$ (left plot) and $\DeM_H$ (right plot)
are shown as a function of
$m_{A^0}$ for $\tan \beta = 5$ (blue) and $\tan \beta = 20$ (red).
In the $\mh^{\rm max}$\ scenario for $m_{A^0} \gsim 200 \,\, \mathrm{GeV}$, the additional shift
$\DeltaM_h \sim - 60 \,\, \mathrm{MeV}$ amounts to the size of the anticipated experimental
precision at a linear collider. The contribution to the heavy $CP$-even
Higgs-boson mass can
reach $-60 \,\, \mathrm{MeV}$ for very small or intermediate values of $m_{A^0}$,
whereas for $m_{A^0} \gsim 500 \,\, \mathrm{GeV}$ a decreasing correction to $M_H$
can be observed.
The peak in $\DeM_H$ for $\tan \beta = 5$ originates from a threshold at $2\,m_t$.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{scen1_deltamhVSma.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{scen1_deltamH_VSma.eps}
\caption{Variation of the mass shifts $\DeltaM_h,\DeltaM_H$ with the
$A^0$-boson mass $m_{A^0}$
for $\tan \beta=5$ (blue) and $\tan \beta = 20$ (red). The peak in $\DeltaM_H$
originates from a threshold at $2\,m_t$.}
\label{fig:shiftswithma}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{scen1_deltamhVSmglu}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{scen1_deltamH_VSmglu}
\caption{Variation of the mass shifts $\DeltaM_h,\DeltaM_H$ with the
gluino mass for two different values of
$\tan \beta=5,20$ and $m_{A^0} = 250 \,\, \mathrm{GeV}$.
}
\label{fig:variationmgluino}
\end{figure}
\medskip
Furthermore, the dependence of $M_h$ and $M_H$ on the gluino mass $m_{\tilde{g}}$ is
analyzed in the scenario described above. The results are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:variationmgluino} for $\DeM_h$ (left plot) and $\DeM_H$
(right plot) for $m_{A^0} = 250 \,\, \mathrm{GeV}$
with the same color coding as in Fig.~\ref{fig:shiftswithma}.
In the case of $M_h$ one can observe that the effects are smallest
for $m_{\tilde{g}}\sim 1.5$\,TeV.
More sizable shifts occur for larger gluino masses,
by more than $-400 \,\, \mathrm{MeV}$ for $m_{\tilde{g}} \gsim 4 \,\, \mathrm{TeV}$,
reaching thus the level of
the current experimental accuracy in the Higgs-boson mass
determination.
The corrections to $M_H$
do not exceed $-50 \,\, \mathrm{MeV}$ in the considered $m_{\tilde{g}}$ range.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Results for the leading momentum-dependent
\order{\alpha_t\alpha_s} contributions to the masses of the neutral
$CP$-even Higgs-bosons in the MSSM have been presented.
They were obtained by calculating
the corresponding contributions to the dressed Higgs-boson propagators
in the Feynman-diagrammatic approach, using a mixed
on-shell/\ensuremath{\overline{\mathrm{DR}}}\ renormalization scheme.
\smallskip
The effect of the new momentum-dependent
two-loop corrections on the predictions for
the $CP$-even Higgs-boson masses was investigated.
The numerical analysis displayed a strong dependence of the light
$CP$-even Higgs-boson mass on the value of the
gluino mass. For values of $m_{\tilde{g}} \sim 1.5 \,\, \mathrm{TeV}$ corrections to
$M_h$ of about $ -50 \,\, \mathrm{MeV}$ are found, while
for very large gluino masses, $m_{\tilde{g}} \gtrsim 4 \,\, \mathrm{TeV}$,
the corrections can amount to the
level of the current experimental accuracy, i.e. about $500 \,\, \mathrm{MeV}$ at the LHC.
\smallskip
The effects are mostly below the current and future anticipated
experimental accuracies for the heavy $CP$-even Higgs-boson mass.
The new results of \order{\alpha_t\alpha_s} have been incorporated into the program {\sc FeynHiggs}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Thomas Hahn, Sven Heinemeyer,
Gudrun Heinrich and Wolfgang Hollik for the fruitful collaboration, and
Stefano di Vita for comparisons.
Furthermore I wish to thank the organizers of Loops and Legs 2014 for
the nice and interesting conference.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:intro}
\let\thefootnote\relax\footnote{Nathaniel Shiers is PhD Candidate, Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK (E-mail: <EMAIL>). John A. D. Aston is Professor, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK (E-mail: <EMAIL>). Jim Q. Smith is Professor, Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK (E-mail: <EMAIL>). John S. Coleman is Professor, Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford, UK (E-mail: <EMAIL>). The first author acknowledges the support of ESRC grant ES/I90427/1. The second author acknowledges the support of EPSRC grant EP/K021672/1. The authors wish to thank Piotr Zwiernik for very helpful discussions. They are also very much indebted to Pantelis Hadjipantelis for preprocessing the Romance language data set.}
As interest in functional data analysis (FDA) has increased, so has the development of theory \citep{ram05fda,hor12inffda} and the range of applications (e.g.\ brain imaging (\citet{sor13ima}), climatology (\citet{bes00aff}), and medical research (\cite{rat02fda})). This has been facilitated in part through better access to functional data and through greater availability of computational power for analyses. The use of FDA in statistical phonetics has recently attracted attention (e.g.\ \citet{koe08spv, moo10alm}). Such analyses, which involve acoustic functional data, have provided particularly promising and interesting results in a diverse range of settings. For example, \cite{gra07cil} uses a polynomial basis expansion to examine pitch variation in English, while \citet{ast10lpa} investigates Qiang, a Sino-Tibetan language, and finds previously unidentified gender differences amongst speakers via a functional principal components based modeling approach.
The acoustic structure of spoken words can be used to investigate areas of linguistic interest in a similar way that discrete (alphabetic) representations of speech have been utilized to make cross-language comparisons, and more recently inferences regarding proto languages (\citet{hoc91phl},\citet{bou13ara
). The differences and similarities between spoken languages suggest that any meaningful functional observations taken across languages are unlikely to be independently, identically distributed. As such it is probable that the language relationships form a tree or network structure, which may be informative about possible historical developments of these languages. If this alternative (acoustic) approach can be used to corroborate known and uncontroversial language relationships, then our methods offer great potential for less certain language relationships. For instance, this would be useful for languages where there are few historical records but in which inference of a family tree is reasonably supported by the contemporary data (e.g. African language families), or alternatively, in cases where reconstruction of a family tree is disputed, such as Greenberg's classification of native American languages (\citet{bol04pug}).
Relationships between languages have long been described as phylogenetic trees constructed using linguistic factors (e.g.\ \citet{sch60dds}) where all non-leaf variables are unobserved and represent features of the past languages before their divergence. \cite{qam} developed some of the first quantitative methods which were used to investigate evolutionary relationships between languages. More recently there have been large scale attempts to reconstruct trees or networks of languages (e.g.\ \citet{ppn} for the Indo-European language family, \citet{pms} for the Semitic language family). Some researchers have shifted away from describing the evolutionary language relationships via trees toward using networks (for example, \citet{tpc}, \citet{nuh}).
However, trees have a somewhat more natural interpretation in terms of evolutionary structure, and assessing the suitability of a tree model for language data would therefore be of interest to researchers in linguistics. The focus of this paper is to examine functional acoustic data from speakers of five Romance languages (French, Italian, Portuguese, American Spanish, and Iberian Spanish) to provide insight at an exploratory level as to whether a tree may be adequate for describing certain features of these language relationships.
To address questions of tree-amenability we appeal to the notion of tree constraints. The theory of tree constraints is embedded in the area of algebraic statistics, a field which has a significant recent literature related to phylogenetics (e.g.\ \citet{stu05tip}, \citet{all08piv}). It has been known for some time that covariance functions of data on observed
variables respecting an evolutionary tree
must obey particular algebraic and semi-algebraic constraints, e.g.\ \citet{set00gmc}. Recently these have become much better understood (for example \citet{drt07asm}, \citet{all09ipl}, \citet{all12sdg}) and fully characterized in some cases (e.g.\ the binary case \citet{zwi11iic}, \citet{zwi12tcg}). In this paper, building on developments in \citet{shi12gid}, a Gaussian analogue of the binary tree constraints is applied to the covariances of component-by-component projections of the data. By considering the data component-wise, a more realistic and nuanced analysis can be performed which permits some observed features of linguistic data to be tree-amenable and indicates that that for others that any evolutionary tree is unlikely to provide a good explanation.
Section~\ref{sec:data} describes the data set and the preprocessing in preparing an audio recording for FDA. In a similar spirit to the work on object data by \cite{wan07ood}, for the application to Romance languages presented here, the observation units of interest are two-dimensional functional data objects known as spectrograms (time-frequency descriptions of the data). These are formed from transformations of audio recordings of people speaking single words. When regarded as functional data, observations are in fact stored as high dimensional objects. Therefore, in Section~\ref{sec:proj} tools from FDA are employed to transform high dimensional speaker data to a lower dimension. This is achieved through the novel approach of using between-language covariance as described in canonical function analysis (CFA) and combining it with a tensor decomposable covariance structure.
Having achieved the required reduction in dimension, Section~\ref{sec:tree} provides a brief summary of tree constraints. A fundamental but yet to be exploited constraint for use with Gaussian data is then introduced. Statistics associated with the violation of or adherence to the constraint are then constructed from the acoustic language data to answer the question of tree suitability. In Section~\ref{sec:treeapp}, in preparation for use with this Gaussian tree constraint, we describe the construction of a between-language cross-covariance matrix using the scores (projections) of the acoustic data. In Section~\ref{sec:sim}, the general effectiveness of the Gaussian tree constraint is investigated via simulations to assess its ability to correctly accept or reject tree-amenability. Section~\ref{sec:furthersim} entails further simulation, tailored to mimic aspects of the acoustic data, so the results are more immediately relevant to the setting. Section~\ref{sec:apply} addresses the ultimate aim of the study: to determine whether any evolutionary relationships between the Romance words represented in the acoustic data set can be described by a Gaussian evolutionary tree model. These tree constraints are then used to explore tree-amenability for each of the components of the chosen basis. It is found that a subset of the components adhere to the tree constraint. This suggests that some features of the acoustic linguistic data which distinguish between languages could have evolved in a tree-like manner whilst others have not. This is consistent with the current understanding that the development of Romance languages has been complex, involving much cross-language interaction (\citet{har88trl}) in addition to a historically well-documented common origin from Latin. Thus, attempting to fit a tree model to the entire data set is likely to be misguided based on the empirical evidence presented here. More appropriately, a different model can be fitted for each component, using the tree constraints to indicate whether to restrict the space of models to trees.
\section{ACOUSTIC FUNCTIONAL DATA SET}
\label{sec:data}
The data set of interest comprises audio recordings originating from speakers of one of five different Romance languages: French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish (American), and Spanish (Iberian) - while two dialects of Spanish are being used in this study, they are treated as different spoken languages in this analysis as we are interested in pronunciation rather than textual representation, the difference between ``dialect'' and ``language'' being a matter of degree of difference rather than an absolute quantitative difference. Each recording is of some individual saying an integer from `one' to `ten' in their particular language. Recordings were made at a rate of 16000 samples per second and a resolution of 16 bits. In total there are 219 word recordings and each can be classified by the language, the gender of the speaker and the number being spoken.
Observations of the same word being spoken in different languages are treated as sharing the same word attribute. For example the word `four' includes recordings of `quatre' (French) and `quattro' (Italian) as well the word `four' in other languages.
Integers were chosen because these have no ambiguity in terms of translation making comparison of their use across languages straightforward. Furthermore, the cardinals `one' to `ten' of Romance languages (among many other words) stem from shared Latin forms (\citet{gla92ien}). This suggests that these words might also be suitable when comparing languages acoustically.
In this paper the observations are modeled as functional data as is becoming increasingly common in studies involving sound recordings (e.g.\ \citet{hol10mcp}). Such models make the reasonable assumption that the data have been obtained by observing an underlying function at finitely many discrete points along a continuum, and that this underlying function is smooth (i.e.\ a certain number of derivatives exist).
The overall duration of a word can vary significantly per speaker as can the timings of intra-word elements (for instance syllables). Thus, to adjust for these differences all observations within a word grouping undergo registration (also known as alignment or warping, see \citet{ram05fda, luc00tnv}). A short-time Fourier transform is taken of each audio recording to produce a spectrogram. A spectrogram is a two-dimensional representation of audio signal energy intensity in frequency-time space (\citet{ful11ssa}). Spectrograms are a natural choice for representing power with functional data, though approaches such as Mel-frequency cepstra (\citet{dav80cpr}) can provide possible alternative representations. As part of the preprocessing, the standardization of word duration results in the time dimension being measured in generic time units. The value stored at a frequency-time point is a function of the power (or amplitude), with frequencies binned every 100Hz up to the Nyquist frequency of 8000Hz. The resulting spectrograms are stored as matrices of 81 frequency by 100 time points. Figure~\ref{fig:postwarpeg} is the spectrogram of a female French speaker saying the word `quatre'. Broadly, this interpolated plot indicates that there is greater power in the lower frequencies, and that the beginning and the end portions of the standardized time period are quieter.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth, height=0.6\textheight,keepaspectratio]{quatrefr.pdf}
\caption{Post-registration spectrogram of female French speaker saying `quatre'. It can be seen that there is greater power in the lower frequencies, and that the very beginning and end of the word are unsurprisingly two of the quietest regions.}
\label{fig:postwarpeg}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Notation}
The underlying function of each spectrogram is denoted $x_{l,m}^{d,g}(f,t)$ with the two dimensions $f$ and $t$ referring to frequency and time respectively. Recall that each spectrogram is derived from a spoken word - the subscripts and superscripts encode observational information: $l = 1, \ldots, n_l$ denotes the language being spoken; $d = 1, \ldots, n_d$ indicates the word being spoken; $m = 1, \ldots, m_{ld}$ is a counter where $m_{ld}$ is the number of observations of word $d$ from language $l$; $g$ refers to the gender of the speaker.
It is well documented that there are differences in the acoustics of male and female speakers which go beyond a simple shift in the spoken frequencies. For instance \citet{nit90amm,pep13vsg}.
\citet{par96lig} present a statistical method for discriminating between speaker gender of short acoustic recordings. In their analysis of seven Indo-European languages (of which Romance is a subset), gender was correctly identified on average 98\% of the time. This suggests that there are commonalities in acoustic gender differences across Indo-European languages. In light of this result, it is judged that gender should be adjusted for at the macro level: $$x_{l,m}^{d}(f,t) = x_{l,m}^{d,g}(f,t) + \tilde{x}^{g}(f,t)$$ where $\tilde{x}^{g}$ is the difference between the mean of all samples with gender $g$ and the mean of all samples. Henceforth it will be the gender adjusted function that will be the object of interest in this paper.
The mean spectrograms for language $l$, word $d$ are defined in (\ref{eq:gpfuncmeanij}), for language $l$ in (\ref{eq:gpfuncmeani}), and the grand mean spectrogram in (\ref{eq:gpfuncmean}).
\begin{align}
\bar{x}_{l}^{d}(f,t)&=\frac{1}{m_{ld}}\sum_{m=1}^{m_{ld}}x^{d}_{l,m}(f,t) \label{eq:gpfuncmeanij}\\
\bar{x}_{l}(f,t)&=\frac{1}{m_{l\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$}}}\sum_{d=1}^{n_d}m_{ld}\bar{x}_{l}^{d}(f,t) \label{eq:gpfuncmeani}\\
\bar{x}(f,t)&=\frac{1}{m_{\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$}\dotr}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_l}m_{l\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$}}\bar{x}_{l}(f,t) \label{eq:gpfuncmean}
\end{align}
where $m_{l\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$}} = \sum_{d=1}^{n_d}m_{ld}$, $m_{\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$}\dotr} = n = \sum_{l=1}^{n_l}m_{l\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$}}$, and for $t \in \mathcal{T}$, $f \in \mathcal{F}$. The parameters $m_{\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$}\dotr}$ and $n$ will be used interchangeably depending on whether summation is being emphasized.
\section{GROUP BASED PROJECTIONS OF FUNCTIONAL DATA}
\label{sec:proj}
Dimension reduction is a well-studied area of statistics with tools such as principal component analysis (PCA) and multidimensional scaling (e.g.\ see \citet{jol02pca,cox10mds}) having widespread use. Functional counterparts of such techniques have also been formulated, for example functional principal component analysis (FPCA) (\citet{Castro86,Rice91,yao06psm}), and functional multidimensional scaling (\citet{miz06grf}).
The acoustic data presented in this paper benefit from a dimension reduction in two main ways. First and foremost, dimension reduction provides a route to feature extraction whilst also reducing unwanted noise. Second, if subsequent to the reduction it is found that $n \geq p$ then techniques which make use of inverse covariances can be implemented straightforwardly. If this is not so, standard estimates will produce singular sample covariance matrices.
Of course these benefits must be balanced against potential information loss from the data reduction. One approach to feature extraction which mitigates against this loss is to find an ordered basis which prioritizes one or more characteristics of interest. Thus by projecting data onto the first few components of such a basis the most prominent aspects of the data are retained whilst what remains is treated as noise. In the cases of PCA and FPCA, the dimension reduction is optimized so as to efficiently capture modes of variation. Such techniques are often used in linguistic and semantic analyses, for example \citet{lee01rne} and \citet{wen10stm}.
However, as our focus is on macro-language comparisons, we argue that the feature of interest is the between- to within-language covariance, and it is this which should directly inform the method selected to construct a basis. When data is known a priori to be grouped then canonical function analysis (CFA) and its multivariate analogue canonical variate analysis (CVA) are standard techniques implemented to select variables to discriminate between groups. These tools are therefore the starting points for our analysis.
\subsection{Canonical Function Analysis}
\label{sec:cfa}
Here we present CFA as a tool for FDA to produce a basis which maximizes between- to within-group variation (subject to the basis component functions being uncorrelated) with the intention of achieving an efficient dimension reduction. The finer details of CFA can be found in \citet{kii92cva}. To illustrate CFA, consider a set of one-dimensional functional data
denoting the between-group covariance function as $B(u_{1},u_{2})$ and within-group covariance function as $W(u_{1},u_{2})$ (with $u_{1}, u_{2} \in \mathcal{U}$, $\mathcal{U} \subset \mathbb{R}$)
where both functions are considered to be bounded and piecewise continuous.
The aim is to identify canonical functions $h_{q}(u)$ such that between-group variation is maximized relative to within-group variation under the restriction that each canonical function is uncorrelated to every other. This is expressed as a generalized eigen-equation which simplifies to:
\begin{equation}
\intop_{\mathcal{U}}(B(u_{1},u_{2})-\,\lambda_{q}W(u_{1},u_{2}))h_{q}(u_{2})\,du_{1}=0\label{eq:optfunc}
\end{equation}
with eigenvalues $\lambda_{q}$ and eigenfunctions $h_{q}$.
There may be countably infinite solutions to equation (\ref{eq:optfunc}) but in discretized estimation, only a maximum of s (say) will have non-zero $\lambda_{q}$. Pairs of canonical functions and real numbers $(h_{1}(u),\lambda_{1}),\ldots,(h_{s}(u),\lambda_{s})$ can be found by solving $(\ref{eq:optfunc})$ numerically, where $\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{s}$ is a monotone decreasing sequence.
An $r$-dimensional projection of the data is obtained using the first $r$ canonical functions, and this projection is such that the between- to within-group covariance is maximally retained.
\subsection{Separable Covariance Functions}
\label{sec:covfuncsep}
Recall that the Romance data set comprises spectrograms which have time and frequency directions. A straightforward model for describing how these directions interact is that of separable covariance. The assumption underpinning this model can be encapsulated as there being no dependency between the (standardized) time and frequency of the data. This is, of course, a significant simplification of the likely underlying model. However, particularly for computational considerations, this assumption can very useful.
Recall that a covariance function $C$ is said to be separable if:
$$C((f_1,t_1),(f_2,t_2)) = C_f(f_1,f_2)C_t(t_1,t_2)$$
where $C_f$ and $C_t$ are functions only of their arguments. The factored covariances provide an understanding of how frequency or time dimensions of the spectrograms vary when the other has been averaged out.
However, the main purpose of the assumption becomes apparent for the Romance data set subsequently (as described in Section~\ref{sec:covsep}) when use of the separable model of covariance overcomes the challenge of covariance rank deficiency.
Under the separable covariance assumption for two-dimensional data the CFA optimality equation equivalent to (\ref{eq:optfunc}) is:
\begin{equation}
\int\limits_{\mathcal{F}} \int\limits_{\mathcal{T}} (B_{f}(f_{1},f_{2}) B_{t}(t_{1},t_{2})-\lambda_{q}W_{f}(f_{1},f_{2}) W_{t}(t_{1},t_{2}))h_{q}(f_{2},t_{2}) \,dt_{2}\,df_{2}=0.
\label{eq:withassump}
\end{equation}
It can be easily shown that the solutions to this equation can be obtained as the product of the solutions to two CFAs performed on the frequency and time covariances separately. Thus given any canonical function pairs ($h_{q_{f}}(f_{2}),\lambda_{q_{f}}$) and ($h_{q_{t}}(t_{2}),\lambda_{q_{t}}$) from a frequency and time CFA respectively, the products provide a solution to (\ref{eq:withassump}): $h_{q}(f_{2},t_{2}) = h_{q_{f}}(f_{2})h_{q_{t}}(t_{2})$ and $\lambda_{q} = \lambda_{q_{f}}\lambda_{q_{t}}$. Moreover, any solution to (\ref{eq:withassump}) can be obtained from such products. This result is useful when proceeding to obtain numerical solutions to (\ref{eq:withassump}).
\subsection{Canonical Variate Analysis}
\label{sec:cva}
Although less frequently implemented than PCA, the theory of CVA as a multivariate tool has been well developed in \citet[Chapter 11]{krz90pma}. However, beyond being a purely multivariate technique, CVA can also be used with functional data as an approximation to CFA as is presented in \citet{kii92cva}. The technicalities of implementing CVA do not differ whether in a functional or multivariate setting, although it is sometimes necessary to interpret their outputs differently, as is encountered with other tools (e.g. \citet{fer12ima}).
In practice spectrograms are often discretized representations of underlying functions, and so each function $x_{l,m}^{d}$ is instead given by a matrix $\bm{X}_{l,m}^{d}$ with time-frequency dimensions $n_f \times n_t$ (i.e. the number of sample points of the frequency and time). These finite approximations tend to be high dimensional and so the question of dimension reduction is pertinent. By concatenating the rows of these matrix representations of spectrograms the data corresponds to the vector description of CVA.
As CVA considers each covariance entry independently of its adjacent values, this does not affect the implementation of CVA. The only notable downside of concatenation is that it can obscure visual representation and description of the data.
Recall that the aim of CVA is to find successive uncorrelated vectors $\bm{a}$ that form linear combinations $y=\bm{a}\bm{x}^{T}$ (where $\bm{x}$ is $p$-dimensional data) that maximize the ratio
of the between-groups covariance ($\bm{B}$) to the within-groups covariance ($\bm{W}$).
In the context of the paper, $\bm{B}$ describes the variation between the per-language mean spectrograms and the grand mean spectrogram, whereas the $\bm{W}$ describes the variation between individual observations and the associated per-language mean spectrograms.
Finding the optimal $\bm{a}$ is equivalent to solving $(\bm{W}^{-1}\bm{B}-\lambda\bm{I})\bm{a}^{T}=\bm{0}$ where $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}$. This reduces to performing an eigenanalysis on $\bm{W}^{-1}\bm{B}$ - the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue is the optimal $\bm{a}$.
As with CFA, canonical pairs $(\bm{a}_{r}^{T},\lambda_{r})$ are sought. These are found through a full eigenanalysis of $\bm{W}^{-1}\bm{B}$ such that $\lambda_{1}>\lambda_{2}>\ldots>\lambda_{s}>0$ where $s=\min(p,n_l-1)$ is the number of non-zero eigenvalues of $\bm{W}^{-1}\bm{B}$. Thus $(\bm{a}_{r}^{T},\lambda_{r})$ produces the $r$th greatest ratio of between- to within-language variability. Hence, the optimal projection to $r$ dimensions requires only $(\bm{a}_{1}^{T},\lambda_{1}),\ldots,(\bm{a}_{r}^{T},\lambda_{r})$. Theoretically, CVA is designed for use with Gaussian data and assumes that within-group covariance is equal across groups. If these assumptions hold true then CVA is optimal for identifying modes of variability which distinguish between groups.
\subsubsection{Separable-CVA}
\label{sec:covsep}
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:covfuncsep}, the overall solutions to a CFA optimality problem with a separable covariance structure can be found as the product of solutions to CFAs of the decomposed covariance functions. We propose combining a tensor decomposable covariance structure with CVA in order to obtain numerical solutions to the decomposition of the separable-CFAs. This, when taking products, also gives solutions to the overall CFA. While separable covariance structures have been adopted elsewhere in the literature (e.g.\ \citet{jon11eif, ast12esc}), this is a novel approach for both CVA and CFA. Even though the assumption behind separable covariance is strong, the accuracy of the assumption for CVA and CFA only impacts on basis efficiency not basis validity. If the data is far from separable, then simply a higher number of dimensions will be needed to retain the same amount of information.
The main purpose of assuming a tensor-decomposable covariance structure is to overcome the obstacle of rank-deficient sample covariance matrices caused by the length of the observations exceeding the number of observations (i.e.\ $p > n$). This is not just a problem with the Romance speaker data set but is commonly encountered with functional data sets due to their often high-dimensionality (e.g.\ \citet{lon05nne}). Rank deficiency obstructs using CVA to obtain numerical solutions to CFA. Theoretically in CFA an inverse function $W^{-1}$ is neither required nor is usually bounded, whereas in CVA $\bm{W}^{-1}$ is needed for the eigenanalysis of $\bm{W}^{-1}\bm{B}$ but cannot be obtained because in this case $\bm{W}$ is singular.
In the observational matrix setting, $\bm{C}$ is separable if:
$$\bm{C}((f_1,t_1),(f_2,t_2)) = \bm{C}_f(f_1,f_2)\otimes\bm{C}_t(t_2,t_2)$$
where $\otimes$ is the standard Kronecker product. Using known results of the Kronecker product (see \citet{lan85tm-} for example), the separability assumption in the multivariate setting implies:
\begin{equation}
\bm{W}^{-1}\bm{B} = (\bm{W}_t^{-1}\otimes \bm{W}_f^{-1})(\bm{B}_t \otimes \bm{B}_f) = \bm{W}_t^{-1}\bm{B}_t \otimes \bm{W}_f^{-1}\bm{B}_f
\label{eq:kron}
\end{equation}
where the estimates of separate within- and between-language covariance matrices in the frequency direction are:
\begin{align*}
\bm{\hat{B}}_f[f_1,f_2] = \frac{1}{n_l-1}&\sum_{l=1}^{n_l}\frac{m_{l\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$}}}{n_t}\sum_{t=1}^{n_t}\tilde{\bm{X}}_l[f_1,t]\tilde{\bm{X}}_l[f_2,t]\\
\bm{\hat{W}}_f[f_1,f_2] = \frac{1}{n-n_l}&\sum_{l=1}^{n_l}\sum_{d=1}^{n_d}\sum_{m=1}^{m_{ld}}\frac{1}{n_t}\sum_{t=1}^{n_t}\tilde{\bm{X}}_{l,m}^{d}[f_1,t]\tilde{\bm{X}}_{l,m}^{d}[f_2,t]
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{\bm{X}}_l[i,j] =\bar{\bm{X}}_l[i,j]-\bar{\bm{X}}[i,j]$ and $\tilde{\bm{X}}_{l,m}^{d}[i,j] = \bm{X}_{l,m}^{d}[i,j]-\bar{\bm{X}}_l[i,j]$ with equivalent estimates for the time direction. Treating each frequency and time sample as a separate observation leads to the product covariance matrices $\bm{W}$ and $\bm{B}$ having higher ranks than previously. Explicitly, for $\bm{W}^{-1} = (\bm{W}_f\otimes~\bm{W}_t)^{-1}$ to be nonsingular, we need that $nn_f \geq n_t$ and $nn_t \geq n_f$. This is equivalent to requiring $n \geq \tfrac{\max(n_f,n_t)}{\min(n_f,n_t)}$. This contrasts to the previous condition $n\geq p = n_fn_t$. So the new requirement is usually significantly more relaxed, and CVA can often then be implemented.
An eigenanalysis of $\bm{W}_{f}^{-1}\bm{B}_{f}$ produces eigenvalues $(\lambda_{f1}, \lambda_{f2}, \ldots, \lambda_{fn_f})$ and corresponding eigenvectors $(\bm{c}_{f1}, \ldots, \bm{c}_{fn_f})$ with equivalent output for the time covariances $\bm{W}_{t}^{-1}\bm{B}_{t}$. Sorting decreasingly, the vector obtained from $(\lambda_{f1}, \ldots, \lambda_{fn_f}) \otimes (\lambda_{t1}, \ldots, \lambda_{tn_t})$ is denoted $(\lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2}, \ldots, \lambda_{n_f n_t})$ and the Kronecker product of the corresponding eigenvectors results in matrices denoted $(\bm{c}_{1}, \bm{c}_{2}, \ldots, \bm{c}_{n_f n_t})$ of size $n_f \times n_t$, solving the overall CVA. It should be noted that while this basis defined is based on an assumption of separability, it nevertheless provides a complete basis of the space. So although when separability does not hold the basis is less efficient and is rather longer than it needs to be, the basis is still valid. For further details, see an analogous argument for separable PCA in \citet{ast12esc}.
\subsection{Application of CVA as an Approximation to CFA}
\label{sec:select}
As motivated, the separable-CVA is used to approximate the separable-CFA of the Romance languages data to achieve a dimension reduction based on components which maximize between- to within-language variability. This is a suitable approximation to make as the functional spectrograms have been sufficiently densely sampled during discretization.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth, height=0.85\textheight,keepaspectratio]{bwcovs.pdf}
\caption{Sample between-language and within-language covariances of speech data for frequency and time directions. There is a clear ridge along the diagonal of the within-group covariances indicating that similar times and frequencies are highly positively correlated. The higher correlations in the high frequencies of the within-group frequency covariance are associated with recordings at lower audio sampling rates capturing fewer details in these ranges of frequencies. Rerunning the analyses performed in Section~\ref{sec:apply} whilst excluding these higher frequencies produces broadly similar results.}
\label{fig:bwcovscrop}
\end{figure}
Interpolated plots of the between- and within-language covariances for both the time and frequency directions of the spectrograms are given in Figure~\ref{fig:bwcovscrop}. The $\bm{B}_f$ plot displays positive covariance which increases as the frequency increases. The time covariance $\bm{B}_t$
is positive throughout with an internal minimum and the highest covariances corresponding to beginning and end time points. These particularly high time corner covariances could indicate genuine similarities at the beginning and ends of spoken words or could be an artefact of the spectrogram registration.
The covariances $\bm{W}_t$ and $\bm{W}_f$ both have a ridge along the diagonal which reassuringly suggests that similar time and frequency points have strong covariances within languages.
When selecting a dimension $r$ to project to, it is unusual to have anything but an arbitrary albeit sensible method for selecting $r$. However, in some acoustic contexts (e.g.\ \citet{had12cff}) thresholds can be proposed based on sounds which are audible to humans. Otherwise, equivalent techniques to those employed with PCA (\citet{jol02pca}) can be used.
For this linguistic study Figure~\ref{fig:cumeig} shows the cumulative variation explained by selecting particular numbers of components. This indicates that almost 95\% of the between- to within-language variance can be explained by a single component, and an additional two components take this figure to over 96\%
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{cumeigprop.pdf}
\caption{Cumulative variation explained by number of components. The explanatory power of the first component in terms of between- to within-language variability is over 94\%.}
\label{fig:cumeig}
\end{figure}
Once a dimension $r$ has been selected, each observation from the language data can be projected into $r$-dimensional space: $\bm{Y} = \bm{A\tilde{\bm{X}}}^{T}$ where $\bm{A}$ is $r \times p$ with columns $\bm{c}_{1}, \ldots, \bm{c}_{r}$ and where $\bm{\tilde{X}}$ is $1 \times p$ and formed by concatenating the $n_f$ rows of length $n_t$ of the observation $\bm{X}$. The sub and superscripts of the observations are omitted solely for notational clarity.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=1\textheight,keepaspectratio]{ellipses2dnormcrop.pdf}
\caption{Two dimensional separable-CVA projection of means of word observations with ellipses representing the standard deviation around the mean of plotted points. The second dimension is effective at distinguishing at the language level. The first dimension then discriminates between the Spanish dialects. As each component can relate to a different set of speech qualities, the proximities of the languages can differ depending on the dimension projection. For example, in the second dimension, the nasality of the speech appears to contribute to the separation of Italian and Portuguese. This is further explored in Section~\ref{sec:apply}.}
\label{fig:2dproj}
\end{figure}
To demonstrate the effectiveness of projection of the spectrograms in even two dimensions, the projections of the means of the word observations are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:2dproj}. The results of the separable-CVA are encouraging as there are clear groupings of the projected word means from the same languages. Furthermore, the first two dimensions appear to reflect aspects known about the languages. The second dimension seems to distinguish the four distinct languages, and then the first dimension is able to separate the Spanish dialects (while also providing clear distinctions between some of the other languages). Given that the acoustic data are undoubtedly noisy, this indicates the effectiveness of separable-CVA at selecting components which discriminate on a group basis. Note that whilst CVA operates on all languages simultaneously rather than in a pairwise manner, this does not necessarily imply languages in close proximity post-projection share particular acoustic features. However, this can be examined in more detail, for example through studying the Hadamand matrices of each projection as is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:ftcomp2}.
\section[CONSTRAINTS AS DIAGNOSTICS FOR TREE-AMENABILITY]{CONSTRAINTS AS DIAGNOSTICS FOR\\ TREE-AMENABILITY}
\label{sec:tree}
The aim of this study is to examine the suitability of a tree for acoustic functional data. It is of particular interest to know whether there are certain features of these spoken Romance languages which could have developed over time in the manner of an evolutionary tree. CFA (or CVA) is compatible with this aim as it effectively identifies components with features which distinguish between languages. Thus a projection to $r$ dimensions provides $r$ different combinations of characteristics which could potentially be modeled as a tree. In order to help assess the plausibility of these $r$ hypotheses we turn to the topic of tree constraints. These are algebraic and semi-algebraic constraints which mathematically must be obeyed if a data set corresponds to the leaves of a Bayesian network which is a tree. Note here that the non-leaf vertices correspond to various unobserved ancestral languages. While there has been considerable recent interest in understanding graphical structures, including trees, in very general settings \citep{loh13sed}, these approaches are design for settings when all nodes (both internal and leaves) are observed. Here we are concerned with determining constraints when the internal nodes are unobserved. Examining whether these constraints are respected for a given data set determines whether that data set adheres to a tree structure (i.e.\ whether the data set is tree-amenable). Provided with $r$ component-by-component projections, a diagnostic for tree-amenability can be applied to each (see e.g.\ \citet{shi12gid} for a binary example). This can then be used as an exploratory tool to give insight as to whether the distinguishing characteristics captured by a component could have an evolutionary tree structure. We begin by giving a brief overview of the concept of tree constraints and how they form a natural choice for use with data sets such as the acoustic recordings in this study.
\subsection{Constraints on Observed Covariances Respecting Trees with Hidden Variables}
Tree constraints are useful for studies investigating evolutionary relationships between both observable and unobservable variables. These evolutionary relationships can be expressed graphically as phylogenetic trees where traditionally the objects of interest have been biological species (e.g.\ \citet{sip}), however, this idea naturally extends to other fields such as linguistics (e.g.\ \citet{dun05spr}). Phylogenetic trees are of particular statistical interest when formally considered as Bayesian networks describing conditional independence relationships (e.g.\ \citet{ifm}). In the case of discrete graphs in which all variables are assumed to be observed, \citet{loh13sed} make use of precision matrices to assess graph structure. However, typically Bayesian networks have both observed and hidden variables and these are much more complex to analyze. Furthermore, the data set in question is functional and thus the analyses are embedded in Gaussian assumptions and observations treated as Gaussian processes as opposed to individual points. This is where Gaussian tree constraints can provide useful insight into the difficult question of tree-amenability.
A graph $T$ is a tree if there exists a unique path between any two connected vertices. The trees of interest are those with interior hidden nodes $H \in \mathcal{H}$ and manifest leaf nodes $X \in \mathcal{X}$ (denoted by white and black circles respectively). The observed leaf variables can be thought of as contemporary languages, and the latent interior variables as past versions of languages. Attention is restricted to strictly trivalent trees, i.e. trees where no interior node has more than three adjacent nodes. Any tree from this class with more than three leaves can be expressed as a bifurcating tree, a common model in phylogenetics (e.g.\ \citet{fel78net}). The tripod tree (shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tripod}) describes any such relationship between three observed variables. To see this, simply note that any three connected leaves of a strictly trivalent tree share a unique interior node, and that the conditional independence of these four nodes is minimally described by the tripod tree. Hence, the tripod tree is a fundamental component for analyses involving tree constraints.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\tikzstyle{vertex}=[circle,fill=black,minimum size=5pt,inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{hidden}=[circle,draw,minimum size=5pt,inner sep=0pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[hidden] (h) [label=above left:$H$]{};
\node[vertex] (2) at (-1.10,-0.64) [label=above:$X_2$]{};
\node[vertex] (1) at (0,1.27) [label=above:$X_1$]{};
\node[vertex] (3) at (1.10,-0.64) [label=above:$X_3$]{};
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h) to (2);
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h) to (3);
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h) to (1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Tripod tree. A strictly trivalent tree with $n_{l}$ leaves contains $\binom{n_{l}}{3}$ conditional independence relationships which can each be expressed as a tripod tree.} \label{fig:tripod}
\end{figure}
The distributions associated with moments of the observed variables of such tree models are known for some settings. The case of univariate binary random variables was expanded in \citet{set00gmc} and has recently attracted considerable interest (for example \citet{all09ipl, zwi12tcg}). These advances have encouraged some authors to proceed to use the known geometry of these spaces to support inference and learning over the space of tree models (see \citet{drt07asm}). These focus on the polynomial constraints that are implicit in these models. \citet{zwi11iic} fully characterized the space for binary trees by extending the understanding beyond algebraic relationships to also include the active semi-algebraic constraints, whilst \citet{all12sdg} broadened the results to a $k$-state $n$-pod tree. Our interest is in the use of the constraints which define these geometries for assessing whether data could have originated from a tree model, in particular whether the spoken languages in the acoustic data set could be modeled as a phylogenetic tree.
\subsection{A Fundamental Constraint on the Covariance of Gaussian Tree Models}
\label{sec:gausscon}
Most of the results in the literature of tree constraints are only applicable in settings with binary random variables. Alternative constraints specific to Gaussian tree models are required in order to perform equivalent tree-amenability diagnostics for Gaussian functional data such as the Romance data set. Here we describe a fundamental univariate Gaussian tree constraint which has not yet been exploited for the purpose of investigating tree-amenability.
Consider the precision matrix $\Sigma^{-1}$ related to the tripod tree in Figure~\ref{fig:tripod} with one latent and three manifest Gaussian random variables. It is well known in the Gaussian setting that if $X_i$ is independent of $X_j$ conditional on all other observed variables then the corresponding entry $\Sigma^{-1}_{ij} = 0$ (see \citet[Chapter 5]{lau96gm-} for example). So the precision matrix for the univariate Gaussian tripod tree has the form:
$$
\bm{\Sigma}^{-1}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc|c}
\sigma^{-1}_{1} & 0 & 0 & \sigma^{-1}_{1H}\\
0 & \sigma^{-1}_{2} & 0 & \sigma^{-1}_{2H}\\
0 & 0 & \sigma^{-1}_{3} & \sigma^{-1}_{3H}\\ \hline
\sigma^{-1}_{1H} & \sigma^{-1}_{2H} & \sigma^{-1}_{3H} & \sigma^{-1}_{H}
\end{array}
\right)
$$
where the final row/column relates to the interior hidden variable. The covariance matrix resulting from taking the inverse of the precision matrix can be expressed algebraically in terms of entries of $\Sigma^{-1}$. Using the resulting entries of the covariance $\Sigma = [\sigma_{ij}]$ it is then straightforward to calculate that a necessary condition for the leaves of this tree to be the margin of the tripod tree given in Figure~\ref{fig:tripod} is that
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{ij}\sigma_{ik}\sigma_{jk} \ge 0 \text{ }\forall\text{ } i < j < k.
\label{eqn:posit}
\end{equation}
We shall refer to this constraint as the positivity constraint. For a strictly trivalent tree with $n_{l}$ observed leaf nodes, there are $\binom{n_{l}}{3}$ tripod trees that must be valid - one for each triple - and thus $\binom{n_{l}}{3}$ such positivity constraints. Whilst there are further constraints imposed on the observed moment space of trees, the derivations are considerably more involved and not the emphasis of this applied paper. Given that applications of Gaussian tree-constraints are not apparent in the literature, there is still much to explore focusing solely on this fundamental Gaussian tree constraint.
These constraints can be used with the linguistic data set as a diagnostic for assessing tree-amenability. More precisely, for the $r$ component-by-component projections, each can be assessed for tree-amenability. Thus some components may be found to violate the tree constraints whereas others may satisfy them. This may suggest which attributes of the spoken languages have evolved in a tree-like manner and which have not. Note that although we have functional data, the formulation of this positivity constraint does not assume this, and thus the constraint is equally valid for multivariate Gaussian data.
\subsection{Constructing a Suitable Covariance Statistic}
\label{sec:treeapp}
In pursuit of assessing tree-amenability of the $r$ projections of the Romance data using the positivity constraint $\sigma_{ij}\sigma_{ik}\sigma_{jk} \ge 0$, it is clear that a sample covariance of the scores must be constructed. Recall that the relationships of interest in this study are at the language level and thus between-language covariances (each $5 \times 5$) are the appropriate statistics to produce, one for each of the $r$ components.
One approach to calculating the entries of these matrices is to treat the mean score of each word in a language as an observation and then measure the distance from the overall word mean projection. Then using appropriate weights, a between-language covariance matrix can be estimated as follows. Let $\bar{y}_{d}^i = \frac{1}{m_{\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$} d}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_l}m_{ld}\bar{y}_{ld}^{i}$, $m_{\mbox{$\boldsymbol{\cdot}$} d}=\sum_{l}^{n_l}m_{ld}$ where recall $m_{ld}$ is the number of samples of word $d$ in language $l$, and $\bar{y}^i_{ld} = \bm{c}_i\bar{x}_{ld}$ the projection of the mean of word $d$ of language $l$ using component $\bm{c}_i$.
Then for component $i$ the between-groups cross-covariance for the projected data has the following form:
\begin{equation}\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}} = [\sigma^{i}_{l,l'}] \text{ where }
\sigma_{l,l'}^{i} =\sum\limits_{d=1}^{n_{d}} \frac{\sqrt{m_{ld}}\sqrt{m_{l'd}}(\bar{y}^i_{ld} - \bar{y}^{i}_{d})(\bar{y}^{i}_{l'd}- \bar{y}^{i}_{d})}{n_{d}-1}
\label{eq:outputbet}
\end{equation}
where recall $n_d$ is the number of unique words. Note that this between-group covariance differs from that used in the CVA - this is of the projected data, with word means treated as observations. This is a valid construction in the sense that (\ref{eq:outputbet}) is an inner product (see \citet{ist87ips} for instance). The sample matrices $\bm{\hat{\Sigma}_{Y_{i}}}$ will be rank deficient if $n_l \geq n_d$. Also, observe that if for at least one word $d$ the number of observations is unequal across languages then the weighted word mean $\bar{y}^{i}_{d}$ differs from the unweighted version. This relaxes a zero-sum condition on the the rows or columns of $\bm{\hat{\Sigma}_{Y_{i}}}$ permitting the covariance matrix to be full rank. In the alternate case of a balanced observational design, full rank can be achieved through an alternative construction (for example adding the unweighted word means back to each language-word mean).
Now component-by-component covariances can be used to indicate adherence to a Gaussian tree model using the tripod tree positivity constraint on all $\binom{n_l}{3}$ selections of languages. Each component captures a different combination of variability. Thus it is not unexpected that some components may show violations of the constraint whereas others may indicate tree-amenability.
\subsection{Simulation}
\label{sec:sim}
Before analyzing the Romance language data, a short simulation is performed. The purpose of the simulation is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the tripod positivity constraint at identifying tree-amenability. Also, by varying the simulation sample size the robustness of the positivity constraint is examined.
In order to mimic the linguistic data set, a tree with five leaves is used to generate data (see Figure~\ref{fig:5pod}). Standard structural equations are used (\citet{bol89sel}) adapted for a Gaussian tree to model the dependencies between nodes. The interior node $H_1$ is the root and this variable is simulated from a Gaussian distribution. Data on nodes adjacent to the root are generated as linear combinations of this root simulation with the addition of Gaussian noise. In a $p$-dimensional scenario, the root node is simulated as follows:
$$\bm{H}_{1} \sim \mathcal{N}_{p}(\bm{0}_{p}, \bm{\mathcal{V}}_{h_{1}})$$
where $\bm{\mathcal{V}}_{h_{1}}$ is a $p \times p$ symmetric positive matrix, constructed as $\bm{\mathcal{A}} + \bm{\mathcal{A}}^{T} + p\bm{I}_{p}$ with entries of $\bm{\mathcal{A}}$ generated independently from the continuous uniform distribution $U(0,1)$. $\bm{0}_{p}$ is a $p$-vector of zeros, and $\bm{I}_{p}$ is the $p \times p$ identity matrix. Subsequent nodes are simulated from previous ones, for example:
$$\bm{X}_1 = \bm{\lambda}_{h_{1}x_{1}} H_1 + \bm{\epsilon}_{x_{1}}$$
Each entry of $\bm{\lambda}_{h_{1}x_{1}} \sim U(-a,a)$, $a\in \mathbb{R}$. Within a repetition, all entries of $\bm{\lambda}_{h_{1}x_{1}}$ are fixed for all observations, although do differ depending on the node transition being considered. Additionally, $\bm{\epsilon_{x_{1}}} \sim \mathcal{N}_{p} \left(\bm{0}_{p},b^{2}\bm{I}_{p}\right)$, $b\in \mathbb{R}$, and $\bm{\epsilon}_{x_{1}}$ is pairwise independent with all other random variables. Following the directions of the arrows, the remaining variables are simulated equivalently.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\tikzstyle{vertex}=[circle,fill=black,minimum size=5pt,inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{hidden}=[circle,draw,minimum size=5pt,inner sep=0pt]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[hidden] (h1) [label=below:$H_{1}$]{};
\node[hidden] (h2) at (-1.27,0) [label=left:$H_{2}$]{};
\node[vertex] (x1) at (0,1.27) [label=above:$X_{1}$]{};
\node[hidden] (h3) at (1.27,0) [label=right:$H_{3}$]{};
\node[vertex] (x2) at (-2,1.27) [label=above left:$X_{2}$]{};
\node[vertex] (x4) at (-2,-1.27) [label=above left:$X_{4}$]{};
\node[vertex] (x3) at (2,1.27) [label=above right:$X_{3}$]{};
\node[vertex] (x5) at (2,-1.27) [label=above right:$X_{5}$]{};
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h1) to (h2);
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h1) to (h3);
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h1) to (x1);
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h2) to (x2);
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h2) to (x4);
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h3) to (x3);
\draw[->,-latex,line width=.3mm] (h3) to (x5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Five leaf tree.} \label{fig:5pod}
\end{figure}
A four-dimensional data set $D$ is generated for all eight nodes of the tree though only the observed leaf nodes are of interest and are utilized with the tree constraint. Another data set $D^{*}$ is also generated using a corrupted version of the tree where each transition between nodes provides an opportunity for sign-reversal of entries of the data. Given this corruption can occur on any dimension of any of the data, the simulation is no longer from a Gaussian tree model. Although higher dimensional data could be generated, under standard CVA only a maximum of four ($n_{l} - 1$) eigenvalues would be non-zero (the use of separable CVA relaxes this assumption in our analysis). Thus there would not be much information gained from the increased dimension but the computational resource required would certainly be greater. Four sample sizes are investigated: 50000, 5000, 500, and 50. These are average sample sizes as the simulation is designed such that the number of observations differs across languages allowing the use of (\ref{eq:outputbet}) for the reasons relating to rank noted in Section~\ref{sec:treeapp}. Each simulated data set undergoes the same basis change using CVA to approximate CFA as described in Section~\ref{sec:cva}. For a full analysis, all four dimensions are retained for projecting the data, and thus for each data set four covariance matrices are calculated using the construction given in (\ref{eq:outputbet}). The resulting covariance matrices are then used to check the positivity constraint $\sigma_{ij}\sigma_{ik}\sigma_{jk} \ge 0$. Having repeated the simulation 1000 times for each sample size the results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:posd}. For the projections using components $\bm{c}_{1}, \ldots, \bm{c}_{4}$ (ordered by explanatory power), the percentage of samples satisfying the positivity constraint is recorded.
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Percentage of simulations which satisfy the positivity constraint for the sample size (left headings) and for the four components for each data set $D$ and $D^{*}$ (above headings), for parameter values $a=5$, $b=6$ in the structural equations.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Sample} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{${D}$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{${D^{*}}$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Size} & $\mathbf{c_{1}}$ & $\mathbf{c_{2}}$ & $\mathbf{c_{3}}$ & $\mathbf{c_{4}}$ & $\mathbf{c_{1}}$ & $\mathbf{c_{2}}$ & $\mathbf{c_{3}}$ & $\mathbf{c_{4}}$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{{50000}} & 100 & 100 & 97 & 61 & 11 & 9 & 10 & 10 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{{5000}} & 100 & 99 & 85 & 41 & 13 & 7 & 9 & 11 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{{500}} & 98 & 87 & 58 & 28 & 13 & 8 & 9 & 12 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{{50}} & 88 & 61 & 27 & 27 & 12 & 9 & 11 & 11
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:posd}
\end{table}
There are three notable features highlighted by Table~\ref{tab:posd}. First, the data sets $D$ are found to be tree-amenable consistently more than $D^{*}$. Second, the performance of the positivity constraint on $D$ decreases as the sample size decreases, particularly in the third and fourth components, whereas for $D^{*}$ there is little difference. Third, it is the highly explanatory components of $D$
that are most effective at correctly satisfying the positivity constraint. Further investigation into this last feature can give a guide as to how much variance a component should account for before the positivity constraint becomes a reliable diagnostic. Using the $D$ simulations, the proportion of times tree-amenable components are correctly identified as such is estimated over small ranges of the explanatory power; the interpolated estimates are plotted as the midpoints of the ranges. Although the results displayed are for when the structural equation parameter values are $a=5$, $b=6$, similar results are found when these parameters are varied. In general, as $a$ increases and $b$ decreases the performance of the constraint $D$ over $D^{*}$ is more notable.
Figure~\ref{fig:propeigtestcva} displays graphically the property indicated in Table~\ref{tab:posd} - that the lower the explanatory power of a component and the lower the sample size, the less reliable the positivity constraint is as an indicator of tree-amenability. However, the performance of the positivity constraint is still relatively high; even in the lowest sample size, the first component is effective 88\% of the time. Furthermore, the simulations suggest the reliability of the constraint is not symmetric, particularly for low sample sizes; if a component satisfies the positivity constraint then this is appears good evidence of true tree-amenability, but if a component does not satisfy the positivity constraint then underlying tree-amenability should not be ruled out.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth, height=0.85\textheight,keepaspectratio]{propeigtestcvaunbal.pdf}
\caption{For each sample size, interpolated plots are given of the estimated relationship between the explanatory power of components known to be tree-amenable and the chances that the components are correctly identified as being tree-amenable. This broadly suggests that the larger the sample size and/or the higher the explanatory power of a component, the higher the chances of a component being correctly identified as tree-amenable.}
\label{fig:propeigtestcva}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Further Simulation Based on Characteristics of Observed Data}
\label{sec:furthersim}
In order to better assess the fundamental Gaussian tree constraint when applied to the data, a further simulation is performed using characteristics of the acoustic data set (e.g.\ sample size, eigendecomposition, sample variance). This is achieved by generating data from cross-covariance matrices $\bm{\Sigma_{Y}}$ (as in (\ref{eq:outputbet})) for which tree-amenability status is known. Then by reversing the eigenbasis projection as performed for the Romance data set, new observations are obtained. These new samples can then be assessed using the fundamental Gaussian tree constraint, and it can be assessed whether the source $\bm{\Sigma_{Y}}$ being tree-amenable or not has an affect on the new sample being deemed tree-amenable.
Three scenarios are considered: (A) cross-covariance $\bm{\Sigma_{Y}}$ which is tree-amenable; (B) $\bm{\Sigma_{Y}}$ which is not tree-amenable; (C) $\bm{\Sigma_{Y}}$ is tree-amenable 50\% of the time independently for each component and replication. For (A) and (B) the $\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}$ calculated from the Romance data set are used (for the analysis presented in Section~\ref{sec:apply}). Each of these 15 $\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}$ are thus known to be tree-amenable or not for the fundamental Gaussian tree constraint, and furthermore, the number of $\binom{5}{3} = 10$ constraints satisfied is known and can be denoted $T(\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}})$. Recall, $\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}$ is only deemed tree-amenable if $T(\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}) = 10$. That is, it satisfies the 10 positivity constraints comprising products of covariances relating to the 10 possible choices of three languages. Note that it is not possible for $T(\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}})$ to be exactly 1, 2, 8 or 9 due to the appearance of each off-diagonal entry of $\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}$ in three of the ten combinations. For the first 15 $\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}$ from the actual data set, the percentage of tree-amenable samples out 1000 generated is recorded against $T(\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}})$. The four $\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}$ which are tree-amenable provide higher proportions of tree-amenable samples than the remaining covariance matrices. Considering the full results (see Table~\ref{tab:sim} in the Appendix), a positive correlation is seen between $T(\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}})$ and the percentage of samples simulated from $\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}$ which are then found to be tree-amenable. Considering scenario (C), a mix of the best and worst performing of the actual $\bm{\Sigma_{Y_{i}}}$ are used, having respectively 35\% and 7\% sample tree-amenability. The simulation results in an overall 18\% tree amenability across all sampled components, suggesting that proportionately a similar level of tree-amenability is retained even when tree and non-tree components are combined.
This second simulation approach closely resembles the linguistic data set both in structure and parameter values. Thus these simulations provide comfort that even for the relatively small sample size the analysis is able to produce reasonable results. Scenarios (A) and (B) provide evidence that components which truly satisfy a low number of constraints are unlikely to give a false positive in terms of tree-amenability. Usefully they also identify that this risk grows as the number of constraints satisfied increases, and this can thus be considered when assessing the results. Scenario (C) demonstrates that tree-amenable components can be recovered even when combined with non-tree components, and furthermore, that these appear to be retained in the output almost proportionally to the input. The sampling in all these simulation scenarios may also provide a proxy for distributional results of tree-amenability, where the higher the proportion of tree-amenability in a sample the more robust the conclusion. This hypothesis is an open problem which we look to address in a subsequent paper through derivation of explicit moments of relevant parameters.
\section{ASSESSING TREE-AMENABILITY OF ROMANCE LANGUAGES}
\label{sec:apply}
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:2dproj}, an effective projection of the Romance data can be performed in even two dimensions. However, to account for a higher proportion of between- to within-language variability further components can be included for the projection.
A threshold of cumulative between-language variability is set at 97.5\% which for these data equates to including all components which account for at least 0.05\% explanatory power. Application of this threshold provides a dimension reduction from 8100 to 15. Each one of these 15 components $\bm{c}_{1}, \ldots, \bm{c}_{15}$ accounts for some mode of variability between languages. Although the earlier components have high explanatory power, the latter components may isolate directions of variability which are of more interest from a linguistic perspective
Applying the positivity constraint to each of the 15 component covariance matrices results in four of the components ($\bm{c}_{1}, \bm{c}_{2}, \bm{c}_{4}, \bm{c}_{6}$) adhering to the positivity constraint. Recall that the simulations in Section~\ref{sec:sim} hint that for less explanatory components the constraint appears more likely to identify true tree components than false positives. This suggests that the identified tree-amenable components are more likely to truly be so, whereas the rejected components (e.g. $\bm{c}_{3}, \bm{c}_{5}$) may or may not be truly tree-amenable.
To develop an insight into which aspects of the languages are being identified by the separable-CVA, the Hadamard (entrywise) product of each component with each concatenated mean language spectrogram is calculated. Restoring the $81 \times 100$ dimensions, the resulting matrices indicate the contribution of each frequency-time point to the overall co-ordinates produced by the component projections. This is useful for highlighting particular ranges of standardized time and frequency which distinguish between languages.
For illustration, the time and frequency perspectives are plotted for the second component for both Italian and Portuguese in Figure~\ref{fig:ftcomp2}. These two languages are selected as they are clearly separated in both projected co-ordinates (Figure~\ref{fig:2dproj}), although the plots for the remaining languages are similar. Contrasting the plots in Figure~\ref{fig:ftcomp2}, immediately it can be seen that there are many frequency points which contribute to the overall projection whereas in the time dimension most points do not appear to be integral to distinguishing between languages in the second component. Considering the frequency perspectives, there is some symmetry in power between Italian and Portuguese. This is exhibited well in frequency ranges 300-800Hz, 1000-1500Hz, 3500-4500Hz, and 6000-6500Hz which show reflections along the line of zero power. Each of these frequency ranges can be phonetically interpreted. The 300-800Hz range likely relates to the first formant F1 being different, due to vowel differences. The 1000-1500Hz range likely relates to nasality (Portuguese is more ``nasal'' than Italian, and therefore has less energy in this portion of the spectrum than Italian). The 3500-4500Hz range is in the region of the third formant and could correspond to differences in lip rounding between speakers of the languages. The variation at the highest frequencies, around 6000 Hz, are likely to be due to idiosyncratic differences in speakers (since humans cannot readily control speech frequencies in that range) or in the recordings (equipment or recording location). Examining a smaller range of the data that excludes these high frequencies does not affect the main results of the analyses (data not shown).
Considering the time perspective, it is clear that the interesting time ranges are approximately 1-20 and 70-100. This suggests that the differences in the earliest and latest portions may be particularly effective at separating the languages. These results appear robust to trimming of the data set as well as to standardization of the covariance (data not shown), which suggests that the analysis is identifying more than just a feature of the data registration.
These projections are particularly effective at indicating graphically the dominant features of components which are often obscured when displayed numerically. Of course more detailed analyses are required to determine whether these are general features of the languages or simply of the particular data set studied. However, in either case, this type of exploratory data analysis is clearly a helpful one to perform before any more detailed analysis has taken place, especially if based on the firm assumption that the data originates from a tree.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=1\textheight,keepaspectratio]{hadamandnormcrop2.pdf}
\caption{Cross-sections from the frequency and pseudo-time perspectives of the interpolated second component Hadamand matrices. For the frequency plots, the points with power of opposite sign (for instance points denoted 3500-4500Hz) indicate the ranges which are separating Italian and Portuguese in the second co-ordinate. The time points with higher opposite powers are between time units 1-20 and 70-100. Thus it is the non-central time points which are useful for distinguishing Italian and Portuguese in the second co-ordinate.}
\label{fig:ftcomp2}
\end{figure}
This application demonstrates a method for isolating and identifying distinguishing aspects of variability in acoustic functional data which may be of evolutionary interest. It shows that it is possible to identify prominent features which render particular components effective for distinguishing the language groups. However, it also highlights the challenge of precise physical interpretation of particular components, a task which appears notably more complex due to having both a time and a frequency dimension. It would be of interest to express these differences back in the sound domain, although given the difficulties in inverting spectrograms to sound, this is not a trivial task. However, it is the subject of ongoing work, including experiments with other parametric acoustic representations that are more easily inverted.
\section{DISCUSSION}
\label{sec:disc}
This paper presents a method for assessing tree-amenability of Gaussian functional data via Gaussian tree constraints. Through simulation the capability of the positivity constraint and its level of robustness to sample size have been demonstrated. Application of this fundamental tree constraint has indicated that the implementation is practically feasible. Moreover, it has shown that meaningful (albeit high-level) interpretations can be made making this particularly useful as an exploratory data tool.
The application to a linguistic data set comprising recordings from Romance language speakers provides several interesting preliminary results. First, it suggests that at least four components of the new basis are tree-amenable, and hence, the linguistic features these particular components represent may have a tree structure. Second, examining projections of the two tree-amenable components with highest explanatory power indicates that the second component is sufficient to distinguish languages, and including the first dimension separates dialects. Finally, closer study of the first two tree components indicates that broadly it is the beginning and end of utterances which are identified as effective language discriminants. Whilst these findings are somewhat speculative and the scope of the analysis is limited to a small set of words, it does provide a starting point for describing interesting tree and non-tree like features of grouped data which may otherwise be obscured. Furthermore, if applied on a larger scale to languages lacking established historical pathways, these techniques may offer fresh indications of the plausibility of different hypotheses concerning their historical development.
In the process of preparing data for tree constraint diagnostics, the concept of decomposable covariance structure has been combined with CVA to produce separable-CVA. Although not central to the aim of the paper, it is worth underlining its usefulness. As with standard CVA it identifies modes of variability which effectively distinguish grouped data, but furthermore, in many circumstances it overcomes the common functional data problem of variable dimension exceeding sample size. This makes separable-CVA an appealing tool to use in practice and one which worked well for separating these languages (Figure~\ref{fig:2dproj}).
Whilst the range of techniques applied in this study can be carried across to other functional data sets, it is important to consider the assumptions which underpin the methods employed. Although no data set will truly obey all of the underlying assumptions, it is important nonetheless to understand the purpose of and the consequences of not satisfying each.
The theory of CVA assumes that the data are Gaussian and that the within-language covariances are equal. Considering the acoustic data, Gaussianity is unlikely to strictly hold. However, it may be sufficiently close to doing so and the first and second order moments may still answer questions about language relationships. If there is information available that the Gaussianity assumption is violated (as may well be evident in larger studies than the one presented here), then applying a copula transformation (see \citet{gen95sep}) will provide us with transformed variables that are marginally Gaussian (a necessary condition for joint Gaussianity). The use of such copula techniques would broaden the scope of these diagnostics and shall be described formally in future work.
In practice the within-language covariances are not likely to be equal (particularly given the sample size of the study). Nevertheless, pooling the covariances will emphasize shared commonality of covariances, and pooling may produce a more stable estimate than otherwise would be possible. Importantly, in circumstances where either assumption is violated CVA still produces a valid basis, the downside being it will not necessarily be as efficient at capturing the variability thus hindering the dimension reduction.
Covariance separability may also be unrealistic as there is often some correlation between the two separated dimensions (e.g.\ frequency and time), but in practice this is not a problem. CVA is an optimality tool and thus deviations from the separability assumption only decrease the efficacy of the basis obtained. That is, if covariance separability holds perfectly CVA determines an ordered basis which linearly maximizes between- to within-language variation as intended. Otherwise the ordered basis is suboptimal, the consequence being more dimensions may be required to capture a suitable proportion of the variance.
Therefore, although the three stated assumptions are not guaranteed to hold, infringement of any of them may impair performance but is unlikely to completely negate such an exploratory analysis. This permits a greater range of data sets for which a similar study could be applicable.
Aside from improving performance by selecting a data set which better meets the assumptions outlined above, the application to the Romance languages could instead be improved through a larger data set with greater breadth of words. Currently, the between-covariances of the projected data are only calculated using the means of the ten unique word observations. Furthermore, some languages have more recordings than others. By increasing the number of recordings for all groups, whilst also including a wider variety words, the outcomes of the analyses are likely to be more robust, with the caveat that inclusion of new words must be carefully considered to ensure they are linguistically suitable across all languages.
In this paper we check only some of the conditions necessary for consistency with a phylogenetic tree. However, it is possible to enhance the power of such diagnostics to include all such checks of possible violations of phylogenetic tree constraints. One method is to utilise the 4-point conditions based on the metric properties noted in \citet{bun71rtm}. If these conditions are satisfied then the tree structure can be uniquely identified. For one particular constraint based on tetrads, the work of \citet{bol93cta} gives a basis for possible test statistics and \citet{drt08mmw} provides some useful distributional results for particular moments. An exploratory approach could use an extension of the binary graphical tree diagnostics described in \citet{shi12gid} to the Gaussian domain and is currently under investigation. Of course to fully and formally evaluate these methods it will be necessary to evaluate the probabilistic properties of our methods. We are currently investigating a Bayesian approach where replicates are generated from Wishart covariance matrices, with properties derived from the projected data. These then provide posterior distributions across a graphical model space (\citet{ata05mcm}). For graphs with high posterior probability, trees with hidden variables could then be induced. As with any formal testing framework, it will be important to consider potential effects of multiple comparisons, and to adjust appropriately for them (see \citet[Chapter 12]{how12smp}).
Each of these methods could enrich the analysis, as the proposed trees could be compared to existing knowledge about the relationships between the languages. Contrasting results could even suggest new directions of research using traditional linguistic methods.
There is much potential for applications in fields beyond linguistics to make use of additional algebraic and semi-algebraic constraints. However, even existing constraints are currently underutilized. For example, despite the relatively simple derivation of the fundamental Gaussian tree constraint, this study marks its first use as a diagnostic for tree-amenability. The inclusion of further tree constraints, both in univariate and multivariate settings could provide further insight into phylogenetic relationships in applications. However, derivation and application of such constraints is non-trivial and is the subject of ongoing work.
\newpage
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2} \rm
\section*{APPENDIX: TABLE OF SUMMARISED SIMULATION RESULTS}
\label{app:A}
\setcounter{table}{0}
\renewcommand{\thetable}{A.\arabic{table}}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Percentage of components which are tree-amenable when simulated for the different scenarios discussed in Section~\ref{sec:furthersim}.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c}
\hline
\textbf{Scenario} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Component\\ ($i$)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Explanatory power\\ of component (\%)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{$T(\Sigma_{Y_{i}})$} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\% of simulated \\ components\\ tree-amenable\end{tabular}} \\ \hline
(A) & 1 & 94.82 & 10 & 35.1 \\
(A) & 2 & 0.88 & 10 & 22.1 \\
(B) & 3 & 0.43 & 7 & 18.3 \\
(A) & 4 & 0.30 & 10 & 27.6 \\
(B) & 5 & 0.27 & 6 & 16.2 \\
(A) & 6 & 0.17 & 10 & 23.4 \\
(B) & 7 & 0.10 & 4 & 6.9 \\
(B) & 8 & 0.08 & 7 & 10.7 \\
(B) & 9 & 0.08 & 6 & 16.3 \\
(B) & 10 & 0.07 & 5 & 8.6 \\
(B) & 11 & 0.07 & 5 & 10.5 \\
(B) & 12 & 0.06 & 4 & 8.3 \\
(B) & 13 & 0.05 & 4 & 8.4 \\
(B) & 14 & 0.05 & 6 & 12.2 \\
(B) & 15 & 0.05 & 4 & 7.8 \\
(C) & 1 and 7 & 97.25 and 0.10 & 10 and 4 & 17.8
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:sim}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.63} \rm
In general, the higher the value of $T(\Sigma_{Y_{i}})$, the higher the percentage of tree-amenable components in the sample. Scenario (C) is a sample from a mixture of components 1 and 7, the resulting percentage of tree-amenability being half that of component 1 individually.
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the context of the Formal Linear Algebra Methods Environment
(FLAME) project~\cite{FLAMEOnline}, a methodology for the systematic
derivation of algorithms for matrix operations has been developed and
demonstrated.
The approach has been successfully applied to all the
operations included in the BLAS~\cite{level3BLAS} and
RECSY~\cite{RECSY1,RECSY2} libraries and to
many included in the LAPACK~\cite{laug} library.
In general, the methodology
applies to any operation that can be expressed in a ``divide and
conquer'' fashion.
As opposed to the concept of ``Autotuning'', which
indicates the automatic tuning of a given
algorithm~\cite{atlas-sc98,FFTW05,Pueschel:05}, the word derivation refers to the
actual generation of both algorithms and routines to solve a given
target equation~\cite{Bientinesi:2005:SDD}.
The remarkable results achieved using this methodology are the
subject of a series of publications.
a) For many standard operations, e.g. the Cholesky and
the LU factorizations, all the previously known algorithms were systematically
discovered, unifying them under a common root~\cite{FLAWN11}.
b) For more involved operations like the Sylvester
equation and the reduction of a generalized eigenproblem to standard form,
the generated family of algorithms included new and better performing
ones~\cite{Quintana-Orti:2003:FDA,FLAWN56}.
c) A related methodology for systematic analysis of round-off errors yielded bounds tighter than
those previously known~\cite{Paolo-MASA}.
Although successful, the approach presents some limitations. The
algorithms are generated through complex symbolic computations, steps
often too complicated to be carried out by hand. Motivated by these
difficulties, we aim for a symbolic system that, given as input the
description of a matrix equation $Eq$, applies the steps dictated by
the FLAME methodology to derive a family of algorithms to solve $Eq$.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:steps}, the procedure
consists of three successive stages---PME Generation, Loop-Invariant Identification, Algorithm Derivation---and is entirely determined by the mathematical description of the input operation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figures/diagram.pdf}
\caption{The three main stages in the process of derivation of algorithms.} \label{fig:steps}
\end{figure}
In the first stage, the Partitioned Matrix Expression (PME) for the input
operation is obtained. A PME is a decomposition of the original problem
into simpler sub-problems in a ``divide and conquer'' fashion, exposing the
computation to be performed in each part of the output matrices.
An example is shown in Box~\ref{box:PMELU}. The second
stage of the process deals with the identification of Boolean predicates,
the Loop-Invariants, that describe the intermediate state of computation
for the sought-after algorithms. Loop-invariants can be extracted from the
PME, and are at the heart of the automation of the third stage. In the third
and last stage of the methodology, each loop-invariant is used to set up
a proof of correctness around which the algorithm is finally built.
Notice that the objective is not proving the correctness of a given
algorithm; vice-versa, the loop-invariant is chosen {\em before} the
algorithm is built. Indeed, the algorithm is constructed to
satisfy a given proof of correctness, i.e., to possess the chosen
loop-invariant.
\begin{mybox}
\vspace{2mm}
\centering
$
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\left( {\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}
X_{T} = \Omega(L_{TL}, U, C_{T}) \\\hline
X_{B} = \Omega(L_{BR}, U, C_{B} - L_{BL} X_{T})
\end{array}} \right)
$
\vspace{1mm}
\caption{Partitioned Matrix Expression for the triangular Sylvester equation.} \label{box:PMELU}
\end{mybox}
This paper centers around the first stage of the derivation process, the generation of PMEs.
To this end we introduce a formalism to input into the
system the minimum amount of knowledge about the operation required by a system to
perform all the subsequent stages automatically.
We then describe the process for transforming an input equation into PMEs.
As Fig.~\ref{fig:stepsPME} shows, such process involves three steps:
1) the partitioning of the operands in the equation,
2) matrix arithmetic involving the partitioned operands, and
3) a sequence of iterations, each consisting of algebraic manipulation and
pattern matching.
We demonstrate that the process can indeed be automated through
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}\footnote{The name {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} epitomizes the idea
that the effort a user has to make to obtain algorithms consists in just {\it one click}.},
a symbolic system written in Mathematica~\cite{MathematicaOnline}
that performs all the steps for the PME generation.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.00]{figures/diagramPME.pdf}
\caption{Steps for the automatic generation of PMEs.} \label{fig:stepsPME}
\end{figure}
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{sec:input} we categorize
the input needed by a symbolic system. Partitionings of the operands and
inheritance of properties are discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:partitioning},
while in Sect.~\ref{sec:PattMatch} we describe how to use partitionings
to obtain PMEs. We draw conclusion in Sect.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Input to the System} \label{sec:input}
Our first concern is to establish how a target operation should be
formally described.
Since we are
aiming for a fully-automated system, i.e., without any human
intervention, we need a formalism to unequivocally describe a target
equation.
We choose the language traditionally used to reason about program correctness:
equations shall be specified by means of the predicates Precondition ($P_{\rm pre}$) and
Postcondition ($P_{\rm post}$)~\cite{GrSc:92}. The precondition enumerates
the operands that appear in the equation and describes their properties, while
the postcondition specifies
the equation to be solved.
The Cholesky factorization will serve as an example:
given a symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrix $A$, the goal is to find a
lower triangular matrix $L$ such that $L L^T = A$.
Box~\ref{box:CholOpDesc} contains the predicates $P_{\rm pre}$ and $P_{\rm post}$
relative to the Cholesky factorization;
the notation $L = \Gamma(A)$ indicates that $L$ is the Cholesky factor of $A$.
\begin{mybox}
$$
\small
L = \Gamma(A) \equiv
\left\{
\begin{split}
P_{\rm pre}: \{ & \prop{Unknown}{L} \; \wedge \; \prop{LowerTriangular}{L} \;\; \wedge \\
& \prop{Known}{A} \; \wedge \; \prop{SPD}{A} \} \\
\\[-4mm]
P_{\rm post}: \{ & L L^T = A \}
\end{split}
\right.
$$
\caption{Formal description for the Cholesky factorization.}
\label{box:CholOpDesc}
\end{mybox}
Even though such a definition is unambiguous, it does not include all the
information needed by a symbolic system to fully automate the derivation
process. In Sect.~\ref{subsec:pattLearn} we discuss how a system
expands its knowledge by ``learning of'' new equations, and in
Sect.~\ref{sec:partitioning} we overview the ground knowledge that a system must
possess relative to matrix partitioning and inheritance of properties.
\subsection{Pattern Learning}\label{subsec:pattLearn}
We refer to the pair of predicates ($P_{\rm pre}$ and $P_{\rm post}$)
in Box~\ref{box:CholOpDesc} as the {\em pattern} that identifies the
Cholesky factorization. Such a pattern establishes that matrices $L$
and $A$ are one the Cholesky factor of the other provided that the
constraints in the precondition are satisfied, and $L$ and $A$ are
related as dictated in the postcondition ($L L^T = A$). For instance,
in the expression
$$X X^T = A - B C,$$
in order to determine whether $X = \Gamma(A - B C)$,
the following facts need to be asserted:
i) $X$ is an unknown lower triangular matrix;
ii) the expression $A - B C$ is a known quantity ($A, B$ and $C$ are known);
iii) the matrix $A - B C$ is symmetric positive definite.
The strategy for decomposing an equation in terms of simpler problems
greatly relies on pattern matching. In the next section we describe
how matrix equations can be rewritten in terms of sub-matrices,
resulting in expressions seemingly more complicated than the initial
formulation. Such expressions are thus inspected to find segments
corresponding to known patterns.
Initially, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} only knows the patterns for a basic set
of operations: addition, multiplication, inversion, and transposition
of matrices, vectors and scalars. This information is hard-coded.
More complex patterns are instead discovered during the process of PME
generation. For instance, the first time the PME for the Cholesky
factorization is generated, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} learns and stores the pattern
specified by Box~\ref{box:CholOpDesc}. Thanks to such patterns it will
then be possible to identify that a Cholesky factorization may be
decomposed into a combination of triangular systems and simpler
Cholesky factorizations. As {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}'s pattern knowledge
increases, also does its capability of tackling complex operations.
\section{Partitioning and Inheritance} \label{sec:partitioning}
In this section we illustrate the first step towards the PME generation:
the partitioning of the operands (Fig.~\ref{fig:stepsPME}).
To this end we introduce a set of rules to
partition and combine operands and to assert properties of expressions
involving sub-operands. The application of these rules to the
postcondition yields a predicate called {\em partitioned
postcondition}. Due to constraints imposed by both the structure of the input
operands and the postcondition, only few partitioning rules will be
admissible.
\subsection{Operands Partitioning and Direct Inheritance}
As shown in Box~\ref{box:part}, a generic matrix $A$ can be
partitioned in four different ways. The $1 \times 1$ rule
(Box~\ref{box:part}\subref{sbox:part1x1}) is special as it does not affect the operand;
we refer to it as the {\em identity}.
For a vector, only the $2 \times 1$ and $1 \times 1$ rules apply,
while for scalars only the identity is admissible.
When referring to any of the parts resulting from a non-identity rule, we use the
terms sub-matrix or sub-operand, and for $2 \times 2$ partitionings we
also use the term quadrant.
\begin{mybox}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{center}
\subfloat[$2 \times 2$ rule]{
\label{sbox:part2x2}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
\ruleTwoByTwo{A}{m}{n}{TL}{k_1}{k_2}
\end{minipage}
}
\qquad
\subfloat[$2 \times 1$ rule]
{\label{sbox:part2x1}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
\ruleTwoByOne{A}{m}{n}{T}{k_1}{n}
\end{minipage}
}
\\
\subfloat[$1 \times 2$ rule]
{\label{sbox:part1x2}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
\ruleOneByTwo{A}{m}{n}{L}{m}{k_2}
\end{minipage}
}
\qquad
\subfloat[$1 \times 1$ (identity) rule]
{\label{sbox:part1x1}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
\ruleOneByOne{A}{m}{n}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{center}
\caption{
Rules for partitioning a generic matrix operand A.
We use the subscript letters $T$, $B$, $L$, and $R$ for $T$op, $B$ottom,
$L$eft, and $R$ight, respectively.
}\label{box:part}
\end{mybox}
The inheritance of
properties plays an important role in subsequent stages of the
algorithm generation process.
Thus, when the operands have a special structure, it is beneficial to choose
partitioning rules that respect the structure.
For a symmetric matrix, for instance,
it is convenient to create sub-matrices that exhibit the same property.
The $1 \times 2$ and $2 \times 1$ rules break the structure of a
symmetric matrix, as neither of the two sub-matrices inherit the
symmetry. Therefore, we only allow $1 \times 1$ or $2 \times 2$
partitionings, with the extra constraint that the $TL$ quadrant has to
be square.
Box~\ref{box:partLM} illustrates
the admissible partitionings for symmetric matrices.
On the left, the identity rule is applied and the operand remains unchanged.
On the right instead, a constrained $2 \times 2$ rule is applied,
so that some of the resulting quadrants inherit properties.
Both $M_{TL}$ and $M_{BR}$ are square and symmetric,
and $M_{BL} = M_{TR}^T$ (or vice versa $M_{TR} = M_{BL}^T$).
Each matrix type allows specific partitioning rules and inheritance of properties;
for triangular, diagonal, symmetric, and SPD matrices
a library of admissible partitioning rules is incorporated into {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}.
\begin{mybox}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcl}
\begin{minipage}{3.3cm}
\centering
\ruleOneByOne{M}{m}{m}
\end{minipage}
\quad or \qquad &
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
\symmruleTwoByTwo{M}{m}{m}{TL}{k}{k}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}\\[-3mm]
\caption{Partitioning rules for structured matrices.}\label{box:partLM}
\end{center}
\end{mybox}
\subsection{Theorem-aware Inheritance}\label{subsec:theorem-aware}
Although frequent, direct inheritance of properties is only the simplest form of inheritance.
Here we expose a more complex situation.
Let A be an SPD matrix. Because of symmetry, the only admissible partitioning rules are
the ones listed in Box~\ref{box:partLM}; applying the $2 \times 2$ rule, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:SPDPart}
\begin{aligned}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
A_{m \times m}
\rightarrow &
\left(
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}}
A_{TL} & A_{BL}^T \\\hline
A_{BL} & A_{BR}
\end{array}
\right) \\
\small \textnormal{where } & A_{TL} \textnormal{ is } k \times k
\end{aligned},
\end{equation}
and both $A_{TL}$ and $A_{BR}$ are symmetric. More properties about
the quadrants of $A$ can be stated. For example, it is well known that
{\it if $A$ is SPD, then every principal sub-matrix of $A$ is also
SPD}. As a consequence, the quadrants $A_{TL}$ and $A_{BR}$ inherit
the SPD property. Moreover, it can be proved that given a $2 \times
2$ partitioning of an SPD matrix as in (\ref{eqn:SPDPart}), the
following matrices (known as Schur complements) are also symmetric
positive definite:\\[2mm]
\noindent
i) $\;A_{TL} - A_{BL}^{T} A_{BR}^{-1} A_{BL},$\\[1mm]
ii) $A_{BR} - A_{BL} A_{TL}^{-1} A_{BL}^{T}.$\\[-2mm]
The knowledge emerging from this theorem is hard-coded into {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:PattMatch} it will become apparent how this
information is essential for the generation of PMEs.
\subsection{Combining the Partitionings}
The admissible rules are now applied to rewrite the
postcondition. Since in general each operand can be decomposed in
multiple ways, not one, but many partitioned postconditions are
created. As an example, in the Cholesky factorization
(Box~\ref{box:CholOpDesc}) both the $1\times 1$ and $2\times 2$ rules
are viable for both $L$ and $A$, leading to four different rewrite sets
(Tab.~\ref{tab:partPostcond}).
\begin{table*}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c | c} \toprule
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
{\bf \#} & {\bf L} & {\bf A} & {\bf Partitioned Postcondition} \\ \midrule
\rowcolor[gray]{.9}
\rule[-0.3cm]{0cm}{0.7cm} 1 &
$
L \rightarrow \left( L \right)$ & $A \rightarrow \left( A \right)$ &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left( L \right)
\left( L \right)^T
=
\left( A \right)
$ \\
\rule[-0.4cm]{0cm}{1cm} 2 &
$ L \rightarrow \left( L \right)$ &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
A \rightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}}
A_{TL} & A_{BL}^T \\\hline
A_{BL} & A_{BR}
\end{array}
\right)
$ &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left( L \right)
\left( L \right)^T
=
\left(
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}}
A_{TL} & A_{BL}^T \\\hline
A_{BL} & A_{BR}
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\
\rowcolor[gray]{.9}
\rule[-0.4cm]{0cm}{1cm} 3 &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
L \rightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}}
L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline
L_{BL} & L_{BR}
\end{array}
\right)
$ & $A \rightarrow \left( A \right)$ &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline L_{BL} & L_{BR} \end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL}^{T} & L_{BL}^{T} \\\hline 0 & L_{BR}^{T} \end{array} \right)
=
\left( A \right)
$ \\
\rule[-0.4cm]{0cm}{1cm} 4 &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
L \rightarrow
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline L_{BL} & L_{BR} \end{array} \right)
$ &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
A \rightarrow
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} A_{TL} & A_{BL}^T \\\hline A_{BL} & A_{BR} \end{array} \right)
$ &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline L_{BL} & L_{BR} \end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL}^{T} & L_{BL}^{T} \\\hline 0 & L_{BR}^{T} \end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} A_{TL} & A_{BL}^T \\\hline A_{BL} & A_{BR} \end{array} \right) $ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\\[1mm]
\caption{Application of the different combinations of partitioning rules to the postcondition.} \label{tab:partPostcond}
\end{table*}
It is apparent that some of the expressions in the
fourth column of Tab.~\ref{tab:partPostcond} are not algebraically well defined.
The rules in the
second and third rows lead to ill-defined partitioned postconditions,
thus they should be discarded.
Despite leading to a well defined expression, the first row of the table should
be discarded too, as the goal is a {\it Partitioned} Matrix Expression
and it leads to an expression
in which none of the operands has been partitioned.
In light of these additional restrictions, the only viable set
of rules for the Cholesky factorization is the one given in the last row of
Tab.~\ref{tab:partPostcond}.
In summary, partitioning rules must satisfy
both the constraints due to the nature of the individual operands,
and those due to the operators appearing in the postcondition.
In the next section we detail the algorithm used by {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} to
generate only the viable sets of partitioning rules.
\subsection{Automation} \label{subsec:automation}
We show how {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} performs the partitioning process automatically.
The naive approach would be to exhaustively search among all the
rules applied to all the operands, leading to a search space of
exponential size in the number of operands.
Instead, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} utilizes an algorithm that traverses once the tree
that represents the postcondition in prefix notation and yields only
the viable sets of partitioning rules.
The input to the algorithm is the predicates $P_{\rm pre}$ and $P_{\rm{post}}$ for a target operation.
As an example we look at the triangular Sylvester equation
$L X + X U = C,$
defined using our formalism as in Box~\ref{box:sylvdesc}.
\begin{mybox}
{\small
\begin{equation} \nonumber
X= \Omega(L, U, C) \equiv
\left\{
\begin{split}
P_{\rm pre}: \{ & \prop{Known}{L} \wedge \prop{LowerTriangular}{L} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Known}{U} \wedge \prop{UpperTriangular}{U} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Known}{C} \wedge \prop{Unknown}{X} \} \\
\\[-2mm]
P_{\rm post}: \{ & L X + X U = C \}.
\end{split}
\right.
\end{equation}
}
\caption{Formal description for the triangular Sylvester equation.}
\label{box:sylvdesc}
\end{mybox}
First, the algorithm transforms the postcondition to prefix notation
(Fig.~\ref{fig:tree}) and collects the name and the dimensionality of each operand.
A list of disjoint sets, one per dimension of the operands is then
created.
This initial list for the Sylvester equation is
$\left[ \; \{ L_{r}\}, \{ L_{c}\}, \{ U_{r}\}, \{ U_{c}\}, \{ C_{r}\}, \{ C_{c}\}, \{ X_{r}\}, \{ X_{c}\} \; \right],$
where $r$ and $c$ stand for {\it rows} and {\it columns} respectively.
The algorithm traverses the tree, in a post-order fashion, to
determine if and which dimensions are bound together. Two dimensions
are bound to one another if the partitioning of one implies the
partitioning of the other.
If two dimensions are found to be bound, then their corresponding
sets are merged together. As the algorithm moves from the leaves to
the root of the tree, it keeps track of the dimensions of the operands'
subtrees.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{figures/sylvtree.pdf}
\caption{Tree representation of the equation $L X + X U = C$.} \label{fig:tree}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The algorithm starts by visiting the node corresponding to the operand $L$.
There it establishes that, since $L$ is lower triangular,
the identity and the $2 \times 2$ partitioning rules are the only admissible
ones. Thus, the rows and the columns of $L$ are bound together, and the list becomes
$\left[ \; \{ L_{r}, L_{c}\}, \{ U_{r}\}, \{ U_{c}\}, \{ C_{r}\}, \{ C_{c}\},\right.$
$\left.\{ X_{r}\}, \{ X_{c}\} \; \right].$
\noindent
The next node to be visited is that of the operand $X$.
Since $X$ has no specific structure, its analysis causes no bindings.
Then, the node corresponding to the $\ast$ operator is analyzed.
The dimensions of $L$ and $X$ have to agree according to the matrix product, therefore,
a binding between $L_c$ and $X_r$ is imposed:
$\left[ \; \{ L_{r}, L_{c}, X_{r}\}, \{ U_{r}\}, \{ U_{c}\}, \{ C_{r}\}, \{ C_{c}\}, \{ X_{c}\} \; \right].$
\noindent
At this stage the dimensions of the product $L X$ are also determined to be
$L_{r} \times X_{c}$.
The procedure continues by analyzing the subtree corresponding to the product $X U$.
Again, the lack of a specific structure in $X$ does not cause any binding and the algorithm follows
with the study of the node for the operand $U$. The triangularity of $U$ imposes a binding between
$U_{r}$ and $U_{c}$ leading to
$\left[ \; \{ L_{r}, L_{c}, X_{r}\}, \{ U_{r}, U_{c}\}, \{ C_{r}\}, \{ C_{c}\}, \{ X_{c}\} \; \right].$
\noindent
Then, the node for the $\ast$ operator is analyzed, and a binding between $X_c$ and $U_r$ is found:
$\left[ \; \{ L_{r}, L_{c}, X_{r}\}, \{ U_{r}, U_{c}, X_{c}\},\right.$ $\left.\{ C_{r}\}, \{ C_{c}\} \; \right].$
The dimensions of the product $X U$ are determined to be $X_{r} \times U_{c}$.
The next node to be considered is the corresponding to the $+$ operator. It imposes a binding between
the rows and the columns of the products $L X$ and $X U$, i.e., between $L_{r}$ and $X_{r}$,
and between $X_{c}$ and $U_{c}$. Since each of these pairs of dimensions already belong to the same
set, no modifications are made to the list. The algorithm establishes that the dimensions of
the $+$ node are $L_r \times U_c$. Next, the node associated to the operand $C$
is analyzed. Since $C$ has no particular structure, its analysis does not cause any
modification. The last node to be processed is the equality operator
$=$. This node binds the rows of $C$ to those of $L$ ($C_r$, $L_r$)
and the columns of $C$ to those of $U$ ($C_c$, $U_c$). The final list
consists of two separate groups of dimensions:
$$\left[ \; \{ L_{r}, L_{c}, X_{r}, C_{r}\}, \{ U_{r}, U_{c}, X_{c}, C_{c}\} \; \right].$$
Having created $g$ groups of bound dimensions,
the algorithm generates $2^g$ combinations of rules
(the dimensions within each group being either partitioned or not),
resulting in a family of partioned postconditions, one per combination.
In practice, since the combination including solely identity rules
does not lead to a PME, only $2^g-1$ combinations are acceptable.
In our example the algorithm found two groups of bound dimensions,
therefore three possible combinations of rules are generated:
1) only the dimensions in the second group are partitioned,
2) only the dimensions in the first group are partitioned, or
3) all dimensions are partitioned.
The resulting partitionings are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:sylvPart}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\scriptsize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c | c | c} \toprule
{\bf \#} & {\bf L} & {\bf U} & {\bf C} & {\bf X} \\\midrule
\rowcolor[gray]{.9}
\scriptsize 1 \rule[-0.35cm]{0cm}{0.9cm} &
$(L)$ &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} U_{TL} & U_{TR} \\\hline 0 & U_{BR} \end{array} \right)$ &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} C_{L} & C_{R} \end{array} \right)$ &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} X_{L} & X_{R} \end{array} \right)$ \\
\scriptsize 2 \rule[-0.35cm]{0cm}{0.9cm} &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline L_{BL} & L_{BR} \end{array} \right)$ &
$(U)$ &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{}} C_{T} \\\hline C_{B} \end{array} \right)$ &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{}} X_{T} \\\hline X_{B} \end{array} \right)$ \\
\rowcolor[gray]{.9}
\scriptsize 3 \rule[-0.35cm]{0cm}{0.9cm} &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline L_{BL} & L_{BR} \end{array} \right)$ &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} U_{TL} & U_{TR} \\\hline 0 & U_{BR} \end{array} \right)$ &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} C_{TL} & C_{TR} \\\hline C_{BL} & C_{BR} \end{array} \right)$ &
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} X_{TL} & X_{TR} \\\hline X_{BL} & X_{BR} \end{array} \right)$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\\[1mm]
\caption{Viable combinations of partitioning rules for the Sylvester equation.} \label{tab:sylvPart}
\end{table}
This very same process is used to find the bound dimensions of every target
operation and, accordingly, only each and every viable combination
of partitioning rules is generated.
\section{Matrix Arithmetic and Pattern Matching} \label{sec:PattMatch}
This section covers the second and third steps in the PME generation stage (Fig.~\ref{fig:stepsPME}).
Within the {\it Matrix Arithmetic} step, symbolic arithmetic is performed and
the = operator is distributed over the partitions,
originating multiple equations.
In (\ref{eqn:matArit1}) we display the result of these actions for the Cholesky factorization,
where the symbol $\star$ means that the equation in the top-right quadrant
is the transpose of the bottom-left one.
{\scriptsize
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:matArit1}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline L_{BL} & L_{BR} \end{array} \right) \!\!
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL}^{T} & L_{BL}^{T} \\\hline 0 & L_{BR}^{T} \end{array} \right)\!
=\!
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} A_{TL} & A_{BL}^T \\\hline A_{BL} & A_{BR} \end{array} \right)
\Rightarrow
\notag
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} L_{TL}^T = A_{TL} &
\star \\\hline
L_{BL} L_{TL}^T = A_{BL} &
L_{BL} L_{BL}^T + L_{BR} L_{BR}^T = A_{BR}
\end{array} \right) .
\end{eqnarray}
}
The {\em Pattern Matching} step delivers the sought-after PME.
Success of this process is dependent
on the ability to identify expressions with known structure and properties.
In order to facilitate pattern matching, we force equations to be in
their {\em canonical form}. We state that an equation is in canonical
form if
a) its left-hand side only consists of those terms that contain at least one unknown object,
and
b) its right-hand side only consists of those terms that solely contain known objects.
This last step carries out an iterative process comprising three separate actions:
1) structural pattern matching:
equations are matched against known patterns;
2) once a known pattern is matched,
the unknown operands are flagged as known
and the equation becomes a tautology;
3) algebraic manipulation:
the remaining equations are rearranged in canonical form.
We clarify the iterative process by illustrating, action by action, how
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} works through the Cholesky factorization.
The first iteration is depicted in
Box~\ref{box:it1}, in
which
the top-left formula
displays the initial state.
In all the next expressions, \known{green} and \unknown{red} are
used to highlight the known and unknown operands, respectively.
\paragraph{\bf Structural pattern matching:}
All the equations in Box~\ref{box:it1}\subref{sbox:it1a} are in canonical form.
Through pattern matching, the top-left quadrant is the only one for which a match is found.
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} identifies the equation as a Cholesky factorization (Box~\ref{box:it1}\subref{sbox:it1b}),
since the pattern in Box~\ref{box:CholOpDesc} is satisfied: the system recognizes that
i) $L_{TL}$ is lower triangular;
ii) $A_{TL}$ is SPD; and
iii) the structure of the equation matches the one in the postcondition ($L L^T = A$).
\paragraph{\bf Exposing new available operands:}
Having matched the top-left equation, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}
turns the unknown operand \unknown{$L_{TL}$}
into \known{$L_{TL}$}, and propagates the information to all the other quadrants
(Box~\ref{box:it1}\subref{sbox:it1c}).
As a result, the top-left equation becomes a tautology.
\paragraph{\bf Algebraic manipulation:}
All the remaining equations are still in canonical form,
thus no operation takes place~(Box~\ref{box:it1}\subref{sbox:it1d}).
\begin{mybox} \centering
\tiny
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
\subfloat[Initial state.]
{ \label{sbox:it1a}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\unknown{L_{TL}} \unknown{L_{TL}^T} = \known{A_{TL}} &
\star \\\hline
\unknown{L_{BL}} \unknown{L_{TL}^T} = \known{A_{BL}} &
\unknown{L_{BL}} \unknown{L_{BL}^T} + \unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}}
\end{array} \right) $
}
\hspace{-.1cm}
\subfloat[Top-left equation is identified as a Cholesky sub-problem.]
{
\label{sbox:it1b}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\unknown{\myboxed{L_{TL}}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\unknown{L_{BL}} \unknown{L_{TL}^T} = \known{A_{BL}} &
\unknown{L_{BL}} \unknown{L_{BL}^T} + \unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}}
\end{array} \right) $
}
\\\vspace{1em}
\hspace{-.1cm}
\subfloat[$L_{TL}$ becomes a known operand for the rest of equations.]
{
\begin{minipage}{5.4cm}
\label{sbox:it1c}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\known{\myboxed{L_{TL}}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\unknown{L_{BL}} \known{\myboxed{L_{TL}^T}} = \known{A_{BL}} &
\unknown{L_{BL}} \unknown{L_{BL}^T} + \unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}}
\end{array} \right) $
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{.50cm}
\subfloat[There is no need for algebraic manipulation.]
{
\begin{minipage}{5.9cm}
\label{sbox:it1d}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\unknown{L_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^T} = \known{A_{BL}} &
\unknown{L_{BL}} \unknown{L_{BL}^T} + \unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}}
\end{array} \right) $
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{First iteration towards the PME generation.} \label{box:it1}
\end{mybox}
In this first iteration, one unknown operand, $L_{TL}$, has become known,
and one equation has turned into a tautology.
The knowledge encoded in such a tautology is of importance for a subsequent iteration.
The {\bf second iteration} is shown in Box~\ref{box:it2}.
\paragraph{\bf Structural pattern matching:}
Box~\ref{box:it2}\subref{sbox:it2a}
reproduces
the final state from the previous iteration.
Among the two outstanding equations,
the bottom-left one is identified (Box~\ref{box:it2}\subref{sbox:it2b}),
as it matches the pattern
of a triangular system of equations with multiple right-hand sides ({\sc trsm}).
The pattern for a {\sc trsm} is
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\{
X L^T = B \; \wedge \;
\prop{Output}{X} \; \wedge \; \prop{Input}{L} \; \wedge \;
\prop{LowerTriangular}{L} \; \wedge \; \prop{Input}{B} \}.
\end{equation}
For the sake of brevity,
we assume that {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}
had learned such pattern from a previous derivation;
in practice, in case the system does not know the pattern,
a nested task of PME generation would be initiated,
yielding the required pattern.
\paragraph{\bf Exposing new available operands:}
Once the {\sc trsm} is identified, the output operand $L_{BL}$ becomes
available and turns to green in the bottom-right quadrant
(Box~\ref{box:it2}\subref{sbox:it2c}).
\paragraph{\bf Algebraic manipulation:}
The bottom-right equation is not in canonical form anymore:
the product $L_{BL} L_{BL}^T$, now a known quantity,
does not lay in the right-hand side. A simple manipulation
brings the equation back to canonical form (Box~\ref{box:it2}\subref{sbox:it2d}).
\begin{mybox} \centering
\tiny
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
\subfloat[Initial state.]
{ \label{sbox:it2a}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\unknown{L_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^T} = \known{A_{BL}} &
\unknown{L_{BL}} \unknown{L_{BL}^T} + \unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}}
\end{array} \right) $
}
\hspace{-.2cm}
\subfloat[Bottom-left equation is identified as a triangular system of equations.]
{ \label{sbox:it2b}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\unknown{\myboxed{L_{BL}}} = \known{A_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^{-T}} &
\unknown{L_{BL}} \unknown{L_{BL}^T} + \unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}}
\end{array} \right) $
}
\\\vspace{1em}
\hspace{-.1cm}
\subfloat[$L_{BL}$ becomes a known operand.]
{ \label{sbox:it2c}
$\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\known{\myboxed{L_{BL}}} = \known{A_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^{-T}} &
\known{\myboxed{L_{BL}^{\phantom{T}}}} \known{\myboxed{L_{BL}^T}} + \unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}}
\end{array} \right) $
}
\subfloat[State after the algebraic manipulation.]
{ \label{sbox:it2d}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\known{L_{BL}} = \known{A_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^{-T}} &
\unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}} - \known{L_{BL}} \known{L_{BL}^T}
\end{array} \right) $
}
\caption{Second iteration towards the PME generation.} \label{box:it2}
\end{mybox}
The process continues until all the equations are turned into tautologies.
The third and {\bf final iteration} for the Cholesky factorization
is shown in Box~\ref{box:it3}, where the top formula
replicates the final state from the previous iteration.
\paragraph{\bf Structural pattern matching:}
Only one equation, the bottom-right one, remains unprocessed.
At a first glance,
one might recognize a Cholesky factorization, but the corresponding
pattern in Box~\ref{box:CholOpDesc} requires $A$ to be SPD. The question is whether the expression $A_{BR} -
L_{BL} L_{BL}^T$ represents an SPD matrix. In
order to answer the question, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} applies rewrite rules and
symbolic simplifications.
In Sect.~\ref{subsec:theorem-aware} we explained
that the following quantities are known to be SPD: $A_{TL}$, $A_{BR}$,
$A_{TL} - A_{BL}^{T} A_{BR}^{-1} A_{BL}$, and $A_{BR} - A_{BL} A_{TL}^{-1} A_{BL}^{T}$.
In order to determine whether $A_{BR} - L_{BL} L_{BL}^T$
is equivalent to any of these expressions,
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} makes use of the knowledge acquired throughout the previous iterations.
Specifically, in the first two iterations it was discovered that
$L_{TL} L_{TL}^T = A_{TL}$, and $L_{BL} = A_{BL} L_{TL}^{-T}$.
Using these tautologies as rewrite rules, the expression $A_{BR} -
L_{BL} L_{BL}^T$ is manipulated. First, the equality $L_{BL} =
A_{BL} L_{TL}^{-T}$ is used to replace the instances of $L_{BL}$,
yielding $A_{BR} - A_{BL} L_{TL}^{-T} L_{TL}^{-1} A_{BL}^T$, and
equivalently, $A_{BR} - A_{BL} (L_{TL} L_{TL}^{T})^{-1}
A_{BL}^T$. Then, by virtue of the tautology $L_{TL} L_{TL}^T = A_{TL}$,
$L_{TL} L_{TL}^T$ is replaced by $A_{TL}$, yielding $A_{BR} - A_{BL}
A_{TL}^{-1} A_{BL}^{T}$. Now, this expression is known to be SPD.
Thanks to these manipulations, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} successfully associates the
bottom right equation with the pattern for a Cholesky factorization.
\paragraph{\bf Exposing new available operands:}
Once the expression in the bottom-right quadrant is identified,
the system exposes the quantity $L_{BR}$ as known.
Since no equation is left, the process completes and the PME---formed by the three
tautologies---is returned as output.
\begin{mybox} \centering
\tiny
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
\subfloat[Initial state.]
{ \label{sbox:it3a}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\known{L_{BL}} = \known{A_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^{-T}} &
\unknown{L_{BR}} \unknown{L_{BR}^{T}} = \known{A_{BR}} - \known{L_{BL}} \known{L_{BL}^T}
\end{array} \right) $
}
\hspace{-.1cm}
\subfloat[Bottom-right equation is identified as a Cholesky factorization.]
{ \label{sbox:it3b}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\known{L_{BL}} = \known{A_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^{-T}} &
\unknown{\myboxed{L_{BR}}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{BR}} - \known{L_{BL}} \known{L_{BL}^T})
\end{array} \right) $
}
\\\vspace{-.5em}
\hspace{-.1cm}
\subfloat[$L_{BR}$ becomes a known operand.]
{ \label{sbox:it3c}
$\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\known{L_{BL}} = \known{A_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^{-T}} &
\known{\myboxed{L_{BR}}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{BR}} - \known{L_{BL}} \known{L_{BL}^T})
\end{array} \right) $
}
\subfloat[Final PME.]
{ \label{sbox:it3d}
$\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\known{L_{TL}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{TL}}) &
\star \\\hline
\known{L_{BL}} = \known{A_{BL}} \known{L_{TL}^{-T}} &
\known{L_{BR}} = \Gamma(\known{A_{BR}} - \known{L_{BL}} \known{L_{BL}^T})
\end{array}
\right) $
}
\caption{Final iteration towards the PME generation.} \label{box:it3}
\end{mybox}
By means of the described process, PMEs for a target equation are automatically
generated. The PME for the Cholesky factorization is given in Box~\ref{box:PMEChol}.
\begin{mybox} \centering
\vspace{-3mm}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$$\left( {\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}}
L_{TL} = \Gamma(A_{TL}) &
\star \\\hline
L_{BL} = A_{BL} L_{TL}^{-T} &
L_{BR} = \Gamma(A_{BR} - L_{BL} L_{BL}^T)
\end{array}} \right)$$ \\
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Partitioned Matrix Expression for the Cholesky factorization.} \label{box:PMEChol}
\end{mybox}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
The work we presented sets the ground for the development of a
symbolic system that, from the sole description of an operation,
generates algorithms automatically. The core of our methodology stands
in the PME. A PME encapsulates the information about the target
operation in a way that facilitates the subsequent identification of
loop-invariants. The loop-invariants then lead to the final algorithms
through a technique based on program correctness. In this paper we
introduce a symbolic system, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}, that automates the generation of
PMEs.
In order to generate PMEs, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} first identifies how the op\-er\-ands in the
operation may be partitioned. Instead of a brute force approach of
exponential complexity, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} utilizes a tree-based algorithm that
yields only the viable sets of partitioning rules.
Through a process of pattern matching, each such set leads to a distinct PME.
The key in the PME generation is {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}'s ability to identify known patterns.
Initially, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} only recognizes elementary structures, but its
knowledge expands by automatically learning the patterns associated
with the operations it tackles. Thanks to this augmenting
internal knowledge, the system may generate PMEs for increasingly
complex operations.
To illustrate {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}, we discussed the
Cholesky factorization and, partially (due to space constraints),
the Sylvester equation. Despite the fact
that such operations differ in multiple ways---number and properties
of the operands, number of valid sets of partitioning rules, number of
PMEs---the steps performed by {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} leading to the PMEs are
exactly the same. As future work, we plan to add support
for higher dimensional objects
and the derivative operator.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support received from the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Association) through
grant GSC 111.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section:Introduction}
With the drastic growth of social and wireless application information data generated and consumed, it is emergent to establish a bridge infrastructure that can timely and accurately discovers and delivers the information to various parties of interests.
As an example of new era information service, a smart-phone user in a downtown block wants to obtain a recommendation for some restaurants while people close-by may be also searching for the same type of information. Another user just stepping out of a Thai cuisine is satisfied with the dining experience and would like to share this place with others. Other applications include traffic information posting and retrieval where users cooperatively contribute to and benefit from the real-time traffic reports.
These applications can be better met by a "contribute-and-benefit" pattern system. Publish/Subscribe (Pub/Sub) system is one of this type, in which subscribers specify their interests and publishers post advertisements. The system matches subscriptions with publications. Unlike client/server models, the Pub/Sub model decouples time, space, and flow between publishers and subscribers to provide flexibility in information distribution.
Gryphon~\cite{gryphon} and SIENA~\cite{SIENA} were once popular Pub/Sub models in wire-line networks, however, their tree-based structure are not scalable in dynamic wireless network whose topology may constant change due to mobility and connection broken.
Many later attempts have been made to apply Pub/Sub infrastructure for wireless networks \cite{DRIP}\cite{GeoRendezvous}\cite{GeographicalContentPubSub}, where the information in the systems is roughly divided into several basic types. These platforms cannot efficiently support heterogeneous user application needs.
Different from conventional Pub/Sub systems which mainly categorize information into a few types for ease of implementation, the modern information system is expected to better meet the customized information needs of individual users. Besides the difference in categories, the heterogeneity of information is more generally resulted from different values or contents for the same type of information. In the restaurant recommendation example, the difference in the service time of a day or the average price level would totally distinguish restaurants and draw the interests of different groups of consumers, even when they provide the same type of foods. Simply ascribing information into coarse types (food, movie, car, etc.) cannot meet most application needs. On the other hand, completely expressing every detail of the information in words and matching over them is not feasible in reality. We need an information system that supports rich and accurate information content expression while efficiently reducing the representation complexity.
In this paper, we propose a reliable and scalable content-expressive information matching and dissemination infrastructure in a large-scale mobile wireless network, which utilizes novel and efficient components as well as a location-based virtual management infrastructure for efficient storage, light-weight communications, and quick information match.
The main contributions of our work are:
\begin{itemize}
\item
We propose a mechanism to flexibly and efficiently represent information with the combination of a set of elementary tuples for numerical expression of the content.
\item We propose a novel Attribute Range Vector that allows flexible vector length adjustment based on the information accuracy requirement, and supports a unique simple bit-wise operation for quick content matching check, to facilitate accurate content representation as well as low-overhead in storage and transmission.
\item We propose a Summary Tree structure to facilitate efficient aggregation of information, which significantly reduces the overhead for storing and transmitting information updates.
\item Different from Pub/Sub systems, which generally match the publication over predefined or existing subscriptions, where subscribers usually have to wait, our scheme makes the matching process bidirectional so that all information can be promptly processed for matching.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{Section:RelatedWork}, some related works are discussed. Section~\ref{Section:SystemOverview} gives the system basic conventions and an overview of the overlay structure. Section~\ref{Section:MainScheme} outlines the detailed design and algorithms for information matching of BRVST.
Extensive simulations are evaluated in Section~\ref{Section:Simulation}. We conclude the work in Section~\ref{Section:Conclusion}.
\section{Related Work}
\label{Section:RelatedWork}
There are lots of studies on developing information matching mechanisms, among which Publish/Subscribe systems are once prevalent. However, the work on Pub/Sub systems over wireless networks is far less mature than that in wired networks.
Very few efforts have been made to support flexible content-based information matching and dissemination over wireless networks. One of the challenges is to accurately represent the content which often has a value range and to support efficient query on the ranges. R-Tree~\cite{R-Tree} supports range query for a single content attribute, but the structure consumes too large space when the information is composed of multiple attributes.
Bloom Filter can also be modified to support range query. MDSBF~\cite{BloomfilterRange} combines multiple bloom filters with each one representing one attribute of the content. However, this can easily get into computational bottleneck as information volume increases, because the query on each attribute bloom filter requires several hashing operations.
TAMA~\cite{TAMA} has its own design to express numeric ranges. Its fixed granularity-level design, however, lacks the ability to balance between content representation accuracy and storage efficiency. Besides, TAMA maintains information in tables without aggregation, which is not efficient in both space and time complexity. Instead, our novel variable-length attribute range vector, which supports convenient aggregation, can not only flexibly represent numeric range of content to any desired accuracy level with low storage space, but also take advantage of simple bit-wise operations to facilitate efficient information matching.
Other types of systems such as \cite{TreePubSub} by Picco et al. assume tree-based topologies, which are hard to maintain and vulnerable to network topology changes. To avoid this drawback, the wireless network can be divided into regions for more efficient management and information distribution. DRIP~\cite{DRIP} groups nodes registered to different broker nodes into Voronoi regions whose shape and size could change over time. However, it may involve a high overhead to maintain the topology region especially over a mobile network. Based on virtual infrastructure, our design avoids the high overhead of region maintenance and also facilitates information aggregation to minimize information update changes.
\section{Model Basics and System Overview}
\label{Section:SystemOverview}
In this work, we adopt the notion of Publication and Subscription to distinguish information from the generators and to the consumers. The whole information space is built up with the basic element - attribute ($A_i, i=1,2,...$), which contains attribute name ($a_n$) specifying the identification of an attribute (numeric ID in realization), and attribute value ($a_v$) that specifies the content and is usually a numeric point or range. i.e. $A_i = \{a_n, a_v\}$.
A subscription \textbf{s} is a conjunction of n attributes: \textbf{s} = $\{A_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge A_n\}$.
A publication \textbf{p} is a disjunction of attributes: \textbf{p} = $\{A_1 \vee \cdots \vee A_n\}$, and is also referred to as an event. Conventionally the attribute value of a subscription could either be a numeric point or a range, while that for publication is assumed only to be a numeric point, and many literature studies \cite{TAMA}\cite{ContentPubSubModel} have followed this convention. However, very often some attributes of the information, when generated, are not absolute point values. For example, the video surveillance data could have its \textit{time} attribute as a range which confines the start and end points of a video segment. So our design also supports range value for a publication attribute.
We assume all data published are trustful, and there is no fraud or spam. Detecting malicious data is not our focus.
For users to get more precise information, we consider a publication and a subscription to match each other iff: for each attribute existing in the subscription, the same attribute must also exist in the publication; and for the common attributes, those from the publications must have their value ranges contained by the value ranges of the corresponding attributes in the subscription. i.e.$\forall A^s\in s, \exists A^p\in p: (a_n^p = a_n^s, a_v^p \subseteq a_v^s)$,
where the superscript $^s$ denotes the subscription, while $^p$ denotes the corresponding terms for a publication.
In order to make the infrastructure scalable and more robust to the network dynamics, we introduce a virtual management infrastructure where the network space is mapped into virtual zones each consisting of a set of virtual grids (Fig.~\ref{fig:GridSystem}). With many wireless devices equipped with GPS receivers or having other methods of localization~\cite{GeoRendezvous}, the grid and zone which a node belongs to can be easily calculated based on node location in reference to a reference virtual origin and a pre-determined grid or zone size~\cite{multicastTOC}. There is no need of a complicated scheme to create and maintain the virtual grids or zones. The grid size can be determined by the system based on the application scenarios and performance tradeoffs. Its effects is studied in Section~\ref{Section:Simulation}.
Each grid can elect a Grid Manager (GM) for Pub/Sub message collection, aggregation and matching within the grid. Each zone also has a Zone Manager (ZM) responsible for Pub/Sub aggregation, matching, data catching over grids within the zone. The schemes for leader election and maintenance have been proposed by many literature work~\cite{multicastTOC} which can be leveraged in our system
. The managers can be static or mobile, depending on the system application scenarios.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5 in]{GridSystem.pdf}
\caption{An example system where each zone has 9 grids. The zone manager collects Pub/Sub messages from grids within the zone and aggregates them into control messages to exchange with other zones.}
\label{fig:GridSystem}
\end{figure}
Event matching and Pub/Sub message update are both performed on demand. Subscriptions and publications in a grid are collected and aggregated. Although nodes may frequently move in and out of a grid, the aggregate filter may stay unchanged. Messages are sent to the upper level ZM only upon the change of aggregate filter. This will significantly reduce the overhead for Pub/Sub message transmission and matching in a dynamic wireless network. A ZM maintains the Pub and Sub information of the grids within its zone with efficient data structures to be introduced in Section~\ref{Section:MainScheme}, and the Pub/Sub information of the whole zone can be similarly further aggregated. As many mobile users have interests in close-by information, the aggregate filters only need to be shared among nearby zones or zones identified with Pub/Sub relationship.
Any new subscription or publication will trigger the event matching process within its own zone first, then matching at other zones whose aggregate filters imply potential chance of match will initiate. This will significantly reduce the data matching and distribution overhead. Once a publication is matched with one or more subscribers, the overlay structure will then deliver the data to these destinations using the stateless geographic multicasting, RSGM~\cite{multicastTOC}, for reliable and low overhead transmissions. The detailed routing process is beyond the scope of this paper.
\section{Bidirectional Content Matching}
\label{Section:MainScheme}
In many conventional Pub/Sub systems, the subscriptions are specified before the publications.
However, some subscribers may indicate their interests on some data that have been published before. Simply throwing away the published data when they cannot match the current subscriptions would waste the system resources consumed for the information matching and distribution.
Instead, if the publications can be stored even if they did not find match, the system could immediately deliver the data to later subscribers once they have interests.
In this work, we propose an efficient bi-directional content matching infrastructure, so that newly published data will be timely distributed to existing subscribers matched and new subscriptions can also trigger the retrieving of interested data already published quickly. In face of the challenge of representing the rich contents while not significantly sacrificing system performance, we novelly propose simple binary bit vectors and summary tree structure to facilitate flexible content-expressive information matching and dissemination processes at low overhead for storage, transmission and computation.
\subsection{\textbf{Binary Vector and its Operations}}
\label{vector}
Content-based information system can potentially support flexible user information need, but at the same time poses high challenges for information representation and matching. We introduce simple {\em Attribute Range Vector} to facilitate light-weight content-expressive management while not compromising the accuracy of information matching.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Attribute Range Vector (ARV)}}
\label{FalsePositiveProof}
We propose a binary bit vector named Attribute Range Vector (ARV) to flexibly represent the numeric range values of an attribute, referred as the target range. The target range could be a single point value as well. An ARV has a small size and is easy to process. The numeric value of an attribute is generally limited within predefined boundaries, which can be determined in advance by the system based on some common knowledge. For example, the temperature of the weather has an lower and upper limit in physical world. A subscriber could indicate her interest by setting a target range within the limit defined by the system. To facilitate flexible range matching, the predefined limit range is divided into $N$ smaller equal segments, while the value of $N$ can vary based on the matching accuracy requirement. An $N$-bit ARV is formed by representing whether a segment matches a content range, following the steps below:
\begin{description}
\item[\textbf{Step0}:] Set the initial segment to be the whole predefined limit range.
\item[\textbf{Step1}:] Check if the target attribute value range falls into some existing segments with each occupied more than $\alpha$ (percentage) of the segment range, an accuracy threshold desired. If so, goes to the next step; otherwise divide each of the current segments into equal halves, and continue this step.
\item[\textbf{Step2}:]Make an $N$-bit vector with $N$ equal to the current number of segments, with each bit indicating if the attribute range overlaps the corresponding segment range, 1 yes, and 0 no.
\end{description}
From the above ARV construction process, we can see that the number of bits of the vector can only be the power of 2, i.e., $N=2^{i}$, $i=0,1,2,3$..., and the length of ARV can be continuously doubled until a desired representation accuracy is achieved. The threshold $\alpha$ trades off between accuracy and simplicity of the message representation.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{BinarySplitTree.pdf}
\caption{The segment division procedure in constructing an ARV.}
\label{fig:BinarySplitTree}
\end{figure}
For example, the attribute \textit{Age}, often involved in social network applications, is limited within 0 to 100. Three subscriptions that contain the attribute \textit{Age} are: $Age_{Sub1}$ 1-48, $Age_{Sub2}$ 26-47, and $Age_{Sub3}$ 38-60. Their corresponding ARVs are obtained by constructing a split tree following the above steps as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:BinarySplitTree}, with the level $i$ having $2^{i}$ segments. Suppose the threshold $\alpha$ is set to 90$\%$ in this example. $Age_{Sub1}$ falls into the segment 0-50 and the fitting ratio of the target range 1-48 is $48/50$, which is larger than the threshold $\alpha = 90\%$. So this segment is accurate enough to represent the target range and the ARV for $Age_{Sub1}$ is 10. $Age_{Sub2}$ apparently falls into the 0-50 segment of level 1, however, this range is not very accurate. We further divide the overall range into 4 new segments at the level 2, so the range 26-47 falls into the segment 25-50. We can use 4-bit vector 0100 to represent this 4-segment coverage, with the left most bit standing for the segment of the lowest value. The target range 38-60 of $Age_{Sub3}$ spans across the 0-50 segment and the 50-100 segment at the first-level of the split tree, but these two segments are inaccurate in representing the target range. If we go deeper into the level 3, the segment 37.5-50 $\&$ 50-62.5 will be accurate enough with the resulting ARV 00011000.
A shorter ARV is always preferable to reduce the transmission and storage overhead. The ARV bit vector is checked after each modification for the potential of simplification. Except level 0, the number of bits in an ARV is always even and in the power of 2. When the length of ARV is larger than 1, starting from one side of the vector, if {\em every} consecutive 2-bit has the same value (both '1' or both '0'), the length of the vector can be reduced into half by taking every other bit to form a new ARV. For example, 1100 can be reduced to 10, but not 0110 nor 0111 which does not have the same value for consecutive 2-bit. The simplification operation will continue without losing the accuracy of the information until the vector cannot be further simplified.
Likewise, a given vector could also be extended by $2^{i}$ ($i$=1,2,3...) times when needed by simply doubling the bit patterns. This feature is extremely useful in the matching process we will discuss later, where two or more ARVs need to be adjusted to have the equal length before they can be compared or merged.
The proposed ARV is the elementary component of Subs and Pubs, and some other aggregated management structures at different hierarchical levels are composed of ARVs.
Under our matching rule specified in Section~\ref{Section:SystemOverview}, the attribute of a publication is considered to match with that of a subscription when its value range is contained by that of the same attribute of the subscription. When the same attribute for Pub and for Sub are represented with 2 ARVs respectively, and are scaled to the same length of bits, the matching rule now translates into: the bit positions where the Pub ARV has '1' need also to be '1' for the Sub ARV. There will be a slight chance for two ARVs satisfying this criteria to be actually not matched due to improper choice for the afore mentioned accuracy level threshold $\alpha$. As these attribute-level false positives get significantly large, an event-level false positive will happen which causes erroneous matching result and thus unwanted traffic overhead. The impact of threshold $\alpha$ on the event-level false positive rate is studied in Section~\ref{Section:Simulation}.
\subsubsection{\textbf{ARV Merge}}
A merge operation is needed for information aggregation. As the length of the vectors could only be the power of 2, two vectors of different lengths can always be made equal by doubling the length of the shorter one several times as previously mentioned.
Suppose we want to merge the same attribute vector of Sub1 $\&$ Sub2 which are 0100 $\&$ 10 respectively, we only need to scale up 10 by repeating each of its bit once to get 1100, and the merge can be completed by only a simple bitwise "OR" between 0100 $\&$ 1100 to get the result 1100. This number can in turn be simplified into 10 without losing the accuracy. This indicates that the segment 0-50 can represent the merge of the ranges 26-47 and 1-48. As the accuracy level for each segment is ensured to be higher than $\alpha$, the accuracy of the ARV will not be impacted when it is scaled up or down. The merge operation is always carried at the length of longest ARV thus over the finest level of segments, and the merge of ARV will maintain the accuracy level.
{\em The ARV's merit for convenient merge operation is critical to information aggregation which contributes to very low storage and transmission overhead.}
\subsubsection{\textbf{Match of ARVs}}
\label{Section:ARVmatching}
Our purpose of introducing ARV is to facilitate fast information matching, which could be easily achieved with fast bit-wise operations under the following conditions:
A subscription, represented by conjunctions of attributes like A$\wedge$B$\wedge$C, where A, B and C are three different attributes, is considered to be matched only if all the attributes are satisfied. A publication is allowed to have additional attributes than A$\vee$B$\vee$C, i.e. A$\vee$B$\vee$C$\vee$F$\vee$G, to still be considered as matching the subscription, as long as all the attributes of the subscription (A, B and C in this example) are satisfied on their values. This convention intuitively means that subscribers will always accept information that is more elaborate than their expectations.
For differentiation and ease of referral, an subscription and publication attribute range vector are called respectively an S-ARV and P-ARV. If one or more attributes of the subscription are not included by the publication, we can immediately claim they do not match each other, given the conditions above. Otherwise they are further checked. First all the S-ARVs and P-ARVs are respectively concatenated following the corresponding order as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:BitVectorMatchOperation}, with all the redundant P-ARVs ignored and each corresponding pair of P-ARV and S-ARV scaled to the same length. Then the Sub and Pub are considered to match each other if and only if all bits after the following operations are 0: The cascaded P-ARVs vector and S-ARVs vector first have the bitwise AND operation, and the result XOR with the original cascaded P-ARVs vector.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3 in]{BitVectorMatchOperation.pdf}
\caption{The bit-wise matching evaluation of a Pub and Sub.}
\label{fig:BitVectorMatchOperation}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:BitVectorMatchOperation} gives an example. The subscription has 2 attributes, and the publication has 3 attributes. To perform the matching, the attribute 1 (Attr.1) of the publication is scaled to 4 bits, while the Attr.5 is omitted because it is not involved in the subscription. Then bitwise operations are carried out: (P-ARVs \texttt{AND} S-ARVs) \texttt{XOR} P-ARVs, and the result is not all '0' thus is not a match. Because Attr.2 of the publication has a '1' in the bit position where the subscription Attr.2 does not, which means the attribute 2 value range of the publication is out of that of the subscription.
\subsection{\textbf{Basic System Architecture and Maintenance}}
As introduced in Section~\ref{Section:SystemOverview}, we take the virtual grid as the lowest-level management unit for a multi-hop wireless network. Each grid has a Grid Manager (GM), and a set of grids form a zone that is under the control of a Zone Manager (ZM). The example system in Figure~\ref{fig:GridSystem} is split into multiple zones with each zone being composed of 9 grids. In this section, we present the functions at each level of our infrastructures.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Subscription Maintenance at the Grid Manager}}
A subscriber sends its subscription to its grid manager on demand. Each subscription message is a concatenation of all its attributes, i.e. all the corresponding ARVs. There are possibly many subscriptions in an information-dense area. Simply storing and transmitting all subscriptions would not only incur a large overhead in traffic and storage but also difficult to track the frequent subscription changes due to the user mobility and frequent user interest changes. On the other hand, selectively ignoring some of the subscriptions would compromise the system performance. In our system, the GM will aggregate the subscriptions by finding the minimum representative subscription set to represent all the subscriptions within the grid before recording them and sending them to the upper level.
Two subscriptions could share some common attributes, and the attribute set of a subscription could contain all the attributes of another subscription. In the second case, if the value ranges of the common attributes overlap each other to some extent, we could take the subscription which has all its attributes contained by the other subscription as the representative subscription of both subscriptions. However, if the value ranges of the common attributes do not have any intersection, then using one subscription to represent the other is not appropriate. We use an example to illustrate this aggregation principle. Suppose there are 2 subscriptions in a grid, SUB1: A and SUB2: A$\wedge$B$\wedge$C, where A, B and C are different attributes. According to our scheme, since all publications that contain the attribute A including the ones that also contain B and/or C will all be routed to this grid for further matching, thus taking SUB1 as the representative subscription, compared to otherwise having both SUB1 and SUB2, will help reduce the subscription information storage and control traffic without sacrificing the completeness of subscription information in this grid. Once receiving the information based on the aggregate filter, the GM will further match the information with individual subscription to determine if the information matches all the criteria of a subscriber. Thus aggregation reduces the message and data transmission between the ZM and GM, but does not sacrifice the accuracy requirement of each subscriber.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{summaryTree.pdf}
\caption{Summary forest with attribute summary value range in shade.}
\label{fig:summaryTree}
\end{figure}
The subscription aggregating process can be realized through a summary tree, which is actually a forest containing several separate trees as shown horizontally in Figure~\ref{fig:summaryTree}. All the subscriptions of a tree will be represented by its root, and a tree node will contain all attributes of the root. There is also a summary range attached to each root shown as the shaded block in Figure~\ref{fig:summaryTree}, obtained by merging ('OR' operation) the value range of common attributes (underscored in Figure~\ref{fig:summaryTree}) of all the subscriptions on a tree. When determining if a node should be inserted into a tree, we will check if some of its attributes are the same as the root and if the attribute ranges overlap the current summary ranges. The summary ranges of all trees form the representative subscription set of the grid as shown on the left side of the dash line in Figure~\ref{fig:summaryTree}.
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:add2summarytree} shows how to add a subscription into the current summary forest. On lines 3-10, a new subscription will become either the child or the parent of an existing root, depending on whether it contains all the attributes of a root or all of its attributes are contained by a root of the forest, with the value ranges of corresponding common attributes overlapping each others. Otherwise, the subscription will be made a new stand alone root, as shown on lines 12 and 16. On line 18, after inserting the new subscription, the summary value range attached to the root of the affected tree will be updated. Line 19 checks whether trees can be merged to one another to reduce the number of trees in the forest, i.e., the size of the forest, every time the summary value range of a tree is changed, by examining whether one tree root can be inserted as the child of another tree root following the similar criteria.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Adding a subscription $s$ into the summary forest}
\label{Alg:add2summarytree}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\begin{small}
\IF {there are already nodes in the forest}
\FOR {each root node $R_i$ of the forest}
\IF {the subscription $s$ contains all the attributes in $R_i$}
\IF {the summary value range of each attribute in $R_i$ overlaps that of $s$}
\STATE insert $s$ as the child of $R_i$ into the summary tree;
\ENDIF
\ELSIF{$R_i$ contains all the attributes of $s$}
\IF {each attribute value range of $s$ overlaps the summary value range of the same attribute in $R_i$}
\STATE make $s$ the parent of $R_i$ as the new root;
\ENDIF
\ELSE
\STATE make $s$ a new root of the forest;
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\ELSE
\STATE make $s$ a new root of the forest;
\ENDIF
\STATE Adjust the summary value range of the affected tree.
\STATE Check whether the forest can be reduced by merging trees.
\end{small}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
For illustration, suppose a grid has the following subscriptions with letters representing different attribute names: A(0-50), B(10-50), A(0-25)B(15-45), A(25-100)B(30-40)C(13-27), B(25-50)F(5-10), E(0-30)F(25-35), B(5-45)E(5-10)G(0-100), E(0-10)F(30-45)H(5-15). Applying them one after another with Algorithm~\ref{Alg:add2summarytree} will generate a summary forest as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:summaryTree}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Removing a subscription $s$ from the forest}
\label{Alg:deletesummarytree}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\begin{small}
\IF{$s$ is a root of the forest}
\STATE delete the tree originated from root $s$;
\FOR {each children node of $s$}
\STATE apply Algorithm~\ref{Alg:add2summarytree};
\ENDFOR
\ELSE
\STATE delete $s$ from the summary tree;
\ENDIF
\STATE Adjust the summary value range for each affected tree.
\STATE Check whether the forest can be reduced by merging trees.
\end{small}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:deletesummarytree} works to remove a node in response to unsubscription. On lines 1-5, if the subscription to be deleted is the root of a tree, then this whole tree is removed with all the non-root nodes reinserted into the forest by applying algorithm~\ref{Alg:add2summarytree} one by one. If the subscription is not a root, it is simply deleted from the tree as shown on lines 6-7. Then the affected trees will have their summary value ranges updated accordingly on line 9. Line 10 works similarly as the last line of Algorithm~\ref{Alg:add2summarytree} to reduce the forest size.
Each GM will maintain a subscription summary forest, and updates the trees in response to the changes of subscription from individual subscribers within the grid. When a node wants to send a new subscription, modify or unsubscribe its existing subscription, it will send a message with the affected sub through on-demand light-weight geographic routing~\cite{SOGR} to the GM. The GM will either insert or delete the subscription following the Algorithm~\ref{Alg:add2summarytree} or~\ref{Alg:deletesummarytree}. A new action may change the representative set. In many cases, however, {\em individual subscription changes will not lead to the change of the aggregated information summary at the root level of the tree}. This feature is very important. It helps to increase the stableness and significantly reduce the information maintenance overhead in a wireless environment with possible constant node movement and thus frequent subscription changes. The representative set is forged into a vector, named Grid Representative Set Vector (GRSV) as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:SOF2ZRSV} by cascading each subscription from the representative set. The GRSV will be sent to the ZM upon its change to reduce the update overhead.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Subscription Maintenance at the Zone Manager}}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{SOF2ZRSV.pdf}
\caption{The ZM converts the GRSVs received from belonging grids into SOF, then converts it into ZRSV by summary tree scheme.}
\label{fig:SOF2ZRSV}
\end{figure}
Each zone manager maintains a subscription origin form (SOF) generated based on the GRSVs sent by grids with subscriptions within its zone, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:SOF2ZRSV}. The representative subscriptions from the grids will again be aggregated through the summary tree scheme similar to that at the grid level. We cascade each subscription of the resulting representative set to form a long vector - Zone Representative Set Vector (ZRSV). The ZRSVs are exchanged among ZMs to guide the publication distributions. The SOF will be updated if there is a GRSV update, but similar to the grid level aggregation, an individual update in SOF may not lead to ZRSV change. The aggregation helps to reduce the message distribution and simplify the information matching process, which is more critical for dynamic wireless networks.
The ZRSV only needs to be distributed to relevant zones upon changes, after a given period, or when the zone receives unwanted traffic. Each ZM maintains the ZRSVs received from neighboring zones and zones interested in its publications (learned from previous successful match processes) to guide the distribution of published data.
\subsection{\textbf{Match a Publication over Subscriptions}}
When a node generates a publication, it will send the data along with the publication ARVs describing the data to its GM. GM will perform a match within its grid by comparing the publication ARVs with its representative Sub set, i.e., the roots with summary ranges of the summary forest, using the matching rule defined in Section~\ref{Section:ARVmatching}. If a root is matched, each of its tree node is further examined to precisely find the subscribers. The data will be forwarded to the identified subscribers through on-demand stateless geographic multicast scheme~\cite{multicastTOC}. No matter local matches are found or not, GM will forward the data along with the P-ARVs and the grid ID to the zone manager.
The ZM will match the P-ARVs against its SOF, to decide which grids within the zone to forward the data to for further matching at GM level. It also matches against all ZRSVs for other zones it maintains. The data along with the publication P-ARVs and the zone ID will be multicasted towards the centers of the zones that match this publication. Once the data reach a target zone, they will be forwarded to the ZM which will match the Pub with each item of the SOF. The data will be multicast to the matched grids, where the GMs will again multicast the data finally to the matched subscribers.
As mentioned earlier, each ZM only actively maintains the ZRSVs of its neighbors. However, other zones may also have subscribers to its publication.
If the publication ARVs associated with a publisher are seen by the ZM the first time or after a given time period since its last global distribution, the ARVs will be multicasted to all zones to inform them the existence of new publications. A zone $x$ with the matched ZRSV will send to the ZM its ZRSV, which will be maintained by the ZM along with other ZRSVs. ZM will multicast publication data to the zones with matched ZRSVs. A zone will update its ZRSV to the publication zone following the ZRSV update rules described earlier. A ZRSV will be removed if there are no data match with it for a predefined timeout period. To further reduce the overhead, for a large system, the period of sending the publication ARVs to farther-away zones can be made larger as generally the information has location constraints. In addition, a zone without any data matched with some subscriptions could also actively search for publishers by broadcast a query message within certain range or query the ZMs within certain zone-hop distance.
\subsection{\textbf{Publication Caching and Match}}
Publications may not match any subscription in a single attempt, and a subscriber may want to retrieve earlier published data. Conventional studies generally assume publications always get matched; if not, the unmatched publications are simply discarded. This would waste the system resources that haven been used in generating, matching and distributing these published data, and also cannot meet the users' urgent needs for previously published data if discarded.
In this work, we introduce publication caching to facilitate bidirectional matching which also supports matching a subscription over cached publications. A zone manager receiving a publication will cache the data at the ZM or designated storage server for a predefined duration, and records the ARVs of this pub along with its source node's ZID and GID. In case that the caching space is running out, data with least matching-hit records will be removed.
A ZM holds SOFs of its own zone and ZRSVs of other relevant zones. Upon the update of the SOF or ZRSV,
the ZM will compare the changed SOF or ZRSV with the ARVs of the cached publication so that the matched subscribers can get the interested data right away.
\section{Simulation and Performance Evaluation}
\label{Section:Simulation}
We implement BRVST using NS2.34. The focus of BRVST is on information content matching and forwarding mechanisms, and the underlying routing scheme follows SOGR~\cite{SOGR} and RSGM~\cite{multicastTOC} for on-demand robust unicast and multicast respectively. 400 nodes are randomly distributed initially in a network region of size 1000m x 1000m to reflect the real-world mobile user density. In our default setting, the network is divided into 4 equal zones with 4 equal grids inside each. These numbers will vary when studying the impact of grid size on system performances.
The node movement follows the improved Random Waypoint model~\cite{RandomWaypointModel}. All the nodes including the autonomously elected GM and ZM could move following the model. The wireless channel propagation model is set to be TwoRayGround, and 802.11a is adopted as the MAC protocol with an average transmission range of 80m. Publications and subscriptions are generated by randomly selected nodes. Each publication or subscription has one to three attributes, which are randomly selected from a predefined set of 15. The range of an attribute is also randomly generated within a predefined range limit based on the attribute type. If not otherwise specified, the average node moving speed is set to 5 m/s, the Pub and Sub generation rates are both set to 200/minute, and the accuracy threshold $\alpha$ is set to 90$\%$.
There is very limited number of studies closely related to ours. For performance references, we select two existing Pub/Sub schemes, DRIP and TAMA, that are partly comparable to our work. DRIP~\cite{DRIP} (INFOCOM'08) is proposed for wireless networks which group nodes into Voronoi regions to manage the network, while BRVST introduces geographic zones to facilitate management and information distribution. TAMA~\cite{TAMA} (ICDCS'11) is a middleware for content matching, but is not specified for wireless networks. To be fair, we compare the impact of node mobility on the matching time for DRIP and BRVST in wireless environment, without including TAMA. The number of Voronoi regions for DRIP is also set to 16 under the same region area and node density. Since TAMA also considers using attribute range to describe contents, we compare it with BRVST on the false positive rate. The management overhead involved for storing and transmitting publication and subscribe filters are compared among all three schemes.
\subsection{\textbf{Matching Time}}
\label{SimulationMatchingTime}
It is equally important for both the information provider and consumer to be served as fast as possible, so we evaluate the time for an emergent publication and an emergent subscription to get matched separately.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{MatchingTime.pdf}
\caption{i(a) Matching time per Pub request as Sub rate increases; i(b) Matching time per Pub request as Pub rate increases; ii(a) Matching time per Sub request as Pub rate increases; ii(b) Matching time per Sub request as Sub rate increases.}
\label{fig:MatchingTime}
\end{figure}
For each newly published event, we evaluate the average time taken to match it with the subscribers. We allow publication to be matched with a later generated subscription and vice versa, so the delay is also affected by the subscription and publication generating frequency, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:MatchingTime}-i. In Figure~\ref{fig:MatchingTime}-i(a) the publications rate is fixed at 200/min, while the subscription rate is varied. In Figure~\ref{fig:MatchingTime}-i(b), the subscription rate is fixed at 200/min, while the publication rate is varied. Similarly, we evaluate the average time duration for a newly generated subscription to match the publication in Figure~\ref{fig:MatchingTime}-ii(a) and (b), with the subscription and publication rate fixed at 200/min respectively.
We can observe that BRVST has a much shorter average matching time as compared to DRIP under all test scenarios. A publication (or subscription) request has a shorter time to be matched when there is a higher subscription (or publication) rate as shown in Figures~\ref{fig:MatchingTime}-i(a) and ii(a). The reduction of matching time reaches a limit, beyond which the matching time may slightly increase as a result of higher processing overhead.
On the contrary, as the publication (or subscription) rate becomes larger, the time to match a publication (or subscription) increases as a result of competitions, which deteriorate the average matching time, as shown in Figures~\ref{fig:MatchingTime}-i(b) and ii(b). As DRIP involves network-wide broadcast to establish and maintain Voronoi regions, the matching time increases exponentially, while BRVST has only a sub-linear increasing time, which indicates its better scalability to system load.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{MobilityAndGridSize.pdf}
\caption{(a)Mobility impact on average matching time; (b)Grid size impact on BRVST's average matching time per message, system average node storage consumption and traffic volume incurred per match. The setting of grid size variation corresponds to the number of grids varying from 64 downto 1.}
\label{fig:MobilityAndGridSize}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:MobilityAndGridSize}-(a) tests and compares the reliability of BRVST and DRIP in terms of matching time performance under high node mobility, with the average node speed varying from 0 to 20m/s. The average matching time per message (including either the publication match or subscription match) of DRIP increases significantly as a result of its broadcast-based management overhead. The delay becomes more severe when the average moving speed is higher than 10m/s, where nodes could move across regions within the average matching duration. Based on light-weight virtual management infrastructure, BRVST has much more stable performance in the mobility case.
In Figure~\ref{fig:MobilityAndGridSize}-(b), the matching time is seen to first reduce with grid size and then increase.
As the grid size increases, the number of grids decreases so does the number of zones, while the number of nodes in a grid increases. In a larger grid, messages are more likely to get matched within the grid or zone, and there are fewer other zones to check with. However when the grid size gets too large, messages need to interact over longer distance with GMs and ZMs. In addition, a large number of nodes also result in more filters in a grid which incurs a longer matching time.
\subsection{\textbf{System Maintenance Overhead}}
\label{SimulationStorageTraffic}
We compare the overhead for storing and transmitting management messages at broker nodes and regular network nodes respectively. In Figure~\ref{fig:StorageTrafficOverhead}, the publication and subscription rates increase at the same speed.
In Figure~\ref{fig:StorageTrafficOverhead}-i(a), TAMA and BRVST both have lower storage overhead at regular nodes, as these nodes do not store publication and subscription information. Specifically, BRVST only requires each node to keep a few ID numbers which are very small in volume. With the need of storing a delay list of brokers and neighboring information, DRIP has much higher storage overhead, and the overhead increases quickly with the load.
In Figure~\ref{fig:StorageTrafficOverhead}-i(b), the storage overhead at brokers for all three schemes increase linearly with the load. DRIP has a much higher increasing rate with its need of maintaining information of both non-broker nodes and other brokers, as well as the subscriptions and publications of all the nodes in the network. Both TAMA and BRVST exploit range-based content representation to reduce the storage space. BRVST exploits space efficient aggregate scheme, so its storage space is 60\% lower than that of TAMA.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{StorageTrafficOverhead.pdf}
\caption{Storage consumption for i(a)non-broker node; i(b)broker node; ii(a)Basic system traffic overhead; ii(b)Traffic overhead incurred per match.}
\label{fig:StorageTrafficOverhead}
\end{figure}
We compare DRIP and BRVST on the overhead for transmission of management messages. In Figure~\ref{fig:StorageTrafficOverhead}-ii(a), the overhead of DRIP increases exponentially due to its inefficient broadcast mechanism. BRVST does not requirement significant overhead to maintain its zone and grid infrastructure, and only sends highly aggregated publish or subscribe information, thus it has a much lower transmission overhead.
In Figure~\ref{fig:StorageTrafficOverhead}-ii(b), when the message rate is low, BRVST and DRIP have similar matching overhead. At a higher load, however, the overhead of DRIP increases exponentially, while the overhead of BRVST is compensated as each publication can match multiple subscriptions with its aggregate subscription mechanism.
In Figure~\ref{fig:MobilityAndGridSize}-(b), as grid size increases, both the average node storage space and the traffic volume incurred for each match reduce. With a larger grid size, nodes are less likely to move out of the grid, thus the overhead associated with grid change will be lower. A larger grid also allows better information aggregation, thus reducing the matching traffic.
\subsection{\textbf{False Positive Rate}}
As TAMA and BRVST represent contents with certain range granularity to reduce complexity, it would also introduce some false positive rate and forwards some unwanted traffic to nodes.
Figure~\ref{fig:ThresholdAndFalsePositive}-(a) shows that the false positive rate is inversely proportional to the accuracy threshold $\alpha$, and approximately bounded by $1- \alpha$. There is an obvious tradeoff between the accuracy level of representing information and the length of the ARV vector thus the overhead. The higher the accuracy level, the more storage and traffic volume incurred. Figure~\ref{fig:ThresholdAndFalsePositive}-(b) shows as the false positive rate rises, the traffic overhead of both system increases. However at the same false positive rate, BRVST would waste much less traffic than TAMA due to its efficient ARV representation.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{ThresholdAndFalsePositive.pdf}
\caption{(a)Threshold $\alpha$ impact on BRVST's event-level false positive rate, average broker storage consumption and traffic volume incurred per match; (b)Traffic volume wasted due to false positive match for BRVST and TAMA.}
\label{fig:ThresholdAndFalsePositive}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Section:Conclusion}
In this paper, we present BRVST, an information content matching and forwarding engine in wireless network, which supports maximum flexibility in the expression of information content.
The most valuable contributions of BRVST are its introduction of a novel attribute range vector that can accurately represent information content with extreme efficiency both in space and computationally, and the summary tree concept that enables effective extraction and aggregation of information. All these proposed structures help significantly reduce storage and communication consumption as well as computation overhead, and ensure stable performance. Extensive simulations demonstrate that BRVST is reliable and scalable in large and dynamic wireless network conditions even under very high information load.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The angular momentum carried by electromagnetic radiation is not limited
to the familiar spin angular momentum, associated with polarization. It
is also possible for radiation to exhibit orbital angular
momentum (OAM) \citep{1943Phy....10..585H,1992PhRvA..45.8185A}. Like
other forms of electromagnetic radiation, light carrying OAM
is often considered quantized into photons, and the OAM may then be referred
to as photon-OAM (POAM).
It appears to be a matter of debate as to whether the orbital and spin
angular momenta are independently quantized: work in favour
\citep{1992PhRvA..45.8185A,2002JOptB...4S...7B} is challenged in
\citet{2008JPhB...41i5001G} and references therein, where conservation
applies to the total angular momentum and its projection on the
propagation axis. Assuming that it is possible to make at least an
approximate separation of spin and OAM,
rays of radiation carrying well-defined
amounts of OAM are referred to as helical modes. As with most work
based on the radio waveband, it is convenient to consider the radiation
in the form of classical fields, so from now on we will consider mostly
OAM rather than POAM. A convenient distinction may be made in the manner
of detection: POAM then refers to radiation that undergoes quantum detection,
releasing a fixed amount of energy, whilst OAM refers to radio-style
detection at the electric field level, with measurement of amplitude and
phase.
Radiation with POAM is well known in astrophysics, even if not by
this name: any quantized transition of an atom or molecule that is
not an electric dipole transition can lead to the appearance of radiation
carrying OAM: for example an
electric quadrupole transition in a molecule, with a change in
rotational quantum number of $\Delta J=\pm2$, emits a photon with two units of
angular momentum, only one of which can be spin. Such a photon is
just one example from a hierarchy of electric multipole photons, corresponding
to transitions of increasing numbers of quanta \citep{0750633719}.
An example of such a transition is the $v=1-0, S(1)$ transition of
H$_{2}$ at 2.122\,$\umu$m . As an S-branch transition, $\Delta J = 2$, and
photons emitted in this transition must carry POAM in addition to spin. This
transition has been observed from regions of shocked molecular hydrogen
at least as far back as the mid-1980s \citep{1984MNRAS.210..565G}.
In the radio region, the familiar 21-cm line of atomic hydrogen \citep{1951Natur.168..356E} must
also be a carrier of POAM because it is emitted by a magnetic dipole transition.
Although only one quantum of angular momentum is carried in this case,
POAM is required to allow the photons to have even parity. In spite of
this property of 21-cm photons, we do not expect typical H{\sc i} observations
to display an OAM signal - that is a spatial structure in the
complex amplitude of the electric field that may be mathematically represented
in terms of helical modes. Emission from most radio sources is simply too
spatially incoherent, or chaotic, for any OAM signal to be found.
The OAM properties of a helical mode propagating along the
$z$-axis, may be represented in terms of
polar coordinates, $r$, $\phi$ in the $xy$-plane. The electric
field of such a mode may be written,
\[
\bmath{E}(r,\phi ) = \bmath{E}_{0}(r) \rmn{e}^{im\phi},
\]
where $m$ is an integer, known as the helicity of the mode. More
complicated fields may be resolved into a superposition of
helical modes with a theoretically infinite range of $m$.
Consequences of the helicity of the wave-fronts of modes with
$m \neq 0$ include a Poynting vector that is not instantaneously
parallel to the axis of propagation of the radiation, and that
the electric field of the radiation includes a component parallel
to the propagation axis
(see for example, \citealt{1992PhRvA..45.8185A,2004PhT....57e..35P}).
Radiation with OAM of
this type would not be detected by current radio telescopes due
to rapid attenuation in the detector system (for single dish instruments)
and a geographical phase offset (in interferometers).
In vacuum, or in homogeneous, isotropic media, spin and
orbital angular momenta of radiation are conserved separately
\citep{2006PhRvL..96p3905M}. Optically anisotropic media allow the exchange of
the spin angular momentum with matter, but exchange of OAM
with matter requires a transparent medium that is isotropic,
but inhomogeneous. Anisotropic, inhomogeneous media allow
OAM and spin angular momenta to be exchanged with matter
simultaneously \citep{2006PhRvL..96p3905M}. In such a medium, the helicity
of the output wave-front can be controlled by the polarization
of the input radiation.
Practical devices for generating
helical modes in the laboratory include astigmatically compensated
laser cavities \citep{1990OptCo..78..253T,2004ForPh..52.1141S},
lens-based mode converters \citep{1993OptCo..96..123B},
computer-generated holograms \citep{1992JMOp...39..985B},
spiral phase plates, for
example \citet{2004ForPh..52.1141S}, and
q-plates \citep{2006PhRvL..96p3905M}. The first of these
can be considered a source of radiation with OAM, whilst the
others convert a conventional beam into one or more helical
modes. The operation of computer generated holograms, which
resemble a diffraction grating with a fork discontinuity on the
optical axis, is
discussed in detail in \citet{2004ForPh..52.1141S}. A q-plate usually consists
of a disc of ordinary
dielectric material given birefringent properties by the incision
of a set of azimuthal grooves. For the radio or microwave region,
a disc of plastic is commonly used, for example nylon,
refractive index $n$, with a radial groove periodicity smaller
than $\lambda /2$, where $\lambda$ is the operating wavelength.
The diameter of the disc is $\gg\lambda$. Other important
parameters of the q-plate, such as the groove depth, disc thickness
and $q$ itself, the space to period ratio, are related to $\lambda$,
and controlled by formulae in \citet{1983ApPhL..42..492F}.
Parameters for a radio astronomy device of this type may be found in
\citet{2013ApOpt..52..635M}.
In astronomy, the passage of radiation with OAM through a
variety of instruments has been considered by
\citet{2008A&A...492..883E}. In addition to free-space propagation,
Elias considers reception by an aberration-free telescope,
a coronagraph, a Michelson interferometer and a rancorimeter - a
form of correlator. The present authors are constructing
a q-plate-based detector to search for astrophysical signals
with OAM in the microwave region: its parameters have been
introduced above, and details appear in
\citet{2013ApOpt..52..635M}.
\citet{2003ApJ...597.1266H} considers
various possibilities
for astrophysical sources of OAM-bearing radiation - one of
which is the natural maser. \citet{2003ApJ...597.1266H} suggests
that OAM is imparted by significant departures of the refractive
index from 1 within the volume of the maser - a feature of
propagation rarely considered in studies of ideal maser
amplification. A delay of order one wavelength can plausibly be
reached in a distance much smaller than a typical maser
gain length (10$^{\rmn 12}$\,cm compared with 10$^{\rmn 14}$\,cm)
at the longer maser wavelengths (for example the 1.7-GHz lines
of the OH rotational ground state). Moreover, this delay requires
only a modest ionization fraction of $\sim$10$^{\rmn -6}$ from
cosmic rays. Other possible astrophysical generators of
OAM include turbulent fields with Kolmogorov and
von Karman spectra that lead to pairs of branch points, of opposite
helicity, in a propagating electromagnetic wave \citep{2011OExpr..1925388S,2011OExpr..1924596S}.
Branch points of this type are formed by destructive interference of
an initially plane wave passing through a turbulent medium of variable refractive
index, and correspond to OAM photons \citep{2012OExpr..20.1046O}.
The branch points also correspond to locations of zero intensity in wave-front
sensors employed in the adaptive optics systems used with optical
telescopes \citep{1998JOSAA..15.2759F}. This property has enabled a real adaptive optics
system to be used as an OAM-sensitve detector in the optical regime, and
a first astronomical detection in this waveband has
been convincingly claimed by \citet{2013A&A...556A.130S}: they attempted to
detect an OAM signal via an adaptive optics system towards a sample of
five relatively nearby stars (within a few hundred pc of the Sun). A
better than 3$\sigma$ detection of OAM was obtained towards the K-type giant
HR1529 with a conversion rate of an assumed OAM-free stellar flux to OAM
on its journey to the detector of 7 per cent.
\subsection{Diagnostic Value of OAM Radiation}
\label{ss:diagnostics}
The inclusion of parameters representing OAM should provide an advance
in the diagnostic potential of radiation as great as that introduced
by considering full polarization instead of intensity. Perhaps the best that
can be said in general terms is that OAM radiation is diagnostic of
inhomogeneities in the medium through which the radiation passes, both
within an astronomical source, and in the interstellar medium. The
inhomogeneities may be in density, velocity, gravitational fields or,
in the context of the present work, magnetic fields.
As an example, consider the dispersion measure typically used in pulsar
measurements: it tells us the column density of free electrons along a
given line of sight, but we cannot tell if their distribution is smooth
or clumpy. Even with a one part per million ionization level that might
result from cosmic ray ionization, density inhomogeneitites can lead
to variations in the refractive index of the medium. These can, in turn,
lead to a 1-wavelength delay over a distance of order $10^{10}$\,m for
radiation of 20\,cm wavelength, generating OAM
\citep{2003ApJ...597.1266H}. The fraction of radiation converted to OAM,
and the spectrum of helical modes, index $m$, can tell us how clumpy the
electron distribution is - information complementary to the standard
dispersion measure. \citet{2003ApJ...597.1266H} also state that the
mode spectrum as a function of frequency may be used to distinguish between
inhomogeneities in density, where the typical value of $m$
is proportional to $1/\nu$,
and gravitational inhomogeneities, where $m \propto \nu$.
Velocity and density inhomogeneities are often related through
compressible turbulence, and passge of radiation through a turbulent
medium has already resulted in the first astrophysical detections of
OAM towards nearby stars
\citep{2013A&A...556A.130S,2014A&A...567A.114O}.
However, the information that can be obtained about the turbulence
from OAM radiation is impressively detailed, including the velocity
distribution in the sky plane, and
the spatial distribution of the optical vortex pairs, resulting from
positions where the gradient of the refractive index is very large.
It may also prove possible to detect rapidly rotating objects via
OAM radiation scattered from their surfaces
\citep{2013Sci...341..537L}. This diagnostic invokes a rotational form
of the Doppler effect, and can detect rotation perpendicular to
the line of sight. A frequency shift of
$\Delta \nu = l\Omega /(2\pi)$ appears for an object with angular velocity
$\Omega$ and radiation with $l$ units of OAM.
\subsection{Focus of the Present Work}
\label{ss:focus}
In order to represent a system more closely related to previous studies
of astrophysical maser environments, the
present work considers
the amplification of radiation with OAM by a non-uniform magnetic field,
coupled to Zeeman-split molecular energy states. We note that there is
a long history of theoretical studies of the propagation of polarized
maser radiation through a Zeeman-split molecular ensemble generated by a uniform magnetic field
(see below). Separately, non-uniform magnetic fields have been suggested
as a generator for radiation with OAM
(see for example \citealt{2003PhRvA..67b3803A}), without specific application
to masers. We note that the Zeeman effect, even in a uniform magnetic field,
renders the medium anisotropic, whilst introduction of non-uniformity makes it
also inhomogeneous: properties that allow both spin and orbital angular momentum
to be exchanged with the medium.
\subsection{Earlier Zeeman Maser Studies}
\label{ss:zhist}
One of the most striking observational phenomena associated with OH masers
in Galactic star-forming regions is their very high level (often $\sim$100
per cent) of polarization, particularly circular and elliptical polarization.
An association of these polarization properties with magnetic fields and the Zeeman effect
was suggested in the earliest days of astrophysical maser research
\citep{1965Natur.208..440W}. A theoretical description of the amplification and
saturation of polarized masers in a medium of Zeeman-split molecules from
an unsplit $J=1-0$ transition was supplied by \citet{1973ApJ...179..111G}.
This description considers several cases, depending on whether the maser is
in the limit of negligible or extreme saturation, and whether the magnetic
field is sufficiently strong to provide a good quantization axis. However, it
does not provide numerical results that show the development of polarization
through arbitrary levels of saturation.
Advances in more recent studies include generalization to transitions more
complicated than $J=1-0$ \citep{1984ApJ...285..158W,1990ApJ...354..649D} together
with numerical calculations covering arbitrary levels of saturation. The small
and large Zeeman splitting limits have been developed to arbitrary splittings \citep{1996ApJ...457..415E}
and the appearance of circular polarization as the Zeeman splitting is increased away
from zero \citep{1998ApJ...504..390E,2001ApJ...558L..55W}. Propagation of polarized
radiation through a more realistic medium, permeated by magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,
has been considered by \citet{2007ApJ...655..275W}. More accurate saturation, with
an attempt to include residual non-Gaussian statistics and coherence has been
attempted by \citet{1995A&A...298..243G} and \citet{2009MNRAS.399.1495D}.
However, as far the present authors are aware, there has been no previous attempt
to model the interaction of a molecular Zeeman system with radiation that has
an electric field component in the direction of propagation: a necessary, but
not sufficient, condition for the presence of an OAM radiation pattern. All
that is known at present is that a uniform magnetic field can
generate polarization, under some circumstances from an unpolarized background.
The polarized maser theory papers introduced above are not particularly
consistent in the conventions they adopt with respect to the handedness of
polarization, the definitions of the Stokes parameters, and the interpretation
of the $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ labels for transitions (see Section~\ref{sss:ztrans}).
All of the above can lead to minus signs entering equations that make
interpretation difficult when comparing one theory paper with the works of
other authors. An attempt to resolve some of the conventions used has been
made by \citet{2014MNRAS.440.2988G}. In the present work we attempt to adhere
strictly to the IEEE definition regarding the handedness of polarization, the
IAU definition of Stokes-$V$, and the definition of $\sigma^\pm$ used
by \citet{1988ApJ...326..954G}.
\subsection{Styles of Amplification}
\label{ss:ampstyle}
An astrophysical maser may generate radiation with an OAM angular
pattern by two distinct processes that we will label active and passive
amplification. Only active amplification will be considered further
in the sections that follow the introduction.
In passive amplification, a thin slab of material sliced perpendicular
to the propagation direction generates changes in the set of Stokes
parameters, at each frequency in the lineshape, by interaction with the
maser molecules in the medium. Some part of these changes is then converted
into OAM via interaction with the non-uniform magnetic field only: there
is no direct interaction of OAM radiation with the molecules. Passive
amplification, if it occurs, is likely to be dominated by the saturated
parts of a maser, simply on the grounds that these have high intensity,
and there is more radiation to convert than when the maser is unsaturated.
In active amplification, we look for an interaction between the
OAM radiation itself and the maser molecules. At first we consider
only whether there can be a non-trivial coupling of the molecular
response to a component of the electric field in the propagation direction: a
component that does not exist for ordinary polarized radiation.
Active amplification can, in principle, generate OAM from an OAM-free
background, just as masers can, under the right geometrical, Zeeman
and saturation conditions, produce high degrees of polarization from
an unpolarized background.
Active amplification clearly requires radiation with OAM to induce
stimulated emission in electric dipole molecular transitions. The theory
developed below (Section~\ref{theo}) is semi-classical, with a quantum-mechanical molecular
response driven by classical fields. From the classical field point of
view, there is no problem: if a non-trivial coupling between the
molecules and the electric field of the radiation is found, then the OAM
radiation can drive the molecules. However, quantum-mechanically, it is
not obvious that OAM radiation can drive electric dipole transitions at
all: we expect, for example, that an electric quadrupole photon (which has
one unit of OAM) to be unable to interact with electric dipole transitions
with, say, $\Delta J = \pm 1$. Experimentally, however, It does appear that
radiation with OAM can be made to interact with ordinary electric dipole
transitions in the presence of a suitable non-uniform magnetic field
\citep{2003PhRvA..67b3803A}. The magnetic field imposes a geometrical
phase that allows the OAM to interact with the electric dipole moment
of an atomic transition: in the case of \citet{2003PhRvA..67b3803A}, the
795\,nm D1 line of $^{87}$Rb with $\Delta F = \pm 1$. It seems reasonable generally for photons
photons with 2 units of OAM ($l=2$) to interact with transitions that exchange
one unit of angular momentum, since the photon has a total of three units of
angular momentum: 2 of OAM and one of spin, and these can align to
yield 1 unit to be exchanged with the atomic or molecular transition.
However, the interaction is vastly weaker than
for an $l=0$ electric dipole photon \citep{2008JPhB...41i5001G}.
\section{Theory}
\label{theo}
The theory here generalizes earlier polarized maser theory to
the case of a non-uniform magnetic field and a non-zero component of
the electric field in the propagation direction: a necessary property
of OAM modes. In particular, the theory follows \citet{1978PhRvA..17..701M}, with
additional polarization-specific detail from \citet{2009MNRAS.399.1495D}.
Although the analysis is performed very generally, we consider results
only in the limit of small signals, so that a classical reduction
in terms of Stokes parameters is accurate, and a more advanced semi-classical
saturation as used in \cite{1995A&A...298..243G} is not required.
\subsection{Axis Systems}
\label{axes}
We adopt a global, Cartesian, right-handed axis system, $(x,y,z)$, based on the propagation
direction of the radiation. Specifically, we use the standard IAU
axis system \citep{1996A&AS..117..161H} that is
drawn in Fig.~\ref{fig_iau_axes}. Radiation propagates along
the $z$-axis towards the observer, in a direction of increasing $z$.
This definition is supplemented by a set of cylindrical polar coordinates,
$(r,\phi,z)$, based on the same $z$-axis, with $r^2=x^2+y^2$ and
$\phi = \arctan (y/x)$; the angle $\phi$ is measured anticlockwise from
North.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{fig_iau_axes.eps}
\caption{The global axis system, conforming to the IAU definition with the
$x$-axis aligned to North and the $y$-axis to East. The electric field $\vec{E}$ is
here shown in the $xy$-plane at angle $\phi$ from the $x$-axis.}
\label{fig_iau_axes}
\end{figure}
The magnetic field, $\vec{B}$, is not uniform, so there can be no
global system of coordinates based upon the magnetic field. Quantisation
of angular momentum along an axis based on the magnetic field can
therefore only be defined locally, that is at a specific point
$(r,\phi,z)$. It will be assumed that the magnetic field is constant
in time, but can be represented in the global coordinates as
\begin{equation}
\vec{B} = (B_x,B_y,B_z) = (B_r,B_\phi,B_z) .
\label{eq_Bdef}
\end{equation}
At any point $(x,y,z)$ we define a local set of coordinates, also
a right-handed Cartesian system, based on the local magnetic field.
This is important from the point of view of defining the correct
electric dipole alignments under the Zeeman effect (see Section~\ref{sss:dipor}).
The local system is therefore,
\[
(x',y',z') = (x'(x,y,z),y'(x,y,z),z'(x,y,z)),
\]
and is arranged at each point such that
\begin{equation}
\vec{B} = B \vec{z}' (x,y,z).
\label{eq_Bvect}
\end{equation}
Without loss of generality, we can specify one local axis to
lie in the $xy$-plane, and we will choose the $x'$-axis for
this purpose. Two rotations are therefore required to represent
a vector defined in the $(x,y,z)$ system to one in the local
$(x',y',z')$ system: a rotation through an angle $\phi'$
about the $z$-axis to
an intermediate system $(x^I,y^I,z^I)$ in which $x^I$ is
now aligned with $x'$ and $(y^I,z^I)$ is coplanar with $(y',z')$, followed
by a rotation through $\theta$ about the $x^I$ axis
to align $(y^I,z^I)$ with $(y',z')$. Both rotations are anticlockwise
viewed in the direction of decreasing $z$ (for the first rotation),
or $x'$ (for the second). The rotations are drawn in Fig.~\ref{fig_axrot}, noting that
the vector $(x,y,z)$ remains unchanged. The matrices corresponding
to these rotations are defined in, for example,
\citet{arfken} and known here as $\mtx{R}_z(\phi')$ and $\mtx{R}_{x'}(\theta)$.
Applied sequentially, these matrices give us,
\[
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x' \\ y' \\ z'
\end{array}
\right)
= \mtx{R}_{x'}(\theta)\mtx{R}_{z}(\phi')
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\ y \\ z
\end{array}
\right) ,
\]
and we can combine these two matrices into the single
product $\mtx{R}(\theta,\phi')=\mtx{R}_{x'}(\theta)\mtx{R}_{z}(\phi')$, where
\[
\mtx{R} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos \theta & \sin \theta \\
0 &-\sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \phi' & \sin \phi' & 0 \\
-\sin \phi' & \cos \phi' & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq_rprod}
\]
and evaluating this product, we obtain the
overall rotation matrix,
\begin{equation}
\mtx{R}(\theta,\phi') = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \phi' & \sin \phi' & 0 \\
-\cos \theta \sin \phi' & \cos \theta \cos \phi' & \sin \theta \\
\sin \theta \sin \phi' &-\sin \theta \cos \phi' & \cos \theta
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq_rotfwd}
\end{equation}
with inverse,
\begin{equation}
\mtx{R}^{-1}(\theta,\phi') = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \phi' & -\cos \theta \sin \phi'& \sin \theta \sin \phi' \\
\sin \phi' & \cos \theta \cos \phi' & -\sin \theta \cos \phi' \\
0 & \sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq_rotinv}
\end{equation}
noting that $\mtx{R}^{-1}$ operates on a vector in the primed (magnetic field)
axis system, yielding its components in the unprimed (radiation) system.
If we choose, for example, the unit vector
$\hv{z}'=(0,0,1)$ and use this as the right hand side of the rotation,
\[
(x,y,z)^{\rmn T} = \mtx{R}^{-1}(\theta,\phi') (0,0,1)^{\rmn T},
\]
we find that the unit vector from the primed system has the unprimed
coordinates,
\[
\hv{z}' = \hv{z} \sin \theta \sin \phi'
- \hv{y} \sin \theta \cos \phi'
+ \hv{z} \cos \theta .
\]
On developing similar equations for $\hv{y}'$ and $\hv{z}'$, we
find that a vector of unit vectors in the primed system transforms
as
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hv{x}' \\ \hv{y}' \\ \hv{z}'
\end{array}
\right) =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \phi' & \sin \phi' & 0 \\
-\cos \theta \sin \phi' & \cos \theta \cos \phi' & \sin \theta \\
\sin \theta \sin \phi' &-\sin \theta \cos \phi' & \cos \theta
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hv{x} \\ \hv{y} \\ \hv{z}
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq_cartgold}
\end{equation}
noting that the rotation matrix in eq.(\ref{eq_cartgold}) is $\mtx{R}$, rather than its inverse.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{fig_axrot.eps}
\caption{The two rotations required to specify the components
of a vector $(x,y,z)$ in the $(x',y',z')$ system, leaving the
vector itself unaffected. The rotation in the upper part of the
figure is applied first.}
\label{fig_axrot}
\end{figure}
The angles $\theta$ and $\phi'$ may be calculated as follows:
the dot product $\vec{B} \cdot \hv{z} = B\cos \theta = B_z$, so if
$B_z(x,y,z)$ is known from the global functional form of $\vec{B}$, then
the angle is
\begin{equation}
\theta = \arccos ( B_z / \sqrt{B_x^2 + B_y^2 + B_z^2} ) = \arccos (B_z/B).
\label{eq_deftheta}
\end{equation}
A vector in the $xy$-plane corresponding to the direction of $\hv{x}'$ is
given by the cross product of $\vec{B}$ on $\hv{z}$, or
$\vec{B} \vprod \hv{z} = \hv{x} B_y - \hv{y} B_x$, and, because the magnitude
of this result is $\sqrt{B_x^2 + B_y^2}$, the local $\hv{x}'$ vector is,
\begin{equation}
\hv{x}' = (\hv{x} B_y - \hv{y} B_x)/\sqrt{B_x^2 + B_y^2}.
\label{eq_xhatfromB}
\end{equation}
The angle $\phi'$ is the offset between the $\hv{x}$ and $\hv{x}'$ unit
vectors, and may therfore be calculated by dotting $\hv{x}$ onto
eq.(\ref{eq_xhatfromB}) and setting the result equal to $\cos \phi'$.
The angle is recovered as,
\begin{equation}
\phi' = \arccos (B_y/\sqrt{B_x^2 + B_y^2}).
\label{eq_defphiprime}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Spherical Vector System}
\label{sss:svect}
We have obtained a transformation of the Cartesian unit vectors as
eq.(\ref{eq_cartgold}). We now wish to re-write this transformation in terms
of the spherical basis vectors that may be used to represent radiation
polarization. We define these here, in terms of the Cartesian unit vectors, as
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_rldef}
\begin{align}
\hv{e}_R &= (\hv{x} + i \hv{y}) / \sqrt{2} \label{eq_rldef_R}\\
\hv{e}_L &= (\hv{x} - i \hv{y}) / \sqrt{2} \label{eq_rldef_L},
\end{align}
\label{eq_rldef}
\end{subequations}
a form that follows the definitions in \citet{1973ApJ...179..111G}. The
unit vector $\hv{z}$ is common to both the spherical and Cartesian systems.
In the local primed frame, exactly the same relationships apply, so that
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_rldefprime}
\begin{align}
\hv{e}'_R &= (\hv{x}' + i \hv{y}') / \sqrt{2} \label{eq_prime_R}\\
\hv{e}'_L &= (\hv{x}' - i \hv{y}') / \sqrt{2} \label{eq_prime_L}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The definitions in eq.(\ref{eq_rldef}) may be inverted, yielding the Cartesian
unit vectors,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_cart}
\begin{align}
\hv{x} &= (\hv{e}_R + \hv{e}_L ) / \sqrt{2} \label{eq_cart_x}\\
\hv{y} &= -i(\hv{e}_R - \hv{e}_L ) / \sqrt{2} \label{eq_cart_y},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and similarly for the primed system. When we use eq.(\ref{eq_cart}), and its
primed counterpart,
to eliminate $\hv{x}$ and $\hv{y}$ from eq.(\ref{eq_cartgold}), we obtain the
analogous expression in the spherical system
\newcounter{mytempeqncnt}
\begin{figure*}
\normalsize
\setcounter{mytempeqncnt}{\value{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{11}
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hv{e}_R' \\ \hv{z}' \\ \hv{e}_L'
\end{array}
\right) =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
(1+\cos \theta)(\cos \phi' -i\sin \phi')/2 & (i\sin \theta )/\sqrt{2} & (1-\cos \theta)(\cos \phi' +i\sin \phi')/2\\
\sin \theta (\sin \phi' + i\cos \phi')/\sqrt{2}& \cos \theta & \sin \theta (\sin \phi' - i\cos \phi') \\
(1-\cos \theta)(\cos \phi' -i\sin \phi')/2 & (-i\sin \theta)/\sqrt{2} & (1+\cos \theta)(\cos \phi' +i\sin \phi')/2
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hv{e}_R \\ \hv{z} \\ \hv{e}_L
\end{array}
\right).
\label{eq_sphgold}
\end{equation}
\setcounter{equation}{\value{mytempeqncnt}}
\addtocounter{equation}{1}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{4pt}
\end{figure*}
This last equation is set as a two-column equation and may appear displaced from here.
\subsection{The Electric field}
\label{ss:efield}
We have noted in the Introduction that a distinguishing feature of
radiation that carries OAM is a non-zero component of the electric field
in the direction of propagation. We therefore write a general analytic
signal for the radiation that includes all three Cartesian components:
\begin{equation}
\tv{E}(\vec{r},t) = \hv{x} {\tilde E}_x(\vec{r},t)
+ \hv{y} {\tilde E}_y(\vec{r},t)
+ \hv{z} {\tilde E}_z(\vec{r},t),
\label{eq_sig0}
\end{equation}
where the tilde symbol over an electric field component indicates a
complex-valued quantity. For this section, and that on
radiative transfer, we use the general
position vector $\vec{r}$, and only adopt problem-specific coordinates
in Section~\ref{sss:simp}.
The real-valued electric field is simply the
real part of the analytic signal,
\begin{equation}
\vec{E}(\vec{r},t) = \Re \{ \tv{E}(\vec{r},t) \}.
\label{eq_efield0}
\end{equation}
The electric field that we consider has a total spectral width $\Delta \nu$ that
is narrow in the sense that $\Delta \nu \ll \nu_0$, where $\nu_0$ is some representative
frequency within the band of width $\Delta \nu$. However, the radiation is broad-band
in the sense that it is inhomgeneously broadened by the Doppler effect, such that
$\Delta \nu$ vastly exceeds any frequency range directly determined by the
molecular response (the homogeneous width). To deal with this, we extract from
eq.(\ref{eq_sig0}) a rapidly oscillating term,
\begin{equation}
e^{-iY_0(\vec{r},t)} = e^{-i\omega_0 (t - \hv{n}\cdot \vec{r}/c)} ,
\label{eq_Y0}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_0 = 2\pi \nu_0$, and $\hv{n}$ is a unit vector in the direction
of radiation propagation. To obtain the last form in eq.(\ref{eq_Y0}), we adopt
the paraxial approximation of negligible beam divergence. In this case, even
for radiation with OAM,
the direction of propagation lies along a single axis, taken here to be the $z$ axis.
The instantaeous Poynting vector, however, is not aligned with $\hv{z}$ \citep{2011allen_padgett}.
This extraction operation leaves eq.(\ref{eq_sig0}) in the form,
\begin{equation}
\tv{E}(\vec{r},t) = [\hv{x} \td_x(\vec{r},t)
+ \hv{y} \td_y(\vec{r},t)
+ \hv{z} \td_z(\vec{r},t) ] e^{-iY_0},
\label{eq_sig1}
\end{equation}
where $\td_q(\vec{r},t)$, for $q=x,y,z$, is a complex amplitude that now
has only a slow variation in $\vec{r}$ and $t$ in the sense that
$\pd \td_q /\pd t \ll \omega_0 \td_q$ and
$|\vec{\nabla} \td_q| \ll \omega_0 \td_q /c$.
Note that the choice of the
sign $e^{-iY_0}$ (rather than $e^{+iY_0}$) in eq.(\ref{eq_sig1})
ensures that the spherical unit
vectors from eq.(\ref{eq_rldef}) correctly represent right- and left-handed
circular polarization under the IEEE convention \citep{1996A&AS..117..161H}.
We will often use a representation of the electric field in terms of
the spherical unit vectors, writing
\begin{equation}
\tv{E}(\vec{r},t) = [\hv{e}_R \td_R(\vec{r},t)
+ \hv{e}_L \td_L(\vec{r},t)
+ \hv{z} \td_z(\vec{r},t) ] e^{-iY_0},
\label{eq_sig2}
\end{equation}
where the right- and left-handed complex amplitudes are found to be,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_rlamp}
\begin{align}
\td_R &= (\td_x - i \td_y) / \sqrt{2} \label{eq_rlamp_R}\\
\td_L &= (\td_x + i \td_y) / \sqrt{2} \label{eq_rlamp_L}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\subsubsection{Other OAM Representations}
\label{sss:OAMother}
The representation of the electric field in eq.(\ref{eq_sig1}) is possibly
unusual in studies of OAM radiation. It seems customary to adopt a
representation, at least for laboratory studies, in terms of the
Laguerre-Gaussian modes (L-G modes). These modes themselves are used
to describe the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation perpendicular
to the $z$ axis, whilst the $z$-component of the field is proportional
to $x$ and $y$ gradients of the L-G modes.
Our electric field must satisfy the wave-equation,
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2 \vec{E} = \frac{\mu_r \epsilon_r (\vec{r})}{c^2} \frac{\pd^2 \vec{E}}{\pd t^2} ,
\label{eq_maxwav}
\end{equation}
and we show below in Section~\ref{ss:rt} that the form in eq.(\ref{eq_sig1}) does.
Various approximations have been made in obtaining eq.(\ref{eq_maxwav}), notably a
negligible conductivity in the medium, a linear (dielectric) response of the medium
to the electric field of the radiation, constant charge density and constant value
of $\mu_r$, the relative permeability. However, $\mu_r$ could be a tensor constant,
and $\epsilon_r$ could be a tensor quantity that is dependent on position (but not time).
Equation~\ref{eq_maxwav} is separable into time and space parts by the multiplicative
substitution,
\begin{equation}
\tv{E}(\vec{r},t) = \tv{E}_{\vec{r}}(\vec{r}) \tv{E}_t(t).
\label{eq_multsep}
\end{equation}
The time part becomes a wave equation, whilst the spatial part reduces to a
form of the Helmholtz equation. If the constant of separation is $-k^2$, where
$\omega = kc$, then we can write one solution of the time part, corresponding
to our choice of fast term in the analytic signal as,
\begin{equation}
\tv{E}_t(t) = A e^{-i \omega t} = A e^{-i \varpi t} e^{-i \omega_0 t} ,
\end{equation}
where $\varpi = \omega - \omega_0 << \omega$ is a small frequency within
the spectral width $\Delta \nu$. We can further combine the constant amplitude $A$
with the slowly-varying term as a complex amplitude,
\begin{equation}
{\tilde A}(t) = A e^{-i \varpi t} .
\end{equation}
The important point about this separation of variables is that we can write
the electric field from eq.(\ref{eq_multsep}) as
\begin{equation}
\tv{E}(\vec{r},t) = [\hv{e}_R \td_R(\vec{r})
+ \hv{e}_L \td_L(\vec{r})
+ \hv{z} \td_z(\vec{r}) ] e^{i\omega_0 z/c}{\tilde A}(t) e^{-i\omega_0 t},
\label{eq_sig3}
\end{equation}
where the spatial part must satisfy a Helmholtz equation.
If the relative permeability and permittivity are constant, the paraxial
form of the Helmholtz equation
may be solved via the LG modes, or any other suitable expansion for the
spatial part of the electric field..
We adopt instead the
electric field representation in eq.(\ref{eq_sig1}) because the relative
permittivity in the current problem is not constant, and we solve the
resulting radiative transfer problem in Section~\ref{ss:rt}. The problem
for which the LG modes are a solution may be considered a limit of
this problem for free space or a homogeneous medium.
Another possibly useful field expansion is one in terms of the spherical harmonic
vectors, $\vec{Y}_{J,M}^{(e)}$ and $\vec{Y}_{J,M}^{(m)}$, corresponding to
electric (e) and magnetic (m) multipole photons of total angular momentum
quantum number $J$ and projection on the propagation axis $M$. The spherical
harmonic vectors may be resolved into components along the
propagation axis and perpendicular to it, the latter again resolved into components
following $\hv{e}_R$ and
$\hv{e}_L$ \citep{0750633719}. We note that the definitions of
the spherical unit vectors differ by multiplicative constants from those
used in the present work. OAM is present in all of the multipole photons
except the electric dipole type.
\subsubsection{Fourier Representation}
\label{sss:fourier}
The complex amplitudes in eq.(\ref{eq_sig1}) and eq.(\ref{eq_sig2}) are functions of
position and time, but they can be considered as being constructed from all the
frequencies within the spectral bandwidth. For a signal of infinite duration, we
would integrate over a continuum of frequencies, corresponding to an idealized case
of Fourier components of infinitessimal width. Astrophysical signals are limited
in time by a sampling process at the telescope, so the Fourier components in a
practical signal have a finite width of order $\delta \nu = 1/T$, where $T$ is the
sample duration.
The standard Fourier transform operations need some modification to work with
a limited time range and Fourier components of finite width in the frequency
domain. We adopt the transforms used by \citet{1978PhRvA..17..701M}, and subsequently
used by \citet{2009MNRAS.399.1495D} and \citet{mybook}. The inverse transform, from
frequency to time, becomes a sum over finite-width frequency strips, and a complex amplitude
for Cartesian or spherical spatial component $q$ is
\begin{equation}
\td_q(\vec{r},t) = (2\pi)^{-1} \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \td_q(\vec{r},\varpi_n) e^{-i\varpi_n (t-\hv{n}\cdot \vec{r}/c)} ,
\label{eq_ffwd}
\end{equation}
where $\varpi_n = \omega_n - \omega_0$ is a local frequency of magnitude $\ll \omega_0$, corresponding
to the centre of Fourier component $n$. Although the sum over the Fourier components has been formally
written with infinite limits, the number of strips required to cover a certain number of inhomogeneous
line widths, for example, would be a finite number. The forward transform, the inverse of that in eq.(\ref{eq_ffwd}),
transforming from the time domain to local frequency is
\begin{equation}
\td_q(\vec{r},\varpi_n) = T^{-1} \int_{-T/2}^{T/2} \td_q(\vec{r},t) e^{i\varpi_n (t-\hv{n}\cdot \vec{r}/c)} .
\label{eq_finv}
\end{equation}
These transformations will be used extensively in Section~\ref{s:fdom}.
\subsection{Radiative Transfer}
\label{ss:rt}
The electric field introduced in Section~\ref{ss:efield} must satisfy the wave equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2 \vec{E} = \frac{\mu_0 \epsilon_r(\vec{r})}{c^2} \frac{\pd^2 \vec{E}}{\pd t^2} ,
\label{eq_wav0}
\end{equation},
that follows from eq.(\ref{eq_maxwav}), but
we have now assumed a relative permeability of $1$.
The relative permittivity $\epsilon_r$ may be a scalar or tensor quantity. We
assume that the propagation medium is dielectric, so that the macroscopic polarization
of the medium, $\vec{P}(\vec{r},t)$, is linearly related to the electric field via the
formula
\begin{equation}
\vec{P}(\vec{r},t) = \epsilon_0 (\epsilon_r(\vec{r}) - 1) \vec{E}(\vec{r},t) .
\label{eq_dielec}
\end{equation}
Equation~\ref{eq_dielec} may be used to eliminate the permittivity from eq.(\ref{eq_wav0}), leaving
a wave equation in terms of $\vec{P}$:
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2 \vec{E} = \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\pd^2 \vec{E}}{\pd t^2} + \mu_0 \frac{\pd^2 \vec{P}}{\pd t^2} .
\label{eq_wav1}
\end{equation}
We now substitute the electric field, in the anlytic signal representation of
eq.(\ref{eq_sig0}), into eq.(\ref{eq_wav1}), assuming that the
same representation can be used for $\vec{P}$. It immediately breaks down into three
scalar equations for the Cartesian components of the field. If each Cartesian
component is then put into the form used in eq.(\ref{eq_sig1}), the
various derivatives can be calculated and substituted into each scalar
wave equation. After some algebra, the details of which may be found
in \citet{mybook}, the rapidly oscillating terms are lost, and we find
that the complex amplitude of Cartesian component $q$ of the electric field
is transferred according to,
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{\pd}{\pd t} + c \hv{n} \cdot \del \right) \td_q =
\frac{i\omega_0}{2 \epsilon_0} \mpol_q ,
\label{eq_rt0}
\end{equation}
where $\mpol_q$ is the complex amplitude of the macroscopic polarization that
relates to $\tilde{P}_q$ as $\td_q$ relates to $\tilde{E}_q$. The form of eq.(\ref{eq_rt0}) is
in accord with \citet{1973ApJ...179..111G}, who also include a macroscopic magnetization.
\subsubsection{Macroscopic Polarization}
\label{sss:macropol}
The macroscopic polarization is the velocity-integrated expectation value of the electric dipole
operator of the active molecule that amplifies the maser. It is a reasonably
general result from quantum-mechanics that such an expectation value is the
trace of the matrix product of the molecular density matrix (DM) and the operator.
Writing the dipole operator as $\hat{\mtx{d}}$, the expectation value
is therefore $\langle \hat{\mtx{d}} \rangle = \mathrm{Tr} [\uprho \hat{ \mtx{d} }]$,
where $\uprho (\vec{r},t,\vec{v})$ is the molecular DM, a function
of molecular velocity $\vec{v}$ as well as position and time. Note that the
row and column indices of these matrices correspond to energy levels of the
molecule and that, in the case of the dipole, its individual elements,
$\hv{d}_{pq}$ are themselves vectors. To obtain the macroscopic polarization we
must integrate over the molecular velocity to obtain,
\begin{equation}
\vec{P}(\vec{r},t) = \int_{\vec{v}} d^3v \mathrm{Tr}[\uprho (\vec{r},t,\vec{v})\hat{\mtx{d}}] .
\label{eq_macropol}
\end{equation}
By isolating one component of the macroscopic polarization, changing to an analytic
signal representation, and using the standard representation of the trace of a
matrix product in terms of individual elements, one Cartesian component of the
complex amplitude of $\vec{P}$ may be written as
\begin{equation}
\mpol_q = 2 e^{iY_0} \sum_{p=2}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \hat{d}_{pk,q}^* \int_{\vec{v}} \rho_{pk} d^3v.
\label{eq_macropol2}
\end{equation}
where $p$ and $q$ represent molecular energy levels from a total of $N$, and
$\hat{d}_{pk,q}$ is the Cartesian component $q$ of the element $pq$ of the density
matrix. To remove the rapidly varying factor in eq.(\ref{eq_macropol2}) we
write the off-diagonal element of the DM as the product of a slowly varying
part $s_{pk}$ and a rapidly oscillating term as follows \citep{1978PhRvA..17..701M}:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{pk}(\vec{r},t,v) = -(i/2) s_{pk}(\vec{r},t,v) e^{-iY_0} .
\label{eq_sdefn}
\end{equation}
Substitution of eq.(\ref{eq_sdefn}) into eq.(\ref{eq_macropol2}), and substiution of the
result in turn into eq.(\ref{eq_rt0}) yields the radiative transfer equation,
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{\pd}{\pd t} + c \hv{n} \cdot \del \right) \td_q(\vec{r},t)
=
\frac{\omega_0}{2\epsilon_0} \sum_{p=2}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \hat{d}_{pk,q}^* \int_{\vec{v}} s_{pk}(\vec{r},t,\vec{v}) d^3v .
\label{eq_rt2}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Simplifications}
\label{sss:simp}
So far, we have kept our description of the electric field and its transfer
very general. At this point, however, we introduce some useful simplifications
resulting from the geometry adopted in Section~\ref{axes}. The radiation is assumed
to propagate along the $z$ axis, in the direction of increasing $z$: therefore
$\hv{n} = \hv{z}$. We can therefore reduce our transfer equation, eq.(\ref{eq_rt2}) to
\begin{equation}
d_t \td_q(r,\phi,z,t)
=
\frac{\omega_0}{2\epsilon_0} \sum_{p=2}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \hat{d}_{pk,q}^* \int_{-\infty}^\infty s_{pk}(r,\phi,z,t,v) dv .
\label{eq_rt3}
\end{equation}
The derivative on the left-hand side of eq.(\ref{eq_rt3}) is the shorthand notation,
\begin{equation}
d_t = \pd /\pd t + c \pd/\pd z ,
\label{eq_shortdt}
\end{equation}
the general position $\vec{r}$ has been replaced by the global
$(r,\phi,z)$ cylindrical coordinates
of Section~\ref{axes}, and we now consider only the $z$-component of the
molecular velocity, $v=v_z$, since only the Doppler effect along the
axis of propagation is observable. It is straightforward to show
that eq.(\ref{eq_rt3}) applies to spherical, as well as Cartesian, components.
In the definition of the electric field, we re-define $Y_0$ as
\begin{equation}
Y_0 = \omega_0 ( t - z/c) ,
\label{eq_newbigY}
\end{equation}
and with this modification, we may still use eq.(\ref{eq_sig1}) and eq.(\ref{eq_sig2})
to represent the analytic signal. We will also sometimes need a form in
Cartesian components, but in terms of the spherical complex amplitudes, for example
\begin{equation}
\tv{E}(r,\phi,z,t) = 2^{-1/2}[
\hv{x}(\td_R + \td_L) + i \hv{y} (\td_R - \td_L) + \sqrt{2}\hv{z} \td_z
] e^{-iY_0} .
\label{eq_cartsig}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Molecular Response}
\label{response}
Equations for the evolution of general diagonal and off-diagonal elements
of the molecular DM are taken from \citet{mybook}, where
they are derived in detail from Schr\"{o}dinger's equation. For the
diagonal element, $\rho_{qq}$,
\begin{equation}
D_t\rho_{qq} = \frac{i}{\hbar} \sum_{j=1}^N (\rho_{qj} \ham_{jq} - \rho_{jq} \ham_{qj})
+\sum_{j=1}^N (k_{jq} \rho_{jj} - k_{qj} \rho_{qq}),
\label{eq_diag0}
\end{equation}
noting that a diagonal element represents the number density of molecules
in level $q$, or, in a normalised form, the probability of occupancy of
level $q$. The equation also makes use of off-diagonal elements of the
DM, for example $\rho_{pq}$, where $p\neq q$, that represent
coherence between pairs of levels from the total of $N$. Coupling to the maser
radiation field is delivered through the matrix elements of the interaction
Hamiltonian, $\ham_{pq}$, and to other forms of level-changing process, such
as kinetic collisions, via the all-process rate coefficients, $k_{pq}$.
The total derivative is now,
\begin{equation}
D_t = \pd/\pd t + v \pd /\pd z ,
\label{eq_vderiv}
\end{equation}
noting that a molecular $z$-velocity, $v$, now replaces the speed of light
used in radiative transfer equations (see eq.(\ref{eq_shortdt})). The diagonal
elements of the DM have the functional dependence,
\begin{equation}
\rho_{qq} = \rho_{qq}(r,\phi,z,t,v) .
\label{eq_rhofuncdep}
\end{equation}
The general off-diagonal element, $\rho_{pq}$, evolves according to the equation
\begin{equation}
D_t\rho_{pq} = \frac{i}{\hbar} \sum_{j=1}^N (\rho_{pj} \ham_{qj}^* - \rho_{jq} \ham_{pj})
- i \omega_{pq} \rho_{pq} - \rho_{pq} / \tau_{pq} .
\label{eq_off0}
\end{equation}
A complex-conjugate version of an interaction Hamiltonian element has been
used, noting that, like the DM, $\hat{\mathrm{H}}$ is Hermitian. In
eq.(\ref{eq_off0}) we also take $p$ ($q$) to be the upper (lower) level
of the pair, so that the angular frequency $\omega_{pq}$, corresponding to
the transition energy between the levels, is positive, and
$\omega_{qp} = -\omega_{pq}$. The timescale $\tau_{pq}$ is the timescale over
which coherence in the transition $pq$ is lost. This will in general be
shorter than $1/k_{pq}$ because it includes elastic processes, such as
collisions that change molecular direction but not level. The functional
dependence of the off-diagonal element is the same as for the diagonal
element in eq.(\ref{eq_rhofuncdep})
\subsection{Off-Diagonal Equation: Modifications}
\label{ss:odm}
We define the population inversion between upper
level $p$ and lower level $q$ as
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{pq}(r,\phi,z,t,v) = \rho_{pp} - \rho_{qq} ,
\label{eq_invdef}
\end{equation}
and isolate it from off-diagonal elements.
To do this, we extract from the sum in eq.(\ref{eq_off0}) those terms where
$j=p$ and $j=q$, and write them separately. Since elements of
the interaction Hamiltonian are defined by the equation,
\begin{equation}
\ham_{pq}(r,\phi,z,t) = - \vec{E}(r,\phi,z,t) \cdot \hv{d}_{pq} ,
\label{eq_inthamdef}
\end{equation}
any element of the form $\ham_{jj}=0$ because the dipole $\hv{d}_{jj}=0$. Using this fact, and with the help of
eq.(\ref{eq_vderiv}), eq.(\ref{eq_invdef}) and the Hermitian property of $\ham_{qp}$,
we may write eq.(\ref{eq_off0}) in the modified form,
\begin{align}
D_t\rho_{pq} &=
\frac{i}{\hbar} \sum_{j\neq p,q}^N (\rho_{pj} \ham_{qj}^* - \rho_{jq} \ham_{pj}) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{i\ham_{pq}\Delta_{pq}}{\hbar}
- (i \omega_{pq} + \gamma_{pq}) \rho_{pq} ,
\label{eq_off2}
\end{align}
where the homogeneous line width $\gamma_{pq} = 1/T_{pq}$.
\subsection{Diagonal Equation: Modifications}
\label{ss:dem}
To replace equations describing the evolution
of individual level populations with equations that describe the evolution
of an inversion, we write down a version of eq.(\ref{eq_diag0}) in
which $q$ is replaced by $p$, and subtract the original eq.(\ref{eq_diag0}) from
it. Equation~\ref{eq_invdef} dictates that the left-hand side of the result becomes
the differential of the inversion $\Delta_{pq}$. Using the Hermitian property of both
the interaction Hamiltonian and DM, the result of the subtraction is
\begin{align}
D_t \Delta_{pq} & = \frac{-2}{\hbar} \sum_{j=1}^N ( \Im \{ \rho_{pj} \ham_{jp} \} - \Im \{ \rho_{qj} \ham_{jq} \} )
+ \sum_{j=1}^N \rho_{jj} \Delta k_{j,pq} \nonumber \\
& - \rho_{pp} k_{p\Sigma} + \rho_{qq} k_{q\Sigma},
\label{eq_diag2}
\end{align}
where we have defined $k_{p\Sigma} = \sum_{j=1}^N k_{pj}$ for the total
rate-coefficient out of level $p$ (and similarly for level $q$), and
where $\Delta k_{j,pq} = k_{jp} - k_{jq}$. On the basis that the total rate coefficient out
of any level is approximately the same, we make the approximation $k_{p\Sigma} \sim k_{q\Sigma} \sim \Gamma_{pq}$,
where $\Gamma_{pq}$ is the transition loss rate. The term in $\Delta k_{j,pq}$ represents a source term for
the inversion, arising from all the remaining levels $\rho_{jj}$. We set it equal to a
phenomenological pumping term,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^N \rho_{jj} \Delta k_{j,pq} = P_{pq} \phi (\vec{v}) ,
\label{eq_phenpump}
\end{equation}
where $P_{pq}$ is the pumping constant for the $pq$ inversion and $\phi (\vec{v})$ is the
molecular velocity distribution function. The appearance of this distribution function in
eq.(\ref{eq_phenpump}) is justified on the grounds that the left-hand side
contains the populations $\rho_{jj}(r,\phi,z,t,\vec{v})$ that all follow this distribution.
Extracting the $j=p$ and $j=q$ terms from the sum in eq.(\ref{eq_diag2}), and
employing the Hermitian property of $\hat{\mtx{H}}$, together with
eq.(\ref{eq_vderiv}), eq.(\ref{eq_invdef}) and eq.(\ref{eq_phenpump}), the inversion
evolves according to
\begin{align}
D_t \Delta_{pq} &=
-\frac{2}{\hbar} \Im \left\{
2 \rho_{pq} \ham_{qp}
+ \sum_{j \neq p,q}^N (\rho_{pj} \ham_{jp} - \rho_{qj} \ham_{jq})
\right\} \nonumber \\
& + P_{pq} \phi (\vec{v}) - \Gamma_{pq} \Delta_{pq} .
\label{eq_diag3}
\end{align}
From here on, we will assume that the molecular velocity distribution is a Gaussian
function of the form,
\begin{equation}
\phi (\vec{v}) = (\pi^{1/2} w)^{-1} e^{-v^2/w^2 ,}
\label{eq_gaussian}
\end{equation}
where $w$ is a width parameter given by
\begin{equation}
w = (2k_B T_K /m_X)^{1/2} ,
\label{eq_gwidth}
\end{equation}
for kinetic temperature $T_K$ and molecular mass of the maser molecule, $m_X$.
Note that $\phi(\vec{v})$ can be changed only by molecular collisions and not by
the Zeeman effect or by saturation or any other process within the maser.
\subsection{Zeeman Patterns}
\label{ss:zeeman}
We consider a weak-field Zeeman effect in which the
the energy shift is proportional to the external field strength.
Much more complicated patterns have been considered, for example by
\citet{2006ApJ...636..548A}, but not in connection with masers.
We will also assume that the (local) magnetic field direction provides
a good quantization axis. We will attempt to use a generic system
where the maser molecule has a magnetic moment
\begin{equation}
\vec{m}_J = - \mu_X g_J \vec{J},
\label{eq_magmoL}
\end{equation}
where the magneton, $\mu_X$, is the nuclear magneton, $e\hbar/(2m_p)$,
for closed-shell molecules. For molecules like OH, with net electronic
angular momentum, the Bohr magneton is used, replacing the proton
mass $m_p$ with the electron mass $m_e$ in the formula above. The
angular momentum $\vec{J}$ would be replaced by $\vec{F}$ in the
case of OH \citep{1955PhRv..100.1735D}. We also assume that the
Land\'{e} factor, $g_J$, is a positive number in eq.(\ref{eq_magmoL}),
so that the magnetic moment lies anti-parallel to $\vec{J}$. Our Zeeman
pattern therefore follows, in sign, the usual `textbook' case of
electronic angular momentum. If $\vec{J}$ results mostly from molecular
rotation, we are therefore assuming that the contribution to $g_J$ from
the coupling to the electron cloud has a greater magnitude than
the contribution from the nuclear framework.
The Zeeman Hamiltonian for a molecule with magnetic moment $\vec{m}_J$ in an
external magnetic field $\vec{B}$ is
\begin{equation}
H_Z = - \vec{m} \cdot \vec{B}
\label{eq_zeeham}
\end{equation}
\citep{1980woodgate.book.L,eisberg1985quantum,mybook}. The resulting Zeeman
energy shift is
\begin{equation}
\Delta E (J,M) = \mu_X g_J B M ,
\label{eq_zeeshift}
\end{equation}
where $B(x,y,z)=|\vec{B}|$ is the local magnetic field strength, and
$M$ is the magnetic quantum number that has integer values
in the range $-J..0..+J$, where $J$ is the quantum number corresponding
to $\vec{J}$. An unsplit level denoted by $J$ is therefore split by the
external magnetic field into $2J+1$ equally spaced Zeeman sublevels.
\subsubsection{Transition Types}
\label{sss:ztrans}
We will consider a pair of unsplit levels:
an upper level $J$ and lower level $J'=J-1$, and take an idealised
case where these are isolated from any other levels. Both of these unsplit
levels then contain
magnetic sublevels $M$, ranging from $-J$ to $+J$ in the upper level
and from $-J'$ to $+J'$ in the lower level.
Transitions between
magnetic sub-levels of $J$ and $J'$ are subject to the electric dipole
selection rules: $\Delta M = 0,\pm1$ (Figure~\ref{fig_trantypes}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm,angle=0]{fig_trantypes.eps}
\caption{The Zeeman sub-levels of the two-level system considered in
this work; the magnetic moment is anti-parallel to $\vec{J}$.
The three possible electric-dipole transitions in emission
from sublevel $M$ of the upper rotational state are shown as coloured
vertical arrows. Note that there is only one such
transition of each type. Zeeman energy shifts are also shown.}
\label{fig_trantypes}
\end{figure}
The allowed transitions will be classified as follows: let $\Delta M$
be the change in $M$ in emission. A transition with $\Delta M =0$ will
be termed a $\pi$-transition. Transitions with $\Delta M = +1$
($\Delta M = -1$) will be called $\sigma^+$ ($\sigma^-$) transitions.
Note that any sublevel $M$ in $J$ can have at most one
electric-dipole allowed transition of
each type leaving it for some destination magnetic sub-level within $J'$
(see Figure~\ref{fig_trantypes}). Note that this classification of the $\sigma$
transitions is not universal and that
\citet{1973ApJ...179..111G}, in particular, use
the reverse definition.
The energy of our upper energy level with quantum numbers $J,M$, relative to
a gound level of zero, is just the energy $E_J$ of the unsplit rotational level
added to the Zeeman shift from eq.(\ref{eq_zeeshift}):
\begin{equation}
E(J,M) = E_J + \mu_X g_J B M ,
\label{eq_Eupper}
\end{equation}
whilst the energies of the three target sub-levels in $J'=J-1$ become
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_Elower}
\begin{align}
E(J-1,M) = E_{J-1} + \mu_X g_{J-1} B M \label{eq_Elower_pi}\\
E(J-1,M\pm1) = E_{J-1} + \mu_X g_{J-1} B (M\pm1). \label{eq_Elower_sigma}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The frequency of the $\pi$-transition, $\nu_M^0$, may be found by subtracting
eq.(\ref{eq_Elower_pi}) from eq.(\ref{eq_Eupper}) and dividing through
by Planck's constant. If we let the frequency of the unsplit transition
be $\nu_0 = (E_J - E_{J-1})/h$ then we find
\begin{equation}
\nu_M^0 = \nu_0 + \mu_X B M (g_J - g_{J-1})/h ,
\label{eq_pifreq}
\end{equation}
noting that, for a $\pi$-transition, the frequency reverts to that of the
unsplit transition if either $M=0$ (the `central $\pi$-transition') or
if the Land\'{e} factors of the two rotational levels are equal. In this
latter case, the frequencies of all the $\pi$-transitions are the same,
resulting in a single $\pi$-spectral line centered on $\nu_0$. The
frequencies of the $\sigma$-transitions may be constructed in a similar
manner, and the equation analogous to eq.(\ref{eq_pifreq}), summarizing
both types, is
\begin{equation}
\nu_M^\pm = \nu_0 + \mu_X B [M(g_J - g_{J-1}) \mp g_{J-1}] /h ,
\label{eq_sigfreq}
\end{equation}
where the upper (lower) optional signs refer to $\sigma^+$ ($\sigma^-$) transitions. Note
that a single frequency for each type again results, regardless of $M$, if
both Land\'{e} factors are equal.
\subsubsection{Dipole Orientation}
\label{sss:dipor}
The aim of this section is to relate the helical type of a
magnetically-split transition to a particular spherical basis vector
in the primed (magnetic field based) frame. The external magnetic
field exerts a torque on the magnetic moment, equal to
\begin{equation}
\vec{\tau} = \vec{m} \vprod \vec{B} = - \mu_X g_J \vec{J} \vprod \vec{B}
\label{eq_torque}
\end{equation}
\citep{1972engewehrrichards}. The second form on the right-hand side of
eq.(\ref{eq_torque}) results from elimination of the magnetic moment with
the aid of eq.(\ref{eq_magmoL}). With the aid of a diagram, Fig.~\ref{fig_torque},
we can see that the torque is generally anticlockwise from the point of
view of an IAU receiver-based observer (see Fig.~\ref{fig_iau_axes}), and therefore right-handed
in the IEEE convention. As we are in the magnetic field (primed) frame, we
can now say that the torque, and therefore the precessional
motion of $\vec{J}$, is proportional to the right-handed
spherical unit vector $\hv{e}_R'$. A supporting analysis is given in
\citet{1979anpa.book.....L}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm,angle=0]{fig_torque.eps}
\caption{The torque on the molecular angular momentum vector due to
a magnetic field along the $z'$ axis: the vector cross product
$\vec{J} \vprod \vec{B}$ points tangentially in the direction shown
by definition. The magnitude of $\vec{J}$ and the angle $\zeta$ it
makes to the magnetic field must remain constant in the absence of
transition, so the head of the vector $\vec{J}$ moves in a circle, shown
in projection as an ellipse, around the magnetic field. The torque
exerted on $\vec{J}$, shown in red, is opposite in direction to the
cross product from eq.(\ref{eq_torque}). As the torque would still
be tangential after advancing the head of $\vec{J}$ through an angle
$\eta$, the motion of $\vec{J}$ is generally anticlockwise as
viewed by an observer `receiving' the magnetic field, and therefore
described by the spherical vector $\hv{e}_R'$ under the IEEE convention.}
\label{fig_torque}
\end{figure}
Having established that the direction of the precession of $\vec{J}$ about
$\vec{B}$ (or the $z'$ axis) is IEEE-right-handed, it is time to introduce the effect of transitions. For
the sake of example, we shall consider a $\sigma^+$ transition, in fact the
one marked by the red emission arrow in Fig.~\ref{fig_trantypes}.
$M$ is the quantum number for the projection of $\vec{J}$ on the z' axis,
and this has increased by one unit in transition: that is, a $\sigma^+$ transition
in emission adds one unit of IEEE right-handed angular momentum about the
$z'$ axis to the molecule. Since the transition is mediated by the electric
dipole of the molecule, the dipole matrix element for a $\sigma^+$ transition
in emission is also IEEE right-handed. This discussion is summarized and
extended to stimulated emission in \citet{2014MNRAS.440.2988G}.
Angular momentum about $z'$ is conserved by the emission of an IEEE left-handed
photon in the direction of increasing $z'$, that is towards the observer.
This conclusion is in agreement with the classical Lorentzian results, backed
up by over 100\,years of laboratory experiments, going back to the
days of Zeeman himself. We have
a magnetic field pointing towards the observer (Fig.~\ref{fig_torque}), and
the $\sigma$ transition with the lower frequency (the $\sigma^+$) will be
observed as emitting IEEE left-hand circularly polarized radiation (or the
$\sigma$ transition with the higher frequency ($\sigma^-$) will be observed
emitting IEEE right-hand circularly polarized radiation.
In Section~\ref{sss:macropol},
we introduced the dipole matrix element for a transition between
upper level $p$ and lower level $q$ as
$\hv{d}_{pq}$. We now need to replace this very general notation
with something more applicable to the Zeeman group structure
depicted in Figure~\ref{fig_trantypes}. Our upper level can be
identified by the quantum numbers $(J,M)$, while the three possible
options for the lower level are $(J',M+1)$ for $\sigma^+$,
$(J',M)$ for $\pi$ or $(J',M-1)$ for $\sigma^-$ transitions. Now we
have shown above that, for the $\sigma^+$ transition type, the
dipole is right-handed in the magnetic-field based (primed) axis system.
For example,
\begin{equation}
\hv{d}_{pq} = \hv{d}_{(J,M),(J',M+1)} = \hat{d}_{(J,M),(J',M+1)} \hv{e}_R' ,
\label{eq_dipex}
\end{equation}
for a $\sigma^+$ dipole in the Zeeman group notation.
By extension, the dipole of a $\sigma^-$ transition is IEEE left-handed.
It is well known that for radiation propagation parallel to the
magnetic field, the $\pi$-transition does not appear. This means that
the dipole has no component in the $x'y'$-plane, where it could interact
with the electric field of the radiation, and must therefore lie
along the $z'$ axis. We may now write down three dipole definitions:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_dipgold}
\begin{align}
\sigma^+ &: \hv{d}_{pq} = \hv{d}_{(J,M),(J',M+1)} = \hv{d}_M^+ = \hat{d}_M^+ \hv{e}_R' \label{eq_dipgold_sp}\\
\pi &: \hv{d}_{pq} = \hv{d}_{(J,M),(J',M)} = \hv{d}_M^0 = \hat{d}_M^0 \hv{z}' \label{eq_dipgold_pi}\\
\sigma^- &: \hv{d}_{pq} = \hv{d}_{(J,M),(J',M-1)} = \hv{d}_M^- = \hat{d}_M^- \hv{e}_L' ,\label{eq_dipgold_sm}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the final forms introduce a useful shorthand that avoids the use
of an excessive number of subscripts. It is unambiguous because: (i) all
transitions are from $J$ to $J'$, and (ii) there is only one
transition of each type leaving sublevel $M$ in $J$. In the shorthand,
the only subscript, $M$, still denotes the magnetic quantum number of
the upper level, whilst the superscript indicates the change in $M$
in emission.
\subsubsection{Dipoles in the Radiation Frame}
\label{sss:diprad}
Having defined the dipoles as pure helical components in the primed
frame (equation~\ref{eq_dipgold}), we also derive a representation of
the dipoles in the radiation-based (global, unprimed) frame. This is straightforwardly
achieved by applying the rotation matrix, eq.(\ref{eq_sphgold}), to the primed unit
vectors in eq.(\ref{eq_dipgold}), yielding
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_diprad}
\begin{align}
\hv{d}_M^+ &= \hat{d}_M^+ [ \hv{e}_R (1+\cos \theta)(c-is)/2 \nonumber \\
&+\hv{z} (i/\sqrt{2}) \sin \theta + \hv{e}_L (1-\cos \theta)(c+is)/2] \\
\hv{d}_M^0 &= (\hat{d}_M^0\sqrt{2}) [ \hv{e}_R (s+ic)\sin \theta \nonumber \\
&+ \sqrt{2}\hv{z} \cos \theta + \hv{e}_L (s-ic)\sin \theta ] \\
\hv{d}_M^- &= \hat{d}_M^- [ \hv{e}_R (1-\cos \theta)(c-is)/2 \nonumber \\
&- \hv{z} (i/\sqrt{2}) \sin \theta + \hv{e}_L (1+\cos \theta)(c+is)/2] ,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we have used the shorthand notation $c+is = \cos \phi' + i \sin \phi'$, and similar
bracketed expressions. We also convert the dipole elements in eq.(\ref{eq_diprad})
to the Cartesian basis, using the definitions
in eq.(\ref{eq_rldef_R}) and eq.(\ref{eq_rldef_L}) for the conversion:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_dipcart}
\begin{align}
\hv{d}_M^+ &= (\hat{d}_M^+/\sqrt{2}) [ \hv{x} (\cos \phi' - i\cos \theta \sin \phi') \nonumber \\
&+ \hv{y} (\sin \phi' + i\cos \theta \cos \phi') + i \hv{z} \sin \theta] \label{eq_dipcart_sp}\\
\hv{d}_M^0 &= \hat{d}_M^0 [ \hv{x} \sin \theta \sin \phi' -\hv{y} \sin \theta \cos \phi' + \hv{z} \cos \theta ] \label{eq_dipcart_pi} \\
\hv{d}_M^- &= (\hat{d}_M^-/\sqrt{2}) [ \hv{x} (\cos \phi' + i\cos \theta \sin \phi') \nonumber \\
&+ \hv{y} (\sin \phi' -i \cos \theta \cos \phi') - i \hv{z} \sin \theta] .\label{eq_dipcart_sm}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\section{Time-Domain Equations}
\label{tdom}
\subsection{Interaction Hamiltonian}
\label{ss:hint}
Elements of the interaction Hamiltonian have been previously introduced using
the general transition $pq$ in eq.(\ref{eq_inthamdef}), so the indices simply follow those of the
matrix element of the dipole. We can therefore adopt the same shorthand notation
for the elements relevant to our Zeeman group: $H_M^\pm$ for the $\sigma^\pm$ transitions
and $H_M^0$ for the $\pi$-transitions. In the $\sigma^+$ transition out of sub-level $M$, for example,
the Hamiltonian element is $H_M^+ = -\vec{E} \cdot \hv{d}_M^+$. For the electric field, we
take the real part of the Cartesian broad-band analytic signal, eq.(\ref{eq_cartsig}).
The results of the dot product with the three forms of eq.(\ref{eq_dipcart}) are,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_hamgold}
\begin{align}
H_M^+ &= \{ [(\td_R + \td_L) e^{-iY_0} + c.c.] (\cos \phi' - i \sin \phi' \cos \theta ) \nonumber \\
&+ [i(\td_R - \td_L) e^{-iY_0} + c.c.] ( \sin \phi' + i \cos \phi' \cos \theta \nonumber \\
&+\sqrt{2}i[\td_z e^{-iY_0} + c.c.] \sin \theta \} (-d_M^+/4) \label{eq_hamgold_sp}\\
H_M^0 &= \{[[(\td_R + \td_L) e^{-iY_0} + c.c.] \sin \phi' \sin \theta \nonumber \\
&-[i(\td_R - \td_L) e^{-iY_0} + c.c. ]\cos \phi' \sin \theta \nonumber \\
&+\sqrt{2}[\td_z e^{-iY_0} + c.c.] \cos \theta \} (-\sqrt{2}d_M^0/4)\label{eq_hamgold_pi} \\
H_M^- &= \{ [(\td_R + \td_L) e^{-iY_0} + c.c.] (\cos \phi' + i \sin \phi' \cos \theta ) \nonumber \\
&+[i(\td_R - \td_L) e^{-iY_0} + c.c.] (\sin \phi' -i \cos \phi' \cos \theta ) \nonumber \\
&-\sqrt{2}i[\td_z e^{-iY_0} + c.c.] \sin \theta \} (-d_M^-/4)\label{eq_hamgold_sm}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $c.c.$ denotes the complex conjugate.
\subsection{Off-Diagonal Equations}
\label{ss:offtime}
The Hamiltonian matrix elements in eq.(\ref{eq_hamgold}) are specific to magnetic transition
types, so we must develop sets of equations for the off-diagonal and diagonal DM
elements that are similarly type-specific. Beginning with the off-diagonal DM
elements that evolve according to eq.(\ref{eq_off2}), we consider membership of the sum
over $j$. We will assume that off-diagonal elements of the DM are negligible
unless they correspond to an allowed electric dipole transition. This assumption is
frequently, but not universally, made. Such elements are set to zero in
\citet{2009MNRAS.399.1495D}, but \citet{1973ApJ...179..111G} make them constants in their analysis, whilst
discussing the possibility that they may be comparable to those elements that correspond
to the dipole transitions.
If, as we shall assume, the off-diagonal elements of the DM that correspond
to forbidden electric dipole transitions are set to zero, an important simplification
results: the sum over $j$ in eq.(\ref{eq_off2}) is empty for the Zeeman group introduced
in Section~\ref{sss:ztrans} \citep{mybook}. The result is that off-diagonal
DM elements for all three transitions out of level $(J,M)$ to magnetic
sublevels in $J'$ all evolve according to the generic equation,
\begin{equation}
D_t\rho_M = i\ham_M \Delta_M /\hbar - (\gamma_M + i \omega_M ) \rho_M
\label{eq_off3}
\end{equation}
The off-diagonal elements of the DM have already been expanded as the
product of a fast and a slow term in eq.(\ref{eq_sdefn}), and we use this
equation to eliminate $\rho_M$ from eq.(\ref{eq_off3}) in favour of the
slowly-varying $s_M$. The result is
\begin{equation}
D_t s_M = -2\ham_M \Delta_M e^{iY_0}/\hbar - [\gamma_M - i (\omega_0 - \omega_M -v\omega_0/c)] s_M .
\label{eq_off4}
\end{equation}
We complete the derivation of type-dependent equations for the evolution of
$s_M^\pm, s_M^0$ by introducing the appropriate forms of eq.(\ref{eq_hamgold})
into eq.(\ref{eq_off4}), and applying the rotating wave equation to remove
terms oscillating rapidly at $e^{\pm i Y_0}$. The evolution equations are,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_offtime}
\begin{align}
D_t s_M^\pm &= \frac{\Delta_M^\pm\hat{d}_M^\pm}{2\hbar} [
(\td_R+\td_L) (c' \mp is'\cos \theta) \nonumber \\
&+ i(\td_R-\td_L)(s' \pm i c' \cos \theta) \pm \sqrt{2}i\td_z \sin \theta
] \nonumber \\
&- [\gamma_M^\pm +i (\Delta \omega_M^\pm + v\omega_0/c) ] s_M^\pm \label{eq_offtime_sig} \\
D_t s_M^0 &= \frac{\Delta_M^0\hat{d}_M^0}{\sqrt{2}\hbar} [
(\td_R+\td_L) s' \sin \theta \nonumber \\
&- i(\td_R-\td_L) c' \sin \theta + \sqrt{2}\td_z \cos \theta
] \nonumber \\
&- [\gamma_M^0 +i (\Delta \omega_M^0 + v\omega_0/c) ] s_M^0 \label{eq_offtime_pi}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $c'=\cos \phi'$, $s' = \sin \phi'$, and the equations for both $\sigma$-transitions have
been combined into the single equation, eq.(\ref{eq_offtime_sig}) with optional signs:
the upper (lower) version of such signs refers to $\sigma^+$ ($\sigma^-$).
Zeeman shifts are defined as
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_zshift}
\begin{align}
\Delta \omega_M^\pm &= \mu_X B [M(g_J - g_{J−1}) \mp g_{J−1}]/\hbar \label{eq_zshift_sig} \\
\Delta \omega_M^0 &= \mu_X BM (g_J - g_{J−1})/\hbar , \label{eq_zshift_pi}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with the help of eq.(\ref{eq_sigfreq}) and eq.(\ref{eq_pifreq}), respectively.
\subsection{Inversion Equation}
\label{ss:diagtime}
The sum in the equation for the evolution of the inversion, eq.(\ref{eq_diag3}), is
not empty when we convert to the Zeeman group notation used in Section~\ref{ss:offtime}.
Instead, they introduce interaction contributions from neighbouring transitions of
all three polarization types, including those different from the type of the
inversion in the differential. Membership of the sums is established in \citet{mybook} and
results in the following type-specific developments of eq.(\ref{eq_diag3}):
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_diag4}
\begin{align}
D_t \Delta_M^\pm &= P_M^\pm \phi(v) - \Gamma_M^\pm \Delta_M^\pm -\frac{2}{\hbar} \Im \left\{
2\rho_M^\pm \ham_M^{\pm *} + \rho_M^0 \ham_M^{0*} \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. \rho_M^\mp \ham_M^{\mp *} - \rho_{M+1}^{0*} \ham_{M+1}^0 - \rho_{M+2}^{\mp *} \ham_{M+2}^\mp
\right\} \label{eq_diag4_sig}\\
D_t \Delta_M^0 &= P_M^0 \phi(v) - \Gamma_M^0 \Delta_M^0 -\frac{2}{\hbar} \Im \left\{
2\rho_M^0 \ham_M^{0*} + \rho_M^+ \ham_M^{+*} \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. \rho_M^- \ham_M^{-*} - \rho_{M-1}^{+*} \ham_{M-1}^+ - \rho_{M+1}^{-*} \ham_{M+1}^-
\right\} ,\label{eq_diag4_pi}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where eq.(\ref{eq_diag4_sig}) refers to $\sigma$-transitions. The upper (lower) optional
signs apply to $\sigma^+$ ($\sigma^-$). The case of $\pi$-transitions is covered by
eq.(\ref{eq_diag4_pi}).
All of the interaction terms in eq.(\ref{eq_diag4}) may be written in the general
form $\rho_x^a \ham_x^{a*}$, or its complex conjugate, where $M-2\leq x \leq M+2$ is an upper magnetic sublevel, and
$a=0,\pm$ is a transition type. The general interaction term may be developed
by eliminating the Hamiltonian elements in favour of expressions from eq.(\ref{eq_hamgold}),
or complex conjugates thereof, and by using eq.(\ref{eq_sdefn}), its conjugate, and the
rotating wave approximation to remove all rapidly varying parts of the DM elements.
We eventually obtain, for specific values of $a$,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_itype1}
\begin{align}
\rho_x^\pm \ham_x^{\pm*} &= i\hat{d}_x^{\pm*} s_x^\pm [
(\td_R^* + \td_L^*)(c' \pm is' \cos \theta ) \nonumber \\
&-i(\td_R^* - \td_L^*)(s' \mp ic' \cos \theta ) \mp \sqrt{2}i\td_z^* \sin \theta
]/8 \label{eq_itype1_sig}\\
\rho_x^0 \ham_x^{0*} &= \sqrt{2} i\hat{d}_x^{0*} s_x^0 [
(\td_R^* + \td_L^*) s' \sin \theta \nonumber \\
& + i(\td_R^* -\td_L^*) c' \sin \theta + \sqrt{2} \td_z^* \cos \theta
]/8 . \label{eq_itype_pi}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
With appropriate choices for $x$, the various forms of eq.(\ref{eq_itype1}) may be
used to eliminate the interaction terms from eq.(\ref{eq_diag4}). The resulting,
rather cumbersome, expressions are the evolution equations for the inversion
in the three different types of transition. For brevity, we again combine the
expressions for $\sigma$ transitions into a single equation, with the upper form
of any optional sign referring to $\sigma^+$. Inversions evolve according to
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_invtime}
\begin{align}
\!\!\!& D_t \Delta_M^\pm = P_M^\pm \phi(v) - \Gamma_M^\pm \Delta_M^\pm -\frac{1}{4\hbar} \Im \{ \nonumber \\
& \sqrt{2} i s' \!\sin \theta [\hat{d}_M^{0*} s_M^0 (\td_R^* \!+\! \td_L^*) + \hat{d}_{M\!\pm \!1}^{0} s_{M \!\pm \!1}^{0*} (\td_R \!+\! \td_L)] \nonumber \\
&- \!\sqrt{2} c'\! \sin \theta [\hat{d}_M^{0*} s_M^0 (\td_R^*\! - \!\td_L^*) - \hat{d}_{M\!\pm \!1}^{0} s_{M \!\pm \!1}^{0*} (\td_R \!- \!\td_L)] \nonumber \\
&+ \!2 i \! \cos \theta [\hat{d}_M^{0*} s_M^0 \td_z^* \!+ \!\hat{d}_{M\!\pm \!1}^{0} s_{M \!\pm \!1}^{0*} \td_z] \nonumber \\
&+ \!i c'[(\hat{d}_M^{\pm *} s_M^\pm \!+\! \hat{d}_M^{\mp *} s_M^\mp)(\td_R^*\! + \!\td_L^*)\! +\! \hat{d}_{M\!\pm \!2}^\mp s_{M \!\pm \!2}^{\mp *} (\td_R\! +\! \td_L)] \nonumber \\
&+ \!s'\![(\hat{d}_M^{\pm *} s_M^\pm \!+\! \hat{d}_M^{\mp *} s_M^\mp)(\td_R^* \!-\! \td_L^*)\! - \!\hat{d}_{M\!\pm \!2}^\mp s_{M\! \pm \!2}^{\mp *} (\td_R \!- \!\td_L)] \nonumber \\
&\mp \!ic' \!\cos \theta [(\hat{d}_M^{\pm *} s_M^\pm \!-\! \hat{d}_M^{\mp *} s_M^\mp)(\td_R^* \!-\! \td_L^*)\! -\! \hat{d}_{M\!\pm \!2}^\mp s_{M \!\pm \!2}^{\mp *} (\td_R\! -\! \td_L)]
\nonumber \\
&\mp \!s' \!\cos \theta [(\hat{d}_M^{\pm *} s_M^\pm \!-\! \hat{d}_M^{\mp *} s_M^\mp)(\td_R^*\! + \!\td_L^*)\! -\! \hat{d}_{M\!\pm \!2}^\mp s_{M\! \pm \!2}^{\mp *} (\td_R\! +\! \td_L)]
\nonumber \\
&\pm \!\sqrt{2} \!\sin \theta [(\hat{d}_M^{\pm *} s_M^\pm \!-\! \hat{d}_M^{\mp *} s_M^\mp) \td_z^* \!+\! \hat{d}_{M\pm 2}^\mp s_{M\! \pm \!2}^{\mp *} \td_z ] \} \label{eq_invtime_sig}\\
\!\!\!&D_t \Delta_M^0 = P_M^0 \phi(v) - \Gamma_M^0 \Delta_M^0 -\frac{1}{4\hbar} \Im \{ \nonumber \\
& \!2\sqrt{2}i \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_M^0 [s' \!\sin \theta (\td_R^* \!+ \!\td_L^*) \!+\!i c'\! \sin \theta (\td_R^* \!-\! \td_L^*) \!+ \!\sqrt{2}\td_z^* \cos \theta]
\nonumber \\
&\!\!\!+\!\!ic' \![\!(\hat{d}_M^{+*} \!s_M^+ \!\!+\! \hat{d}_M^{-*} \!s_M^-\!)\!(\td_R^* \!\!+\! \td_L^*)\!
\!+\!\! (\hat{d}_{M\!-\!1}^+ \!s_{M\!-\!1}^{+*} \!\!+\! \hat{d}_{M\!+\!1}^- \!s_{M\!+\!1}^{-*}\!)\!(\td_R\!\! +\! \td_L \!)\!]
\nonumber \\
&\!\!\!+\!\!s' \![\!(\hat{d}_M^{+*} \!s_M^+ \!\!+\! \hat{d}_M^{-*} \!s_M^-\!)\!(\td_R^*\!\! - \!\td_L^*)\!
\! -\!\! (\hat{d}_{M\!-\!1}^+ \!s_{M\!-\!1}^{+*}\!\! +\! \hat{d}_{M\!+\!1}^- \!s_{M\!+\!1}^{-*}\!)\!(\td_R \!\!- \!\td_L \!)\!]
\nonumber \\
&\!\!\!-\!\!s' \!\!\cos \!\theta [\!(\!\hat{d}_M^{+*} \!s_M^+ \!\!\!-\! \hat{d}_M^{-*} \!s_M^-\!)\!(\!\td_{\!R}^* \!\!+\! \td_{\!L}^*\!) \!
\! -\!\! (\!\hat{d}_{M\!-\!1}^+ \!s_{M\!-\!1}^{+*}\!\! \!-\! \hat{d}_{M\!+\!1}^- \!s_{M\!+\!1}^{-*}\!)\!(\!\td_R \!\!+\! \td_L\!)\!]
\nonumber \\
&\!\!\!-\!\!ic' \!\!\cos \!\theta [\!(\!\hat{d}_M^{+*} \!s_M^+ \!\!\!-\! \hat{d}_M^{-*} \!s_M^-\!)\!(\!\td_{\!R}^* \!\!-\! \td_{\!L}^*\!) \!
\!+\!\! (\!\hat{d}_{M\!-\!1}^+ \!s_{M\!-\!1}^{+*}\!\!\!-\! \hat{d}_{M\!+\!1}^- \!s_{M\!+\!1}^{-*}\!)\!(\!\td_{\!R}\! \!-\! \td_{\!L}\!)\!]
\nonumber \\
&\!\!\!+\!\!\sqrt{2}\!\sin \!\theta [\!(\hat{d}_M^{+*} \!s_M^+ \!\!-\! \hat{d}_M^{-*} \!s_M^- \!)\td_z^* \!
\!-\!\! (\!\hat{d}_{M\!-\!1}^+ \!s_{M\!-\!1}^{+*} \!\!-\! \hat{d}_{M\!+\!1}^- \!s_{M\!+\!1}^{-*}\!)\td_z^*\!] \}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\subsection{Radiative Transfer Equations}
\label{ss:timert}
In converting the general multi-level radiative transfer equation, eq.(\ref{eq_rt3})
to forms specific to the propagation of a Zeeman group, two problems need to
br overcome: the membership of the sums, and the representation of the dipole
elements in the radiation-based coordinates.
The outer sum is over upper energy levels.
We may immediately discard all the levels in $J'$ in our Zeeman group, since any
downward electric dipole-allowed transition must begin in $J$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig_trantypes}). The
outer sum therefore encompasses the sub-levels of $J$: it is over
$M$ from $-J$ to $+J$. The inner sum is over
the lower levels of the electric dipole transitions, and is therefore immediately
limited to the sub-levels of $J'$. However, again with reference to Fig.~\ref{fig_trantypes}, we
can see that for a given $M$ in $J$ there are at most three possible lower levels,
each corresponding to a transition of different helical type because of the
selection rule $\Delta M = 0,\pm1$. Assuming that all of these transitions exist
for a given $M$, we write the inner sum explicitly, so exchanging the order of
summation and (velocity) integration we obtain from eq.(\ref{eq_rt3}) the Zeeman group
transfer equation,
\begin{equation}
d_t \td_q
=
\frac{\omega_0}{2\epsilon_0} \int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \sum_{M=-J}^{J}
(\hat{d}_{M,q}^{+*} s_M^+ + \hat{d}_{M,q}^{0*} s_M^0 + \hat{d}_{M,q}^{-*} s_M^- ) .
\label{eq_rt4}
\end{equation}
where $q=R,L,z$, and functional dependencies have been suppressed for brevity.
To address the second problem, we need a representation of the dipole
vectors of the three transition types in components based on the global axis
system. We already have this: eq.(\ref{eq_dipgold}), but we need to take the
complex conjugate to match all the dipole components in eq.(\ref{eq_rt4}).
Noting that the spherical vectors used in eq.(\ref{eq_rldef}) have the
property $\hv{e}_R = \hv{e}_L^*$ and $\hv{e}_L = \hv{e}_R^*$, the correct substitutions can
be identified for all three values of $q$, and generating three versions of
eq.(\ref{eq_rt4}):
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_timert}
\begin{align}
d_t \td_R &= \frac{\omega_0}{4\epsilon_0}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \sum_{M=-J}^{J}
\{
\hat{d}_M^{+*} s_M^+ (1-\cos \theta) (c'-is') \nonumber \\
&+ \sqrt{2} \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_M^0 \sin \theta (s'+ic')
+ \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_M^- (1+\cos \theta) (c'-is') \} \label{eq_timert_R} \\
d_t \td_L &= \frac{\omega_0}{4\epsilon_0}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \sum_{M=-J}^{J}
\{
\hat{d}_M^{+*} s_M^+ (1+\cos \theta) (c'+is') \nonumber \\
&+ \sqrt{2} \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_M^0 \sin \theta (s'-ic')
+ \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_M^- (1-\cos \theta) (c'+is') \} \label{eq_timert_L} \\
d_t \td_z &= \frac{\omega_0}{4\epsilon_0}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \sum_{M=-J}^{J}
\{
\hat{d}_M^{+*} s_M^+ (-\sqrt{2}i \sin \theta ) \nonumber \\
&+ 2 \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_M^0 \cos \theta
+ \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_M^- (\sqrt{2}i \sin \theta ) \} \label{eq_timert_z}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The groups of equations, eq.(\ref{eq_offtime}), eq.(\ref{eq_invtime}) and eq.(\ref{eq_timert}) now form a complete set
of governing equations for the solution of the OAM maser problem with full polarization in the
time domain.
A reduction of the maser governing equations to the more
standard Zeeman system with polarized radiation, but no OAM, may be
effected by setting $c'=1$, $s'=0$ and $\td_z = 0$ in all these
equations.
\section{Frequency-Domain Equations}
\label{s:fdom}
The easiest of the governing equations to transform to the frequency domain
are the radiative transfer equations, because they are linear in the electric
field amplitudes and DM elements. We use eq.(\ref{eq_ffwd}) to write the
time-domain quantities as transforms of the frequency-domain versions. After
differentiation of the transform expression on the left-hand side, only a
$z$-derivative remains, so that a set of PDEs in the time domain has been reduced
to ODEs in frequency \citep{1978PhRvA..17..701M,2009MNRAS.399.1495D}. Formal
inverse transformation via eq.(\ref{eq_finv}) then results in,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_freqrt}
\begin{align}
\! &\frac{d\td_{R,n}}{dz} = \frac{\omega_0}{4c\epsilon_0}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \sum_{M=-J}^{J}
\{
\hat{d}_M^{+*} s_{M,n}^+ (1-\cos \theta) (c'-is') \nonumber \\
&+ \sqrt{2} \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_{M,n}^0 \sin \theta (s'+ic')
+ \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_{M,n}^- (1+\cos \theta) (c'-is') \} \label{eq_timert_R} \\
& \frac{d\td_{L,n}}{dz} = \frac{\omega_0}{4\epsilon_0}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \sum_{M=-J}^{J}
\{
\hat{d}_M^{+*} s_{M,n}^+ (1+\cos \theta) (c'+is') \nonumber \\
&+ \sqrt{2} \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_{M,n}^0 \sin \theta (s'-ic')
+ \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_{M,n}^- (1-\cos \theta) (c'+is') \} \label{eq_timert_L} \\
& \frac{d\td_{z,n}}{dz} = \frac{\omega_0}{4\epsilon_0}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \sum_{M=-J}^{J}
\{
\hat{d}_M^{+*} s_{M,n}^+ (-\sqrt{2}i \sin \theta ) \nonumber \\
&+ 2 \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_{M,n}^0 \cos \theta
+ \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_{M,n}^- (\sqrt{2}i \sin \theta ) \} \label{eq_timert_z}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we have introduced the following shorthand notations for the Fourier
components:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_fshort}
\begin{align}
\td_{q,n} &= \td_q(r,\phi,z,\varpi_n) \label{eq_fshort_E} \\
s_{M,n} &= s_M(r,\phi,z,\varpi_n,v) \label{eq_fshort_s} \\
\Delta_{M,n} &= \Delta_M(r,\phi,z,\varpi_n,v) \label{eq_fshort_inv} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Transformation of eq.(\ref{eq_offtime}) is somewhat more difficult because of
the appearance of products of inversions and electric field components on the
right-hand sides. These products in the time domain will appear as convolutions
in the frequency domain \citep{1978PhRvA..17..701M,2009MNRAS.396.2319D}. As an
example, we write,
\begin{equation}
\td_R \Delta_M^+ = {\cal F}^{-1} [\td_{R,n}] {\cal F}^{-1}[\Delta_{M,n}^+] = {\cal F}^{-1} [\td_{R} \otimes \Delta_{M}^+]_{n-m} ,
\label{eq_convol}
\end{equation}
where the $\otimes$ symbol denotes the convolution operation. For a continuous
frequency variable, the convolution would be an integral, but for the present
system of finite-width Fourier components, we replace it with the sum,
\begin{equation}
[\td_{R} \otimes \Delta_{M}^+]_{n-m} = (2\pi)^{-1} \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \td_{R,m} \Delta_{M,n-m}^+ ,
\label{eq_convolsum}
\end{equation}
and similar expressions for other polarizations and transition types. With the
help of eq.(\ref{eq_convol}) and eq.(\ref{eq_convolsum}), and dropping terms
of order $v/c$ in size, the transformed versions of the evolution equations for
off-diagonal elements of the DM become the algebraic equations:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_freqoff}
\begin{align}
s_{M,n}^\pm &= \frac{\hat{d}_M^\pm \tilde{L}_M^\pm}{2 \hbar }\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \Delta_{M,n-m}^\pm \{(1\mp \cos \theta)(c'+is') \td_{R,m} \nonumber \\
&+ (1 \pm \cos \theta ) (c'-is') \td_{L,m} \pm \sqrt{2} i \sin \theta \td_{z,m}
\} \label{eq_freqoff_sigma} \\
s_{M,n}^0 &= \frac{\hat{d}_M^0 \tilde{L}_M^0}{\sqrt{2} \hbar }\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \Delta_{M,n-m}^0 \{ \sin \theta (s'-ic') \td_{R,m} \nonumber \\
&+ \sin \theta (s'+ic') \td_{L,m} + \sqrt{2} \cos \theta \td_{z,m}
\} \label{eq_freqoff_pi}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\tilde{L}_M^\pm, \tilde{L}_M^0$ are the complex Lorentzian functions, defined by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{L}_M^{\pm ,0} = \frac{1}
{2\pi [\gamma^{\pm ,0} -i (\varpi_n - \Delta \omega_M^{\pm ,0} - v \omega_0 /c)]} ,
\label{eq_complor}
\end{equation}
where the optional symbol $\pm ,0$ as a superscript encompasses all three transition types.
The normalised real Lorentzian is, with the constant of $2\pi$ as used in eq.(\ref{eq_complor}),
\begin{equation}
L_M^{\pm ,0} = \tilde{L}_M^{\pm , 0} + \tilde{L}_M^{(\pm, 0)*} = \frac{\gamma_M^{\pm ,0} /\pi}
{(\gamma_M^{\pm, 0} )^2 + (\varpi_n - \Delta \omega_M^{\pm ,0} - v \omega_0 /c)^2} .
\label{eq_lor}
\end{equation}
It is also necessary to transform the inversion equation, eq.(\ref{eq_invtime}), and this
also contains time-domain products that will transform to frequency-domain convolutions.
In this case, the products are all of electric field complex amplitudes with off-diagonal
DM elements. Operations on the left-hand side proceed in a similar manner to those
for the off-diagonal elements of the DM: terms of order $v/c$ in the Doppler velocity
are ignored, and the transformd equations are algebraic. On the right-hand side, there are
two complicating issues: the first is the pumping term that is not a function of time. We
write this as $P_M^+ \phi (v) {\cal F}^{-1} [\delta_n ]$, where we have taken the $\sigma^+$
version of eq.(\ref{eq_invtime_sig}) as an example, and $\delta_n$ is a $\delta$-function that
has the value $1$ for $n=0$ and zero for any other Fourier component. The second complication
is that we must now transform complex conjugate quantities. We assume here that the
discrete-width transforms used here follow the usual rules, that is for example,
\begin{equation}
\td_R^*(t) = ({\cal F}^{-1}[\td_{R,n}])^* = {\cal F}^{-1}[\td_{R,-n}^*] .
\label{eq_ftconj}
\end{equation}
The products that will transform to convolutions are either of a conjugate complex
amplitude and an ordinary off-diagonal DM element or vice-versa, resulting in the
discrete representations,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_convulconj}
\begin{align}
\! & {\cal F}^{-1}[\td_{R,n}] {\cal F}^{-1}[s_{M+1,-n}^{0*}] = {\cal F}^{-1}[\td_R \otimes s_{M+1}^{0*}]_{n-m} \nonumber \\
&= (2\pi)^{-1} \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \td_{R,m} s_{M+1,m-n}^{0*} \label{eq_convulconj_a} \\
\! & {\cal F}^{-1}[\td_{R,-n}^*] {\cal F}^{-1}[s_{M+1,n}^0] = {\cal F}^{-1}[\td_R^* \otimes s_{M+1}^{0}]_{n+m} \nonumber \\
& = (2\pi)^{-1} \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \td_{R,m}^* s_{M+1,m+n}^0 , \label{eq_convulconj_b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and similarly for other transition types and polarizations. The resulting expressions for
the inversions are
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_freqinv}
\begin{align}
\! & \Delta_{M,n}^\pm = P_M^\pm \phi (v) \delta_n /\Gamma_M^\pm - \tilde{\cal L}_M^\pm /(2 \hbar) \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \{ \nonumber \\
& \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}} [ (is'-c') (\hat{d}_M^{0*} s_{M,m+n}^0 \td_{R,m}^* + \hat{d}_{M\pm1}^0 s_{M\pm1,m-n}^{0*} \td_{L,m}) \nonumber \\
\;\; &+ (is'+c') (\hat{d}_M^{0*} s_{M,m+n}^0 \td_{L,m}^* + \hat{d}_{M\pm1}^0 s_{M\pm1,m-n}^{0*} \td_{R,m}) \nonumber \\
&\pm 2\hat{d}_M^{\pm *} s_{M,m\!+\!n}^\pm \td_{z,m}^* \!-\! \hat{d}_M^{\mp *} s_{M,m\!+\!n}^\mp \td_{z,m}^* \!+\! \hat{d}_{M\!\pm \!2}^\mp s_{M\!\pm \!2,m\!-\!n}^{\mp *} \td_{z,m} ] \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{(1\pm \cos \theta)}{2} [ (s'+ic') (\hat{d}_M^{\mp *} s_{M,m+n}^\mp \td_{R,m}^* ) \nonumber \\
&-(s'-ic')( 2 \hat{d}_M^{\pm *} s_{M,m+n}^\pm \td_{L,m}^* + \hat{d}_{M\pm2}^\mp s_{M\pm2,m-n}^{\mp *} \td_{R,m} ) ] \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{(1\mp \cos \theta)}{2} [-(s'-ic') ( \hat{d}_M^{\mp *} s_{M,m+n}^\mp \td_{L,m}^* ) \nonumber \\
&+ (s'+ic') ( 2 \hat{d}_M^{\pm *} s_{M,m+n}^\pm \td_{R,m}^* + \hat{d}_{M\pm2}^\mp s_{M\pm2,m-n}^{\mp *} \td_{L,m} ) ] \nonumber \\
&+i\cos \theta [ \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_{M,m+n}^0 \td_{z,m}^* + \hat{d}_{M\pm1}^0 s_{M\pm1,m-n}^{0*} \td_{z,m}] \}
\label{eq_freqinv_sig} \\
\! & \Delta_{M,n}^0 = P_M^0 \phi (v) \delta_n /\Gamma_M^0 - \tilde{\cal L}_M^0 /(2 \hbar) \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \{ \nonumber \\
& \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}} [ 2 \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_{M,m+n}^0 ( (is'-c') \td_{R,m}^* + (is'+c') \td_{L,m}^* ) \nonumber \\
&+ (\hat{d}_M^{+*} s_{M,m+n}^+ - \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_{M,m+n}^- ) \td_{z,m}^* \nonumber \\
&- (\hat{d}_{M-1}^+ s_{M-1,m-n}^{+*} - \hat{d}_{M+1}^- s_{M+1,m-n}^{-*} )\td_{z,m} ] \nonumber \\
&+\! \frac{(1 \!+\! \cos \theta)}{2} [ (s'\!+\!ic') ( \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_{M,m\!+\!n}^- \td_{R,m}^* \!\!+\! \hat{d}_{M\!-\!1}^+ s_{M\!-\!1,m\!-\!n}^{+*} \td_{L,m} ) \nonumber \\
&- (s'-ic') ( \hat{d}_M^{+*} s_{M,m+n}^+ \td_{L,m}^* + \hat{d}_{M+1}^- s_{M+1,m-n}^{-*} \td_{R,m}) ] \nonumber \\
&+\! \frac{(1 \!- \! \cos \theta)}{2} [ (s'\!+\!ic') ( \hat{d}_M^{+*} s_{M,m\!+\!n}^+ \td_{R,m}^* \!\!+\! \hat{d}_{M\!+\!1}^- s_{M\!+\!1,m\!-\!n}^{-*} \td_{L,m} ) \nonumber \\
&- (s'-ic') ( \hat{d}_M^{-*} s_{M,m+n}^- \td_{L,m}^* + \hat{d}_{M-1}^+ s_{M-1,m-n}^{+*} \td_{R,m}) ] \nonumber \\
&+ 2i\cos \theta \hat{d}_M^{0*} s_{M,m+n}^0 \td_{z,m}^* , \label{eq_freqinv_pi}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where optional signs have been used in eq.(\ref{eq_freqinv_sig}) to allow this equation to be used
for both $\sigma^+$ (upper sign) and $\sigma^-$ (lower sign). The complex Lorentzian function
$\tilde{\cal L}_M^{\pm , 0}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\cal L}_M^{\pm , 0} = (2\pi)^{-1} [\Gamma_M^{\pm , 0} - i \varpi_n ]^{-1} .
\label{eq_Glor}
\end{equation}
The set of equations comprising the subsets eq.(\ref{eq_freqrt}), eq.(\ref{eq_freqoff})
and eq.(\ref{eq_freqinv}) now form a closed set for the solution of the full maser
amplification problem with full polarization plus OAM in the frequency domain.
All processes of saturation, population pulsation and mode coupling, for example,
are included. The only auxilliary equations required are the definitions of the
molecular velocity distribution function, eq.(\ref{eq_gaussian}), and the definitions of the
Zeeman frequency shifts, eq.(\ref{eq_zshift}). Suitable boundary conditions are to inject
radiation for all Fourier components at $z=0$ with no polarization and no
OAM. This amounts to setting all $z$-component complex amplitudes to zero,
and setting the left- and right-handed complex amplitudes to values appropriate
for background noise with Gaussian statistics. A suitable prescription is
to set each phase to an independent value drawn from a uniform distribution, and
each real amplitude to an independent value drawn from a normal distribution.
Such complexity is not necessary to answer the question of whether a maser can
amplify OAM. By analogy with polarization, we only need to know whether it can
grow: ignore all the more subtle effects, including even saturation, and
study growth of intensity-like variables.
\section{Classical Reduction}
\label{classic}
To make a classical reduction of our system of frequency-domain governing equations,
we make the following approximations: (i) different Fourier components of the radiation
field remain uncorrelated for any degree of saturation; (ii) population is restricted to
a single central Fourier component, numbered zero; (iii) radiation statistics remain
Gaussian at all signal strengths; (iv) Lorentzian functions act effectively
as $\delta$-functions. Point (iii) allows all correlation expressions of
electric field amplitudes to be reduced to correlations of orders 1 and 2 only.
Immediate effects of the above reductions include the collapse of the sums over
$m$ in eq.(\ref{eq_freqoff}) to a single element with
$m=n$. An important consequence is that only the
central Fourier component of the population inversion is required for each
transition type, that is $\Delta_{M,0}^{\pm , 0}$, and similarly for the other subscripts
from $M-2$ to $M+2$.
This restriction on the inversion also leads to a collapse of the sum over $m$ in
eq.(\ref{eq_freqinv}), but we do not need to consider this further because we are
considering only unsaturated amplification. The radiative transfer equations are
not immediately affected by the classical approximations.
\subsection{Stokes and OAM Parameters}
\label{ss:stokes}
A vector of four Stokes parameters gives a complete description of polarized
radiation, but is inadequate to address the additional complication of radiation with OAM.
Since we are measuring the amount of OAM by the presence of a $z$-component of the electric
field, it makes sense to define new parameters that measure both the overall intensity
present in this $z$-component and the intensity of its interaction with the left- and
right-handed polarizations. To this end, we define the OAM parameters,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_oparms}
\begin{align}
J_n &= \langle {\cal J}_n \rangle = \langle \td_{z,n} \td_{z,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_oparams_J} \\
G_n &= \langle {\cal G}_n \rangle = \langle \td_{z,n} \td_{R,n}^* + \td_{R,n} \td_{z,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_oparms_G} \\
H_n &= \langle {\cal H}_n \rangle = \langle \td_{z,n} \td_{L,n}^* + \td_{L,n} \td_{z,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_oparms_H} \\
W_n &= \langle {\cal W}_n \rangle = i \langle \td_{z,n} \td_{R,n}^* - \td_{R,n} \td_{z,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_oparms_W} \\
X_n &= \langle {\cal X}_n \rangle = i \langle \td_{z,n} \td_{L,n}^* - \td_{L,n} \td_{z,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_oparms_X}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
noting that, like the Stokes parameters, all these new parameters are real.
The angle brackets denote an average over a good statistical number of
realizations of the electric field. Each realization, in the present context,
corresponds to an individual spectral sample of duration $T$ \citep{1978PhRvA..17..701M,2009MNRAS.396.2319D}.
The first of these new parameters is a measure of the total intensity of
OAM present, as measured from the intensity of the $z$-component of the
electric field. The other four parameters are a measure of the interaction of
the OAM with the conventional electric field components in the $xy$ (or $r\phi$)
plane. By summing the squares of eq.(\ref{eq_oparms_G})-eq.(\ref{eq_oparms_X}), it
is straightforward to show that these parameters satisfy the relation,
\begin{equation}
G_n^2 + H_n^2 + W_n^2 + X_n^2 = 2 I_n J_n .
\label{eq_sqoparms}
\end{equation}
We also maintain the definition of the Stokes parameters that is compatible
with the IEEE convention on left- and right-handed polarization, the IAU axis
system, and the IAU convention that defines positive Stokes-$V$ as an excess
of right-handed over left-handed polarization. Such a set is,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_sparms}
\begin{align}
I_n &= \langle {\cal I}_n \rangle = \langle \td_{R,n} \td_{R,n}^* + \td_{L,n} \td_{L,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_sparms_I} \\
Q_n &= \langle {\cal Q}_n \rangle = \langle \td_{R,n} \td_{L,n}^* + \td_{L,n} \td_{R,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_sparms_Q} \\
U_n &= \langle {\cal U}_n \rangle = i \langle \td_{R,n} \td_{L,n}^* - \td_{L,n} \td_{R,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_sparms_U} \\
V_n &= \langle {\cal V}_n \rangle = \langle \td_{R,n} \td_{R,n}^* - \td_{L,n} \td_{L,n}^* \rangle \label{eq_sparms_V} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We note that these Stokes parameters, and the OAM parameters in eq.(\ref{eq_oparms}), should formally
be multiplied by a constant that gives them units of specific intensity. However, as we will construct
equations below, in Section~\ref{ss:intense}, that are linear in the Stokes and OAM parameters, we
omit this constant as it will cancel from both sides of each equation.
\subsection{Intensity Equations}
\label{ss:intense}
We construct equations for the transport of the OAM and Stokes parameters by differentiating the definitions
in eq.(\ref{eq_oparms}) and eq.(\ref{eq_sparms}) with respect to $z$. For example, the unaveraged form of the parameter ${\cal G}_n$
from eq.(\ref{eq_oparms_G}) gives us,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d{\cal G}_n}{dz} = \td_{z,n} \frac{d\td_{R,n}^*}{dz} + \td_{R,n}^* \frac{d\td_{z,n} }{dz}
+ \td_{R,n} \frac{\td_{z,n}^*}{dz} + \td_{z,n}^* \frac{\td_{R,n} }{dz} .
\label{eq_gderiv}
\end{equation}
The right-hand sides may be constructed from eq.(\ref{eq_timert_R}), eq.(\ref{eq_timert_z}) and
their complex conjugates. The equations contain various forms of off-diagonal DM element, but
these can in turn be eliminated via eq.(\ref{eq_freqoff}), noting that, in our classical
approximation, $m=n$ is the only term in the sum, and all inversions revert to the central
Fourier component. A final realization average of eq.(\ref{eq_gderiv}) yields the
power-spectrum form, $G_n$. The same method may also be employed for all the other Stokes
and OAM parameters. The results are summarized in the following five transfer equations for
the OAM parameters, as defined in eq.(\ref{eq_oparms})
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_parmgold}
\begin{align}
\! & \frac{dJ_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
2 J_n (2D_{M,n}^0 - \Pi_{M,n} \sin^2 \theta ) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}} (R_{M,n} + \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta) (s' G_n + c' W_n ) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}} (\Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta - R_{M,n}) (s' H_n - c' X_n )
\right\} \label{eq_parmgold_J} \\
& \frac{dG_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
G_n (T_{M,n} -\frac{1}{2} \Pi_{M,n} \sin^2 \theta - R_{M,n} \cos \theta ) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{s'\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} + \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta)(I_n + V_n + 2J_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} - \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta)(s'Q_n - c'U_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - \frac{\Pi_{M,n}\sin^2 \theta}{2} (H_n \cos 2\phi' + X_n \sin 2\phi' ) \right\} \\
& \frac{dH_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
H_n (T_{M,n} -\frac{1}{2} \Pi_{M,n} \sin^2 \theta + R_{M,n} \cos \theta ) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{s'\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(\Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta - R_{M,n})(I_n - V_n + 2J_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} + \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta)(s'Q_n - c'U_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - \frac{\Pi_{M,n}\sin^2 \theta}{2} (G_n \cos 2\phi' - W_n \sin 2\phi' ) \right\} \\
&\frac{dW_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
W_n (T_{M,n} -\frac{1}{2} \Pi_{M,n} \sin^2 \theta - R_{M,n} \cos \theta ) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{c'\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} + \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta )(I_n + V_n + 2J_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} - \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta)(c'Q_n + s'U_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - \frac{\Pi_{M,n}\sin^2 \theta}{2} (X_n \cos 2\phi' - H_n \sin 2\phi' ) \right\} \\
&\frac{dX_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
X_n (T_{M,n} -\frac{1}{2} \Pi_{M,n} \sin^2 \theta + R_{M,n} \cos \theta ) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{c'\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} - \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta )(I_n - V_n + 2J_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} + \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta)(c'Q_n + s'U_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - \frac{\Pi_{M,n}\sin^2 \theta}{2} (W_n \cos 2\phi' + G_n \sin 2\phi' ) \right\},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and in the four following transfer equations for the Stokes parameters, as defined in eq.(\ref{eq_sparms}),
noting that these and the five parts of eq.(\ref{eq_oparms}) together form a coupled set of nine ODEs.
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_stokesgold}
\begin{align}
\! &\frac{dI_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
2I_n (D_{M,n}^+ + D_{M,n}^-) -2 R_{M,n} V_n \cos \theta \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \Pi_{M,n} (I_n -Q_n \cos 2\phi' - U_n \sin 2\phi') \sin^2 \theta \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} + \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta )(s'G_n + c'W_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} - \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta )(s'H_n - c'X_n) \right\} \\
&\frac{dV_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
[2(D_{M,n}^+ + D_{M,n}^-) + \Pi_{M,n}\sin^2 \theta ] V_n \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - 2 R_{M,n} I_n \cos \theta + \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} - \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta )(s'H_n - c'X_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + \frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}}(R_{M,n} + \Pi_{M,n} \cos \theta )(s'G_n + c'W_n) \right\} \\
&\frac{dQ_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
[ 2(D_{M,n}^+ + D_{M,n}^-) + \Pi_{M,n} \sin^2 \theta] Q_n \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + [c' (W_n + X_n) - s' (G_n - H_n) ]\frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}} (R_{M,n}-\Pi_{M,n}\cos \theta) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - \Pi_{M,n} I_n \sin^2 \theta \cos 2\phi' \right\} \\
&\frac{dU_n}{dz} = \frac{1}{8\epsilon_0 \hbar} \sum_{M=-J}^J \left\{
[ 2(D_{M,n}^+ + D_{M,n}^-) + \Pi_{M,n} \sin^2 \theta] U_n \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. + [c' (G_n - H_n) + s' (W_n + X_n) ]\frac{\sin \theta}{\sqrt{2}} (R_{M,n}-\Pi_{M,n}\cos \theta) \right. \nonumber \\
&\left. - \Pi_{M,n} I_n \sin^2 \theta \sin 2\phi' \right\} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In deriving the set of equations, eq.(\ref{eq_parmgold}), we have defined the following
variables related to the inversions:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_dshorty}
\begin{align}
\Pi_{M,n} &= 2D_{M,n}^0 - D_{M,n}^+ - D_{M,n}^- \label{eq_dshorty_pi} \\
R_{M,n} &= D_{M,n}^+ - D_{M,n}^- \label{eq_dshorty_R} \\
T_{M,n} &= 2D_{M,n}^0 + D_{M,n}^+ + D_{M,n}^- \label{eq_dshorty_T}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The first of these variables, $\Pi_{M,n}$, represents any dominance of the inversion
in the $\pi$-transition over the summed inversions in both $\sigma$-transitions at
a frequency local to Fourier component $n$.
The second variable, $R_{M,n}$, expresses any imbalance in the inversions of the
$\sigma$-transitions at the same frequency. This imbalance will be large in a Zeeman group such as
those found in typical OH masers where, in a magnetic field of a few mG, the
$\sigma^+$ and $\sigma-$ spectral lines propagate effectively independently.
The inversion-related functions $D_{M,n}^{\pm , 0}$ are defined in general through the
velocity integrals,
\begin{equation}
D_{M,n}^{\pm , 0} =(\omega_0 /c)|\hat{d}_M^{\pm , 0}|^2 \left\langle \int_{-\infty}^\infty \Delta_{M,0}^{\pm , 0} (v) L_M^{\pm , 0} (v) dv \right\rangle,
\label{eq_bigD}
\end{equation}
where the spatial functional dependence of the inversion has been omitted. The factor of
$\omega_0 /c$ is included because the Lorentzian, as defined in eq.(\ref{eq_lor}), is normalized in
frequency, and this extra factor is required to normalize it in velocity. In the
specific case of negligible saturation, all terms in the radiation complex amplitudes
may be dropped from eq.(\ref{eq_freqinv}), so that, in all three versions, the inversion
in Fourier component zero reduces to the combined form,
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{M,0}^{\pm , 0} (v) = P_M^{\pm ,0} \phi(v) / \Gamma_M^{\pm ,0} ,
\label{eq_unsatinv}
\end{equation}
and, when this is substituted into eq.(\ref{eq_bigD}), the integration can be carried
out, on the assumption that the Lorentzian tends to a $\delta$-function. The realization
averaging can also be dropped, because eq.(\ref{eq_unsatinv}) contains no electric field
amplitudes or elements of the DM. With these points noted,
\begin{equation}
D_{M,n}^{\pm , 0} =(|\hat{d}_M^{\pm , 0}|^2 P_M^{\pm , 0} /\Gamma_M^{\pm ,0} ) \phi [ (c/\omega_0)(\varpi_n - \Delta \omega_M^{\pm ,0})] .
\label{eq_bigDint}
\end{equation}
Note that the Gaussian function is now in terms of local frequency, and peaks at the Zeeman-shifted response frequency
of the relevant transition type.
\section{Discussion}
\label{discuss}
Several useful points may be raised by considering various limits and
special cases of eq.(\ref{eq_parmgold}) and eq.(\ref{eq_stokesgold}). The first is
that the parameter $J_n$ is not directly coupled to any of the Stokes parameters, as
may be seen from eq.(\ref{eq_parmgold_J}). As this parameter effectively represents
the intensity of the $z$-component of the electric field, such intensity can only
arise indirectly from the Stokes parameters via the other four OAM parameters that
represent interactions of the $z$-component of the electric field with circularly-polarized
amplitudes in the $x-y$ plane. However, eq.(\ref{eq_parmgold_J}) does contain a
term in $J_n$ on the right-hand side that allows it to amplify itself, even if it
needs $G_n,H_n,W_n$ and $X_n$ and the Stokes parameters to grow from an initally
zero background level.
The second main point is that any effect involving OAM, at least if we require it
to grow from an OAM-free background, will be strongest when the magnetic field is
close to perpendicular to the $z$-axis ($\sin \theta = 1$ or $\theta = \pi/2$).
If we take this limit, then $J_n$ remains coupled to $G_n,H_n,W_n$ and $X_n$, whilst
these latter four parameters remain coupled to all four Stokes parameters as well
as to linear combinations of themselves with coefficients formed from certain trigonometric functions
of $\phi'$. The equations describing the evolution of the Stokes parameters retain
a similar coupling to the OAM parameters, though not directly to $J_n$ as discussed
above. By contrast, in the other limit, where the magnetic field lies parallel to
the $z$-axis, most of the above couplings are eliminated: the Stokes parameters couple
only to themselves and combinations of other Stokes parameters. All five OAM parameters
are left with the capacity only to amplify themselves, so no OAM at all can result
from an OAM-free background in the parallel configuration.
A third important point, when considering the case where $\sin \theta = 1$, is
that all the terms that couple Stokes parameters to OAM parameters include
a factor of $R_{M,n}$. From eq.(\ref{eq_dshorty_R}), we can see that this parameter
is essentially the difference between the inversions in the $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$
transitions. Unless we have a pumping process that is asymmetric, favouring one
of these over the other (say $P_M^+ > P_M^-$), then we will obtain a number very
close to zero for typical closed shell maser molecules, such as water, methanol
and SiO, where the Zeeman splitting is likely to be dwarfed by the inhomogeneous
(Doppler) line width. The most likely source of OAM is therefore in OH (and possibly CH) masers,
where the Zeeman splitting may comfortably exceed the Doppler width. In this case,
if we choose a Fourier component, $n$, near the centre of the $\sigma^+$ line, we
will find $R_{M,n} \simeq D_{M,n}^+$, with almost no contamination from the $\sigma^-$
line, even if the pumping is symmetric. The best possible situation for generating
OAM in a maser, from an OAM-free background, is therefore in an open-shell molecule
with a large Zeeman splitting, from a $\sigma$-type transition and a non-uniform magnetic field lying in
the $x-y$ plane. Under these circumstances, the OAM parameters $G_n,H_n,W_n$ and $X_n$
can interact directly with Stokes-$I$ and (independently) with $J_n$. Note that
the terms that couple $G_n,H_n,W_n$ and $X_n$ to $J_n$ also contain a comman factor
of $R_{M,n}$ when $\theta = \pi /2$. Generation of OAM may offer a new
explanation for the observation that linearly polarized Zeeman triplets, expected
for a perpendicular magnetic field, are very rare or absent.
\subsection{Restricted Solutions}
\label{ss:restricted}
Having made the general observations above, we now consider analytic solutions
of eq.(\ref{eq_parmgold}) and eq.(\ref{eq_stokesgold}) under a set of conditions that correspond to optimum generation
of OAM: we take the magnetic field to be perpendicular to the line of sight
($\theta=\pi/2$), and pick a Fourier component, $n=k$, that corresponds to the line
centre of the $\sigma^+$ line in a molecule and transition (for example the
rotational ground state of OH) that has a Zeeman splitting that can easily
exceed the Doppler line width. Under these conditions, we may make the
reductions, $D_{M,k}^- = 0$, $R_{M,k} = T_{M,k}=D_{M,k}$ and $\Pi_{M,k}=-D_{M,k}$, so
that $D_{M,k}^+$ becomes a common factor on the right-hand side of all the governing
equations. We extract this factor, and use it to construct the dimensionless line-of-sight
distance,
\begin{equation}
d\zeta = dz D_{M,k}^+ /(8\epsilon_0 \hbar) .
\label{eq_zetadef}
\end{equation}
We assume that the seed radiation of the maser is unpolarized and OAM-free, with
Stokes-$I$ intensity equal to $I_{BG}$. We divide all the governing equations by
$I_{BG}$, and define dimensionless Stokes and OAM parameters as, for example,
$i_k = I_k /I_{BG}$, $q_k = Q_k /I_{BG}$, and similarly for all the other parameters,
writing lower-case letters for the dimensionless forms.
We consider the magnetic field to be of ideal quadrupole form, with Cartesian
components given by $B_x = \vec{B}_0 \cdot \vec{y}$ and $B_y = \vec{B}_0 \cdot \vec{x}$,
where $\vec{B}_0$ is a constant. We pick, for the sake of example, a point on the
$y$-axis, where $\phi=\pi/2$. At this point, $B_y=0$ and $B_x = B_0 y$, and from
eq.(\ref{eq_defphiprime}), we recover $\phi' = \arccos (0) = \pi /2$. We may
therefore insert into all the governing equations the special values,
$\sin \phi' = s' = 1$, $\cos \phi' = c' = 0$, $\sin 2\phi' = 0$ and
$\cos 2 \phi' = -1$. When this has been done, then by inspection, the nine
governing equations break into two decoupled sets: one set of three contains exclusively
functions of $q_k,w_k,x_k$, whilst the other six equations are entirely free of
these parameters. As all of $q_k,w_k,x_k$ are zero at $z = \zeta = 0$, and are
decoupled from $i_k$, the only parameter with a non-zero background, we discard
the smaller set, and write down the remaining six equations:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_slicksix}
\begin{align}
dj_k/d\zeta &= 2j_k + (g_k - h_k) /\sqrt{2} \label{eq_slicksix_j} \\
dg_k/d\zeta &= (i_k + v_k + 2 j_k - q_k)/\sqrt{2} + (3 g_k - h_k)/2 \label{eq_slicksix_g} \\
dh_k/d\zeta &= (v_k -i_k - 2 j_k + q_k)/\sqrt{2} + (3 h_k - g_k)/2 \label{eq_slicksix_h} \\
di_k/d\zeta &= i_k - q_k + (g_k - h_k) /\sqrt{2} \label{eq_slicksix_i} \\
dq_k/d\zeta &= q_k - i_k - (g_k - h_k) /\sqrt{2} \label{eq_slicksix_q} \\
dv_k/d\zeta &= v_k + (g_k + h_k) /\sqrt{2} . \label{eq_slicksix_v}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The set of equations, eq.(\ref{eq_slicksix}), are soluble analytically. The first step
to a solution is to add eq.(\ref{eq_slicksix_i}) to eq.(\ref{eq_slicksix_q}): the right-hand
side of the combined equation is zero, so that $i_k + q_k$ is a constant, and under our
assumed background conditions,
\begin{equation}
i_k(\zeta) + q_k(\zeta) = 1 .
\label{eq_sol0}
\end{equation}
A second useful summation is to add eq.(\ref{eq_slicksix_g}) to eq.(\ref{eq_slicksix_h}), and
then to add the result to $\sqrt{2}$ times eq.(\ref{eq_slicksix_v}). The result is the
differential equation
\begin{equation}
d/d\zeta (\sqrt{2} v_k + g_k + h_k) = 2 (\sqrt{2} v_k + g_k + h_k) .
\label{eq_solbulge}
\end{equation}
If we set $\sigma_k = \sqrt{2} v_k + g_k + h_k$, eq.(\ref{eq_solbulge}) has the solution
$\sigma(\zeta) = \sigma (0) e^{2\zeta}$, but since $\sigma (0) = 0$ under our background
conditions, $\sigma (\zeta)$ is also zero for any larger distance. We therefore require that
\begin{equation}
g_k(\zeta) + h_k(\zeta) = -\sqrt{2} v_k(\zeta) .
\label{eq_sol1}
\end{equation}
We use eq.(\ref{eq_sol0}) and eq.(\ref{eq_sol1}) to eliminate $q_k$ and $v_k$ from eq.(\ref{eq_slicksix}).
Subtraction of the resulting equation in $h_k$ from its counterpart in $g_k$ then yields
\begin{equation}
d/d\zeta (g_k - h_k) = 2\sqrt{2} [i_k + j_k + (g_k - h_k)/\sqrt{2} - 1/2] ,
\label{eq_ykdef}
\end{equation}
and, as $g_k$ and $h_k$ appear only as the combination $g_k - h_k$ in the remaining equations, we
may introduce the new variable $y_k = g_k - h_k$, and write the three remaining equations as
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_last3}
\begin{align}
dj_k/d\zeta &= 2j_k + y_k/\sqrt{2} \label{eq_last3_j} \\
dy_k/d\zeta &= 2\sqrt{2} (i_k + j_k + y_k/\sqrt{2} - 1/2) \label{eq_last3_y} \\
di_k/d\zeta &= 2i_k + y_k/\sqrt{2} - 1 \label{eq_last3_i} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We now let $f_k = i_k + j_k$, and add eq.(\ref{eq_last3_j}) to eq.(\ref{eq_last3_i}), leaving
the pair of equations,
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_pair}
\begin{align}
dy_k/d\zeta &= 2\sqrt{2} (f_k + y_k/\sqrt{2} - 1/2) \label{eq_pair_y} \\
df_k/d\zeta &= 2f_k + \sqrt{2} y_k - 1 \label{eq_last3_f} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Reduction to a single equation is achieved by multiplying eq.(\ref{eq_last3_f}) by $\sqrt{2}$
and adding the result to eq.(\ref{eq_last3_y}). If we define $l_k = y_k + \sqrt{2} f_k$, the
final equation, in standard form as a first-order linear ODE, is
\begin{equation}
dl_k/d\zeta - 4 l_k = - 2\sqrt{2} .
\label{eq_leq}
\end{equation}
Equation~\ref{eq_leq} may be solved by standard methods, and it is then strightforward
to work back through the sequence of intermediate variables, and the constraints from
eq.(\ref{eq_sol0}) and eq.(\ref{eq_sol1}) to the solution of eq.(\ref{eq_slicksix}):
\begin{subequations} \label{eq_solution}
\begin{align}
i_k(\zeta) &= (e^{4\zeta} + 2 e^{2\zeta} + 5)/8 \label{eq_solution_i} \\
j_k(\zeta) &= (e^{4\zeta} - 2 e^{2\zeta} + 1)/8 \label{eq_solution_j} \\
q_k(\zeta) &= (3 - e^{4\zeta} - 2 e^{2\zeta})/8 \label{eq_solution_q} \\
g_k(\zeta) &= (e^{4\zeta} - 1)/(4\sqrt{2}) , \label{eq_solution_g}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
together with the subsidary relations, $h_k (\zeta) = - g_k (\zeta)$ and, consequently
$v_k(\zeta)=0$. By inspection of eq.(\ref{eq_solution}), we can see that all the Stokes
and OAM parameters at moderate signal strengths (much greater than background, but not
saturating) tend to a rising exponential of the form $e^{4\zeta}$, so the OAM parameters
are likely to follow the polarization parameters to achieve levels such that
$j_k/i_k$ and $g_k/(\sqrt{2}i_k)$ tend to 1. The functions are plotted in the small
signal limit in Figure~\ref{fig_radparms}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=130mm]{fig_radparms.eps}
\caption{The non-zero dimensionless Stokes and OAM parameters as functions
of dimensionless distance, $\zeta$, in the small signal limit.}
\label{fig_radparms}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical Experiment}
\label{ss:numerics}
The analytic solutions in Section~\ref{ss:restricted} have demonstrated a non-trivial
coupling of the $z$-component of the electric field to the conventional Stokes parameters.
However, these results do not demonstrate a typical OAM pattern. In this section, we
consider the same quadrupole magnetic field structure, but sample the field at many
radii and azimuthal angles, $\phi$. The analytical solutions above may be considered
a single spatial sample from this array of points.
Additional geometrical considerations now need to be considered. The magnetic field magnitude now
increases outwards from the orign, where it is zero and the overlap of the $\pi$ and $\sigma$
responses is complete. There will therefore be no polarization or OAM generated at the origin.
As the radius is increased, the Zeeman splitting will rise, and the centre of the $\sigma^+$
response will move red-ward towards our chosen frequency, $\varpi_k$. As the radius continues
to increase, $\varpi_k$ will sample a decreasing wing of the Gaussian response. Although the
magnetic field intensity continues to rise, the exponential drop in the response will ensure
that, beyond a certain radius, there will be negligible amplification at $\varpi_k$. Rather
arbitrarily, we will set $\varpi_k$ to be -3 Doppler full widths ($k=-3$) to the red of the pattern
line centre, $\omega_0$. This value ensures a clean separation between the $\pi$ and $\sigma$
line shapes.
Our definition of $\zeta$ in this section differs slightly from that in Section~\ref{ss:restricted}.
Here, we reduce eq.(\ref{eq_stokesgold}) and eq.(\ref{eq_parmgold}) to dimensionless form by
dividing all equations by the group $D_{0,0}=|d_0|^2 P_0 \phi (0)/ \Gamma_0$: we have assumed
$M=0$ and symmetric pumping $P_M^+=P_M^-=P_M^0=P_0$, and similarly for the dipoles and
loss-rates. As a consequence, dimensionless inversion expressions, such as $R_{0,k}$ and $\Pi_{0,k}$ reduce
simply to differences of various Gaussians, centered on the associated molecular responses.
For example,
\begin{equation}
R_{0,k} = e^{-[(\varpi_k - \Delta \omega_0^+ )/\Delta \omega_D ]^2 } - e^{ -[(\varpi_k - \Delta \omega_0^-)/\Delta \omega_D ]^2 } ,
\label{eq_Rexample}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta \omega_D = w \omega_0 /c$, and $w$ is in turn defined in eq.(\ref{eq_gwidth}).
All radiation parameters are scaled by the level of the input seed radiation in Stokes-$I$; the
other radiation parameters all have a background level of $0$.
The dimensionless evolution equations were solved using a Runge-Kutta fourth-order method with
adaptive step-size control, maintained by a fifth-order accuracy checker
\citep{1992nrfa.book.....P}. The results discussed below were drawn from a run
with an integration accuracy of $2 \times 10^{-7}$.
In Figure~\ref{fig_composite}, we plot the emergent radiation parameters as a function of
distance from the origin (position of zero magnetic field) on Cartesian axes.
These axes conform to the IAU standard, as discussed in
Section~\ref{axes}, so that the $x$-axis points vertically up the page (North) and the $y$-axis
increases to the left. Distances are in magnetic field strength units, as required to yield a certain
Zeeman splitting in Doppler widths. The azimuthal angle, $\phi$ is
measured anticlockwise from its zero position at North.
The $z$-axis, along which the radiation propagated, points out of the
page towards the observer, and all parameters have been amplified over the same
dimensionless distance of $\zeta = 4.0$, a value that corresponds to moderate amplification:
peak values of Stokes-$I$ are vastly greater than the background, but still low enough that
saturation is negligible for a realistic OH maser that is amplifying a CMB background.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=175mm]{fig_composite.eps}
\caption{The emergent radiation parameters of a single Fourier component in the sky plane
after propagation along the $z$-axis over a
dimensionless distance of $\zeta = 4.0$. Each sub-figure has its own colour scale, shown to
the right of the diagram. Figures on this scale are multiples of the seed value of Stokes-$I$.
The $x$ and $y$ axes are drawn to conform to the IAU convention: with
radiation approaching, $x$ increases up the page, and $y$, to the left. The $x$ and $y$ axes
are in Doppler or Zeeman units, so a distance of three units from the origin produces a
magnetic field capable of shifting the response of a $\sigma$-transition by three Doppler
widths from the frequency of the central $\pi$-component.}
\label{fig_composite}
\end{figure*}
In all cases, the radial structure of the radiation pattern is controlled by a combination
of the magnetic field strength (which increases outwards) and the Doppler response of the
molecules, which may be considered Gaussian. We see the brightest emission close to a
radius of $3$, where the magnetically shifted response in the $\sigma^+$ part of the Zeeman
pattern lies closest to our chosen Fourier component with $k=-3$. Different Fourier
components will exhibit different patterns. Choosing $k=+3$ would produce a very similar
radial pattern, but with the signs of some parameters reversed.
The angular distributions are determined partly by the angular functions of $\phi'$ that
appear in eq.(\ref{eq_parmgold}) and eq.(\ref{eq_stokesgold}) (variously sines and cosines
of either $\phi'$ or $2 \phi'$) and partly by the exponential nature of the
maser amplification. In particular, all OAM parameters are zero, as are
Stokes-$U$ and $V$, at $\phi = \phi' = 0$, the
standard reduction to the case of a uniform magnetic field. This confirms the
hypothesis that OAM cannot be generated from a uniform field, an outcome that is
not obvious by inspection of eq.(\ref{eq_parmgold}).
A difference between Stokes-$I$ and the OAM-$J$ parameter that is not immediately
apparent in Figure~\ref{fig_composite} is that $I$ is not zero at $\phi=0$: instead, it
has a value of $1.45 \times 10^3$, compared to its peak of $1.05 \times 10^6$ at
$\phi = \pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$. The maxima of $I$ and $J$ are very similar, indicating
that the fractional level of OAM, like polarization, may become very large without
invoking saturation. The only other parameter that is non-zero at $\phi=0$ (and $\pi$)
is Stokes-$Q$: it is {\em positive} at this angle, with a value of $1.45 \times 10^3$,
before giving way to negative values of much larger magnitude at angles closer to the $y$-axis.
Physically, the larger values of Stokes-$I$ near $\phi=\pi/2$, compared to $\phi=0$, probably result
from the radiation at the former position coupling to all three Cartesian components
of the molecular dipole; at the latter position, corresponding to the polarization-only
case, radiation can couple only to the dipole components in the $xy$-plane.
There is a general hierarchy of (absolute) peak values: levels of approximately $10^6$ are
achieved by the Stokes parameters $I$ and $Q$, by the $z$-component intensity, $J$, and
the two symmetric coupling parameters $G$ and $H$. A second set, comprising the asymmetric
coupling parameters $W$ and $X$, together with Stokes $U$, achieve peaks of order
one order of magnitude lower $\sim 10^5$. Finally Stokes-$V$ is very weakly amplified,
always negative, and has an absolute peak of $\sim 700$. It is probably also worth
noting that whilst non-zero values of $W$ are exclusively positive, $X$ it not
completely negative, achieving a positive peak of approximately 680.
The exponential nature of maser amplification introduces a number of feaures that
are not typical of radiation beams with OAM in the laboratory. For example, a
laboratory beam in an L-G mode with azimuthal order $l=2$ might be expected to
have an annular intensity pattern, and a $\sin 2\phi$ structure in phase. It
should be pointed out here that the intensity, as represented by Stokes-$i$ in
Figure~\ref{fig_composite}, is annular, but amplified interaction with other
Stokes and OAM parameters have introduced an additional very strong angular
structure. Parameters more sensitive to the phase, such as $G,H,W,X$ show
a pattern that is close to $\sin \phi$ (for $G$,$H$) and $\sin 2\phi$ (in $W$ and $X$) at
low amplification, but these patterns again become distorted by exponential
growth. Peaks in the weaker parameters, for example $W$ and $X$, at odd multiples of $\pi/4$
migrate with amplification towards the peaks of the stronger parameters.
Lack of linearly polarized Zeeman triplet patterns is a well-known observational
feature of OH maser sources. Such patterns would logically arise from the
propagation of maser radiation perpendicular to magnetic field lines, but
appear rare compared to the Zeeman pairs of opposite-handed circular or
elliptically polarized components generated by propagation that is close to
aligned with the magnetic field. Many reasons for the lack of triplets have
been suggested, including MHD turbulence \citep{1995ApJ...438..763G}, Faraday depolarization within
the source \citep{1973ApJ...179..111G} and preferential beaming along
magnetic field lines \citep{1994A&A...292..693G}.
Another possibility, arising from the present work, is that linearly-polarized
masers may also possess high degrees of OAM, and may therefore be
invisible to conventional radio detection equipment. It is certainly most
unlikely that magnetic fields perpendicular to the line of sight will be
totally uniform, but they do seem to be ordered on the scale of the source, down
to a clustering scale of order 70\,AU. For an OAM scheme to work, magnetic
fields would need to be non-uniform on the scale of individual VLBI maser
spots: perhaps 10\,AU or even less, and evidence that the sky-component of
the magnetic field tends to be aligned with the long axis of an individual
spot \citep{2006ApJS..164...99F} suggests some ordering of the field even at
this scale. Nevertheless, while the arrangement used in the present work is
highly idealized, a significant yield of radiation with OAM from at
least some OH masers seems likely.
The radiation patterns produced as a function of radius and
angle in the present work do not correspond to any single
Laguerre-Gaussian mode. However, they do reveal the underlying
symmetry of the magnetic field, and the spectrum of modes present
is therefore likely to yield information about the structure
of the magnetic field on scales smaller than the size of
the maser spot itself. By contrast, polarization, assuming
a uniform field in each spot, can only tell us about the
variation of the magnetic field over an area of sky
containing many spots. The fraction of radiation converted
to OAM also helps us to reconstruct the magnetic field in
3-D, since a field parallel to the line of sight produces
no OAM (if the background radiation has none), whilst increasing
amounts of OAM result as $\theta$ is increased towards $\pi /2$.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclusion}
We have extended the standard theory of propagation of polarized astrophysical maser radiation
to the case of a non-uniform magnetic field, allowing for the presence of a component of
the electric field of the radiation in the propagation direction. A set of equations for the
evolution of the complex amplitudes of the radiation has been derived in the time domain, and
converted to the frequency domain, where we consider many finite-width Fourier components of the radiation field,
collectively extending across the full Zeeman pattern. A classical reduction of the frequency-domain
equations leads to a set of nine coupled differential equations for the distance evolution of
the standard Stokes parameters and five additional parameters that represent a coupling
of the $z$-component of the electric field to the usual $x$ and $y$ components. These latter
five parameters may represent radiation with orbital angular momentum (OAM).
There is a non-trivial coupling between the response of Zeeman-split molecules in
a non-uniform magnetic field, and the electric field of radiation in the direction
of propagation, and this coupling is strongest when the magnetic field is perpendicular
to the propagation direction. Although it is not obvious from the evolution equations,
the standard reduction to a uniform field (setting the azimuthal angle $\phi'=0$) results
in radiation that may have polarization, but no OAM. This result was confirmed in
Section~\ref{ss:numerics}. The OAM coupling is also most effective when, for a selected
Fourier component or frequency, there is a large difference between the inversions in
the various $\pi$- and $\sigma$-transitions of the Zeeman pattern. If we assume symmetric
pumping, this implies that OAM generation will be significantly more efficient in
molecules with a large Zeeman splitting (for example OH) than in closed-shell species
(for example SiO, water and methanol).
A restricted analytical solution demonstrates that the coupling of the parameters
representing OAM to the Stokes parameters, particularly Stokes-$I$, is non-trivial.
For a suitable non-uniform magnetic field, in this case an ideal quadrupole, OAM
can be generated from seed radiation without OAM or polarization, just as polarization
may be so generated in a uniform field. Levels of OAM may grow large without the
need for maser saturation.
A trial computational solution of the governing equations shows that in an intermediate
amplification regime (intensity vastly greater than the background, but not saturating)
OAM parameters may become large, at least with a non-uniform magnetic field of rather
ideal structure. Maser radiation propagated perpendicular to the magnetic field may
therefore evolve OAM fractions approaching 100 per cent. There is a hierarchy of
amplification levels with Stokes-$I$ and the OAM parameters $J$,$G$ and $H$ as the
strongest set, followed by $W$, $X$ and Stokes $U$, and finally a weakly amplified Stokes-$V$.
Radiation patterns depart from usual OAM expectations owing to the exponential
amplification of angular structure.
OAM conversion may partially account for the loss of linearly-polarized OH masers
if non-uniform magnetic fields are common at the scales typical of resolved
VLBI maser spots. Additional diagnostic value of OAM radiation, in the
context of the present work, is discussed at the end of
Section~\ref{ss:numerics}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Computations were carried out on the Legion supercomputer at the
HiPerSPACE Computing Centre, University College London, which
is funded by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the primary quests of astronomy is understanding the formation
of structure in the universe. In this regard, the $\Lambda$ Cold Dark
Matter ($\Lambda$CDM) cosmological model is consistent with many
observable phenomena, but there are discrepancies at small scales
(Kauffmann et al.\ 1993). Specifically, $\Lambda$CDM predicts many
more dark-matter sub-halos than the number observed as dwarf galaxies
(e.g., Moore et al.\ 1999; Klypin et al.\ 1999) -- the
``missing satellite'' problem. As
one way of rectifying this problem, Bullock et al.\ (2001) put forth
the idea that reionization could have suppressed star formation in the
smallest DM sub-halos (see also Babul \& Rees 1992), essentially by
boiling the gas out of their shallow potential wells. The dearth of
stars would then make these sub-halos difficult or impossible to detect.
Building upon
this hypothesis, Ricotti \& Gnedin (2005) proposed that dwarf galaxies
could follow one of three evolutionary paths: ``true fossils'' that
formed most of their stars prior to reionization, ``polluted fossils''
with star formation continuing beyond reionization, and ``survivors''
that largely formed their stars after reionization. It is now common
for galaxy formation models to alleviate the missing satellite problem
by truncating the star formation in DM halos below some nominal
mass threshold, sometimes termed the ``filtering mass,'' with this threshold
tuned to match the observations (e.g., Tumlinson 2010;
Mu$\tilde{\rm n}$oz et al.\ 2009; Bovill et al.\ 2009, 2011a, 2011b;
Koposov et al.\ 2009; Li et al.\ 2010; Salvadori et al.\ 2009, 2014).
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{{\it HST} ACS Observations}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccrrr}
\tableline
& & & & & Field\tablenotemark{c} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Exposure per tile} & \\
& R.A.\tablenotemark{a} & Dec.\tablenotemark{a} & $(m-M)_V$\tablenotemark{b} & E$(B-V)$\tablenotemark{b} & Contamination & F606W & F814W & \\
Name & (J2000) & (J2000) & (mag) & (mag) & (\%) &(s) & (s) & Tiles \\
\tableline
Bootes I & 14:00:04&+14:30:47& 19.11$\pm$0.07 & 0.04$\pm$0.01 & 7.9 & 2,340 & 2,200 & 5\\
Canes Venatici II & 12:57:10&+34:19:23& 21.04$\pm$0.06 & 0.04$\pm$0.01 & 2.2 & 20,850 & 20,850 & 1\\
Coma Berenices & 12:27:21&+23:53:13& 18.08$\pm$0.10 & 0.04$\pm$0.01 & 24 & 2,340 & 2,200 & 12\\
Hercules & 16:31:05&+12:47:07& 20.92$\pm$0.05 & 0.09$\pm$0.01 & 6.1 & 12,880 & 12,745 & 2\\
Leo IV & 11:32:57&-00:31:00& 21.12$\pm$0.07 & 0.08$\pm$0.01 & 3.7 & 20,530 & 20,530 & 1\\
Ursa Major I & 10:35:04&+51:56:51& 20.10$\pm$0.05 & 0.05$\pm$0.01 & 17 & 4,215 & 3,725 & 9\\
\tableline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^{\rm a}$Center of ACS observations.} \\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^{\rm b}$Apparent distance moduli and extinctions are determined from fits to the ACS data.} \\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^{\rm c}$Contamination near the upper MS, based upon the Besan\c{c}on Galaxy model (Robin et al.\ 2003).} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Over the same time period, wide-field surveys revealed the existence
of additional dwarf satellites around the Milky Way (e.g., Willman et
al.\ 2005; Zucker et al.\ 2006; Belokurov et al.\ 2007) and Andromeda
(e.g., Zucker et al.\ 2004, 2007; McConnachie et al.\ 2009; Majewski
et al.\ 2007; Irwin et al.\ 2008; Martin et al.\ 2009). The ultra-faint
dwarf (UFD) galaxies have luminosities of $M_V > -8$~mag ($M_* \lesssim
10^4~M_\odot$; Martin et al.\ 2008b), and thus most
are fainter than the typical globular cluster. Photometric and
spectroscopic observations of the UFD galaxies
have shown that they are excellent candidates for demonstrating the
existence of fossil galaxies. Color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs)
indicate the UFDs are generally dominated by old ($>$10~Gyr)
populations (e.g., Sand et al.\ 2009, 2010; Okamoto et al.\ 2008,
2010, 2012; de Jong et al.\ 2008b; Hughes et al.\ 2008; Martin et
al.\ 2008a; Greco et al.\ 2008; Mu\~noz et al.\ 2010; Weisz et
al.\ 2014b), while spectroscopy of their giant stars indicates low
metallicities, but with a dispersion significantly larger than the
measurement errors (Frebel et al.\ 2010; Norris et al.\ 2010; Kirby et
al.\ 2008, 2011, 2013). The internal kinematics from such
spectroscopy also imply large mass-to-light ratios ($M/L_V \gtrsim
100$; e.g., Kleyna et al.\ 2005; Mu\~noz et al.\ 2006; Martin et
al.\ 2007; Simon \& Geha 2007). Because even the most massive
globular clusters have $M/L_V$ ratios consistent with little to no
dark matter (e.g., Baumgardt et al.\ 2009; van de Ven et al.\ 2006;
Bradford et al.\ 2012),
the high $M/L_V$ in the UFDs is one of the characteristics that marks
them as galaxies, instead of star clusters, despite their low
luminosities. Another distinction with most star clusters is the fact
that the stellar populations of galaxies exhibit spreads in age and
metallicity. Given their low metallicities, old ages, faint luminosities, and
high $M/L_V$ ratios, the UFDs are an excellent laboratory to search
for reionization signatures in the star formation history (SFH) of
small DM sub-halos, and to assess the possible solutions to the
missing satellite problem.
In this paper, we present new constraints on the SFHs of six UFD
galaxies: Bootes I (Boo~I), Canes Venatici~II (CVn~II), Coma Berenices
(Com~Ber), Hercules, Leo~IV, and Ursa Major~I (UMa~I). Our analysis
focuses on high-precision photometry, from the Advanced Camera for
Surveys (ACS) on the {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}, and new
medium-resolution spectroscopy, from the DEep Imaging Multi-Object
Spectrograph (DEIMOS) on the {\it W.M. Keck Observatory}. We
interpret these data using a new isochrone grid generated with the
{\it Victoria-Regina} code (VandenBerg et al.\ 2012), employing the
latest physics, and assuming abundance profiles appropriate to the
extremely metal-poor populations of the UFDs.
\section{Observations and Data Reduction}
\subsection{Hubble}
\subsubsection{Observations}
From Aug 2011 through Jun 2012, we obtained deep optical images of
each galaxy in our sample (Table~1) using the F606W and F814W filters
on ACS (GO-12549; PI Brown). A preliminary analysis of the earliest observations in this
program was given by Brown et al.\ (2012).
These galaxies were chosen to provide a representative sample
of UFDs with integrated luminosities well below those of the classical
dwarf spheroidals, but bright enough to provide sufficient numbers of
stars for the SFH analysis. Specifically, the goal was to obtain
photometry with a high signal-to-noise ratio ($SNR \sim 100$) for
$\gtrsim$100 stars within 1~mag of the main sequence (MS) turnoff,
thus cleanly defining the upper MS, subgiant branch (SGB), and lower
red giant branch (RGB), and allowing sub-Gyr precision in
relative ages. The turnoff has long been a reliable clock
for the dating of stellar populations (e.g., Iben \& Renzini 1984;
VandenBerg et al.\ 1990), becoming fainter and redder at increasing
age, but the changes are subtle at old ages. For example, at
[Fe/H]=$-2.4$ and 12~Gyr, an age increase of 1~Gyr shifts the turnoff
0.09~mag fainter in $m_{\rm 814}$ and 0.01~mag redder in $m_{\rm 606}
- m_{\rm 814}$. Although there is no age information below the
turnoff, obtaining high SNR photometry at the turnoff produces
photometry with a faint limit below 0.5~$M_\odot$ on the MS, enabling
measurements of the stellar initial mass function (IMF; see Geha et
al.\ 2013). Because their distances and apparent sizes span a wide
range, the observing strategy for each galaxy was tailored to obtain
photometry of similar quality in each galaxy, surveying a wide but
shallow area in the relatively nearby satellites (e.g., Com~Ber), and
a narrow but deep pencil beam in the more distant satellites (e.g., CVn~II).
\subsubsection{Reduction}
The images were processed with the latest pipeline updates, including
a pixel-based correction (version 3.2) for charge-transfer inefficiency (CTI;
Anderson \& Bedin 2010) resulting from radiation damage to the ACS
detectors. The individual exposures were dithered to enable
resampling of the point spread function (PSF), mitigation of
detector artifacts (hot pixels, dead pixels), and cosmic ray rejection. The
exposures for each tile in each band were coadded with the {\sc
drizzle} package (Fruchter \& Hook 2002), using the {\sc tweakshifts}
routine to iteratively solve for the offsets between individual images.
This process produced
geometrically-correct images with a scale of 0.035$^{\prime\prime}$
pixel$^{-1}$ and an area of approximately $210^{\prime\prime} \times
220^{\prime\prime}$.
\subsubsection{Photometry}
We performed both aperture and PSF-fitting photometry using the
DAOPHOT-II package (Stetson 1987), assuming a spatially-variable PSF
constructed from isolated stars. The final catalog combined aperture
photometry for stars with photometric errors $<$0.01~mag and
PSF-fitting photometry for the rest, with both normalized to an infinite
aperture. Due to the scarcity of bright stars, the uncertainty in the
normalization to an infinite aperture is $\sim$0.02~mag. For the
three nearest galaxies (Com~Ber, Boo~I, and UMa~I), the scarcity of
bright stars in any individual tile hampered the construction of an
accurate PSF model, so a spatially-dependent PSF model for each galaxy
was constructed from all of the tiles in a given band, selecting isolated
bright stars from each tile. For Hercules,
there were enough stars to construct an independent PSF model in each
of the two tiles, but then the normalizations of those PSF models were
adjusted to give agreement between the two tiles. Similarly, the
single tiles obtained in Leo~IV and CVn~II were sufficiently populated
to construct spatially-dependent PSF models for each. Our photometry
is in the STMAG system: $m= -2.5 \times $~log$_{10} f_\lambda -21.1$.
The catalogs were cleaned of background galaxies and stars with poor
photometry using the $\chi^2$ of the PSF fitting, the PSF sharpness,
and photometric errors. Stars were also rejected if they fell within
the wings of brighter neighbors or within the extent of a background
galaxy. After all the cuts were applied, between 12\% and 35\% of the
sources were rejected from each catalog, largely near the faint limit.
Transformation from the {\it HST} photometric system to a ground-based
system incurs significant systematic errors, as explored by Sirianni
et al.\ (2005). For this reason, a direct comparison between our
photometry and previously-published catalogs is of limited utility.
However, for one galaxy in our sample (CVn~II), a catalog with bands
that overlap with our own ($V$ and $I$) is publicly available (Sand et
al.\ 2012). The transformations in Sirianni et al.\ (2005) do not
reflect the updates to the ACS calibration after the last {\it HST}
servicing mission, but we can derive our own transformations, using
the available throughput curves in each system and the synthetic
spectral library of Gustafsson et al.\ (2008). Doing so, we find that
the photometry of the brightest stars in our catalog (20--23~mag)
agrees with the Sand et al.\ (2012) photometry of these same stars at
the level of 0.03~mag. This comparison demonstrates that there are no
gross calibration differences between the {\it HST} photometry and
previously published photometry from the ground.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\plotone{f1.eps}
\caption{The CMD of each UFD in our sample (black points).
For reference, we show
the empirical ridge line for the MS, SGB, and RGB in M92 (green
curve), along with the HB locus in M92 (green points). The M92
fiducial has been placed at the distance and reddening for
each galaxy (Table~1), matching the luminosity of HB stars
and the color of the lower MS stars. Because the CMD of each galaxy
looks, to first order, like that of a ancient metal-poor globular
cluster, the stellar population of each galaxy is dominated by
ancient metal-poor stars. The CMDs of these galaxies are all extremely
similar to one another, implying they have similar stellar populations
and star formation histories.}
\end{figure*}
To properly account for the photometric errors and completeness, we
performed artificial star tests using the same photometric routines
that were employed for the photometric catalogs. During such tests,
one does not want to affect the crowding of the images, so small
numbers of artificial stars were repeatedly added to each image and
then blindly recovered, until there were over 5,000,000 artificial
stars for each galaxy. To ensure that the noise in the artificial
stars accurately represented that in the data in this high SNR regime,
we included detector effects that would not be experienced by an
artificial star simply inserted into the images and recovered. We
assumed a residual flat fielding error of 1\% (Gonzaga et al.\ 2014),
and inserted artificial stars with the reduction in signal appropriate
for the CTI that a real star would encounter at that signal level and
background in each image (using the forward-modeling CTI software that
is included in the CTI correction package). Although CTI losses in
both real and artificial stars can be corrected to the appropriate
flux level, these corrections do not recover the loss of SNR, because
measurements still have the shot noise on the reduced signal.
Neglecting this effect in the artificial star tests would make the
photometry of artificial stars slightly less noisy than that of the
real stars at the same magnitude.
\subsubsection{Color-Magnitude Diagrams}
The CMD of each galaxy in our survey is shown in Figure~1. Two aspects
of these CMDs are immediately apparent. First, the tight stellar
locus of each CMD resembles that of a Galactic globular cluster, as
will be discussed in the next section. Second, the CMDs all appear
extremely similar to each other, implying the population ages and
metallicities are also similar. In Figure~2, we show the composite
CMD for all 6 galaxies in our sample, each shifted to the same
distance and reddening (see \S3.1), and focused on the CMD region most
sensitive to age (i.e., the MS turnoff and SGB). To the eye, each UFD
appears to be dominated by an ancient metal-poor population.
\begin{figure}[t]
\plotone{f2.eps}
\caption{The CMD of each UFD (colored points), shifted
to the distance and reddening of Hercules, and zoomed
into the CMD region most sensitive to age.
The similarities of the 6 CMDs imply that the UFD populations
are extremely similar in age and metallicity.}
\end{figure}
Further inspection of the CMDs reveals other details worth noting.
Field contamination is high for those relatively nearby galaxies that
were observed in several tiles (Com~Ber, Boo~I, and UMa~I), and is
apparent from the scattering of stars beyond the main stellar locus.
The level of field contamination in the vicinity of the upper MS,
where we fit the SFH,
can be estimated by transforming the
Besan\c{c}on Galaxy model (Robin et al.\ 2003) to the ACS bands used
here, and is reported in Table~1. The contamination depends upon
the surface brightness of each galaxy, and scales with
the number of tiles observed. There are also a few blue straggler
(BS) stars apparent in each CMD, falling to the blue and extending
brighter than the dominant MS turnoff. Although BS stars are common
in ancient populations, they can mimic a much younger sub-population.
For example, the turnoff mass at 12--13~Gyr is $\sim$0.8~$M_\odot$, but
BS stars can be up to twice as large, which would not normally appear on
the MS for populations older than 2~Gyr.
The BS frequency is generally expressed relative
to that of horizontal branch (HB) stars. In globular clusters,
$N_{BS} / N_{HB}$ typically ranges from 0.1 to 1 (e.g., Piotto et
al.\ 2004; Ferraro et al.\ 2014). In the Galactic halo, Preston \& Sneden (2000) find a
much higher ratio: $N_{BS} / N_{HB}$~=~4.4. In low-luminosity dwarf
galaxies, Momany et al.\ (2007) find $N_{BS} / N_{HB}$ ranging from 1
to 4, and Santana et al.\ (2013) found the frequency of BS stars to be
similar in UFDs and the classical dwarf spheroidals.
For the UFD CMDs here, our statistics on both BS stars and HB
stars are too poor to give strong constraints on the BS frequency;
assuming that HB stars cannot fall more than 0.2~mag below the
expected HB locus, we estimate that
$N_{BS} / N_{HB} \sim 2$. BS stars are largely excluded from our fits, except
for any that might lie immediately adjacent to the dominant MS.
\subsection{Keck}
\subsubsection{Observations}
Metallicities for limited samples of stars in five of the six UFDs
targeted with {\it HST} were determined by Kirby et al.\ (2008),
Kirby et al.\ (2011), and Vargas et al.\ (2013), based on the
medium-resolution (1.37~\AA\ FWHM)
{\it Keck} spectroscopy of Simon \& Geha (2007). However, fewer than 16
measurements were available in every galaxy except UMa~I, and Simon \&
Geha (2007) did not observe Boo~I at all. To improve the constraints
on the metallicity distributions (which, in turn, improve the
constraints on the ages determined from the {\it HST} photometry), we
obtained new Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopy for larger samples of stars in
Leo~IV, Com~Ber, CVn~II, Boo~I, and Hercules. On the nights of 2013
March 10--11, 2013 April 12, and 2013 May 3--4, we observed a total of
13 slit masks, with typical integration times of 1--3~hr. Conditions
during the observations ranged from good to poor. Mask design and
calibration procedures followed those established by Simon \& Geha
(2007), Geha et al.\ (2009), and Simon et al.\ (2011). For Hercules
and Com~Ber, we also include several slit masks observed in 2010 and
2011 that have not yet been published. Note that the spectroscopic
samples were targeted and analyzed using ground-based photometry,
instead of the {\it HST}/ACS photometry described above.
The small {\it HST} field of view is insufficient for multi-object
spectroscopic selection, and much of the Keck analysis preceded
the {\it HST}/ACS observations.
\subsubsection{Reduction}
The spectroscopic data were reduced with our slightly modified versions of the
DEEP2 pipeline (Cooper et al.\ 2012), as described in Simon \& Geha (2007).
We measure stellar metallicities using the large
number of neutral iron lines included in our spectral range ($6300 <
\lambda < 9100$~\AA). We match each spectrum against a grid of
synthetic spectra sampling a wide range in [Fe/H], [$\alpha$/Fe],
log~$g$, and $T_{\rm eff}$ (Kirby 2011). Prior to
fitting, we degrade the synthetic spectra to the DEIMOS resolution. We
excise wavelength regions affected by telluric contamination, strong
sky emission lines, and regions improperly synthesized due to NLTE
effects (Ca triplet and \ion{Mg}{1} $\lambda$8807).
\subsubsection{Metallicities}
We determine the best-fitting $T_{\rm eff}$ and [Fe/H] values
simultaneously from $\chi^2$ minimization of the pixel-by-pixel flux
difference between the observed spectra and the synthetic grid, using
only spectral regions sensitive to variations in Fe abundance. We
separately fit [$\alpha$/Fe] using regions sensitive to Mg, Si, Ca,
and Ti variations. We then refit the Fe abundance while fixing
[$\alpha$/Fe].
The uncertainty in [Fe/H] includes two components. The random
component is the 1$\sigma$ error in [Fe/H] from
the $\chi^2$ fitting, accounting for the non-zero covariance between
$T_{\rm eff}$ and [Fe/H]. A systematic error floor of 0.11~dex
is added in quadrature to the random errors for individual stars.
It reflects the non-vanishing difference between DEIMOS
and high-resolution [Fe/H] measurements in the limit of very small
random errors (high SNR). We refer the reader to Kirby et al.\ (2010) and
Vargas et al.\ (2013) for an in-depth description of the analysis.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\plotone{f3.eps}
\caption{
The observed spectroscopic MDF for each UFD (black histograms), along
with an estimate for the PMDF (grey shading; arbitrarily normalized to
the peak of each MDF), given the measured spectroscopic uncertainties.
The observed MDF is used to constrain the SFH fits, while the PMDF is
used to generate Monte Carlo realizations of the MDF in the
characterization of the SFH uncertainties.
The distinctions between the MDF and the PDMF are due to the
individual metallicity uncertainties for the measurements
comprising each histogram.}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Membership}
We determined the membership status of stars in each sample using
a refined version of the approach adopted
by Simon \& Geha (2007) and Simon et al.\ (2011),
in which all of the available data
for each star, including its velocity, color, magnitude, metallicity,
position, and spectrum, were examined by eye. Photometry was
extracted from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 9
(Ahn et al.\ 2012) or Data Release 10 (Ahn et al.\ 2014) for each
galaxy, and for the particularly sparse UFDs Leo~IV and CVn~II, we
supplemented the SDSS data at faint magnitudes with photometry from
Sand et al.\ (2010) and Sand et al.\ (2012), respectively. For Boo~I,
Com~Ber, Hercules, and UMa~I, the photometric selection was
based on an $r, g-i$ CMD and an M92 fiducial sequence in similar bands
from Clem (2006). For Leo~IV, Sand et al.\ (2010) provide much deeper
photometry in $g$ and $r$, so we used an $r, g-r$ CMD and the
corresponding M92 fiducial track. For CVn~II, the Sand et al.\ (2012)
photometry is in $V$ and $I$, so we transformed the SDSS magnitudes to
those bands with the relations derived by Jordi et al.\ (2006) for
metal-poor stars and compared to a theoretical isochrone (Dotter et al.\
2008) for an age of 12~Gyr and [Fe/H]$ =
-2.21$, which matches the RGB well.
For Hercules, we also made use of the Str\"omgren photometry
from Ad\'en et al.\ (2009) to separate RGB member stars from foreground
dwarfs. At bright magnitudes, where the photometric uncertainties are
small ($r \le 20$~mag), the selection window extends 0.1~mag redward and
blueward from the M92 fiducial or isochrone. At fainter magnitudes,
the SDSS errors increase substantially, and so the selection window is
gradually widened to 0.32~mag away from the fiducial/isochrone at
$r=22.5$~mag. The Sand et al.\ (2010) photometry for Leo~IV and CVn~II is
deep enough that the photometric uncertainties are negligible even at
the faintest magnitudes of interest for spectroscopy, so the selection
window remains at 0.1~mag at all magnitudes for those galaxies. Stars
located outside the selection window are considered photometric
non-members, with the exception of one star in Hercules -- a known
spectroscopic member from Koch et al.\ (2008), despite being 0.11~mag redder
than the M92 track.
Stars with velocities more than three standard deviations away from
the galaxy's systemic velocity were classified as non-members, with
the exception of suspected binaries (based
on large velocity differences compared to previous measurements).
We only measure metallicities for two
of these velocity outliers, both RGB stars in Boo~I with velocities
that vary by more than 30~km~s$^{-1}$ from Koposov et al.\ (2011); the
remainder cannot be constrained by our data because of their high
temperatures and/or the low SNR of their spectra.
We do not make hard cuts on position, metallicity, or \ion{Na}{1}
equivalent width, but stars that are outliers (even if not beyond the
formal limits in color or velocity) in multiple categories are less
likely to be judged as members.
Our final metallicity distribution function (MDF) for each galaxy was
constructed from the set of RGB stars with valid [Fe/H] fits, relatively low
surface gravities (log~$g < 3.6$), and secure membership. In these
metal-poor galaxies, HB stars tend to fall far to the blue of the RGB.
Blue HB stars (hotter than $T_{\rm eff} = 11,500$~K) exhibit abundance
anomalies due to atmospheric diffusion (e.g., Grundahl et al.\ 1999),
and are excluded from our sample, but a few red HB stars overlapping
with the RGB may be included. Membership for a
large majority of the observed stars is obvious and thus secure, but
there will always be stars whose membership is more ambiguous. For
example, some stars are near the edge of the color selection region,
their velocities are several standard deviations away from the
systemic velocity, and/or they are located at large radii, any of which
increases the likelihood of confusing a foreground star with a UFD
member. Fortunately, if we include the handful of stars where
membership is questionable, the resulting MDFs are not significantly
changed, and the effect on the SFH fitting is small. The MDFs for
each galaxy are shown in Figure~3, using a metallicity grid spanning
[Fe/H]~=~$-4.0$ to $-1.0$ with 0.2 dex spacing, matching the
metallicity grid of the isochrone set used for the SFH fits.
\subsubsection{Modeling the Metallicity Distribution Function}
To account for the MDF uncertainties in our SFH fitting, we used a
Bayesian approach to construct a probabilistic MDF (PMDF) associated
with each UFD, where the probabilities are those for the true intrinsic
MDF. The PMDF enables the generation of artificial MDFs through Monte
Carlo realizations. We constructed the PMDF as a piecewise constant
function on the same metallicity grid defined for the observed MDFs
and employed in the SFH fits. The likelihood for the true metallicity
of each star is approximated as a Gaussian that is centered on the
measured metallicity, with a width matching the metallicity error.
The relative weights in the PMDF were estimated using an adaptive
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm, run 10 times for each UFD, with
$10^6$ realizations per run. We then constructed the PMDF from the
draws beyond the first $10^5$ in each run, after the draws had
stabilized. The resulting PMDFs are shown in Figure~3. In general,
they match the MDFs well, but there are distinctions because the MCMC
takes into account the distinct measurement errors on individual
stars. The latter are very heterogeneous, depending upon several
factors (magnitude of the star, observing conditions, metallicity,
etc.). For this reason, the direct comparison of the MDF and the PDMF
can be slightly deceptive, because the histogram hides the true error
distribution.
\section{Analysis}
\subsection{Comparison with M92}
An inspection of the photometric (Figure~1) and spectroscopic (Figure~3)
data demonstrates that the stellar populations in our UFD sample
are ancient and metal-poor. Before we explore the quantitative SFH
fitting for each UFD, it is worth making a comparison to a
well-studied population. An appropriate object is the Galactic
globular cluster M92 -- one of the most ancient and metal-poor stellar
systems known. Of the globular clusters with little extinction, it is
the most metal-poor (Harris 1996), and it has served as a reference population
in previous studies of UFDs (e.g., Belokurov et al.\ 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010;
Okamoto et al.\ 2008, 2012; Sand et al.\ 2009, 2010, 2012).
It was observed with the same camera and filters by Brown et
al.\ (2005), and its CMD is shown in Figure~4. We assume the cluster
has a true distance modulus of $(m-M)_{\rm o} = 14.62$~mag, taking the
mean of measurements from Paust et al.\ (2007; 14.60$\pm$0.09~mag),
Del Principe et al.\ (2005; 14.62$\pm$0.1~mag), and Sollima et
al.\ (2006; 14.65$\pm$0.1~mag). We assume $E(B-V)$~=~0.023~mag
(Schlegel et al.\ 1998), and [Fe/H]~=~$-2.3$ (Harris et al.\ 1996).
Comparison of the M92 CMD to those in our UFD sample requires that M92
be shifted in distance and reddening to match those parameters for each UFD.
We determine the distance and reddening to each UFD in our sample by
fitting the HB luminosity and the MS color for stars more than 0.5~mag
below the turnoff (and thus insensitive to age assumptions). In our
preliminary analysis of 3 galaxies in this sample, we used the RGB
instead of the lower MS to constrain the color (Brown et al.\ 2012),
but the RGB is not well populated in all of our CMDs, and suffers from
significant field contamination, so we altered our approach here. For
the HB fit, we used the empirical HB locus for M92, because the
metallicity of the cluster falls within the MDF for each galaxy, and
the HB luminosity is a well-known standard candle. For the MS fit, we
used synthetic MS loci, constructed from 13~Gyr isochrones (VandenBerg
et al.\ 2012), assuming the MDF for each galaxy (Figure~3), a binary
fraction of 48\% (Geha et al.\ 2013), and the photometric errors
determined via the artificial star tests. Unfortunately, no HB stars
were detected in Com~Ber, and so the fit is only constrained by the
lower MS, resulting in larger uncertainties. Our derived distances
and reddenings are listed in Table~1. For Hercules, Leo~IV, and
UMa~I, the values are extremely close to those we determined in our
preliminary analysis of these galaxies (Brown et al.\ 2012), but not
identical, due to the reprocessed photometry and distinct fitting
method here. The distance and reddening uncertainties are only those
associated with the fits to our UFD photometry, and do not include
systematic errors associated with the M92 distance and reddening, the
isochrones, or MDFs. For example, the distance to M92 is uncertain at
the level of $\lesssim$0.1~mag, and if we adopted a distinct M92
distance, all of our distances would shift accordingly. The apparent
distance moduli, $(m-M)_V$, are in good agreement with the values
collected by Martin et al.\ (2008b), although in general our
reddenings are larger and distances are smaller. More recent
measurements for four of our galaxies (Musella et al.\ 2009, 2012;
Moretti et al.\ 2009; Garofalo et al.\ 2013) also report similar
apparent distance moduli through a combination of larger reddenings
and smaller distances. If, instead, we were to adopt a combination of
larger distances and smaller reddenings, both M92 and the isochrones
would fall too far to the blue, relative to the MS and RGB in each UFD CMD.
\begin{figure}[t]
\plotone{f4.eps}
\caption{The CMD of M92 (Brown et al.\ 2005), observed in the same
bands on the same camera employed for the UFD observations. We show
the empirical ridge line along the MS, SGB, and RGB (green curve),
along with the HB locus highlighted (green points), which can be
used as an empirical template for comparison to the UFDs. We also
show a theoretical isochrone at the M92 metallicity (blue curve, dashed)
with excellent agreement for an age of 13.2 Gyr, given the M92
parameters assumed here (distance, reddening, and composition). }
\end{figure}
The comparisons between the CMD of M92 and that of each UFD are shown
in Figure~1. Due to the scarcity of HB stars in each UFD CMD, these
can be shown on top of the HB locus of M92 without confusion.
However, the earlier evolutionary phases in each UFD are well
populated, so for clarity, the MS-SGB-RGB stellar locus of M92 is
shown as a ridge line (see Figure~4; Brown et al.\ 2005). Although
there are few HB stars in the CMD of each UFD, there is good
agreement between these HB stars and those of M92, because
the distance to each UFD was determined using the HB as a standard candle.
Comparing the MS
turnoff and SGB of M92 to those of each UFD (Figure~1), there is
agreement to first order, implying that the dominant population in
each UFD is as old as the metal-poor globular clusters of the Milky
Way. However, the UFD stars in the vicinity of the turnoff extend
bluer and brighter than the M92 ridge line, as one would expect from
their MDFs (Figure~3), which extend to metallicities well below that
of M92. The UFD RGB stars also scatter to the blue of the M92 ridge
line, although it is difficult to quantify, given the contribution of
the asymptotic giant branch stars and field contamination.
Furthermore, the lower MS of each UFD scatters to the red of the M92
ridge line, but this is because of the difference in binary fraction.
Like the dwarf spheroidals (e.g., Minor 2013) and the Galactic field
(e.g., Duquennoy \& Mayor 1991), the UFDs have a binary fraction of
nearly 50\% (Geha et al.\ 2013) -- much higher than the binary
fraction in M92 ($\sim$2\%; Milone et al.\ 2012), which has been
reduced through dynamical evolution (e.g., Ivanova et al.\ 2005).
To explore the UFD CMDs further, we proceed to synthetic CMD analysis.
\subsection{Comparison with Isochrones}
Globular clusters are useful empirical population templates for
comparison to the UFDs, but the known clusters do not span the full
range of age and metallicity required to quantitatively analyze the
UFD populations. In particular, the UFD populations extend to much
lower metallicities (Figure~3). For this reason, our quantitative
analysis employs theoretical models. To generate these
models, we use the {\it Victoria-Regina} isochrone and interpolation
codes (VandenBerg et al.\ 2012; VandenBerg et al.\ 2014a), which were
developed for a wide range of stellar population studies, but have a
long history in the study of old metal-poor populations
(e.g., Bergbusch \& VandenBerg 1992; VandenBerg et al.\ 2000;
VandenBerg et al.\ 2006).
We calculated an isochrone grid spanning $-1 > $~[Fe/H]~$ > -4$, with
0.2 dex steps, and $8 < $~age~$< 14.5$~Gyr, with 0.1~Gyr steps. The
{\it Victoria-Regina} library is available with both scaled-solar
abundances and an enhancement of +0.4 for the $\alpha$-elements (O,
Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ca, and Ti). We assume [$\alpha$/Fe]~=~+0.4, as
appropriate for old metal-poor populations, such as those in the
Galactic halo and satellites. While this is certainly appropriate for
most of the UFD population, for the minority of stars at [Fe/H]$> -2$,
there is some indication that the UFDs may have [$\alpha$/Fe] values
that are 0.1--0.2~dex lower (Vargas et al.\ 2013). If we adopted such
$\alpha$-element abundances for the most metal-rich stars, the ages
for such stars in our fits would be $\sim$0.2--0.4~Gyr older, specifically
due to the change in oxygen abundance, which affects the rate of
the CNO cycle. Because of its impact on nucleosynthesis (rather than
opacity), the oxygen abundance affects the MS lifetime, and thus the
relation between turnoff luminosity and age. For the analysis here,
we calculated new grids with the oxygen abundance enhanced beyond the
abundances of the other $\alpha$-elements. In stars of the diffuse
halo, [O/Fe] appears to increase at decreasing metallicities (Figure~5;
Frebel 2010). The isochrone that matches a particular CMD will be
younger as the oxygen abundance increases, with a difference of
$\sim$1~Gyr per 0.5~dex change in [O/Fe] (Figure~6). The measurements
of [O/Fe] vs.\ [Fe/H] have significant scatter, such that our adopted
[O/Fe] values are uncertain at the level of $\sim$0.2~dex,
corresponding to an absolute age uncertainty of $\sim$0.4~Gyr.
However, if we were to adopt a standard [O/Fe] of +0.4, as frequently
assumed for all $\alpha$-elements when modeling old populations, the
resulting ages in our SFH fits would be significantly older. Given
their utility in the study of metal-poor populations, the isochrones
with larger [O/Fe] values will be published in a later paper
(VandenBerg et al., in prep.).
\begin{figure}[t]
\plotone{f5.eps}
\caption{The oxygen abundance as a function of metallicity (black points),
as observed for metal-poor stars in the halo and satellites of the Milky Way
(Frebel 2010), on the Asplund et al.\ (2009) abundance scale.
The variation in oxygen abundance adopted in our
fits comes from a polynomial fit to these data (grey curve).}
\end{figure}
The transformation of the {\it Victoria-Regina} isochrones into the
ACS bands is done via a method similar to that of Brown et
al.\ (2005), although the transformation has been revised to account for
subsequent updates to the isochrone code (VandenBerg et al.\ 2012) and
the library of synthetic spectra employed (Gustafsson et al.\ 2008).
Compared to the previous version of the isochrone code (VandenBerg et
al.\ 2006), the current version includes the effects of He diffusion,
new H-burning nuclear reaction rates, and the adoption of the
Asplund et al.\ (2009) solar metals mixture. With these updates and
our assumed parameters for M92, the isochrones match the M92 CMD at an
age of 13.2~Gyr (Figure~4), and so the ages in our SFH fits to the UFD CMDs
should be considered as {\it relative} to this age of M92. The absolute
age of M92 is itself uncertain at the level of $\sim$1~Gyr, given the
uncertainties in composition, reddening, and distance. For example,
VandenBerg et al. (2014b) prefer a younger age of 12.5~Gyr, due to a
longer assumed distance.
To fit the observed UFD CMDs, we must convert the isochrone grid into
a set of synthetic CMDs having the same photometric properties as the
observed UFD CMDs. These photometric properties (scatter and
completeness) were determined via extensive artificial star tests
(\S2.1.3). Each synthetic CMD was constructed using the {\sc synth}
routine of Harris \& Zaritsky (2001), which takes the isochrone library
and artificial star tests as input. Each synthetic CMD represents a
stellar population at a single age and metallicity, such that
linear combinations of these synthetic CMDs can be used to fit the
observed UFD CMDs. The synthetic CMD set for each galaxy is
calculated using the measured distance and reddening values, and
also includes a fixed field contamination component (Table~1). The
contamination was determined from the Besan\c{c}on Galaxy model (Robin
et al.\ 2003) along the sightline to each galaxy, converted to the ACS
bands using the same synthetic spectra employed in the isochrone
conversion (Gustafsson et al.\ 2008).
\begin{figure}[t]
\plotone{f6.eps}
\caption{A hypothetical CMD for a simple stellar population (black points),
with photometric errors of 0.01~mag in each band. At a fixed metallicity
([Fe/H]~=~$-2.8$), the CMD can be fit by a younger isochrone (13.5~Gyr;
blue curve)
with enhanced oxygen abundance ([O/Fe]~=~$+0.8$) or by an older
isochrone (14.3~Gyr; dotted red curve) with the standard
oxygen abundance ([O/Fe]~=~$+0.4$) typically assumed for all
$\alpha$-elements in the fitting of old stellar populations.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\plotone{f7.eps}
\caption{
The observed CMD for each UFD (yellow points) compared to the
probability cloud for each associated best-fit model (shading, log
stretch). The plots here are centered on $M_{606}-M_{814} =
-0.55$~mag and $M_{814} = 3.95$~mag for each galaxy, assuming the
distances and reddenings in Table~1. The SFH fit is evaluated in a
band 0.2~mag wide that follows the stellar locus and spans
the luminosity range here. The fit thus concentrates on that part of
the CMD most sensitive to age (the MS turnoff and SGB) while avoiding
those CMD regions that have few or no stars in the data or models. }
\end{figure*}
We fit the CMDs through the minimization of a Poisson maximum
likelihood statistic (PMLS), and evaluate the best fit through quality
($Q$) and $\chi^2_{\rm eff}$ criteria, each defined in Dolphin (2002;
respectively eqs.\ 10, 23, and 24). $Q$ evaluates the PMLS of the
best fit (corrected by the number of free parameters) with respect to
the PMLS distribution, and is given in terms of $\sigma$; e.g., $Q =
1$ implies the best fit is 1$\sigma$ worse than a typical fit in the
center of the PMLS distribution. $\chi^2_{\rm eff}$ is analogous to
the reduced $\chi^2$ value in classical $\chi^2$ minimization, with
values close to unity implying a good fit. To determine the PMLS
distribution, we perform fits to 10$^4$ Monte Carlo
realizations of the photometric and spectroscopic data for each
galaxy. The artificial realization of the photometric data is a random draw on
the best-fit CMD model that results from the synthetic CMD fitting of
the observed UFD CMD. The artificial realization of the spectroscopic data is a
random draw on the PMDF estimated in \S2.2.5.
We restrict our SFH fits to that part of the CMD from the MS turnoff
through the top of the SGB (Figure~7). By doing so, we avoid those
parts of the CMD insensitive to age, such as the RGB and lower MS,
which would otherwise dilute the impact of age variations on the fit.
The restriction also has other motivations. By avoiding the lower MS,
we restrict the fit to a small mass range ($\Delta M
<$0.1~$M_\odot$), thus minimizing the sensitivity to the assumed IMF.
By avoiding CMD regions where few or no stars are observed, and where
few or no stars are predicted by the models, we prevent artificially
enhancing the quality of the best fit, because the agreement between data
and models in empty CMD regions is irrelevant (e.g., see
discussion in Dolphin 2002). Finally, we avoid the BS sequence, which
would otherwise mimic a minority population component far younger than
the dominant population; as explained in \S2.1.4, there are a few BS
stars in each UFD CMD, with the ratio of BS to HB stars $\sim$2,
similar to that observed in the Galactic halo and other dwarf
galaxies. The identical region is fit in the CMD of each galaxy, with
the region boundaries shifted from galaxy to galaxy using the
reddening and distance to each galaxy. For the IMF power-law slope
and binary fraction, we assume $dN / dm \propto m^{-1.2}$ and 48\%,
respectively, previously derived for Hercules (Geha et al.\ 2013).
However, because the fitting region is restricted to the upper MS and
SGB, these choices are not important. For example, values of $-2.2$
for the IMF power-law slope or 38\% for the binary fraction lead to negligible
differences in the resulting SFH ($<$0.2~Gyr shifts in age).
Comparison of the observed CMDs to the synthetic CMDs demonstrates
that the observed CMDs can be reproduced with a very simple model,
comprised of two episodes of star formation. Specifically, the fit
has 3 parameters: the ages of the two components, and the fraction of
star formation in each. Each episode is a single-age population, but
can have a range of metallicities. The metallicities in the fit are fixed to
match the observed spectroscopic MDF, with the constraint that the
metallicity monotonically increases at younger ages. The parameters
of the best-fit model are listed in Table~2. In Figure~7, we
show a comparison of the observed UFD CMDs to the best-fit synthetic CMDs,
each represented as a two-dimensional distribution of probability density.
In general, the fits are excellent, particularly when one considers
the simplicity of the 3-parameter model and the fact that the
metallicities are constrained in the fits. Adding two additional
parameters to the fit for each galaxy, varying the duration of star
formation in each of the two bursts, does not improve the fit quality.
The resulting 5-parameter fits minimize the duration of star formation
in each burst and do not improve the PMLS, underscoring the preference
for a narrow age range in each burst.
The two-burst model is a better match to each CMD than a model with a
single burst, and has the advantage of quantifying the possible
contribution of a minority population. However, a single burst of
star formation cannot be ruled out from these data. This is not
surprising, if one inspects the results of Table~2. For Boo~I, the
two components are essentially the same age. For CVn~II, Com~Ber,
Hercules, and Leo~IV, the younger component is small ($<$25\% of the
population). If the SFH fit to each CMD is forced to a single age,
the result is within 0.2~Gyr of the mean age in a two-burst model
(within the uncertainties on the mean age; see Table~2), with
less than 1$\sigma$ of degradation in fit quality. Furthermore, in
the fits to the Monte Carlo realizations, a small but non-negligible
fraction of the fits ($<$20\% of the time) result in an essentially
single-age population, with both components having ages within 0.5~Gyr
of each other.
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{SFH Fitting}
\begin{tabular}{lcrcrccc}
\tableline
& Age\tablenotemark{a} & Fraction & Age\tablenotemark{a} & Fraction & Mean & & \\
& Component 1 & Component 1 & Component 2 & Component 2 & Age\tablenotemark{b} & & $Q$ \\
Name & (Gyr) & (\%) & (Gyr) & (\%) & (Gyr) & $\chi_{\rm eff}$ & ($\sigma$) \\
\tableline
Bootes I & 13.4 & 3 & 13.3 & 97 & 13.3$\pm$0.3 & 1.05 & +0.9\\
Canes Venatici II & 13.8 & 95 & 10.6 & 5 & 13.6$\pm$0.3 & 0.99 & -0.2\\
Coma Berenices & 14.0 & 96 & 11.1 & 4 & 13.9$\pm$0.3 & 1.09 & +1.8\\
Hercules & 13.7 & 82 & 10.6 & 18 & 13.1$\pm$0.3 & 0.98 & -0.3\\
Leo IV & 13.7 & 77 & 11.2 & 23 & 13.1$\pm$0.4 & 1.01 & +0.2\\
Ursa Major I & 14.1 & 45 & 11.6 & 55 & 12.7$\pm$0.3 & 1.02 & +0.3\\
\tableline
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^{\rm a}$Relative to an M92 age of 13.2~Gyr.} \\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{$^{\rm b}$Mean age of the two-component model, with statistical uncertainties only.} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
When comparing the best-fit models for each galaxy (Table~2), the fit
quality is a bit better than expectations for CVn~II and Hercules, but
their PMLS scores are still well within the distribution from the
Monte Carlo runs. The worst fit is that for Com~Ber, which is
1.8$\sigma$ worse than the median PMLS score in the Monte Carlo runs,
although a 1.8$\sigma$ outlier is not unreasonable for a sample of six
galaxies. The Com~Ber dataset is by far the most problematic in our
survey. Despite the large number of tiles used to observe the galaxy,
its CMD is poorly populated, its distance is not well constrained
(with no HB stars in the CMD), and the large number of tiles led to a
high field contamination (24\%).
The uncertainties in the fit can be derived from the Monte Carlo fits
to artificial realizations of the CMD and MDF. Using the results of
these Monte Carlo fits, the statistical uncertainty on the mean age of
the population is well-defined, and included in Table~2 for each
best-fit model. However, the uncertainties on the age and fraction
for each of the two population components are not well-defined,
because the fraction and age are strongly correlated. The older
component has a standard deviation of 0.2--0.6~Gyr in the Monte Carlo
runs for each galaxy. The age of the younger component varies much
more widely (standard deviations of 1.1--1.8~Gyr), because in many of
the Monte Carlo runs, the younger component is only a trace population
($<$10\%). For example, in the best-fit model for Boo~I, the two
components are nearly identical in age, with most of the weight in the
slightly younger component (see Table~2). If we restrict the analysis
to those Monte Carlo runs where this younger component is dominant
($>$50\%), the standard deviation in the age of the second component
is 0.4~Gyr, but if we include those runs where the second component is
only a trace population, the standard deviation is 1.7~Gyr.
For these reasons, the uncertainties on the individual components
are best expressed in a plot of cumulative SFH for each
galaxy, shown in Figure~8. In such a plot, the fraction of the population
that can fall in the second component quickly dwindles as the age
of this component falls below 12~Gyr.
For each of the best-fit models, a significant fraction of the
population is approximately as old as the universe, as measured in the
9-year results from the {\it Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe}
({\it WMAP}; 13.75$\pm$0.085~Gyr; Hinshaw et al.\ 2013).
Although the oldest stars in the best-fit model formally exceed the
age of the universe for Com~Ber and UMa~I, the exceedances are not
significant when one considers the statistical and systematic
uncertainties involved. As far as the statistical uncertainties are
concerned, there is almost no difference in fit quality between the
models derived above and ones that are bounded by the age of the
universe. The systematic uncertainties
associated with our modeling are even larger than the statistical
uncertainties, and are primarily related to the oxygen abundance and
distance moduli assumed in the fits. If we were to assume distance
moduli that are 0.05~mag shorter or longer, the resulting ages would
shift $\sim$0.5~Gyr older or younger, respectively. If we were to
assume [O/Fe] values that are 0.2~dex lower or higher, the resulting
ages would shift $\sim$0.4~Gyr older or younger, respectively. For
this reason, the SFH fits we present here are best considered as {\it
relative} ages with respect to an M92 that is 13.2~Gyr old.
The three most distant galaxies in our sample were also observed with
the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) on {\it HST}. Although the
WFPC2 data are noisier at the MS turnoff than the ACS data we present
here, Weisz et al.\ (2014b) fit the SFHs for these three galaxies from
the WFPC2 CMDs, and found similar results to our own for Hercules and
Leo~IV, with 70\% of the SFH occurring by $\sim$12~Gyr. In contrast,
they found CVn~II to be significantly younger, with 70\% of the
stars older than $\sim$10~Gyr, and a tail to even younger ages. The
distinction is puzzling, because WFPC2 observations of CVn~II fall
completely within the ACS observations, albeit with half the areal
coverage, $\sim$4 times less throughput, and $\sim$4 times less
exposure time. Their finding of younger stars in CVn~II does not seem
to be due to distance assumptions. Weisz et al.\ (2014a) assume
apparent distance moduli for CVn~II, Hercules, and Leo~IV that are
0.06, 0.05, and 0.2~mag shorter than our own (and similarly shorter
than those of Martin et al.\ 2008b). All else being equal, this would
make their ages about 0.5~Gyr older than our ages for CVn~II and
Hercules, and about 2~Gyr older for Leo~IV, but the offsets in
distance modulus for Hercules and CVn~II are nearly identical. They
used a distinct set of isochrones, but this would not give an offset
with only one galaxy. They assume the color excess from reddening is
about 0.05~mag larger in Hercules than in CVn~II, as do we, so it
cannot be due to a relative color shift. We assume CVn~II is somewhat
more metal poor than Hercules, and that is the reason we actually find
CVn~II to be 0.5~Gyr older than Hercules (on average), despite the
fact that the ACS CMDs are very similar. Although they make no
mention of BS stars, there are only a few in the CVn~II CMD, so their
presence would not yield a significantly young population in their
CVn~II fit, even if they were modeled as young stars. A possible
explanation is the depth of their data. In the WFPC2 data, the MS
turnoff is closer to the faint limit, and so there is significantly
more spread at the turnoff due to photometric errors, which might
allow a younger population in their fits. If we appropriately
increase the photometric errors in both the ACS
catalog for CVn~II and its artificial star tests, a wider range of SFHs are
consistent with the data.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\plotone{f8.eps}
\caption{The statistical uncertainties for the cumulative SFH for each
galaxy, assuming two bursts, and determined by 3-parameter fits to
10$^4$ Monte Carlo realizations of the photometric and spectroscopic
data. Within these 1$\sigma$ uncertainties, the SFH for each galaxy
is consistent with a model that has at least 80\% of the star
formation completing by $z \sim 6$. }
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion}
We have used a combination of {\it Keck} spectroscopy and {\it HST}
photometry to characterize the stellar populations of six faint Milky
Way satellites. The spectroscopy demonstrates that these galaxies are
comprised of extremely metal-poor stars; the lowest metallicities are
consistent with pre-enrichment from a single supernova (see Wise et
al.\ 2012). Using these metallicities as a constraint in fits to
high-precision CMDs, we find that each of these galaxies is
well-matched by a population of ancient stars, with no indication of
a delayed onset to star formation (cf.\ Noeske et al.\ 2007).
In the best-fit models
for 5 galaxies (Table~2), a majority ($>$75\%) of the stars formed
prior to $z \sim 10$ (13.3~Gyr ago), when the epoch of reionization
began (Hinshaw et al.\ 2013). Within the uncertainties (Figure~8),
all 6 of the galaxies formed at least 80\% of their stars by $z \sim
6$, although this fraction might be as low as 40\% for UMa~I and 60\%
for Hercules and Leo~IV.
A two-burst model reproduces the data well, but we cannot
rule out a single ancient burst of star formation in each galaxy. We
stress that the absolute age scale is uncertain at the level of
$\sim$1~Gyr, given the systematics associated with distance and
abundances. For example, if we were to adopt a longer distance for
M92, the age of M92 and the UFDs would all shift younger, and if we
were to adopt lower [O/Fe] values, the ages would shift older. In the
coming decade, more accurate distances from the {\it Gaia} mission
will reduce such systematic errors considerably (Perryman et
al.\ 2001). In the next few years, we should also have an accurate
{\it HST} parallax to a metal-poor globular cluster (NGC~6397; program
GO-13817), which can then replace M92 as a population template for
this kind of work.
The populations of these galaxies are very similar to each other
(Figures~1 and 2), as one might expect if they were all influenced by
an event that synchronized the truncation of star formation in each.
These faint satellites stand in contrast to the brighter dwarf
spheroidals, all of which host stars younger than 10~Gyr (Orban et
al.\ 2008). It is worth noting that the UFD SFHs may be even more
abrupt and synchronized than we report here. Although our relative
ages are robust, the distance uncertainties for each galaxy, and the
scatter in [O/Fe] (both galaxy to galaxy and within a given galaxy)
may manifest as an age spread in our fits.
The discovery of additional faint satellites around the Milky Way and
Andromeda have narrowed the gap between observations and $\Lambda$CDM
predictions of substructure. To close that gap, simulations of galaxy
formation assume that reionization suppressed the star formation in
the smallest DM sub-halos (e.g., Bullock et al.\ 2001; Ricotti \& Gnedin
2005; Mu$\tilde{\rm n}$oz et al.\ 2009; Bovill \& Ricotti 2009,
2011a, 2011b; Tumlinson 2010; Koposov et al.\ 2009; Li et al.\ 2010;
Salvadori \& Ferrara 2009; Salvadori et al.\ 2014). Specifically,
such models assume that reionization heated the gas in small DM halos
to $\sim$10$^4$~K, and the resulting thermal pressure boiled the gas
out of the halos and into the intergalactic medium (IGM). Gravity is
too weak in these sub-halos to retain the gas or reacquire it from the
reionized IGM. The stellar populations of the UFDs, which are
extremely similar to each other
and dominated by ancient metal-poor stars, support
the premise of an early synchronizing event in their SFHs.
Although galaxy formation
models tune the suppression threshold in terms of DM mass,
the outcome is manifested in terms of luminous matter, with
post-reionization star formation plummeting in satellites fainter than
$M_V \sim -8$~mag. Outside of simulations, the threshold is likely
not as clean as this, with multiple parameters affecting the outcome,
including the details of the star formation history, the DM accretion
history, local dynamics, metallicity, location within the parent halo,
and distance from major sources of reionization. It is difficult to
disentangle such effects with the small sample here. For example,
Boo~I and Com~Ber have almost exclusively old populations, and fell
into the Milky Way earlier than the other galaxies in our sample
(Rocha et al.\ 2012), giving them an earlier exposure to the dominant
source of ionization. While UMa~I is dominated by old metal-poor
stars, it appears to be systematically younger than the other galaxies
in our sample. UMa~I may be distorted, and Okamoto et al.\ (2008) argue
that it appears to be undergoing disruption; elongation along our
sightline could be broadening the CMD, producing an apparent age
spread. Hercules is the brightest galaxy in our sample ($M_v =
-6.6$~mag; Martin et al.\ 2008b); it may have retained more gas during
the reionization era, leading to a non-negligible population of
younger stars. Besides the galaxies in our sample,
there are others that demonstrate these complexities.
For example, Leo~T is a gas-rich irregular hosting recent star formation,
despite having a luminosity similar to those of the ancient UFDs
(Irwin et al.\ 2007; de Jong et al.\ 2008a; Ryan-Weber et al.\ 2008);
at 409~kpc, its isolation from the Milky Way could have enabled its
evolution as a ``rejuvenated fossil,'' with late gas accretion and
associated star formation (Ricotti 2009).
With the current facilities, measuring SFHs with
cosmologically-interesting constraints can only be done for stellar
populations within the Local Group. Unfortunately, we only know of a
few Milky Way satellites near $M_V \sim -8$~mag, where we might better
understand the conditions that lead to a reionization-induced
suppression of star formation. Increasingly faint dwarfs are also being
discovered at $z \sim 1-2$ (e.g., Atek et al.\ 2014; Alavi et al.\ 2014),
but these have stellar masses that are several orders of magnitude larger
than the UFD satellites of the Milky Way. Because these intermediate-redshift
galaxies are well above the filtering mass, they should not experience the
quenching effects of reionization, and in fact exhibit significant star
formation beyond $z \sim 6$. In the near future, the best hope for
further progress in this area comes from additional wide-field surveys
that should reveal additional faint satellites (Willman 2010), such as
the {\it Panoramic Survey Telescope And Rapid Response System},
the {\it Dark Energy Survey}, the {\it Large Synoptic Survey Telescope},
and the {\it Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope}. Satellites found
in these surveys would be prime targets for both {\it HST} and the {\it
James Webb Space Telescope}.
\acknowledgements
Support for program GO-12549 was provided by NASA through a grant from
the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under
NASA contract NAS 5-26555. This work was supported by a NASA Keck PI
Data Award, administered by the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute under
RSA number 1474359. Data presented herein were obtained at the
W.M. Keck Observatory from telescope time allocated to NASA through
the agency's scientific partnership with the California Institute of
Technology and the University of California. The Observatory was made
possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck
Foundation. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very
significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea
has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most
fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this
mountain. We thank the anonymous referee who suggested revisions
that improved the clarity of this work.
We are grateful to P.\ Stetson for providing his DAOPHOT-II
code and offering assistance with its use. D.A.V acknowledges the
support of a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada. L.C.V. was supported by the National
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant
No. \mbox{DGE$-$1122492}. R.R.M. acknowledges partial support from
CONICYT Anillo project ACT-1122 and project BASAL PFB-$06$, as well as
FONDECYT project N$^{\circ}1120013$. P.G. acknowledges support from
NSF grant AST-1010039.
|
\section{Introduction}
An accurate knowledge of $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and log $g$ allows us to deduce many aspects of a white dwarf's evolution. Currently, the best way of determining both of these quantities is by fitting a calculated model atmosphere to either the hydrogen Lyman or Balmer line absorption series \citep{holberg86a}. This is not without it's drawbacks, however, as the shape of the Lyman/Balmer absorption features is also dependent upon the metal species present in the atmosphere. Therefore, inaccurate atomic data used to calculate model atmospheres may also result in an inaccurate determination of the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and log $g$. Current calculations of Lyman/Balmer line profiles also utilise pre-calculated Stark broadening tables to reduce calculation time. As with the atomic data, if the broadening tables are not accurate enough, then this will also propagate errors to the determined $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and log $g$.
In an analysis by \cite{barstow01a}, the authors measured $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and log $g$ for a sample of DA white dwarfs that had data in the Lyman/Balmer line regions from ORFEUS, HUT, and the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) in the UV, and ground based telescopes in the optical. It was shown that the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ determined from the Lyman/Balmer line series disgreed for several white dwarfs, however, this was regarded as being due to systematics present in the observational data. An improved study by \cite{barstow03a} considered a larger data set where all UV data originated from FUSE. A uniform pipeline was developed and applied to the UV data in an attempt to reduce any systematics present. The determined Lyman/Balmer $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ up to $\sim$50,000K was found to be in agreement for both series, however, a statistically significant discrepancy became apparent for stars with $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ greater than this. This discrepancy has affectionately been dubbed "The Lyman/Balmer line problem".
In this proceeding, we present preliminary results from our study of the Lyman/Balmer line problem in hot DA white dwarfs. We approach the problem from three perspectives. The first is the opacity used to calculate model atmospheres. This involves using atomic data from the \cite{kurucz92a} (Ku92 hereafter) and the \cite{kurucz11a} (Ku11 hereafter) data releases. The Ku92 release contains $\sim{10^6}$ and $\sim{10^8}$ Fe/Ni {\sc iv-vi} transitions respectively. The second is the broadening tables used to synthesise the Lyman/Balmer line profiles. Two of these tables are investigated, one calculated by \cite{lemke97a}, and another from \cite{tremblay09a}. The third is the composition of the atmosphere. We calculate model atmospheres with a pure hydrogen composition, and a metal polluted composition.
\section{Observations}
Seven white dwarfs are chosen that have been observed both in the UV and optical wavebands. All of these bar WD1254+233 (GD153) are thought to be polluted with metals. Two of these stars, namely WD0501+527 (G191-B2B), and WD1254+233, are calibration standards \citep{bohlin04a} and have well measured $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$. The remaining five, WD0229-481, WD0556-375, WD0621-376, WD1738+669, and WD2211-495 have been observed to have $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ $>50,000$K, and have exhibited the Lyman/Balmer problem. The UV data for each of these stars is taken from FUSE observations. Where possible, FUSE datasets taken using the LWRS aperture are used as flux losses due to source drift are minimised. Stars with multiple datasets are coadded to improve the signal to noise. The full list of datasets used in this analysis will be included in a future publication.
Optical observations are taken from several sources. In the case of WD0501+527 and WD1254+233, coadded G430L observations from the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrometer (STIS) aboard the Hubble Space Telescope are used. For the remaining five stars, objects with declinations $>0^{\circ}$ were observed by the Steward Observatory, while objects with declinations $<0^{\circ}$ were observed by the South African Astronomical Observatory. Full details on the optical observations are given in \cite{marsh97a}.
\section{Model atmosphere calculations}
Model atmospheres used in this study are calculated using {\sc tlusty} \citep{hubeny88a} version 201, and are synthesised with {\sc synspec} version 49 \citep{hubeny11a}. Each grid is calculated with $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ ranging from 35,000 to 100,000K in steps of 2,500K, and log $g$ from 6.5 to 9.5 in steps of 0.25 dex. It has been shown by \cite{barstow98a} that the inclusion of heavy metals in model atmospheres will affect the determined $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$. This result is investigated in this study by including two atmospheric compositions. The first is a pure hydrogen composition, and the second is a metal polluted composition using the abundances from \cite{preval13a}, with C/H=$1.72\times{10}^{-7}$, N/H=$2.16\times{10}^{-7}$, O/H=$4.12\times{10}^{-7}$, Al/H=$1.60\times{10}^{-7}$, Si/H=$3.68\times{10}^{-7}$, P/H=$1.64\times{10}^{-8}$, S/H=$1.71\times{10}^{-7}$, Fe/H=$1.83\times{10}^{-6}$, and Ni/H=$1.01\times{10}^{-6}$ as number fractions.
\cite{tremblay09a} calculated new Stark broadening tables, including additional souces of opacity not accounted for in \cite{lemke97a}'s tables. As the line shapes of the Lyman/Balmer series are affected by $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, log $g$, and the broadening treatment, it is imperative to calculate the synthetic profiles as accurately as possible. To assess the effects of using either the \cite{lemke97a} and the \cite{tremblay09a} calculations, all model grids are synthesised using either of these broadening tables in turn.
The completeness of the atomic data supplied to model atmosphere can be inferred to have an effect upon the determined $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Radiative levitation calculations by \cite{chayer95a} were found to be dependent upon the number of transitions included in the calculation. We investigate this possibility by calculating the metal polluted model atmospheres using either the Ku92 dataset, or the Ku11 dataset. The difference between these datasets is the number of energy levels and transitions available for the ions Fe/Ni {\sc iv-vi}. Ku92 is supplemented with photoionization (PI) cross sections calculated by the Opacity Project for Fe {\sc iv-vi}, while Ni {\sc iv-vi} is supplemented with PI data calculated using an hydrogenic approximation. The Ku11 data is not accompanied by PI cross section data. We therefore calculated this data using the atomic collision package {\sc autostructure} \citep{badnell86a,badnell97a,badnell11a}. Full details of this calculation will be provided in a future publication.
\section{Results/Discussion}
As expected, the largest Lyman/Balmer line discrepancies occur when pure H grids are used to measure $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Curiously, however, in the case of WD1254+233, which is known to be a pure H atmosphere star, the discrepancy between the Lyman/Balmer line $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is not affected by the metal content, but is resolved upon using the \cite{lemke97a} broadening tables. In the case of the metal rich stars, the discrepancies between the Lyman/Balmer $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ are greatly reduced when using a metal polluted model grid, and are improved further when these grids are synthesised using the \cite{tremblay09a} tables. In Figure \ref{fig:teffres}, we have plotted the measured $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ using the Lyman/Balmer lines for the different types of model grid used. We have also tabulated the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ determinations in Table \ref{table:results}. Interestingly, the use of Ku11 data in model atmosphere calculations does not appear to have any noticable effect upon the determined $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, regardless of the Stark broadening table employed. It is for this reason we have omitted the Ku11 results from Figure \ref{fig:teffres}. The next step to try and improve the agreement between the Lyman/Balmer is to allow variations in the metal abundances. This will be done by calculating a set of model grids for different multiples of the G191-B2B abundances used in this proceeding. We also plan to include more stars in our sample.
\articlefigure{SPreval1.eps}{fig:teffres}{Plot of Lyman $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ vs Balmer $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ determined for the seven white dwarfs. The upper two panels are for models synthesised using the Tremblay tables, and the bottom two are for models synthesised with the Lemke tables. The two panels on the left are for pure H atmospheres, and the two panels on the right are for a metal polluted atmosphere using the Ku92 data release with Opacity Project cross sections. The straight line is for equal Lyman/Balmer $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$.}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ determinations from seven white dwarfs in K. For each white dwarf, the upper row corresponds to Lyman line measurements, while the lower row corresponds to Balmer line measurements.}
\smallskip
\begin{center}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\tableline
\noalign{\smallskip}
& Lemke & & & Tremblay & & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
WD name & Pure H & Ku92 & Ku11 & Pure H & Ku92 & Ku11 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\tableline
\noalign{\smallskip}
WD0229-481 & $59,116_{-599}^{+585}$ & $55,600_{-467}^{+485}$ & $55,670_{-467}^{+487}$ & $60,596_{-594}^{+621}$ & $56,843_{-514}^{+540}$ & $56,914_{-515}^{+540}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
& $60,227_{-1779}^{+1885}$ & $58,206_{-1677}^{+1807}$ & $58,143_{-1658}^{+1806}$ & $62,173_{-1807}^{+1995}$ & $59,922_{-1721}^{+1960}$ & $59,929_{-1765}^{+1907}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
WD0501+527 & $62,863_{-168}^{+166}$ & $58,754_{-143}^{+145}$ & $58,769_{-141}^{+143}$ & $63,973_{-177}^{+179}$ & $59,671_{-152}^{+154}$ & $59,693_{-149}^{+153}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
& $60,165_{-381}^{+383}$ & $57,919_{-370}^{+366}$ & $57,888_{-369}^{+365}$ & $62,658_{-402}^{+412}$ & $60,113_{-377}^{+390}$ & $60,102_{-375}^{+388}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
WD0556-375 & $70,383_{-1304}^{+1401}$ & $65,114_{-1103}^{+1106}$ & $65,001_{-1072}^{+1099}$ & $70,823_{-1341}^{+1424}$ & $65,463_{-1099}^{+1128}$ & $65,344_{-1081}^{+1123}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
& $63,691_{-2083}^{+2304}$ & $61,173_{-2189}^{+2190}$ & $61,127_{-2177}^{+2179}$ & $65,902_{-2217}^{+2359}$ & $62,986_{-2102}^{+2301}$ & $62,956_{-2068}^{+2278}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
WD0621-376 & $70,268_{-481}^{+489}$ & $65,142_{-393}^{+384}$ & $64,988_{-389}^{+380}$ & $73,740_{-426}^{+444}$ & $67,716_{-369}^{+361}$ & $67,601_{-373}^{+352}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
& $59,731_{-1470}^{+1610}$ & $58,277_{-1513}^{+1594}$ & $58,285_{-1518}^{+1623}$ & $61,650_{-1560}^{+1650}$ & $59,994_{-1523}^{+1680}$ & $60,036_{-1525}^{+1680}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
WD1254+233 & $38,908_{-56}^{+63}$ & $38,256_{-49}^{+51}$ & $38,332_{-49}^{+53}$ & $39,418_{-65}^{+66}$ & $38,680_{-54}^{+55}$ & $38,773_{-56}^{+57}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
& $38,669_{-140}^{+146}$ & $38,083_{-126}^{+131}$ & $38,151_{-127}^{+133}$ & $40,511_{-142}^{+144}$ & $39,595_{-133}^{+132}$ & $39,686_{-135}^{+134}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
WD1738+669 & $87,689_{-918}^{+917}$ & $79,264_{-748}^{+771}$ & $78,870_{-730}^{+755}$ & $92,624_{-894}^{+700}$ & $82,960_{-748}^{+753}$ & $82,440_{-728}^{+718}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
& $79,280_{-2024}^{+2037}$ & $75,923_{-2040}^{+2025}$ & $75,701_{-1956}^{+2075}$ & $82,625_{-2049}^{+2166}$ & $78,956_{-2014}^{+2126}$ & $78,763_{-1985}^{+2093}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
WD2211-495 & $73,767_{-329}^{+334}$ & $68,067_{-280}^{+279}$ & $67,900_{-273}^{+272}$ & $74,470_{-333}^{+345}$ & $68,513_{-295}^{+306}$ & $68,341_{-287}^{+297}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
& $68,429_{-2232}^{+2417}$ & $66,720_{-2244}^{+2480}$ & $66,228_{-2245}^{+2468}$ & $70,767_{-2300}^{+2384}$ & $68,408_{-2291}^{+2516}$ & $68,409_{-2330}^{+2418}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\tableline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:results}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented a preliminary report on our investigation into the Lyman/Balmer line problem from the perspective of the opacity used to calculate the model atmosphere, the Stark broadening tables used to synthesise the Lyman/Balmer line profiles, and the composition of the atmosphere specified in the model. The choice of atomic data, either Ku92 or Ku11 is inconsequential, and the largest improvement is observed when using the Tremblay tables with metal polluted atmospheres.
\acknowledgements FUSE data was obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST). SPP and MAB acknowledge the support of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC, UK). JBH and IH acknowledge support from the NASA grant NNG056GC46G.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{W}{ith} the increasing popularity of wireless services, efficient use of frequency spectrum becomes more important. Cognitive radio (CR) technology is able to help in efficient use of the spectrum. In this respect, the spectrum assigned to legitimate users (called primary users (PUs)) is used by a second group of users (called secondary or cognitive users (SUs/CUs)) in different methods, e.g., overlay structure \cite{R3}. In a typical overlaid cognitive network, SUs dynamically utilize empty parts of the spectrum (i.e., spectrum holes) \cite{R1}. A part of the spectrum is recognized as a spectrum hole by an SU if it is not assigned to PUs, the corresponding PUs are inactive temporarily, or it is used by PUs very far from the SU. Until now different aspects of CR technology including physical layer and MAC layer issues have been studied in the literature with different scenarios for primary and secondary networks.
Since the cognitive nodes have to be able to sense and monitor the radio channels occupancy, one of the important issues in physical layer topics is the sensing process in secondary nodes. The sensing process strongly depends on the activity pattern of primary users. One of the consequences of sensing process is spectrum mobility \cite{R3}. That is, an SU that opportunistically uses a frequency channel needs to change that channel when the corresponding channel is sensed as active. Considering several problems in the sensing process, it would be useful to predict the spectrum usage of primary users. In this respect, exploiting the information of time-frequency allocation in the primary network is a very efficient method. Fortunately, in some standards like WiMAX and LTE, occupancy status of resource units is broadcast periodically \cite{R5}, so with secondary nodes able to detect this signal, no sensing is needed. On the other hand, regarding the wide usage of such wireless network standards, they can be suitable choices for primary networks. One of the features of the aforementioned mobile standards (i.e., WiMAX, LTE) reverts to their regular frame structure, such that the time-frequency allocation maps are updated and broadcast to all users at each frame. Another feature of these standards is that they are based on OFDMA. In fact, due to several advantages of OFDMA (e.g., providing high spectral efficiency, excellent coverage, higher data rates, and high performance in fading environments), it has been selected as the resource allocation scheme to users in the new mobile standards \cite{R7}. In this technique, a combination of time and frequency comprises the basic unit of the resources. And based on the user requirements, different number of resource units may be allocated to a specific user at different frames. Hence, although the usual traffic model for the activity status of each frequency channel in primary networks is the on-off traffic model with exponential on and off intervals (e.g., \cite{R8}, \cite{R2}, \cite{R11}), in an OFDMA-based network (e.g., WiMAX or LTE) that resources are allocated to PUs at each frame, the on/off status of PUs are correlated and we need to consider PUs, altogether, frame by frame. Moreover, we should include the memory in resource allocation in consecutive frames. Thus, the previous conventional analyses that usually focus on the status of PUs separately are not applicable anymore.
Up to now some research works have considered OFDMA primary networks in a cognitive network scenario. In \cite{R12} in order to solve the problem of white spots in a WiMAX coverage area (the areas where no network coverage is available for customers), a technique based on the cognitive heterogeneous network is presented. In \cite{R13} an OFDMA primary network like LTE and a pair of secondary transmitter-receiver are assumed. The interference between the primary and secondary nodes is canceled by exploiting the null-space of the channel from the secondary transmitter to the primary receiver at a cost of knowing perfect CSI in the secondary transmitter. In \cite{R14} the OFDMA spectrum occupancy under different traffic models is simulated. Also impacts of different resource unit allocation algorithms in WiMAX (i.e., vertical, horizontal, and rectangular striping) on SUs’ sensing process are discussed. In \cite{R16}, by using cognitive technology, a scheme for operation of an ultra-wideband (UWB) device in WiMAX frequency band is proposed, and detection and avoidance problems in this system are investigated. In \cite{R17} the spectrum sensing issue of the cognitive nodes in the presence of a WiMAX primary network is explored and time and frequency domain spectrum sensing techniques are compared by simulation. In \cite{R18} the power control mechanism and opportunistic interference cancellation in the secondary network is investigated in an underlay spectrum usage model with a WiMAX primary network. In \cite{R19} classification of OFDM signals of the OFDM-based primary networks (e.g., mobile WiMAX and LTE) is investigated. A cognitive radio-based resource allocation in a WiMAX macro-femto two tier network is proposed in \cite{R20}.
In addition to most of the aforementioned works that focus on the sensing process in an OFDMA-based primary networks (e.g., WiMAX), in some papers the transmitted information about the situation of the spectrum holes in the primary OFDMA network is exploited to avoid the sensing process difficulties. In \cite{R26} the authors have proposed two cognitive MAC protocols in the presence of an IEEE 802.16 primary network. In this work, SUs hear the resource allocation maps (DL/UL-MAP) broadcast by the WiMAX base station (BS); hence, they know the empty slots of the coming frame without sensing. Two access protocols (ordinated approach and contention approach) have been evaluated in terms of delay and throughput by simulation. The contention approach is based on CSMA/CA technique where the user with a packet to send waits a random number of frames before the transmission begins. In \cite{R27} an opportunistic spectrum access algorithm for secondary users in the presence of a mobile WiMAX primary network is proposed. In this structure, SUs are aware of spectrum holes by overhearing DL/UL-MAP. Efficiency of the algorithm with a WiMAX primary and secondary network is investigated by simulation. In this scenario, base station of secondary network acts as the secondary decision center, which hears the DL/UL-MAP and according to the proposed algorithm assigns white spaces to SUs. In \cite{R28}, the authors have considered a time-scheduled primary network, e.g., mobile WiMAX, and proposed a simple analytical model to calculate the saturation throughput of a WLAN secondary network overlaid on the primary network. In that scenario, WLAN nodes use empty slots of downlink (DL) subframes of WiMAX to send their packets. Although the analysis in \cite{R28} leads to sufficiently accurate results for FDD mode, in TDD mode the results have non-negligible errors.
From a different point of view, in many papers the coexistence of a cellular network (e.g., WiMAX) and a WLAN in a heterogeneous network has been investigated \cite{R23}, \cite{R24}. However, in our considered scenario, we investigate the coexistence of a WLAN network with a WiMAX network, where the WLAN users opportunistically use the empty slots of DL subframes of WiMAX.
In this paper, we focus on a cognitive network scenario, consisting of an IEEE 802.16e mobile WiMAX primary network in the PMP (point-to-multipoint) mode and a WLAN secondary network that uses the empty slots of DL subframes of WiMAX to send its packets. Secondary nodes use IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol to access the total empty slots (see Fig. 1) in DL subframes. It is also assumed that secondary nodes are able to hear the DL-MAP signal at the beginning of each frame, thus they know the situation of empty slots of DL subframes. Due to the frame structure of the primary network and the method of resource allocation to different primary users, it is not possible to model the activity of individual frequency channels. Instead, we model the dynamic status of all downlink time-frequency resources of the primary network by considering the service requests of all primary users at each frame. To this end, we use a discrete-time Markov chain, which represents the packet arrival process in the buffer at the BS of the primary network as well as the transmission over the limited number of slots in each upcoming frame. Although our modeling approach for primary network is similar to \cite{R28}, there are significant differences in using the components of the Markov chain in our analysis. In fact, due to random nature of packet arrival process in the WiMAX BS, there are random number of empty slots in DL subframes. Moreover, the number of empty slots at consecutive DL subframes is correlated, because if the resources are not sufficient to send all buffered data in WiMAX BS during the upcoming frame, remaining data will be transmitted in next frames. These two subtleties have not been considered in \cite{R28}. Moreover, our analytical approach for the performance evaluation of the secondary network is very detailed compared with the approach in \cite{R28}, leading to more exact results in 802.16e TDD mode (the maximum mismatch error between analytical results and simulations is reduced from more than 18\% to less than 3\%). Also, we have compared the saturation throughput of an SU in our scenario with an algorithm similar to the contention-based MAC algorithm proposed in \cite{R26}. The results show a noticeable improvement in saturation throughput of an SU in our considered scenario.
Succinctly, the main contributions of our analysis in this paper can be summarized as in the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Modeling the dynamic nature of resources in DL subframes and including the random number of empty slots in performance evaluation of the secondary network,
\item Proposing an open multi-class queueing network (called as $QN^{(1)}$) \cite{R6} to pursue the time sequence of transmission process of WLAN packets (including contention among SUs) with high accuracy (see Fig. \ref{frame}),
\item Proposing another open multi-class queueing network (called as $QN^{(2)}$) to find some time parameters in the previous queueing network, e.g., average packet transmission time for SUs, with respect to random nature of opportunities,
\item Deriving the saturation throughput of the cognitive network, i.e., the minimum rate of packet arrivals such that the secondary network is in the border of instability.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{frame.pdf}
\caption{Random number of empty slots in the horizontal sriping and an example of time sequence of packet transmission in the secondary network.}
\label{frame}
\end{figure*}
It is worth noting that maximum saturation throughput of a cognitive network scenario is one of the important decision-making parameters in investment on cognitive network development. In fact, it can be used as an important parameter to estimate the maximum number of SUs to be supported with a minimum required throughput.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe the cognitive network scenario which includes primary and secondary network characteristics. Section 3 presents the proposed analytical model for the primary network. In Section 4 the analytical model for the secondary network is described which consists of the queueing network representing the packet transmission process and the queueing network for derivation of the average packet transmission time. Section 5 is dedicated to numerical results to show the accuracy of the proposed model compared to simulations and Section 6 concludes the paper.
\section{cognitive network scenario}
In this section, we explain the characteristics of primary and secondary networks. We consider a cognitive network consisting of an IEEE 802.16e WiMAX primary network and cognitive nodes which opportunistically utilize empty slots of DL subframes of WiMAX. In fact, secondary network consists of WLAN nodes that send their packets to the access point (AP) based on IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol using the frequency spectrum holes (empty slots) of WiMAX.
\subsection{Primary Network}
As stated before, based on several advantages of OFDMA it is used in IEEE 802.16e standard. WiMAX frames are divided into symbols in time domain and orthogonal subcarriers in frequency domain. Slot is the resource allocation unit in IEEE 802.16e, which consists of a subchannel (comprised of a few subcarriers) over a few OFDM symbols \cite{R29}. The arrangement of subcarriers in a subchannel and the number of time symbols in a slot is dependent on the type of OFDMA permutation scheme \cite{R7}. It is assumed that PUSC (partial usage of subchannels) subchannelization method is used in the mobile WiMAX primary network \cite{R14}, \cite{R30}. In PUSC, which is the most commonly used subchannelization method \cite{R31}, subchannels are formed by subcarriers distributed pseudo-randomly over the entire bandwidth. Hence this method of subchannelization can exploit frequency and interference diversity \cite{R5}. Since the subcarriers at each slot are distributed through the whole bandwidth, the average channel quality at different slots is assumed to be the same, leading to the same average number of bits transmittable at each slot. In other words, although the fading state of each subcarrier may be different, regarding the frequency distance between them, their states are considered to be independent of each other, so we can assume a similar average channel condition for each slot of WiMAX.
Although both TDD and FDD duplexing modes are supported in the standard, due to inefficiency of FDD in asymmetric data services, TDD mode is the preferred one in new mobile WiMAX profiles \cite{R7}. So TDD mode is considered in our scenario. In 802.16e standard, TDD mode is capable of adaptive adjustment of downlink to uplink ratio to support asymmetric downlink/uplink traffic. Usually in wireless networks, the offered traffic load in downlink direction is much more than uplink, hence the size of downlink subframes is usually larger than uplink subframes and consequently there may be more opportunities in DL subframes for secondary nodes. On the other hand, regarding the importance of downlink traffic, we have assumed that uplink subframes are considered to be small as much as possible to be matched with upload requirements of users. Therefore the number of empty slots at UL subframes is considered not to be noticeable. Consequently, UL subframes lead to interruptions in secondary packet transmissions. Regarding a stationary traffic load for uplink and downlink, a fixed DL to UL ratio is considered in our analysis; however, the DL to UL ratio can be flexible and dynamic in WiMAX standard. It is worth noting that in the case of exploiting UL opportunities as well, with respect to different characteristics of DL and UL traffic, we need more details in our modeling approach. It will be explained briefly in Section 4.
In our scenario, we consider the random nature of opportunities based on horizontal and vertical striping algorithms \cite{R14} as the resource allocation algorithms of WiMAX. Furthermore, in the case of other mapping algorithms, e.g., rectangular one, we assume that the empty slots of a DL subframe are distributed uniformly over the entire DL subframe in time and frequency spectrum.
\subsection{Secondary Network}
In the considered scenario, similar WLAN nodes form the secondary network. The nodes are within the transmission range of each other and the packet generation process at all cognitive nodes are independent and identical. Secondary users contend with each other in a control channel (out of WiMAX frequency band) based on IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol in a 4-way handshaking mode (RTS/CTS/DATA/ACK) to access the opportunities in DL subframes of WiMAX. In our considered scenario, the backoff and contention processes among the secondary nodes are independent of WiMAX frame structure. This scenario leads to increased spectrum efficiency; while in \cite{R26} a complete frame of WiMAX (with possible free resources) is considered as a backoff unit. Moreover, in our scenario there is no need for synchronization between control signals of SUs (i.e., RTS, CTS, ACK) and WiMAX time symbols.
We focus on the MAC layer issues in this paper, so the necessary physical layer compatibilities as well as physical layer impairments are ignored. Indeed, noting that the winner SU uses empty slots of the DL subframes of WiMAX to send its packets, we have assumed that SUs exploit OFDM technique for their transmissions. So it is possible to use several non-contiguous slots in a transmission. Following each contention, the winner node exploits all empty slots to send its fixed size packets. Since the frame control section of the WiMAX frame which is used to send control information for users is not encrypted \cite{R33}, \cite{R10}, all SUs are able to overhear the DL-MAP signal broadcast at the onset of each frame, so they are aware of empty slots at each DL subframe without any need for a sensing process. In this case PUs and WiMAX base station operation are not affected by SUs activities. Obviously, if DL/UL-MAP is not detectable at SUs (e.g., is encrypted), the scenario needs sensing the opportunities of each frame that is not within the scope of this paper.\\
\vspace{-0.1cm}
Since we focus only on DL opportunities, if the contention between secondary users ends during a UL subframe, the winner user should wait until the beginning of the next DL subframe to start data transmission in empty slots of that frame. In addition, if sending the packet is not finished in the current frame, it resumes in the next frame (without any contention) after an interruption during the UL subframe. Obviously, dependent upon the number of empty slots of frames and size of the packets, such interruptions may be experienced several times during a packet transmission which should be considered in the packet transmission time of secondary nodes. Consequently, packet transmission time also depends on the time instant when it has begun (see Fig. \ref{frame}). Besides, since the number of empty slots at each DL subframe is dependent upon the amount of PU’s data to be downloaded on one hand, and the starting instant of SU packet transmission is distributed through the DL subframe on the other hand, each packet transmission prolongs a random number of OFDM symbols. Therefore, the bottleneck for the throughput of the secondary network is collision among secondary nodes as well as the limited opportunities in the DL subframe of WiMAX. Thus, analytical modeling of packet transmission is of crucial importance.
In order to facilitate following the analytical model in next sections, a brief description of variables is presented in Table \ref{glossary}.\\
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\small
\centering
\caption{Description of Symbols}
\begin{tabular}{{|p{3.2cm}|p{13.1cm}|}}
\thickhlin
\textbf{\quad Symbol} & \textbf{Description} \\
\thickhlin
\quad $P$ & Transition probability matrix of the Markov chain in Fig. \ref{MC} \\\hline
\quad $P_{ij}$ & Transition probability from state $i$ to state $j$ of the Markov chain in Fig. \ref{MC} \\\hline
\quad $P_k$ & The probability of arrival of $k$ packets during a frame to the WiMAX BS \\\hline
\quad $\lambda_p$ & Average of packet arrival rate to WiMAX BS \\\hline
\quad $M$ & The total number of slots in DL subframe\\\hline
\quad $N$ &The number of required slots to transmit all packets of a full WiMAX BS buffer \\\hline
\quad $S_P$ & The number of required slots to transmit a WiMAX packet \\\hline
\quad $S_S$ & The number of required slots to transmit a WLAN packet \\\hline
\quad $C_B$ & Size of the finite buffer at WiMAX BS in number of packets \\\hline
\quad $\pi$ & Steady state probability vector of the Markov chain in Fig. \ref{MC} \\\hline
\quad $W_0$ & Initial contention window size in the WLAN \\\hline
\quad $m$ & The number of maximum backoff stages in the WLAN \\\hline
\quad $P^{(I)},P^{(C)},P^{(S)}$ & Probabilities of idle, collision, and successful transmission time slots, respectively. \\\hline
\quad $T^{(I)},T^{(C)}$ & Time duration of idle and collision transmission time slots, respectively. \\\hline
\quad $K_{sym}$ & The number of time symbols over a WiMAX frame\\\hline
\quad $K_{sym,DL}$ & The number of time symbols over a DL subframe of WiMAX \\\hline
\quad $r^{u,u'}_{l,l'}$ & The probability that a class-$l$ customer from node $u$ is routed as a class-$l'$ customer to node $u'$ in the open queueing networks in Figs. \ref{Q1} and \ref{Q2} \\\hline
\quad $r^{u,out}_{l,l'}$ & The probability that a class-$l$ customer from node $u$ is routed as a class-$l'$ customer to out of the queueing networks in Figs. \ref{Q1} and \ref{Q2}\\\hline
\quad $r^{out,u}_{l}$ & The probability that a class-$l$ customer is routed to node $u$ from out of the queueing network in Fig. \ref{Q2}\\\hline
\quad $P_{col}$ & The collision probability for a WLAN user\\\hline
\quad $\tau^u_l$ & The average service time of a class-$l$ customer at node $u$ in Figs. \ref{Q1} and \ref{Q2}\\\hline
\quad $T_{RTS},T_{CTS},T_{ACK}$ & The required times to send RTS, CTS, and ACK signal in the control channel, respectively.\\\hline
\vspace{0.005cm}
\quad $\hat{T}$ & \vspace{0.005cm} $T$ in number of WiMAX time symbol\\\hline
\quad $\nu$ & The number of time symbols in a slot of WiMAX \\\hline
\quad $f^u(i)$ & a function that denotes the number of empty slots of DL subframe of WiMAX along the frame\\\hline
\quad $\gamma_i$ & The average time that sending a WLAN packet in the empty slots of WiMAX prolongs, when it has been started at the $i$-th symbol over the WiMAX frame\\\hline
\quad $\beta_{i,i'}$ & The probability that an SU packet transmission which has been started at the $i$-th symbol over the WiMAX frame ends at the $i'$-th symbol of a frame\\\hline
\quad $\alpha^u_l$ & The arrival rate of class-$l$ customers at node $u$ in the queueing networks in Figs. \ref{Q1} and \ref{Q2}\\\hline
\quad $\alpha^{u,out}_l$ & The departure rate of class-$l$ customer from node $u$ to out of the queueing networks in Figs. \ref{Q1} and \ref{Q2}\\\hline
\quad $\rho$ & The average number of customers at the queueing network in Fig. \ref{Q1}\\\hline
\quad $\rho^u$ &The average number of customers at node $u$ at the queueing network in Fig. \ref{Q1}\\\hline
\quad $\lambda_l$ & Class-$l$ customer arrival rate at the queueing networks in Fig. \ref{Q1} and \ref{Q2}\\\hline
\quad $\lambda$ & Total customer arrival rate at the queueing network in Fig. \ref{Q1}\\\hline
\quad $e^u$ & Total empty slots in a DL subframe which node $k$ in queueing network in Fig. \ref{Q2} represents\\\hline
\quad $e_{res}^{u}$ & Residual empty slots of a DL subframe (represented by node $u$) for a packet transmission starting at the $x$-th symbol\\\hline
\quad $T_{frame}$ & Time duration of a WiMAX frame\\\hline
\quad $T_{sym}$ & Time duration of a time symbol in a WiMAX frame\\\hline
\quad $T_{DL}$ & Time duration of the DL subframe in a WiMAX frame\\\hline
\quad $R$ & Downlink to uplink subframe ratio\\\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{glossary}%
\end{table*}%
\section{analytical model for primary network}
To evaluate the performance of the cognitive network scenario, we need to model the random nature of available resources, i.e., empty slots, in the primary network. As indicated in the previous section, the secondary packets are transmitted through empty slots in DL subframes. So the status of empty slots affects the packet transmission time. In this section, we explain the analytical model employed for modeling the primary network in order to find the statistical properties of the number of empty slots in DL subframes of WiMAX. \\
\vspace{-0.05cm}
Considering the fact that in PUSC subchannelization method, subcarriers of one subchannel is distributed over the entire bandwidth, we have assumed the number of bits transmitted in one slot (called as data unit in this paper) is fixed. It is also assumed that the fixed size packets (comprised of $S_p$ data units) of all PUs arrive at a limited buffer located at BS, with a Poisson distribution. In this case by arrival of one packet at the BS there is a batch increase in the number of required slots in the upcoming frame. Therefore, we are able to consider a discrete time Markov chain (DTMC) (Fig. \ref{MC}) in order to represent the status of empty slots at DL subframes. In \cite{R28}, arrival of data units is assumed to be Poisson which is a simplified and non-practical assumption. It is worth noting that considering more general arrival processes such as batch Markov arrival process for packets can be included in our model; however, for the sake of simplicity and focusing on the interactions between secondary and primary networks a Poisson process is considered for the packet arrivals at the primary network.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.3in]{MC.pdf}
\caption{Markov chain used for modeling the primary network.}
\label{MC}
\end{figure}
In the Markov chain in Fig. \ref{MC}, each state represents the number of slots required to transmit the packets stored in the BS buffer at the beginning of a frame. The number of packets in the buffer at the beginning of a specific frame is dependent on the number of recently arrived packets during the last frame as well as the number of packets existed in the buffer at the beginning of the last frame. By solving global balance equations (GBE) of the Markov chain, we are able to derive the probability mass function (pmf) of the number of empty slots in DL subframes. GBE of this Markov chain is written as
\begin{align}\label{gbe1}
\pi P=\pi ,
\end{align}
for $i=0,..., \lfloor\frac{M}{S_P}\rfloor S_P :$
\begin{align}\label{gbe2}
\begin{split}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
P_{i,kS_P}=P_k;&\scriptstyle k=0,...,C_B-1\\
P_{i,N}=\sum_{j=C_B}^{\infty}P_j
\end{array}
\right.,
\end{split}
\end{align}
for $i=\lceil\frac{M}{S_P}\rceil S_P,..., N:$
\begin{align}\label{gbe3}
\begin{split}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
P_{i,i-M+kS_P}=P_k;&\scriptstyle k=0,...,\lfloor\frac{N+M-i}{S_P}\rfloor; \\
&\scriptstyle i-M+kS_P\neq N,\\
P_{i,N}=\sum_{j=\lceil\frac{N+M-i}{S_P}\rceil}^{\infty}P_j ,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $P$ is the transition probability matrix of the Markov chain, $P_{i,j}$ is the transition probability from state $i$ to state $j$, $P_k$ is the probability of arrival of $k$ packets during a frame, $S_P$ is the number of slots needed for the transmission of a primary packet and $\pi$ represents the steady state probability vector. $N$ equals $C_BS_P$ where $C_B$ is the size of the finite buffer at BS in number of packets and finally $M$ is the total number of slots in a DL subframe. Obviously, if the number of packets arriving at a frame is very large, packet overflow occurs and some of them will be blocked. After solving (\ref{gbe1}), the steady state probability mass function for the buffer status is derived. Since the number of empty slots at consecutive frames are dependent, exploiting the steady state probability of the above Markov chain cannot be employed efficiently. In the next section, we include the structure of the above Markov chain (consisting of the state transition probabilities) in a multi-class open queueing network, to derive the secondary packet transmission time.
It is worth noting that the arrival of a fixed size packet to the buffer of the WiMAX BS causes a batch increase in the allocated slots of the coming frames. Thus, we could include variable size packets for WiMAX by changing the transition probabilities of the proposed Markov chain according to the probability mass function for the number of slots the batch requires to be transmitted.
\section{Analytical Model for Secondary Network}
In this section, we present our analytical approach to model the behavior of the secondary WLAN nodes and packet transmission process at SUs. First, we explain our proposed multi-class open queueing network ($QN^{(1)}$) used to model the packet transmission process in WLAN nodes based on IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol. Second, in order to find some parameters of this network (some routing probabilities and service times), we propose another queueing network ($QN^{(2)}$) that its parameters include the transitions among the states of the Markov chain corresponding to primary network. A flowchart explaining the overall proposed analytical model to obtain the saturation throughput of the secondary network is presented in Fig. \ref{flowchart}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.3in]{flowchart.pdf}
\caption{The sequence of analysis stages for deriving the saturation throughput of secondary network.}
\label{flowchart}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Proposed Queueing Network Representing the Packet Transmission Process}
We propose an open multi-class queueing network to represent the behavior of a typical secondary user as in Fig. \ref{Q1}. This queueing network is in fact an extended version of the model used in \cite{R2}, \cite{R28}. Each node of this queueing network characterizes a stage in the packet transmission process with respect to details of IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol (i.e., backoff, RTS/CTS, data transmission, and ACK) \cite{R32}. In the assumed MAC protocol a user who has a packet to send, sets a random number uniformly distributed in $[0,W_0-1]$ and after each time slot\footnote{To avoid confusion between ‘slot’ in WiMAX network and ‘slot’ in IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol, we use the term ‘time slot’ when 802.11 MAC protocol is considered (in fact, as indicated in Section 2.1, slot in WiMAX is the combination of a number of subcarriers and a number of OFDM time symbols).} it counts down if RTS signal is not sent by another SU. Otherwise the downcounting resumes when the last transmission process has completed, i.e., CTS time-out happens or ACK signal is sent. When the counter reaches zero, the backoff stage ends then RTS signal is sent. If RTS signal is collided with another RTS signal, the contention window size is doubled. And after $m$ collisions the contention window size remains constant. If RTS signal is sent successfully, CTS signal is sent back and sending the packet in empty slots of WiMAX frame begins.
In the proposed queueing network each node is an M/G/$\infty$ node \cite{R21} (see Fig. \ref{Q1}). Customers in this queueing network are SU packets that have to be transmitted. Node $VS_n$ models the time spent in each virtual time slot corresponding to $n$-th backoff stage. In 802.11 MAC protocol three types of time slots, i.e., idle ($I$), collision ($C$), and successful transmission ($S$), occur with probability $P^{(I)}$,$P^{(C)}$, and $P^{(S)}$, respectively \cite{R32}. Since the secondary nodes are considered to be saturated, parameters $P^{(I)}$,$P^{(C)}$, and $P^{(S)}$ are computed similar to \cite{R28} and \cite{R32}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{Q1.pdf}
\caption{Open queueing network model ($QN^{(1)}$) representing the packet transmission process at a typical SU.}
\label{Q1}
\end{figure}
Customers entering node $VS_n$ have triple classes $(i,j,k)$. $i$ represents time symbol, i.e., it shows number of current time symbol over the frame. Thus, $i$ can be between 1 and $K_{sym}$, where $K_{sym}$ is the number of time symbols over a WiMAX frame. In fact $i$ enables us to trace the regular time structure of the frames. $j$ indicates the type of virtual time slot (i.e., $I,C,S$). Finally, $k$ is a counter that indicates the number of remaining time slots for the backoff counter to reach zero. Routing probabilities and average service times of different classes of customers in node $VS_n$ are written as ($1\leq n\leq m,j=I,C,S,1\leq i,i'\leq K_{sym},1\leq k\leq W_{n-1}-1$)
\begin{equation}\label{r1}
r^{VS_n,VS_n}_{(i,I,k),(i+\hat{T}^{(I)},j,k-1)}=P^{(j)} ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{r2}
r^{VS_n,VS_n}_{(i,C,k),(i+\hat{T}^{(C)},j,k-1)}=P^{(j)} ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{r3}
r^{VS_n,VS_n}_{(i,S,k),(i',j,k-1)}=P^{(j)}\beta_{i+\hat{T}_{RTS}+\hat{T}_{CTS},i'-\hat{T}_{ACK}} ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{T1}
\tau^{VS_n}_{(i,I,k)}=T^{(I)} ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{T2}
\tau^{VS_n}_{(i,C,k)}=T^{(C)} ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{T3}
\tau^{VS_n}_{(i,S,k)}=T_{RTS}+T_{CTS}+\gamma_{i+\hat{T}_{RTS}+\hat{T}_{CTS}}+T_{ACK},
\end{equation}
where $W_n=2^n W_0$, $r_{l,l'}^{u,u'}$ is the probability that a class-$l$ customer from node $u$ is routed as a class-$l'$ customer to node $u'$, and $\tau_l^u$ is the average service time of a class-$l$ customer in node $u$. $T^{(I)}$ and $T^{(C)}$ are time duration of idle and collision time slots, respectively \cite{R28}. Moreover, $T_{RTS}$, $T_{CTS}$, and $T_{ACK}$ are the times needed to send RTS, CTS, and ACK signals in the control channel, respectively. $\hat{T}$ is $T$ in number of WiMAX time symbols. $\gamma_i$ is the average time that sending a secondary packet in the empty slots of the primary network prolongs, when the transmission has been started at the $i$-th symbol over a WiMAX frame. And $\beta_{i,i'}$ is the probability that an SU packet transmission which has been started at the $i$-th symbol over a WiMAX frame ends at the $i'$-th symbol of the same or another frame. Since secondary wireless nodes are assumed to be saturated, following the end of packet transmission process at each node, the transmission process (including backoff stages, RTS/CTS, data, and ACK) of another packet begins instantaneously. Moreover, routing probabilities and service times not included in (4)-(9), equal zero.\\
\vspace{-0.07cm}
Service time of node $RTS_i$ is the time needed to send RTS packet in the control channel. Upon successful transmission of RTS packet, CTS packet is sent back via receiver and transmission of packets in the remaining empty slots of the current frame begins provided that the current time instant is not within a UL subframe; otherwise, packet transmission starts at the onset of the next DL subframe (see Fig. \ref{frame}). Finally sending ACK signal by receiver indicates the end of packet transmission. \\
\vspace{-0.07cm}
The customers entering nodes $RTS_i$, $CTS_i$, $TR$, and $ACK$ are single-class customers such that their classes represent corresponding time symbol of their arrival instants. The routing probabilities in these nodes can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{r4}
r^{VS_n,RTS_n}_{(i,j,k),(i)}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1\quad;\text{$k=0$}\\
0\quad;\text{o.w.}
\end{array}
\right.&;
\quad\scriptstyle 1\leq n\leq m,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{r5}
r^{RTS_n,CTS_n}_{(i),(i+\hat{T}_{RTS})}=1-P_{col}&;\quad \scriptstyle 1\leq n\leq m,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{r6}
r^{RTS_n,VS_{n+1}}_{(i),(i+\hat{T}_{RTS},j,k)}=P_{col}P^{(j)}\frac{1}{W_n}&;
\begin{array}{l l}
\scriptstyle
1\leq n\leq m-1\\
\scriptstyle
0\leq k\leq W_n-1
\end{array},\\
\label{r7}
r^{CTS_n,TR}_{(i),(i+\hat{T}_{CTS})}=1&; \quad\scriptstyle 1\leq n\leq m,\\
\label{r8}
r^{RTS_m,VS_{m}}_{(i),(i+\hat{T}_{RTS},j,k)}=P_{col}P^{(j)}\frac{1}{W_{m-1}}&;\quad\scriptstyle 0\leq k\leq W_{m-1}-1,\\
\label{r9}
r^{TR,ACK}_{(i),(i')}=\beta_{i,i'}&,\\
\label{r10}
r^{ACK,out}_{(i),(i+\hat{T}_{ACK})}=1&,
\end{align}
where in (\ref{r4})-(\ref{r10}) $j=I,C,S$, $1\leq i,i'\leq K_{sym}$, $r_{l,l'}^{u,out}$ is the probability that a class-$l$ customer from a typical node $u$ is routed as a class-$l'$ customer to out of the queueing network, i.e., when the packet transmission process completes, the corresponding time symbol is $l'$, and $P_{col}$ is the probability of collision among SUs, which is obtained similar to \cite{R28} and \cite{R32}.
In addition to service times of nodes $VS_n$, the average service times of different classes in the other queueing nodes can also be written as ($1\leq n\leq m, 1\leq i\leq K_{sym}$)
\begin{align}\label{T15}
& \tau^{RTS_n}_{i}=T_{RTS},\quad\tau^{CTS_n}_{i}=T_{CTS},\\
& \nonumber\tau^{TR}_{i}=\gamma_i,\quad\quad\quad\tau^{ACK}_{i}=T_{ACK}.
\end{align}
Due to deterministic service time of customers in nodes $RTS_i$, $CTS_i$, and $ACK$, the corresponding average service times are obtained straightforwardly. However in node $TR$, each packet transmission with different starting time instants will have different average time duration due to UL interrupts and random number of resources. The random nature in number of empty slots in WiMAX frames and its correlation in consecutive frames would cause some complexities. Thus, to calculate $\gamma_i$ and $\beta_{i,i'}$ for all $i$, $i'$ we propose another queueing network that is explained in detail in the next subsection.
By solving traffic equations of $QN^{(1)}$, we are able to find the arrival rate of customers with different classes at each node. Thus, regarding the average service time at each node for different customers, we will be able to derive the traffic intensity (i.e., product of arrival rate by the average service time \cite{R21}) of each node equivalent to the average number of customers at that node. Considering the saturation status of secondary nodes, traffic equation for node $VS_1$ is written as ($1\leq i\leq N_{sym}, j=I,C,S, 0\leq k\leq W_0-1$)
\begin{equation}\label{TEQ1}
\alpha_{(i,j,k)}^{VS_1}=\lambda_{(i,j,k)}+\sum_{(i',j',k')}\alpha_{(i',j',k')}^{VS_1}r_{(i',j',k'),(i,j,k)}^{VS_1,VS_1} ;
\end{equation}
\begin{align}\label{TQ}
\lambda_{(i,j,k)}=P^{(j)}&(\frac{1}{W_0}\alpha_i^{ACK,out}),
\end{align}
where $\alpha_l^u$ denotes the arrival rate of class-$l$ customers at node $u$. The first term in (\ref{TEQ1}) shows the rate of arrivals from exogenous world with time class $(i,j,k)$, which due to saturation is equal to the rate of outgoing customers from the queueing network at the time instant $i$ as in (\ref{TQ}), where $\alpha_l^{u,out}$ denotes the departure rate of class-$l$ customer from node $u$ to out of the queueing network, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\alpha_l^{u,out}=\sum_{l'}\alpha_{l'}^{u}r_{l',l}^{u,out} .
\end{align}
And for the other nodes in general we have
\begin{equation}
\alpha_l^u=\sum_{u'}\sum_{l'}\alpha_{l'}^{u'}r_{l',l}^{u',u} .
\end{equation}
Note that the traffic equations of this queueing network have to be solved iteratively, considering the dependency between the arrival rate of customers from exogenous world to the queueing network ($\lambda_{(i,j,k)}$) and the rate of outgoing customers from the queueing network.\\
\vspace{-0.05cm}
Using $M/G/\infty$ nodes indicates that different packets at each SU may be sent in parallel. Since in reality, the packets are transmitted one-by-one at each SU and $QN^{(1)}$ represents the packet transmission process, we confine the packet arrival rate at the queueing network $(\lambda=\sum_{(i,j,k)}\lambda_{(i,j,k)})$ such that the average number of customers at the queueing network be kept smaller than one. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\rho=\sum_{n=1}^{m}(\rho^{VS_n}+\rho^{RTS_n}+\rho^{CTS_n})+\rho^{TR}+\rho^{ACK}<1 ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho^{VS_{n}}$, $\rho^{RTS_{n}}$, $\rho^{CTS_{n}}$, $\rho^{TR}$, and $\rho^{ACK}$ denote the traffic intensities of nodes $VS_n$, $RTS_n$, $CTS_n$, $TR$, and $ACK$, respectively. The traffic intensity of a typical node $u$ in the queueing network can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\rho^u=\sum_{l'}\alpha_{l'}^u\tau_{l'}^u.
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.05cm}
Since all $N_s$ cognitive nodes are similar and the queueing network in Fig. \ref{Q1} represents a typical cognitive node, in order to find the saturation throughput of the secondary network, the average number of customers in the queueing network is considered equal to one. Thus, the saturation throughput is the minimum rate of packet arrivals at a typical cognitive node
such that the queueing network is saturated, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{main}
\lambda_{sat}=min\lambda\mid_{\rho=1}.
\end{equation}
Obviously, the saturation throughput of the secondary network equals $\Lambda_{sat}=N_s\lambda_{sat}$.\\
\vspace{-0.05cm}
In addition, by solving the traffic equations we are able to analytically estimate the probability mass function of the starting time instant of packet transmission at a typical frame which is proportional to the arrival rate of customers of different classes at node $TR$. It is worth noting that in \cite{R28} the distribution of the starting time of packet transmission over a frame is assumed to be uniform, which is not necessarily true. \\
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\subsection{Proposed Queueing Network for Derivation of Packet Transmission Time}
As explained before, in order to evaluate the saturation throughput of SUs, we need to find the service time of different nodes and routing probabilities in $QN^{(1)}$. In this part, we compute the parameters $\gamma_i$ and $\beta_{i,i'}$ in (\ref{r3}), (\ref{r9}), and (\ref{T15}). $\gamma_i$ denotes the average transmission time of SU packets, when the transmission has started at the $i$-th time symbol over a frame and $\beta_{i,i'}$ is the probability that the packet transmission started at the $i$-th time symbol, ends at the $i'$-th time symbol (not necessarily in the same frame).
In order to evaluate $\gamma_i$ and $\beta_{i,i'}$, we propose a new multi-class open queueing network ($QN^{(2)}$), comprised of $M/G/\infty$ nodes as in Fig. \ref{Q2}. In $QN^{(2)}$ each queueing node corresponds to a specific status of the buffer at the BS in the primary network at the beginning of a frame, similar to the states of the Markov chain presented in Section 3 (Fig. \ref{MC}). In other words, each queueing node indicates the corresponding number of empty slots in the current DL subframe. For example, node $u$ represents a DL subframe with $e^u=max(M-u,0)$ total empty slots, where $u=0,1,...,N$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{Q2.pdf}
\caption{The proposed multi-class queueing network for transmissions starting at the $i$˗th symbol ($QN^{(2)}$).}
\label{Q2}
\end{figure*}
The customers in this queueing network are the SU packets that should be transmitted in empty slots (after a contention is finished). In other words, arrivals at this queueing network are the packets arrived at node $TR$ of the first queueing network depicted in Fig. \ref{Q1}. So, the time symbols corresponding to the arrival instants of customers have been embedded in their classes.
The customers entering to $QN^{(2)}$ have class $(i,S_S)$, where $i$ denotes the time symbol when the packet transmission starts (it is important to note that here start of packet transmission means the end of contention among SUs, thus $i$ can be throughout the whole frame including the UL subframe, i.e., $1\leq i\leq K_{sym}$) and $S_S$ is the number of slots needed to transmit an SU packet. Therefore, in the queueing network in Fig. \ref{Q2} a customer of class $(x,s)$ arriving at node $u$ represents a packet whose transmission starts (or resumes when it is not transmitted completely in the previous DL subframe) at the $x$-th symbol in a frame with $e^u$ total empty slots in DL subframe while $s$ slots are needed to complete its transmission. If residual empty slots of the current frame for a customer with class $(x,s)$ $(e^u_{res}(x))$ are not sufficient to complete the packet transmission, the class of the customer becomes $(0,s-e_{res}^u(x))$ and is routed to another node. Class $(0,s-e_{res}^u(x))$ specifies that the corresponding packet transmission continues at the onset of the current frame. This customer is routed among the nodes in the queueing network until the required slots reaches zero.\\
\vspace{-0.08cm}
Assume that $f^u(i)$, $i=1,2,...,\frac{K_{sym,DL}}{\nu}$, is a function that denotes the number of empty slots at the $i$-th column of DL subframe (see Fig. \ref{frame}). Obviously, for vertical striping, $f^u(.)$ for initial columns in which all slots are occupied equals zero. If $\nu$ is the number of time symbols in a slot and $K_{sym,DL}$ denotes the number of time symbols in a DL subframe, we define
\begin{align}\label{definel}
& l^u_{(x,s)}=min_{\lceil \frac{x}{\nu}\rceil+1\leq j\leq \frac{K_{sym,DL}}{\nu}} \quad j,\\
& \nonumber \text{s.t.} \quad \sum_{i=\lceil \frac{x}{\nu}\rceil+1}^j f^u(i)-s\geq 0.
\end{align}
In fact $l^u_{(x,s)}$ indicates the number of the column of slots in which the transmission of the packet with class ($x,s$) in the current frame ends. Thus, the average service time of the customers with a typical class $(x,s)$ at node $u$ ($\tau^{u}_{(x,s)}$) in the case of horizontal and vertical stripings are obtained by
\begin{align}\label{horizontal}
\begin{split}
\tau^{u}_{(x,s)}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\scriptstyle T_{sym}\nu\left\lgroup l^u_{(x,s)}-(\lceil\frac{x}{\nu}\rceil +1)+\frac{s-\sum_{i=\lceil\frac{x}{\nu}\rceil+1}^{l^u_{(x,s)}-1}f^u(i)}{f^u(l^u_{(x,s)})}\right\rgroup;\\
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \scriptstyle \text{if $l^u_{(x,s)}$ exists}\\
\scriptstyle T_{frame}-xT_{sym}; \qquad \qquad \qquad \text{o.w.}
\end{array}
\right.,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $T_{sym}$ and $T_{frame}$ denote time duration of a time symbol and a WiMAX frame, respectively. Furthermore, in various rectangular striping algorithms in WiMAX, by assuming that empty slots of DL subframes are distributed uniformly over the entire DL subframe, the residual empty slots in the current frame ($e_{res}^u(x)$) and $\tau^{u}_{(x,s)}$ are given by ($1\leq x\leq K_{sym}$)
\begin{align}\label{rect}
&e_{res}^u(x)=\frac{T_{DL}-xT_{sym}}{T_{DL}}e^u,\\
\label{TQ2-1}
&\tau^{u}_{(x,s)}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\frac{s}{e^u}T_{DL};&e_{res}^u(x)>s\\
T_{frame}-xT_{sym};&\text{o.w.}
\end{array}
\right.,
\end{align}
where $T_{DL}$ is time duration of a DL subframe. If $K_{sym,DL}=\frac{R}{R+1}K_{sym}$, where $R=\frac{T_{DL}}{T_{UL}}$ is the downlink to uplink subframe ratio, it is obvious that $K_{sym,DL}<x\leq K_{sym}$ denotes UL subframe and leads to $e_{res}^u(x)=0,\forall u$. Note that the UL interruptions through a transmission are considered in the service time of the queueing nodes. Routing probabilities of different customers turn out to be ($0\leq u,u'\leq N,0\leq x\leq K_{sym}$)
\begin{align}\label{RQ2-2}
&r^{u,out}_{(x,s),(x+\hat{\tau}_{(x,s)}^{u},0)}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1;&s<e_{res}^{u}(x)\\
0;&\text{o.w.}
\end{array}
\right. ,
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{RQ2-3}
\begin{split}
&r^{u,u'}_{(x,s),(0,s-e_{res}^{u}(x))}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
P_{u,u'};&e_{res}^{u}(x)<s\\
0;&\text{o.w.}
\end{array}
\right. ,\\
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $P_{u,u'}$ is the transition probability from state $u$ to state $u'$ in the Markov chain presented in Section 3, see (\ref{gbe2})-(\ref{gbe3}) and Fig. \ref{MC}. Therefore, the proposed model takes into account the fact that the number of empty slots in successive frames are dependent. As shown in Fig. \ref{Q2} customers of class $(i',0),i'=1,...,K_{sym,DL}$ (i.e., during a DL subframe) leave the network, because the transmission is completed at the $i'$-th OFDM symbol at the current DL subframe. \\
\vspace{-0.09cm}
The transmission time of a packet that its transmission has started at the $i$-th symbol, is the total residence time of the arriving customer with class $(i, S_S)$ in the queueing network (Fig. \ref{Q2}). Therefore, by using Little's law \cite{R21}, the average transmission time ($\gamma_i$ in (\ref{T15})) of such a typical packet is obtained by
\begin{equation}
\gamma_i=\sum_{u=0}^{N}\sum_{(x,s)} \frac{\alpha_{(x,s)}^u}{\lambda_{(i,S_S)}}\tau_{(x,s)}^u ,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{(x,s)}^u$ and $\lambda_{(i,S_S)}$ denote the arrival rate of customers of class $(x,s)$ at node $u$, and the arrival rate of customers of class $(i,S_S)$ at the queueing network, respectively. Meanwhile, note that ending a packet transmission and starting the next one (end of the next contention) are close (this time interval is shown with a dashed line in Fig. \ref{frame}) because control signals among SUs are transmitted in an independent control channel, so we assume that these two events occur in the same frame. Therefore, the routing probability of the arriving customers at the queueing network toward a typical queueing node (see Fig. \ref{Q2}), $r_{(i,S_S)}^{out,u}$, and the rate of customers departed from that node to the out of the queueing network, $\alpha_{(i',0)}^{u,out}$, which is equal to $\sum_{(i'',s'')}\alpha_{(i'',s'')}^u r_{(i'',s'' ),(i',0)}^{u,out}$, are related as
\begin{equation}
r^{out,u}_{(i,S_S)}=\sum_{i'=1}^{K_{sym,DL}}\frac{\alpha^{u,out}_{(i',0)}}{\lambda_{(i,S_S)}} ;\quad \scriptstyle 0\leq u\leq N.
\end{equation}
In order to find $\gamma_i$ and $\beta_{i,i'}$ for each packet transmission with different starting times, we have to solve traffic equations of $QN^{(2)}$ for each class $(i,S_S)$ of arriving customers separately. The traffic equations can be written as
\begin{equation}
\alpha^u_{(i,S_S)}=\lambda_{(i,S_S)}r^{out,u}_{(i,S_S)} ;\quad \scriptstyle 1\leq i\leq K_{sym},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\alpha^u_{(0,s)}=\sum_{u'=0}^{N}\sum_{(x',s')}\alpha^{u'}_{(x',s')}r^{u',u}_{(x',s'),(0,s)}; \quad\scriptstyle 1\leq s\leq S_S,
\end{equation}
where $r^{u',u}_{(x',s'),(0,s)}$ is the probability that a customer of class $(x',s')$ is converted to class $(0,s)$ when departed from node $u'$ and routed to node $u$, i.e., the transmission has not ended at the current frame and it will resume in the next frame. Note that $\lambda_{(i,S_S)}$ is a dummy variable and its value does not affect the value of the desired parameters $\gamma_i$ and $\beta_{i,i'}$.
Moreover, the parameter $\beta_{i,i'}$ (the probability of ending a packet transmission at the $i'$-th symbol over the frame which has been started at the $i$-th symbol), is given by
\begin{equation}
\beta_{i,i'}=\frac{\sum_{u}\alpha^{u,out}_{(i',0)}}{\lambda_{(i,S_S)}} ;\quad \scriptstyle 1\leq i'\leq K_{sym}.
\end{equation}
Obviously, since no transmission ends in the UL subframe, $\beta_{i,i'}=0; \forall i'>K_{sym,DL}$. By solving the queueing network in Fig. \ref{Q1} and Fig. \ref{Q2}, we are able to solve (\ref{main}) and obtain the saturation throughput of the cognitive network.
It is worth noting that in order to include SU packet transmission in the UL opportunities in our proposed analytical approach as well, since the traffic characteristics of UL and DL subframes are different, we need to model the opportunities at UL and DL subframes, separately. In this respect, a two-dimensional Markov chain has to be used instead of the Markov chain in Section 3 to evaluate the empty slots in the DL and UL subframes. However, the overall structure of $QN^{(1)}$ which represents the packet transmission process of a secondary user remains the same and only the parameters related to packet transmission time (service times and routing probabilities) would change. Moreover, some new nodes are added to $QN^{(2)}$ which are used to estimate the SUs’ packet transmission parameters in DL and UL subframes. The new nodes correspond to the second dimension of the proposed Markov chain for the primary network. As indicated before, for the sake of simplicity and importance of DL subframes, we ignore exploiting opportunities in UL subframes.
It is important to note that a similar approach with suitable parameters could be used to analytically evaluate the saturation throughput of the secondary users in the presence of an LTE primary network as well. Considering that OFDMA is used in LTE downlink subframes too \cite{R5}, the general approach of estimating the saturation throughput in this paper would not change. The LTE BS takes scheduling decisions at starting of each subframe and PDCCH (physical downlink control channel) carries scheduling assignment information for users (like DL/UL MAP in WiMAX). With a specific downlink/uplink configuration in LTE \cite{R4}, the parameter values are considered accordingly.
\section{Numerical Results}
In this section we employ our analytical model and derive the saturation throughput in different conditions. To support our analysis, simulation results are also reported. The parameters used for primary and secondary networks are listed in Table \ref{parameter}.
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\caption{Typical Parameter Values}
\begin{tabular}{"c|c"}
\thickhlin
\textbf{\quad Parameter} & \textbf{Value} \\
\thickhlin
\quad $T_{frame}$ & 5 ($ms$) \\\hline
\quad Number of subchannels & 30 \\\hline
\quad $K_{sym,DL}$ & 30,26,14 \\\hline
\quad Frequency bandwidth & 10 ($MHz$) \\\hline
\quad $R$ & $ \frac{13}{12}, \frac{3}{2}, \frac{4}{1}$ \\\hline
\quad $m$ & 4 \\\hline
\quad $S_P$ & 10 \\\hline
\quad $S_S$ & 60 \\\hline
\quad $C_B$ & 55 ($packets$) \\\hline
\quad $W_0$ & 4 \\\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{parameter}%
\end{table}%
The simulation of the network scenario has been done in MATLAB environment. There are $N_s$ WLAN nodes as secondary users. Each node always has packets in its buffer to send to AP (i.e., it is saturated). They use IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol to contend along the time. The winner node starts packet transmission in the empty slots of the WiMAX DL subframe. Simulation of the primary network is similar to the analytical model described in the paper. So, there is a finite buffer where packets arrive with exponential inter-arrival time and they are blocked if the buffer is full. Packets in the buffer are scheduled to be sent in the coming DL subframe with a finite number of slots. Horizontal striping algorithm is used as the usual resource unit allocation algorithm in simulations.
The reduction in saturation throughput of an SU with increase of the packet arrival rate in the primary network is observed in Fig. \ref{fig1r}. In this plot, three different downlink to uplink subframe ratios ($R$) are considered ($R=\frac{3}{2},\frac{13}{12},\frac{4}{1}$). In this figure, two sets of the results corresponding to two number of secondary nodes ($N_s=10,20$) have been shown. As we observe in the figure, when the DL to UL ratio is larger (e.g., 4), more resources have been dedicated to downlink, so the decrease rate of saturation throughput of SUs is smaller compared with lower DL to UL ratio (e.g., 1.5).
In Figs. \ref{fig2r}, \ref{fig3r}, and \ref{fig4r} the saturation throughput of an SU is plotted versus the number of SUs with $R=\frac{13}{12}$, $R=\frac{3}{2}$, and $R=\frac{4}{1}$, respectively. The maximum number of SUs with a specified minimum desired saturation throughput is obtained from these figures. For example to have a minimum saturation throughput of 20 (\emph{packets/sec}) in each SU, the number of users in the secondary network should be less than 5, 13, and 18, with primary network arrival rate 35, 25, and 10 (\emph{packets/frame}), respectively ($R=\frac{13}{12}$). However, for the last case (i.e., $\lambda_p=10$ (\emph{packets/frame})) the corresponding number of users in the secondary network should be less than 20 and 25 with $R=\frac{3}{2}$ and $R=\frac{4}{1}$, respectively. By observing Figs. \ref{fig2r}, \ref{fig3r}, and \ref{fig4r}, we infer that the number of maximum number of SUs supported with a specific minimum saturation throughput has a saturating behavior versus $R$, i.e., by increasing $R$, we do not observe a significant increase in the number of SUs.
Fig. \ref{fig5r} depicts the saturation throughput of the secondary network versus the number of secondary nodes. It can be seen that as the number of SUs increases, the total saturation throughput of the secondary network decreases due to more collisions among SUs. However, when the WiMAX frames are heavily loaded, we observe that the total saturation throughput of the secondary network remains almost the same irrespective of the number of SUs. Since in this situation, the length of colliding interval compared to the length of successful packet transmission becomes smaller,the throughput increase due to larger number of SUs compensates the degrading effect of the increased probability of collision.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig1r.pdf}
\caption{Saturation throughput of an SU versus primary network packet arrival rate.}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\label{fig1r}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig2r.pdf}
\caption{Saturation throughput of an SU versus the number of secondary nodes ($R=\frac{13}{12}$).}
\label{fig2r}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig3r.pdf}
\caption{Saturation throughput of an SU versus the number of secondary nodes ($R=\frac{3}{2}$).}
\label{fig3r}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig4r.pdf}
\caption{Saturation throughput of an SU versus the number of secondary nodes ($R=\frac{4}{1}$).}
\label{fig4r}
\end{figure}
To show the increased accuracy in our approach compared with simplified analytical approach in \cite{R28}, the amount of mismatch between analytical and simulation results for saturation throughput of an SU has been illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig6r}. As we observe by the proposed analytical approach in this paper, we have reduced the mismatch error from more than 18\% to less than 3\%. Thus, the detailed analysis of the scenario is very effective in more accurate evaluation of the saturation throughput. Roughly speaking, this high mismatch error in \cite{R28} could lead to about 20\% error in determining the maximum number of SUs to have a minimum required saturation throughput.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig5r.pdf}
\caption{Saturation throughput of the secondary network versus the number of secondary nodes ($R=\frac{13}{12}$).}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig5r}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig6r.pdf}
\caption{Percentage of error in two analytical models ($\lambda_p=25$ (packets/frame), $R=\frac{13}{12}$).}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig6r}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig7r.pdf}
\caption{The average packet transmission times of an SU with different starting times along the frame for horizontal and vertical striping ($R=\frac{13}{12}$). }
\label{fig7r}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig8r-net.pdf}
\caption{Saturation throughput of an SU versus the number of secondary nodes for horizontal and vertical striping algorithms ($R=\frac{13}{12}$).}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig8r}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig9r.pdf}
\caption{Saturation throughput of an SU of the proposed algorithm and the contention-based MAC algorithm proposed in \cite{R26} ($R=\frac{3}{2}$).}
\label{fig9r}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig7r} the average packet transmission times of an SU with different starting times are plotted with $R=\frac{13}{12}$ and $\lambda_p=25 (packets/frame)$ for horizontal and vertical striping algorithms for WiMAX. Since it is more likely that there is no empty slots in the initial columns of DL subframe in the vertical striping, it is observed that average transmission time for packet transmissions started in the beginning of DL subframes (up to 0.5 \emph{msec} approximately, in Fig. \ref{fig7r}), is more compared to the case of horizontal striping. While for the next few columns (0.5-2 \emph{msec} in Fig. \ref{fig7r}), since all the slots are empty in the vertical striping algorithm, the average packet transmission time is less in comparison with the horizontal striping case. Furthermore, in columns near or during the UL subframe (2-5 \emph{msec} in Fig. \ref{fig7r}), since the initial columns of slots of the next DL subframe in the vertical striping algorithm are fully occupied, packet transmissions last further in average compared to horizontal striping. It seems that if the opportunities of primary network are sporadic, the packet transmission time for SUs is shorter in average. Fig. \ref{fig8r} confirms this conclusion, as the saturation throughput for horizontal striping case is more than saturation throughput when vertical striping algorithm is used.
Moreover, we have compared the saturation throughput of an SU in our considered scenario with an algorithm similar to the contention-based MAC algorithm proposed in \cite{R26}, where SUs wait a random number of exploitable WiMAX frames with exponential backoff procedure. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig9r} for two values of $\lambda_p$. As explained before, because of independency of the time slots of our 802.11-based MAC algorithm with the frame structure of WiMAX, exploiting the empty slots of WiMAX is more efficient in our scenario, with a cost of having a separate control channel.
\section{Conclusion}
Since the primary users and the resource allocation in the primary network render opportunities for secondary users, exact modeling of these issues is very important in cognitive network evaluation. We considered a WLAN based on IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol overlaid on a primary WiMAX in TDD mode. By using a Markov chain the number of empty slots at different frames of WiMAX were probabilistically obtained. Then we employed an open queueing network for evaluating the packet transmission process of the secondary network. In order to derive the saturation throughput as one of the important performance metrics, we needed to compute the average service time and routing probabilities at different queueing nodes. Regarding random number of empty slots at different frames and dependency between the number of empty slots at consecutive frames, we proposed a multi-class open queueing network that enabled us to derive the average transmission time of a typical secondary packet as well as the probability that a packet transmission will finish at each moment along a frame. Then we derived the saturation throughput of the secondary network in different conditions. We also confirmed our analytical results by simulation. The numerical results showed high accuracy of the proposed analytical approach. Furthermore the comparison between the results for vertical and horizontal striping algorithms showed that if opportunities in the primary network are sporadic, the saturation throughput of SUs is improved.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\subsection{R$_{\xi }$ gauge}
The gauge-fixing function of the R$_{\xi }$ gauge is given in the broken
symmetry phase of the theory as
\begin{equation}
f(A_{\mu },\Phi _{2})=\partial _{\mu }A_{\mu }-\xi gv\Phi _{2},
\end{equation}
and the total Lagrangian in the broken symmetry phase is given by
\begin{equation}
L_{BS}(H,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })=L_{AH}(H+v,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })+\frac{1}{2\xi
f(A_{\mu },\Phi _{2})^{2}+\overline{c}\frac{\delta f(A_{\mu }^{\theta },\Phi
_{2}^{\theta })}{\delta \theta }c+counter-terms,
\end{equation}
where $H$ is the Higgs field which have vanishing VEV and $c$ and $\overline
c}$ are the ghosts. As noted above, the quadratic term $gv\Phi _{2}A_{\mu }$
in the $L_{AH}(H+v,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })$ cancels out with that in $\frac{1}
2\xi }f(A_{\mu },\Phi _{2})^{2}$ and the propagator between $\Phi _{2}$ and
A_{\mu }$ field does not exists in the total Lagrangian in the broken
symmetry phase $L_{BS}(H,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu }).$ In order to obtain the
one-loop effective potential, we shift $H$ with $H+\phi $ where $\phi $ is
the classical field to obtain $\overline{L}$ defined as\cite{Jackiw}
\begin{equation}
\overline{L}=L_{BS}(H+\phi ,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })-L_{BS}(\phi ,\Phi
_{2},A_{\mu })-\left[ \frac{\delta L_{BS}(H,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })}{\delta H
\right] _{H=\phi }H.
\end{equation}
Then the quadratic parts of $\overline{L}$ in momentum space are given as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}HD_{H}^{-1}H+\frac{1}{2}(
\begin{array}{ll}
\Phi _{2} & A_{\mu }
\end{array}
)\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
D_{G}^{-1} & B_{\nu } \\
B_{\mu } & D_{\mu \nu }^{-1}
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{l}
\Phi _{2} \\
A_{\nu }
\end{array}
\right) -\overline{c}D_{g}^{-1}c,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_{H}^{-1}=p^{2}+m_{H}^{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D_{G}^{-1}=p^{2}+m_{G}^{2}+\xi g^{2}v^{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D_{\mu \nu }^{-1}=(p^{2}+m_{A}^{2})(\delta _{\mu \nu }-\frac{p_{\mu }p_{\nu
}{p^{2}})+(\frac{p^{2}}{\xi }+m_{A}^{2})\frac{p_{\mu }p_{\nu }}{p^{2}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B_{\mu }=g\phi \text{ }p_{\mu },
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
D_{g}^{-1}=p^{2}+m_{g}^{2},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
m_{H}^{2}=m^{2}+\frac{\lambda }{2}(\phi +v)^{2},m_{G}^{2}=m^{2}+\frac
\lambda }{6}(\phi +v)^{2},m_{A}=g(\phi +v),m_{g}^{2}=\xi gvm_{A}.
\end{equation}
Let us define $X_{\mu \nu }^{-1}$ as
\begin{equation}
X_{\mu \nu }^{-1}\equiv D_{\mu \nu }^{-1}+B_{\mu }D_{G}B_{\nu }.
\end{equation}
By using Eqs.(9),(10) and (11) , we obtain
\begin{equation}
X_{\mu \nu }^{-1}=(p^{2}+m_{A}^{2})(\delta _{\mu \nu }-\frac{p_{\mu }p_{\nu
}{p^{2}})+\frac{D(p^{2})}{m_{G}^{2}+\xi m_{A}^{2}}\frac{p_{\mu }p_{\nu }}
\xi p^{2}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D(p^{2})=p^{4}+(m_{G}^{2}\text{ }+2\xi gvm_{A})p^{2}+\xi
m_{A}^{2}(m_{G}^{2}+\xi g^{2}v^{2})\equiv (p^{2}+m_{+}^{2})(p^{2}+m_{-}^{2}).
\end{equation}
Then the one-loop effective potential $V_{1}$ is given by \cite{Tye}
\begin{equation}
V_{1}=-\frac{\hbar }{2}Tr\ln D_{H}^{-1} -\frac{\hbar }{2}Tr\ln D_{G}^{-1}
-\frac{\hbar }{2}Tr\ln X^{-1}+\hbar \text{ }Tr\ln D_{g}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
By performing the one-loop momentum integral in $D\equiv 4-2\varepsilon $
dimension\cite{integral}, we can obtain the renormalized one-loop effective
action in the MS scheme as
\begin{eqnarray}
V &=&V_{0}+V_{1}=\frac{1}{2}m^{2}(\phi +v)^{2}+\frac{1}{24}\lambda (\phi
+v)^{4}+\frac{\hbar }{16\pi ^{2}}\{\frac{1}{4}m_{H}^{4}(\overline{\ln }\text{
}m_{H}^{2}-\frac{3}{2})+\frac{1}{4}m_{+}^{4}(\overline{\ln }\text{
m_{+}^{2}-\frac{3}{2})+\frac{1}{4}m_{-}^{4}(\overline{\ln }\text{ }m_{-}^{2}
\frac{3}{2}) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{3}{4}m_{A}^{2}(\overline{\ln }m_{A}^{2}-\frac{5}{6})-\frac{1}{2
m_{g}^{4}(\overline{\ln }\text{ }m_{g}^{2}-\frac{3}{2})\}.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\overline{\ln }X\equiv \ln \frac{X}{4\pi \mu ^{2}}+\gamma .$ The
effective potential is independent of the renormalization mass scale $\mu $
and should satisfy the RG equation\cite{RG}
\begin{equation}
\mu \frac{dV}{d\mu }=(\mu \frac{\partial }{\partial \mu }+\beta _{\lambda
\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda }+\beta _{g}\frac{\partial }{\partial g
+\beta _{m^{2}}\frac{\partial }{\partial m^{2}}+\gamma _{\phi }\phi \frac
\partial }{\partial \phi }+\gamma _{v}v\frac{\partial }{\partial v})V=0.
\end{equation}
By using the RG functions in the MS scheme\cite{RG-1}\cite{RG-2}
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta _{\lambda } &=&\mu \frac{d\lambda }{d\mu }=\frac{\hbar }{(4\pi )^{2}}
\frac{10}{3}\lambda ^{2}-12\lambda g^{2}+36g^{4})+\cdot \cdot \cdot ,
\nonumber \\
\beta _{g} &=&\mu \frac{dg}{d\mu }=\frac{\hbar }{(4\pi )^{2}}\text{{}}\frac
g^{3}}{3}+\cdot \cdot \cdot , \nonumber \\
\beta _{m^{2}} &=&\mu \frac{dm^{2}}{d\mu }=\frac{\hbar }{(4\pi )^{2}}(\frac{
}{3}\lambda -6g^{2})m^{2}+\cdot \cdot \cdot , \nonumber \\
\gamma _{\phi } &=&\frac{\mu }{\phi }\frac{d\phi }{d\mu }=\frac{\hbar }
(4\pi )^{2}}(3-\xi )g^{2}+\cdot \cdot \cdot .
\end{eqnarray}
Then, in order to satisfy the RG equation given in Eq.(19), we should have
\begin{equation}
\gamma _{v}=\frac{\mu }{v}\frac{dv}{d\mu }=\frac{\hbar }{(4\pi )^{2}}(3+\xi
)g^{2}+\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot ,
\end{equation}
which agrees with \cite{VEV-1}\cite{VEV-2}. The perturbative expansion of
the VEV $v=v_{0}+\hbar v_{1}+\hbar ^{2}v_{2}+\cdot \cdot \cdot $ can be
obtained from the no-tadpole condition
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{\delta V}{\delta \phi }\right] _{\phi =0}=0,
\end{equation}
as
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{\delta V_{0}}{\delta \phi }\right] _{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}=0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
v_{1}\left[ \frac{\delta ^{2}V_{0}}{\delta \phi \delta v}\right] _{\phi =0
\text{ }v=v_{0}}+\left[ \frac{\delta V_{1}}{\delta \phi }\right] _{\phi =0
\text{ }v=v_{0}}=0.
\end{equation}
By substituting the effective potential given in Eq.(18) into Eqs.(22) and
(23), we obtain the perturbative expansion of the VEV up to one-loop as
v_{0}=\sqrt{-\frac{6m^{2}}{\lambda }}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{1} &=&-\frac{3}{\lambda v_{0}^{2}}\left[ \frac{\delta V_{1}}{\delta \phi
\right] _{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^{2}m^{2}}[\text{ }\frac{
}{2}m_{H}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{H}^{2}}{\partial \phi }(\overline{\ln }\text{
(}m_{H}^{2})-1)+\frac{1}{2}m_{+}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{+}^{2}}{\partial \phi
(\overline{\ln }\text{ (}m_{+}^{2})-1) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}m_{-}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{-}^{2}}{\partial \phi }(\overline
\ln }\text{ (}m_{-}^{2})-1)+\frac{3}{2}m_{A}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{A}^{2}}
\partial \phi }(\overline{\ln }m_{A}^{2}-\frac{1}{3})-m_{g}^{2}\frac
\partial m_{g}^{2}}{\partial \phi }(\overline{\ln }\text{ }m_{g}^{2}-1)\text{
]}_{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}.
\end{eqnarray}
From Eq.(16) one can see that by writing $m_{\pm }^{2}=p\pm \sqrt{q}$, both
q\ $and $\frac{\partial q}{\partial \phi }$ goes to zero in the limit $\phi
\rightarrow 0$ and $v\rightarrow v_{0}$ and hence $\frac{\partial m_{\pm
}^{2}}{\partial \phi }$ as well as $v_{1}$ have finite limit in $R_{\xi }$
gauge. Now, let us consider IR divergence of the VEV in the case of the
two-loop effective potential\cite{two-1}\cite{two-2} where the term which
can give the IR divergence in effective potential $V_{2}$ and the VEV in
case of the Landau gauge $(\xi = 0 )$ is\cite{IR-1}\cite{IR-2}
\begin{equation}
m_{X}^{2}\text{ }(m_{G}^{2}+{\xi }g^{2}v^{2})\text{ }\overline{\ln }m_{X
\text{ }\overline{\ln }(m_{G}^{2}+{\xi }g^{2}v^{2}),
\end{equation}
coming from the two-loop Feynman diagram
\begin{equation}
\begin{picture}(80,20) \put(24,10){\circle{24}} \put(48,10){\circle{24}}
\put(64,10){X} \put(0,10) {G} \end{picture},
\end{equation}
where G is the Goldstone boson and X can be Higgs, gauge boson or ghost.
Then, by noting that the mass of the Goldstone boson given as $m_{G}^{2}+
\xi }g^{2}v^{2}$ in the $R_{\xi }$ gauge does not vanish in the limit
v\rightarrow v_{0}$ and $\phi \rightarrow 0$ when $\xi \neq 0$, the
corresponding two-loop VEV obtained $[$ $\frac{\partial V_{2}}{\partial \phi
}$]$_{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}$does not have an IR divergence in $R_{\xi }$
gauge as long as $\xi \neq 0.$
\subsection{The general gauge}
The general gauge is defined as
\begin{equation}
f(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })=\partial _{\mu }A_{\mu }-u\xi g\Phi _{1}\Phi
_{2},
\end{equation}
which becomes the Fermi gauge when $u=0$ and $\overline{R_{\xi }}$ gauge
when $u=1.$ The resulting Lagrangian in the symmetric phase is given by\cite
{Kas}
\begin{equation}
L_{SYM}(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })=L_{AH}(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })
\frac{1}{2\xi }f(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })^{2}+\overline{c}(-\partial
^{2}+u\xi g(\Phi _{1}^{2}-\Phi _{2}^{2}))c+counter-terms.
\end{equation}
When $m^{2}<0,$ the $O(2)$ symmetry breaks down spontaneously and we
substitute $\Phi _{1}$ with $H+v$ where $H$ have vanishing VEV to obtain the
Lagrangian density in the broken phase $L_{BS}(H,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu },v)$ as
\begin{equation}
L_{BS}(H,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu },v)=\left[ L_{SYM}(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu
})\right] _{\Phi _{1}\rightarrow H+v}.
\end{equation}
Recently, we have shown that if the Lagrangian in the symmetric phase
L_{SYM}(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })$ and that in broken symmetry phase
L_{BS}(H,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu },v)$ is related as in Eq.(30), we can prove that
\gamma _{v}=\gamma _{\phi }$ and the RG functions of the broken symmetry
phase is same as that of the RG functions of the symmetric phase\cite{Kim1}
\cite{Kim2}. Note that in case of the $R_{\xi }$ gauge, the gauge fixing and
the ghost terms given in Eq.(5) does not have this relation. In case of the
\overline{R_{\xi }}$ gauge $(u=1)$, since the $g\Phi _{1}(\partial _{\mu
}\Phi _{2})A_{\mu }$ term in the $L_{AH}(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })$
cancels out with that in $\frac{1}{2\xi }f(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu })^{2}$
and only the $g\Phi _{2}(\partial _{\mu }\Phi _{1})A_{\mu }$ term remains in
$L_{SYM}(\Phi _{1},\Phi _{2},A_{\mu }),$ the quadratic part of
L_{BS}(H,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu },v)$ do not have mixing term between $\Phi _{2}$
and $A_{\mu }$ field as in case of the ${R_{\xi }}$ gauge. In order to
obtain the potential in the broken symmetry phase, we shift $H\rightarrow $
H+$ $\phi $ where $\phi $ is a classical field to obtain $\overline{L}$
defined as
\begin{equation}
\overline{L}=L_{BS}(H+\phi ,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu },v)-L_{BS}(\phi ,\Phi
_{2},A_{\mu },v)-\left[ \frac{\delta L_{BS}(H,\Phi _{2},A_{\mu },v)}{\delta
}\right] _{H=\phi }H.
\end{equation}
Then the quadratic parts of $\overline{L}$ in momentum space is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}HD_{H}^{-1}H+\frac{1}{2}(
\begin{array}{ll}
\Phi _{2} & A_{\mu }
\end{array}
)\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
D_{uG}^{-1} & B_{u\nu } \\
B_{u\mu } & D_{\mu \nu }^{-1}
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{l}
\Phi _{2} \\
A_{\nu }
\end{array}
\right) -\overline{c}D_{ug}^{-1}c,
\end{equation}
where the inverse propagators $D_{H}^{-1}$ and $D_{\mu \nu }^{-1}$ are given
in Eqs.(8) and (10) and $D_{uG}^{-1},$ $B_{u\mu }$ and $D_{ug}^{-1}$ are
given by
\begin{equation}
D_{uG}^{-1}=p^{2}+m_{G}^{2}+\xi \text{ }u^{2}m_{A}^{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B_{u\mu }=(1-u)m_{A}p_{\mu },
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
D_{ug}^{-1}=p^{2}+\xi u\text{ }m_{A}^{2}.
\end{equation}
As in case of the $R_{\xi }$ gauge, let us define $X_{u\mu \nu }^{-1}$ as
\begin{equation}
X_{u\mu \nu }^{-1}\equiv D_{\mu \nu }^{-1}+B_{u\mu }D_{G}^{u}B_{u\nu
}=(p^{2}+m_{A}^{2})(\delta _{\mu \nu }-\frac{p_{\mu }p_{\nu }}{p^{2}})+\frac
D_{u}(p^{2})}{m_{G}^{2}+\xi \text{ }u^{2}m_{A}^{2}}\frac{p_{\mu }p_{\nu }}
\xi p^{2}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_{u}(p^{2})=p^{4}+(m_{G}^{2}\text{ }+2\text{ }u\xi m_{A}^{2})p^{2}+\xi
m_{A}^{2}(m_{G}^{2}+\xi u^{2}m_{A}^{2})\equiv
(p^{2}+m_{u+}^{2})(p^{2}+m_{u-}^{2}),
\end{equation}
to obtain the one-loop effective potential $V_{1}$as
\begin{equation}
V_{1}=-\frac{\hbar }{2}Tr\ln D_{H}^{-1}-\frac{\hbar }{2}Tr\ln D_{uG}^{-1}
-\frac{\hbar }{2}Tr\ln
X_{u}^{-1}+\hbar \text{ }Tr\ln D_{ug}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Again, by performing the one-loop momentum integral in $D\equiv
4-2\varepsilon $ dimension, we can obtain the renormalized one-loop
effective action in the MS scheme as
\begin{eqnarray}
V &=&V_{0}+V_{1}=\frac{1}{2}m^{2}(\phi +v)^{2}+\frac{1}{24}\lambda (\phi
+v)^{4}+\frac{\hbar }{16\pi ^{2}}\{\frac{1}{4}m_{H}^{4}(\overline{\ln }\text{
}m_{H}^{2}-\frac{3}{2})+\frac{1}{4}m_{u+}^{4}(\overline{\ln }\text{
m_{u+}^{2}-\frac{3}{2})+\frac{1}{4}m_{u-}^{4}(\overline{\ln }\text{
m_{u-}^{2}-\frac{3}{2}) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{3}{4}m_{A}^{2}(\overline{\ln }m_{A}^{2}-\frac{5}{6})-\frac{1}{2}
\xi }^{2}u^{2}m_{A}^{4}(\overline{\ln }\text{ }{\xi }um_{A}^{2}-\frac{3}{2
)\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The renormalization of the wave function for the scalar field can be done by
extracting the $\frac{1}{\epsilon }$ pole term from the Feynman diagram
\begin{picture}(60,30)
\put(16,0){\line(1,0){8}} \put(32,0){\circle{16}}
\put(5,-2) {$\Phi _{1}$} \put(50,-2) {$\Phi _{1}$}
\put(30,10) {$\Phi _{2}$} \put(40,0){\line(1,0){8}}
\put(30,-15) {A} \end{picture} by using the Feynman rules for the vertex
\Phi _{1}\Phi _{2}A_{\mu }$ given as
\begin{equation}
\begin{picture}(80,20) \put(15,5){\vector(1,0){20}}
\put(35,5){\vector(2,1){20}} \put(35,5){\line(2,-1){20}} \put(0,2) {$\Phi
_{1}$} \put(60,15) {$\Phi _{2}$} \put(15,8) {$k_{1}$} \put(42,16) {$k_{2}$}
\put(60,-10) {$A_\mu$} \end{picture} =(1+u)g\text{ }k_{1\mu }+(1-u)g\text{
k_{2\mu },
\end{equation}
and the propagators $D_{\mu \nu }$ and $D_{uG}$ given in Eqs.(10) and (33)
for the Goldstone field $\Phi _{2}$ and the photon field $A_{\mu }$. As a
result, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{1B}=\{1+\frac{\hbar }{2\epsilon (4\pi )^{2}}(3-\xi +2u\text{ }\xi
)g^{2}+\cdot \cdot \cdot \}\Phi _{1},,
\end{equation}
and obtain the one-loop gamma function as
\begin{equation}
\gamma _{u\phi }=\frac{\hbar }{(4\pi )^{2}}(3-\xi +2u\text{ }\xi
)g^{2}+\cdot \cdot \cdot ,
\end{equation}
which agrees with that of the Fermi gauge when $u=0$ \cite{RG-1} and that of
the $\overline{R_{\xi }}$ gauge\cite{Kas} when $u=1$. Then, one can check
that the RG equation given in Eq.(19) is satisfied with $\beta _{\lambda }$
and $\beta _{m^{2}}$ given in Eq.(20) and with $\gamma _{v}=\gamma _{u\phi }
. As in case of $R_{\xi }$ gauge, we can obtain $v_{0}=\sqrt{-\frac{6m^{2}}
\lambda }}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{1} &=&\frac{1}{32\pi ^{2}m^{2}}[\text{ }\frac{1}{2}m_{H}^{2}\frac
\partial m_{H}^{2}}{\partial \phi }(\overline{\ln }\text{ (}m_{H}^{2})-1)
\frac{1}{2}m_{u+}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{u+}^{2}}{\partial \phi }(\overline
\ln }\text{ (}m_{u+}^{2})-1)+\frac{1}{2}m_{u-}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{u-}^{2}}
\partial \phi }(\overline{\ln }\text{ (}m_{u-}^{2})-1) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{3}{2}m_{A}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{A}^{2}}{\partial \phi }(\overline
\ln }m_{A}^{2}-\frac{1}{3})-{\xi }^{2}u^{2}m_{A}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{A}^{2
}{\partial \phi }(\overline{\ln }\text{ }{\xi }um_{A}^{2}-1)\text{ ]}_{\phi
=0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}.
\end{eqnarray}
From Eq.(37), by writing $m_{u\pm }^{2}=p_{u}\pm \sqrt{q_{u}}$ we have
\begin{equation}
q_{u}=m_{G}^{4}+4\xi (u-1)m_{A}^{2}m_{G}^{2}.
\end{equation}
Then one can see that $[\sqrt{q_{u}}$]$_{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}=0$ and $
\frac{\partial q_{u}}{\partial \phi }]_{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}\neq 0$ when
$u\neq 1$ or $\xi \neq 0$ and as a result, $[\frac{\partial m_{u\pm }^{2}}{\partial
\phi }]_{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}$ diverges. Although $[\frac{\partial m_{u\pm }^{2}}
{\partial \phi }]_{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}$
diverges, since $[m_{u+}^{2}]_{\phi =0,\text{
v=v_{0}}=[m_{u-}^{2}]_{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}=u\xi g^{2}v_{0}^{2},$ these
divergence contained in $\frac{1}{2}m_{u+}^{2}\frac{\partial m_{u+}^{2}}
\partial \phi }(\overline{\ln }$ ($m_{u+}^{2})-1)+\frac{1}{2}m_{u-}^{2}\frac
\partial m_{u-}^{2}}{\partial \phi }(\overline{\ln }$ ($m_{u-}^{2})-1)$
terms of Eq.(43) cancels out and the one-loop VEV $v_{1}$ converges for all
values of $u$. In case of $\overline{R_{\xi }}$ gauge we obtain
\begin{equation}
v_{1}=-\frac{v_{0}}{32\pi ^{2}}\{\lambda (\overline{\ln }(-2m^{2})-1)+\xi
g^{2}(\overline{\ln }(-\frac{6\xi g^{2}m^{2}}{\lambda })-1)+\frac{18g^{4}}
\lambda }(\overline{\ln }(-\frac{6g^{2}m^{2}}{\lambda })-\frac{1}{3})\},
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
\mu \frac{\partial v_{1}}{\partial \mu }=\frac{1}{16\pi ^{2}}(\lambda +\xi
g^{2}+\frac{18g^{4}}{\lambda })v_{0}.
\end{equation}
By using Eq.(20) we have
\begin{equation}
\mu \frac{dv_{0}}{d\mu }=\frac{\hbar }{16\pi ^{2}}(-\lambda +3g^{2}-\frac
18g^{4}}{\lambda })v_{0},
\end{equation}
and hence up to $O(\hbar )$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mu \frac{dv}{d\mu }=\frac{\hbar }{16\pi ^{2}}(3+\xi )g^{2}v.
\end{equation}
which is consistent with Eq.(42) when $u=1.$ Finally, consider the IR
divergence of the VEV in case of the two-loop effective potential. Since the
mass of the Goldstone boson given by $m_{G}^{2}+{\xi }m_{A}^{2}$ in
\overline{R_{\xi }}$ gauge does not vanish in the limit $v\rightarrow v_{0}$
and $\phi \rightarrow 0$ when $\xi \neq 0,$ the term
\begin{equation}
m_{X}^{2}\text{ }(m_{G}^{2}+{\xi }m_{A}^{2})\text{ }\overline{\ln }m_{X
\text{ }\overline{\ln }(m_{G}^{2}+{\xi }m_{A}^{2})
\end{equation}
coming from the Feynman diagram given in Eq.(27) in two-loop effective
potential and the resulting VEV coming from $[$ $\frac{\partial V_{2}}
\partial \phi }$]$_{\phi =0,\text{ }v=v_{0}}$ which can give the IR
divergence in case of the Landau gauge ($\xi =0)$ where Goldstone boson is
massless\cite{IR-1}\cite{IR-2} do not have an IR divergence as long as $\xi
\neq 0.$
In this paper, we have investigated the RG function and the perturbative
expansion of the VEV of the Abelian Higgs model th in $R_{\xi }$ and the
general gauge which extrapolate between the Fermi and the $\overline{R_{\xi
\text{ }}$ gauge by requiring the RG invariance of one-loop effective
potential. In case of the $R_{\xi }$ gauge, the gamma function of the VEV
that satisfy the RG equation for the effective potential was different from
the gamma function of the scalar field. In case of the general gauge, the
gamma function of the VEV obtained from the RG invariance of the effective
potential was same as that of the scalar field. When $u=1$ which corresponds
to the $\overline{R_{\xi }}$ gauge and $\xi =0$ which corresponds to Landau
gauge in general gauge, the one-loop VEV obtained from the
no-tadpole condition do not have the IR divergence and give correct RG
behavior. Both in $R_{\xi }\text{ }$ and $\overline{R_{\xi }\text{ }}$
gauge, the two-loop VEV have an IR divergence in Landau gauge($\xi =0$) and
these IR divergence do not occur when $\xi \neq 0$.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.